Posted by
Steve Smith on
May 16, 2010; 2:26pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/WARNING-Political-Argument-in-Progress-tp5060628p5061716.html
Nick,
Thanks for changing the thread and trying to lay the groundwork
carefully here.
> Russ,
>
> It is my deepest belief that if our country is to survived, people who
> disagree need to learn to argue with each other. You and I really disagree
> on this one, so on my account, we are obligated to argue.
>
I take a slight exception to your use of the term argue, but concede
that many call "argument" what I call "discussion". I use argument to
be entirely a device of rhetoric rather than of logic. I am interested
in rhetoric (my own or others) only insomuch as can be a compelling
method for constructing alternative hypothesis to consider logically.
I therefore believe that when people disagree significantly on an
important topic, they are bound to argue as an alternative to logical
discussion, each simultaneously trying to persuade the other while
maintaining self-persuasion in the face of what might very well be a
persuasive alternative argument from the other.
> On the other hand, I DON'T believe that others should unwillingly be a
> party to such arguments, so I changed the thread.
>
I'm relatively facile with e-mail and threads myself so I find it only a
minor burden when threads get hijacked, but in the interest of clarity
and thoughtfulness, I think you have done a good thing here.
> We obviously agree that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts
> absolutely. So, we are both made nervous when power starts to accumulate
> in small numbers of hands And I bet we believe, both, that having power
> leads to the accumulation of more of it. .And, we both seem to agree that
> dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power are occuring in our society,
> right now?
>
I would "argue" that power *is* corruption. "power" has a dualism
which we seem often to ignore, where we use the term "personal power" as
if it is the same thing as the power you are describing. We speak of
our innate, inherent ability to make decisions and take action as
"power" and we then notice that we grant others the right or ability to
persuade (or intimidate) us in our decisions and (therefore) actions.
We call that "giving others our power" or more euphemistically,
"asserting our power". I believe a qualitative thing happens at this
point and "power" is not equal to "power" even though it seems to be the
same thing. There is something alchemical that happens when we grant
others the "use" of our personal "power".
My point is, that all "dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power"
are the consequence of this alchemical transformation which we all
volunteer for at some level. What if they held a war and nobody came?
What if labor simply refused to serve capital. What if capital simply
refused to serve labor? What would Ghandi do? What if we could all
stayed home and tended our gardens well?
I believe the rhetoric of our modern political and social discourse is
flawed to the core on the topic of "power". We treat it with the same
reverence that we treate "emergence". Most of us aspire to power in
some way at some time in our life, wanting to be "the boss of other
people" in some way. Most of us benefit from the power that we inherit
from the collective we have given over to. We are members of a class
(many or most of us professional class) in a first world, nominally
free-market, nominally democratic, nominally representative
society/culture who benefits significantly from the labors and deference
of the third world. We enjoy the use of their hands and their raw
materials (minerals, fuels, plant products) in return for (at best) a
modest taste of our lifestyle (pop culture, junk food, throw-away
consumer-goods).
> OK, so far? Where we seem to disagree is where the dangerous power is
> accumulating in our society. I think it is in large corporations; you
> think it is in governments. Still on board?
>
I'm not Russ (any of them) but I want to hijack your argument at least a
little bit, to remind us all that governments (superpowers or 2-bit
temporary juntas) and corporations (large or small) are precisely
creatures of collective power and that there is not a magic threshold
where power starts to corrupt. There may be thresholds where we begin
to notice, or we begin to be offended (or scared or obviously harmed) by
the accumulations, but I submit that our conception of power is flawed
and that Pogo said it all in "We have met the enemy, and they is us".
We not only submit to these constructions/accumulations of power, we
aspire to them, we cheer hysterically when our candidate wins, or the
companies we invest in succeed in hostile takeovers or major deals to
exploit (gently, cleanly, greenly of course) some newly recognized
resource in some previously un(der)exploited region of the world.
We think we "must" give over our power because in our vernacular, the
only way to meet/blunt/turn/reject power is *with power*. Even when we
seem to be taking our power back, we are being profligate and arbitrary.
Power to the People! Black Power! Brown Power! White Power!
GynoPower! PowWow Power! Pow Pow Pow!... Power! Back off, I'm a
Scientist Power ("I can solve world hunger, I'll just turn them all to
green glass!")!
We have at least one Aikido practicioner on this list and I think there
are critical perspectives to be offered by that practice on this topic
relative to the many other martial arts. For those with an affinity for
Jui Jitsu or Tae Kwon Do or Kung Fu Fighting (fast as lightning!) or
Shotokan or ... you know how to use the opponent's power against
herself, how to focus your power, how to apply your power most
advantageously... or is there another way? What is the power of "not
being there" when power is directed at you? Is there a different
question to which these methods of managing/using power are not relevant?
> Why don't I stop there, and see if you agree with this characterization of
> our disagreement.
>
Apologizing for adding a 3rd (and long-winded) voice to what might be a
complicated enough argument (discussion), I submit that this discussion
will be served by more clarity about power. The argument of who to
blame (Gov't or Corp) for our powerlessness has some strong motivation
(even for me who is trying to offer a different question) but it might
be moot if we can ask (and answer) the more fundamental questions of how
(and more key why) we give our power up so thoughtlessly (yet
self-righteously and with utmost confidence in its effectiveness).
As product consumers we throw our "buying power" around like there is no
tomorrow... we seek the cheapest price or the "best value" (by some
arcane measure or another) without (much if any) regard to the hidden
(social, ecological, ... ) costs. As ideology consumers, we throw our
"mind share" into the pool even more profiglately. We give over to
"git er' done" and "hope and change" like sugar or caffiene or nicotine
or crack cocaine. We demand little of our political candidates except a
good PR department who can hand us sound-bites, photo-ops, and bumper
stickers crafted for our degenerate palates. We leave our TV running
24/7 on Fox News (or PBS or BBC) and the programmed radio stations in
our cars (and on our streaming internet radio) are set to various
Right-Wing Shock-Talk Dipstick (Rush, Savage, O'Reilly, Imus ...)
stations or alternatively to Pacifica or Air America or NPR and PRN and
BBC. We know what we believe before we even start talking which we do
before we start thinking which we do before we start listening which we
do before we start observing which we do only grudgingly when we think
we are bored because we have no TV or Radio or Newspaper or Blog (or
Mail Discussion List) to focus on.
What if we have this entirely backwards? What if we create (we are) our
own oppressors (Gov't and Corp) only to rail at them (ourselves and each
other, thinly disguised as "Them!") and use one as the excuse to dump
our power (economic and political) into the other rather than take the
excruciatingly simple yet difficult path of seeking to hold our own
power close and use it wisely within the scope of our limited and frail
human ability. Gov's and Corp's have no magic answers, they know
nothing we do not, and are ignorant, unrighteous and unwise by their
nature. We cannot construct a better Gov or Corp, we can at best, only
mitigate their worst flaws, serving only to seduce us into believing in
their wisdom and righteousness (again, some more, forever).
It is always easier to rail (or rant) than it is to think which is
always easier than to act with deep care. See *me* here ranting and
railing and thinking. It is Sunday... perhaps I should go and act in my
life with whatever care and perspective I can muster this day. (Isn't
there a game on? Shouldn't I be going to church? Don't I need
something at the mall? I'm sure I haven't checked all my favorite blogs
yet! I need another cup of coffee, maybe a cigarette, or maybe even
something juicier!)
Carry On,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org