Re: I shall not readily forgive Mark Doran. Archived Message
Posted by Ian M on August 9, 2020, 5:33 pm, in reply to "Re: I shall not readily forgive Mark Doran."
George B said: 'Allen is not only holier than thou, he is holier than everyone, disappearing into an ever diminishing circle of political virtuousness wherein dwell the class who are truly entitled to the high and sacred title of Anarchist. He suggests, in so many words, that this class has one member.' Maybe, maybe not, does it matter? I think he raises several important points with this article and the follow-ups, and they gave me pause for thought (apparently Dave E too) even if my ego felt like it was taking some flak at times. Why the ad-homs if he hasn't touched on a sore spot with what he's saying? This struck me as undeniably true for starters: 'Unemployed unofficials aren’t really independent either. There’s not a clear dividing line between writers like Media Lens, Caitlin Johnstone, Craig Murray and Naomi Klein surviving on royalties and donations and Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Afshin Rattansi, Jonathon Cook and company employed by universities and independent media outlets. They form a group, constantly quoting and endorsing each other (just as official socialists do), and relying on the interest and support of their readers; which means they are subject to pressures to conform. A genuinely independent opinion generates fear.1 I know, because I have felt that fear — writing beyond the limits of an established nexus of opinions guarantees you’ll lose the (democratic) support of those who hold to it. The needy little heart of the writer, even the most radical writer, sniffs out an ‘unpopular opinion’2 before it leaves the lips or the fingers. Just as with officials (or with fascists, or Standard Anarchists, or Christians…), it’s very hard to have such an opinion and reach a prominent position within the group, even if the group is relatively small or without prestige. People with ideas further to the left of unofficial socialism do not get their thoughts pinged around the unofficial socialist twitter-sphere or they shed readers like autumn leaves (2020 update: As I did publishing this very piece!).' And the critique of ML's response to XR and Greta Thunberg echoed my thoughts at the time: 'When asked about uncritical (indeed fawning) support for XR-Thunburg in the paps, ML even claimed in a tweet — almost unbelievably — that the propaganda model had broken down!45 That, faced with the impending collapse of civilisation, journalists had collectively decided to sweep away the monolithic pressures upon their institutions, to courageously ignore owners, advertisers, state-links and so on and, almost miraculously, tell the truth. The BBC, The Guardian and so on were, in their support for XR, not distorting reality, not ignoring facts incompatible with the system they represent, their interests and those of their class — all this had magically melted away, overnight.' (though I don't agree with the Cory Morningstar innuendo & handwaving about corporate control which he passes on as fair comment). I think he's right about the 'unofficial socialists' having a so-far-but-no-further limit on their critique of civilisation itself too: 'I mentioned above that the leadership is the problem at issue with XR, but the problem, with the world I mean, is not so easy to identify. Following Barry Long, I call it the Unhappy Supermind. You could also call it civilisation, or the system; the ten millennia project to completely domesticate the earth, including the earth in men and woman, and replace reality with an ego-generated simulacrum. Media Lens, like many unofficial socialists, don’t like to seriously investigate the idea that this is the worldly source of the ignorance they struggle against. They may accept it somehow, but their narrow focus on media indoctrination obscures the fact there is an unconscious suffering groupmind which directs society — through voting, through unspoken social laws, through widespread misery and hard-heartedness — and which is as immune to lies as it is to truth.49 Certainly the non-stop bullshit of the media-machine does alter opinion and mislead the weak-minded and may even be decisive in influencing mass opinion when, for example, there’s an election; but most people don’t read the Guardian or the New York Times or Das Spiegel, or watch the BBC or ABC or or CNN or whatever to acquire their world-view, they consume news to confirm it. If man were not already domesticated he would never accept the justifying lies of the system. As Marcuse put it indoctrination ‘does not start with the mass production of radio and television and with the centralisation of their control. The people enter this stage as preconditioned receptacles of long standing’. Not an idea likely to appeal to two men who have devoted their lives almost exclusively to the lies of radio and television. Focusing on these may help us see it for what it is, but it also minimises the real problem, which goes far deeper than mere opinion and belief-shaping, and trivialises human psychology, implicitly putting sensitivity, consciousness and love on the same level as opinion and belief. All this makes solving our collective ills all but impossible.' There's no consideration in XR, for example, that the end of civilisation might be a good thing, both for the planet and for humanity. I've certainly not heard that from the Daves, though Kingsnorth and Dark Mountain have flirted with the idea with their talk of 'uncivilisation'. Similarly Allen's point about invoking responses from governments and the state to solve problems like climate change points to an important blind spot in liberal, even some radical thinking. Why would organisations that emerged to facilitate the extraction and concentration of resources ever agree to reverse the process that brought them into existence? Maybe you think he's an arse - maybe he is - but that doesn't make him wrong, or mean that you can't learn anything from what he writes. David E seems to have taken some of it on board at least, even if the other writers have responded with dismissive misunderstandings (even J.Cook, disappointingly enough!) cheers, I
|
|