Fascinating insider account, thx. Interesting analogy with the sisyphus-type personal burden. Unfortunately it's mainly the privileged who will be able to address their own issues in this sense, whereas many have already been overpowered by the 'slope' and likely no longer in a position where they can do this kind of self work. Also, getting people to focus on their personal issues is a gift to the ptb if root societal causes aren't also tackled. It allows them to dodge responsibility for cleaning up the mess they've made of our lives, and takes away the disincentive from continuing this destructive behaviour. Related: the establishment delight with concepts of 'resilience' (full article highly recommended):

'Resilience comes to form the basis of subjectively dealing with the uncertainty and instability of contemporary capitalism as well as the insecurity of the national security state. This is one reason human resources departments of large organizations such as universities are so interested in it. Good subjects will ‘survive and thrive in any situation’, they will ‘achieve balance’ across the several insecure and part-time jobs they have, ‘overcome life’s hurdles’ such as facing retirement without a pension to speak of, and just ‘bounce back’ from whatever life throws, whether it be cuts to benefits, wage freezes or global economic meltdown. Neoliberal citizenship is nothing if not a training in resilience as the new technology of the self: a training to withstand whatever crisis capital undergoes and whatever political measures the state carries out to save it.' - https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/resisting-resilience

I like the idea of 'self-management', being empowered to deal with problems yourself and not needing to rely on state institutions or profit-seeking corporations to meet day-to-day needs. However, this really needs to be 'autonomous-community-management', reclaiming this independence on a scale larger than the individual or the family. And it doesn't address the problems caused by the state and extractive industry. That's why I think it's important to insist on a 'you broke it, you bought it' principle whereby those who created the larger scale problems like nuclear waste, dioxins, junk food, microplastics etc and the resulting epidemics of cancer, diabetes, mental ill-health etc are held accountable and required to fix the problems they created. This would include continuing to pay benefits to people whose employment was taken away through deliberate economic sabotage, at least until they are able to get back on their feet.

Hmmm, there are some contradictions here... Do I want a state or don't I want a state? Ideologically, no I don't, and like the sheep man I can see it going round the u-bend within my lifetime, with the resulting imperative to 'be prepared' as best as possible. In the long run, this will be a positive outcome for people & planet. However, practically, if the institutions of the state fail without anything else ready to step in and take their place then it will be a bloodbath, so perhaps the best approach is to try to ensure as much of the state's resources are directed towards its responsibilities, aka the 'social contract', and limiting how much it can spend on suicidal military projects or mad schemes to keep economic growth going. This is what Roger Hallam has been arguing lately:




https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1708636728.html

But ultimately this should be a transitional effort, attempting to create the space for sustainable post-state societies. And it's hard to imagine elites pouring resources into projects whose aim is to undermine and eventually completely do away with their power & control. So there's a danger that engaging in this way will perpetuate the system that's causing the destruction. (Recognising that even considering not engaging is a mark of privilege, and that for most it's not a matter of choice but survival.)

Anyway, that's more yakking on than I intended to do, so I'll stop there.

cheers,
I