When minor cracks are perceived as major chasms - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14799824
I read this section from Bertell Ollman at the conclusion of an introduction to dialectics.
It is clear that Marx could not have arrived at his understanding of capitalism without dialectics, nor will we be able to develop this understanding further without a firm grasp of this same method. No treatment of dialectics however brief, therefore, can be considered complete without a warning against some of the more common errors and distortions associated with this way of thinking. For example, if non-dialectical thinkers often miss the forest for the trees, dialectical thinkers just as often do the opposite, that is, play down or even ignore the parts, the details, in deference to making generalizations about the whole. But the capitalist system can only be grasped through an investigation of its specific parts in their interconnection. Dialectical thinkers also have a tendency to move too quickly to the bottom line, to push the germ of a development to its finished form. In general, this error results from not giving enough attention to the complex mediations, both in space and over time, that make up the joints of any social problem.

There is also a related tendency to overestimate the speed of change, along with a corresponding tendency to underestimate all that is holding it back. Thus, relatively minor cracks on the surface of capitalist reality are too easily mistaken for gaping chasms on the verge of becoming earthquakes. If non-dialectical thinking leads people to be surprised whenever a major change occurs, because they aren't looking for it and don't expect it, because it isn't an internal part of how they conceive of the world at this moment, dialectical thinking—for just the opposite reasons—can lead people to be surprised when the expected upheaval takes so long in coming. In organizing reality for purposes of grasping change, relative stability does not always get the attention that it deserves. These are all weaknesses inherent in the very strengths of dialectical method. Ever present as temptations, they offer an easier way, a quick fix, and have to be carefully guarded against.

And what it made me wonder is what other people's thoughts/perspective was on how one evaluates something to be truly significant in it's implications on a path to some revolutionary end.
I suppose the implicit point of Bertell's part would be to truly think through things dialectically which I have the impression requires systemic detail for it to be truly dialectics.
But other than that, is there anything that you can draw from that helps you properly weigh how significant some event of thing could be. Because Bertell's comments make me think that one should caution ones self with how likely things are to swell up into something that is capable of challenging capitalism in a significant manner. As history would seem to point to how effective the response has been in many cases of dealing with such tendencies so that they lose their revolutionary fervor.
What are some things that you perhaps notice are mistakes common to one who projects too much optimism on the cracks of capitalist economy.
#14800623
IMO, Marxist analysis of historical junctures may sometimes suffer from an unnecessarily truncated time frame. The physical substrate that fueled the era of rapid growth of the industrial revolution (fueled by easily harvested fossil fuel) is either assumed to continue indefinitely, or inadequately integrated into historical analysis.

Consider the idea of junctures from a broader perspective. The Club of Rome study (Limits of Growth, 1972) was mercilessly pilloried by the right (as well as neoliberal market fundamentalists). Some of its predictions failed to take into account technological innovations that delayed some of the more negative consequences it predicted. But innovation cannot squeeze blood from a turnip, and all we have succeeded in doing is kicking the can a few feet down the road.

In 2012 MIT looked at the original Club of Rome study, and found most of its predictions were spot on:

Image

There has been nothing in the intervening 5 years that would incline one to a more optimistic interpretation of these trends. Indeed, it doesn't even consider many of the secondary contributing factors to overshoot (global warming, political instability fueled by extreme inequality, etc.)

If you want to talk about historical junctures, then that tipping point around 2030 ought to catch your attention. And I really suspect that considerations of vanguardism and a proletariat with a developed class consciousness won't be playing a big role here. It will be all about survival at the most elementary level.

To tie it in with your original premise, it's possible that major chasms are being perceived as minor cracks.
#14800832
quetzalcoatl wrote:
Spoiler: show
IMO, Marxist analysis of historical junctures may sometimes suffer from an unnecessarily truncated time frame. The physical substrate that fueled the era of rapid growth of the industrial revolution (fueled by easily harvested fossil fuel) is either assumed to continue indefinitely, or inadequately integrated into historical analysis.

Consider the idea of junctures from a broader perspective. The Club of Rome study (Limits of Growth, 1972) was mercilessly pilloried by the right (as well as neoliberal market fundamentalists). Some of its predictions failed to take into account technological innovations that delayed some of the more negative consequences it predicted. But innovation cannot squeeze blood from a turnip, and all we have succeeded in doing is kicking the can a few feet down the road.

In 2012 MIT looked at the original Club of Rome study, and found most of its predictions were spot on:

Image

There has been nothing in the intervening 5 years that would incline one to a more optimistic interpretation of these trends. Indeed, it doesn't even consider many of the secondary contributing factors to overshoot (global warming, political instability fueled by extreme inequality, etc.)

If you want to talk about historical junctures, then that tipping point around 2030 ought to catch your attention. And I really suspect that considerations of vanguardism and a proletariat with a developed class consciousness won't be playing a big role here. It will be all about survival at the most elementary level.

To tie it in with your original premise, it's possible that major chasms are being perceived as minor cracks.

I like that point about the Marxist foresight and think I know of a piece that goes along the similar path, with some hope in emergence of new industries that do away with the old types, though cautioned that time is limited.
https://theconversation.com/karl-marx-and-climate-change-24896
Spoiler: show
But even if the significance of greenhouse gases had been brought to Marx’s attention, he would not have thought them significant in terms of the impact that humans can have on nature. This is because as a child of the enlightenment, Marx did not think of capitalism in terms of the anthropocene. Nature was postulated as an inert constant, based on the Holocene.
...
But this is where, today, Marx’s analysis runs into trouble. It is not looking at all like this is the way the movie is going to end as we stand on the edge of the climate change abyss. Rather, one of the essential drivers of capitalism – the use of energy to drive machines, the transition from manu to machino-facture – is responsible for the vast majority of emissions we now know are providing an alternative movie ending.

Without being able to foresee the climate forcings that humans are capable of, Marx’s productivism – an ethos he shares with capitalists themselves – saw nothing intrinsically wrong with continued growth.
...
But this is where at least one aspect of Marx’s analysis can be salvaged: the relationship between what he calls the “forces” and “relations” of production. The forces of production include technology, techniques and how labour is used in the production process. The relations of production are the social, legal, political and ideological structures that regulate the forces of production.

For Marx, the forces of production will inevitably “outrun” the relations of production. The relations of production become a “fetter” on the forces, or they hold back the development of the forces of production. It is like saying that even though 21st century technology exists to produce abundance with minimal impact on the environment, we continue to live with 18th century relations of production where an antiquated class system founded on old money has a stranglehold over its own “rate of profit”.
...
Capitalism can also do this for climate change. This time, thankfully, it doesn’t have to be armaments. But the problem we face is that the warming we have committed ourselves to cannot be responded to later. It must be dealt with now if humans are to take control of their own destiny, as well as that of our fellow species.



Your thoughts also take me to a pop cultural thing I listened to.
5:30
Spoiler: show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dQMeVLHqL0


What goes on about 'Learning to Die in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the End of a Civilization' and summarizes it as a time in which humans are a dominant geological force.
That we're heading on a destructive path where we must learn to 'die', though death in this case is that our way of life is in a sense already dead and the selves that cling to such ways must die with it. That we must learn to adapt to the new crises that we're confronted with, as our rigidity will be the means of actually dying. Which makes me think of the poetic quote from Stalker
Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy, but just the friction between their souls and the outside world. And most important, let them believe in themselves. Let them be helpless like children, because weakness is a great thing, and strength is nothing. When a man is just born, he is weak and flexible. When he dies, he is hard and insensitive. When a tree is growing, it's tender and pliant. But when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Pliancy and weakness are expressions of the freshness of being. Because what has hardened will never win.

The video in summarizing the book makes the emphasis that it's not something which we can wait on others for, and such a point makes me think of something Chomsky said of how ridiculous it would be to wait on corporations to make the radical change by voluntarily. But it seems such change is difficult to confront even for ourselves, growth (in this context adaption) being a painful process to undergo.
Hmm, much food for thought, thank you for a novel response.

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]