SusanShox Doctrine   1 comment

Stumbling around on the internet feeding my dread I discover the video here:

and quickly tumble into the enveloping chaos of the comments battle. Hamish advised me to always ignore comments below articles the other day but I’m addicted to reading them, even if they produce frustration and despair. To some extent I think it’s important to have some over-arching understanding of the best and worst arguments on both sides of the debate. Anyway there were only 59 comments after this video which isn’t much compared to the amount after some Monbiot articles, but I see that this one by SusanShox got 64 recommendations. I once made up a band called Susan Shox & The Electric Shocks, or some variation. I can’t remember the other band members but there were some, but anyway I like the way she thinks.


6 Jan 2009, 12:52AM

This interview showed up the stand-off that freezes the debate I think – a stand-off in which we, the public, the audience, are encouraged to take sides on – either supporting George and his tireless campaigning against industrial pollution, or attacking him (‘Moonbat’) and taking up the torch of economic realism, or don’t-tell-me-how-to-live hatred. Here we had a very well-prepared campaigner pitted against a very well-prepared CEO, with neither side really getting ahead. It reminded me of the Presidential debates, in which both candidates played to their supporters and no one really seemed to change their mind.

Is the problem that neither side in a mediatized duel is prepared to tackle the structural foundations of the other’s position? George pressed on ethics, Van de Veer replied with business pragmatics; apart from light interplay for show, both were repeating well-rehearsed lines, they were barely in the same room.

There seem to me to be four ways of resolving this stand-off. 1. Open war, popular sabotage on the one side, private mercenaries in league with state authority on the other. 2. Resources run out at the same time as economic crisis strikes and the question of pollution spirals out into a messy end in which society probably doesn’t survive. 3. Medium-term catastrophe and mankind is wiped out (or to put it more nicely, nature’s experiment with higher intelligence comes to an end). 4. We, collectively, learn to make some really radical ontological-political move in which being is assigned a higher role than corporate or nation-state organisations (to use Hardt & Negri’s terminology, we learn to become a multitude rather than a people); freedom becomes intelligible only on the plane of social collectivity and not in the thunderdome of competing interests.

If anyone has suggestions for achieving 4., please share. Options 1-3 don’t sound too appealing.

Yes, would like to echo her call for suggestions for point 4…

Posted December 11, 2009 by peteum2013 in Uncategorized

Tagged with

One response to “SusanShox Doctrine

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I watched david Attenboroughs(?)thing on overpopulation the other night and melted into depression. Nature will find a way to decrease our numbers and I still believe we are facing a tiny apeture, and it may infact only be the rich and armed who squeeze through it, but they’ll give birth to artists and socialists eventually.
    Sometimes I fantasize about things getting so bad that I’m forced to join some underground resistance unit, che guevara style. That might prove to be quite thrillng and add substance to my existence, and Im not afraid to say that as I dont think the Man will ever make it to this part of you website.

    the anuxz is counting down

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: