incommensurable accounts of reality: activists vs. the establishment

[joft]

i'm becoming a conspiracy theorist and this frightens me. just today i was reading a book called "Medical Apartheid" about experiments carried out on black people by the US government (including but not limited to tuskegee). apparently the US government has carried out lots of other instances of chemical/biological terrorism on its own citizens. this book is written by a fellow at harvard's medical ethics thingy, with lots of references and so on, so it doesn't appear to be insubstantiated mad ravings.

after I put that book down I picked up "game as old as empire," the logical sequal to "confessions of an economic hit man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man)", which claims that corrupt governments and multi-national corporations purposefully make "third world" countries bankrupt and impossibly indebted to them so that they can get access to all the resources on their own terms, etc. the US government rebutted (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Feb/02-767147.html) by pointing out that the author also wrote a book about shamanism and shapeshifting (which i admit is pretty funny), and one time at a book signing he claimed JFK was assassinated by the government!!(the audacity!!!)!! (but seriously, if that's the best the government can do for a rebuttal i'm more inclined to believe the author)

I'm beginning to feel like a member of Hugo Chavez's bookclub. I'm frightened by how radical I appear to be becoming. I feel like I should be more balanced, and yet, I hope not just for the sake of the "fallacy of the golden mean." the truth isn't necessarily always halfway between two extremes.

these two incommensurable worldviews are diametrically opposed and make equal claims to objectivity. because both sides present internally consistent accounts of reality and explanations of all the available facts, it seems like there's no way to determine which is right-- at least for me. all I can do is weigh them in my mind and ask which seems more likely. but, I have trouble judging them because i perceive far too many plausible scenarios and convenient explanations on both sides. they seem equally likely and unlikely, and equally far removed from my personal experience.

the only answer that I've been able to come up with is something like "damnit! I'm on neither of your sides!" but I gotta have a better explanation-- again, not just for the sake of being moderate, but to find out the "truth"

I can only speculate, but my intuition (just based on human nature) tells me two things. first, I don't see any reason to dismiss all conspiracy theories simply because they're conspiracy theories. it does seem very plausible to me that there are some individuals at the top levels acting deliberately and selfishly and making astronomical profits. second, it would behoove everyone involved in something like this to keep the number of other people wittingly involved to a minimum, so as to minimize risk by compartmentalizing knowledge about the real intentions, and to share the profits with as few people as possible. thus, the majority of people involved must not know what it really is that they're involved in.

the scary thing about this model is that it fits perfectly the notion of Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/etc using the entire nation and convincing enough people that it's for some other reason. but perhaps it also calls for more skepticism of the economic hit man author- why would they let him in on it? but perhaps i have a mistaken impression about how forthright they were, perhaps he was meant to be ignorant but he just figured it out.

another complementary line of thought that i've been considering lately has to do with Erich Fromm's notion of "Escape from Freedom" (he wrote a book with this title). the theory is basically that humans are scared of freedom, afraid of choice because of the possibility of being alone in what one chooses, and greatly prefer the security of being led like sheep, especially by a leader who appears powerful enough to protect them. it is based on the argument Dostoevsky's High Inquisitor makes to christ. Fromm uses it to explain nazism. the theory resonates very well with me, as it would with anyone else who considers themselves an exception to it (most intps i would venture).

i would say, given this theory, that most people are averse to any challenges to the establishment. i could imagine a Dostoevskyish scenario where one of the "flock" grudgingly spells out to a foolish activist like me that they already know what i'm trying to tell them, but they just want me to shut up for fear that i might disturb something. to me, this peice means that challenges to the establishment should be given extra attention, because the majority of people will ignore them and so there is a bias against them that must be counterbalanced.

[kuranes]

Join the club. :)

What price to pay.... for stability ?

[joft]

I can't imagine what Thoreau would make of this all. he thought it was our moral duty to disobey the system when the system is corrupt, and even though he saw the mexican/american war, and slavery, i think our government has actually done far, far worse since then. if one started at Thoreau and allowed ones moral outrage to increase in proportion to the atrocities committed since then, I think it would require more anger than a human being is capable of. I have to remind myself of "the escape from freedom" and the relatively luxurious and comfortable lifestyles we're all living in order to make sense of the fact that we're not all revolting against the government. we tolerate so much bullshit from government! utterly dishonest politicians, nepotism, incompetency, pervasive financial corruption, ineffecient bureaucratic agencies, spying on us, scandal after scandal after scandal... and this is all chalked up to being the name of the game basically, the status quo, like it's assumed that we knew it was inevitable and accepted it all along. it's really astonishing...

[Dark Razor]

it's really astonishing...

Yes it really is .. trust me, the more you learn about it the more you want to become like Fidel :grin:.

In fact, in societies which allow for more personal freedom, such as the western "democracies", propaganda is far more important and needs to be much more sophisticated and also more subtle than in autocratic governments, since democracies cannot use excessive force to subdue their citizens. Therefor they must maintain "necessary illusions" to keep the system working that garanties the power to remain with essentially the same elite, while the public is convinced that they can freely choose their rulers. While in reality those people who voters can vote for already underwent a rigorous screening process when climbing the party hierarchy, those who oppose the status quo are disposed of somewhere along the way, and only those who represent the range of oppinion which the elites deem acceptable will become candidates.

The keep this working it is also important that public debate remains limited to a certain narrow spectrum,so that the people only see those options which futher the interestets of their rulers and maintaines the peace in society, and everything that would fundamentaly change the systems is considered unthinkable. That peace is maintained in society does however not necessarly mean that the system is beneficial to the citizens, of course a wellbeing of certain extent needs to be maintained, however proper use of propaganda can be very effective at making people believe that they are furthering their own interests while in reality they are actually acting (voting) against them.

One way this works is the promotion of the believe that everyone is only responsible for himself, and that everyone can rise to the top if he just works hard enough. However this does two things, firstly it prevents, or may prevent, people from organizing into groups to voice their interests and needs as a group, so that their voice can be heard, as opposed to individually working against each other to gain in advantage for themselves. The result is that people might gain a small advantage for themselves individually, but as a whole they loose political and societal leverage and are at the mercy of their superiors, instead of beeing able to have influence by organizing as a group. A simple example of this are unions, who are generally portraid as communist and bad for buisness and therefor, ultimately, also bad for everyone.

Genrally speaking it is most beneficial for the rulers to create a atomized and compartmentalized society, so that people who would like to improve their own situation and therefor change part of the system, do not know how because the system is just to enormous and incomprehensible that they rather just follow along instead of having to make an effort to reach likeminded people, build up an organization etc. If people were instead encouraged to organize and participate in political culture, things would be drastically different, but people are not encouraged to engage in politics, they are only encouraged to be clapping spectators while being told and given the illusion they were in fact participating.

This was also one major aspect in the societal structure of nazi Germany, to comparmentalize society in such a way that everyone was only responsible for one tiny part of the machinery so that no one would feel responsible for what the machine does as a whole, and so that no one except the highest elites has enough power or knowledge to bring about any significant change. As I said, the mechanism in "democratic" societies is different, but the goal and result are relatively similar.

Again I recommend "Media Control" and "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. You dont need to be socialist to read them, even if you dont agree with him, you will still gain some insight in how population control works in the western societies today. Actually this is also part of the system, that everyone who is not mainstream in their views is portrayed as some crazy consipracy nut, or as "controversial" even if anything they say can be perfectly proven. That is also the reason why it does not matter what people write in their books, because only very few people read those books, 95% of people watch Fox News or read the NY times who will not air or print anything "controversial" (except of course controversial within the boundaries of what societal consent allows), and if something was not in the New York Times or on Fox News it has not happend, simple.

[kuranes]

the believe [sic]that everyone is only responsible for himself, and that everyone can rise to the top if he just works hard enough. However this does two things, firstly it prevents, or may prevent, people from organizing into groups to voice their interests and needs as a group, so that their voice can be heard, as opposed to individually working against each other to gain in advantage for themselves. The result is that people might gain a small advantage for themselves individually, but as a whole they loose political and societal leverage and are at the mercy of their superiors, instead of beeing able to have influence by organizing as a group.

Yes.

[meanlittlechimp]

Again I recommend "Media Control" and "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. You dont need to be socialist to read them, even if you dont agree with him, you will still gain some insight in how population control works in the western societies today. Actually this is also part of the system, that everyone who is not mainstream in their views is portrayed as some crazy consipracy nut, or as "controversial" even if anything they say can be perfectly proven. That is also the reason why it does not matter what people write in their books, because only very few people read those books, 95% of people watch Fox News or read the NY times who will not air or print anything "controversial" (except of course controversial within the boundaries of what societal consent allows), and if something was not in the New York Times or on Fox News it has not happend, simple.

If you're too lazy to read; you can watch the documentary - Manufacturing Consent, not as good as the book, but worth seeing.

Also, you might want to check out Life and Debt a documentary by Stephanie Black. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life_and_debt/ They interview several World Bank and IMF officials as well as former Prime Minister of Jamaica. It's pretty damning stuff and hard to refute, gives you more detail on how the World Bank and IMF specifically set up their programs to bilk these developing economies. The Jamaican example is indicative of their practices elsewhere.

One of the examples the documentary illustrates, is how the US forced selling powdered milk at 90% below market prices to destroy the indigenous dairy industry (so all the cows are slaughtered and machinery sold off). Once the domestic industry is destroyed, they then jack up the price of the powdered milk to 5 times the original price of the fresh milk that used to be available in that market. US farmers get a windfall and Jamaican consumers get expensive powdered milk and debt. These policies are all part of the "development plan" forced upon them in the name of "free trade"; once they get into this debt, that they can't even afford to pay the interest on.

When Manley tried to fight this, the CIA attempted to assassinate him (this isn't brought up in the documentary but it's fairly well known). It's no conspiracy. It's what stronger nations have been doing to weaker ones since the history of civilization.

Obviously the concept of free trade works, and both nations benefit - according to Adam Smith's model - even if one nation produces all products less efficiently than their trading partner. Comparative advantage works, but many of these developing countries are not given the free trade mentioned in economics textbooks. Practice is far from what is preached.

[meanlittlechimp]

Joseph Stiglitz who won the Nobel Prize in economics, said this after he resigned from the World Bank.

"They'll say the IMF is arrogant. They'll say the IMF doesn't really listen to the developing countries it is supposed to help. They'll say the IMF is secretive and insulated from democratic accountability. They'll say the IMF's economic 'remedies' often make things worse - turning slowdowns into recessions and recessions into depressions. And they'll have a point. I was chief economist at the World Bank from 1996 until last November, during the gravest global economic crisis in a half-century. I saw how the IMF, in tandem with the U.S. Treasury Department, responded. And I was appalled".

I just don't understand how he didn't know this before he signed up for the job. It's obvious why Wolfowitz signed up for the job - his crusade to help the world's poor, as shown by his previous policy papers. It's interesting that people like him and Robert Mcnamara (World Bank President for 13 years) become heads of organizations that are supposed to aid the world's poor. Why do foreign policy hawks end up as president of the World Bank? Makes sense, bomb 'em and then figure out how to develop their economies; seems like a typical career path, hmm......

[Avengardh]

I wasn't going to reply but I have to say this thread stopped me after I read Hugo Chavez; the title was too long for my P to pay attention until you mentioned it on IRC.

One: It IS all a game, a large part of the "conspiracy theories" some people might come up with could be based on real life events.

There is no way to really find out how things are working anywhere until you live or have continuous contact with several people from said country.

Two: The truth is that the vision of "liberal" is certainly very skewed by the common-thought everywhere [I mean globally, however there are exceptions]; Hugo Chavez and Bush represent two extremes, which is why it's natural for both to fight it out all the time.

Does Hugo actually care about his people? Some wonder, some say he doesn't and he's crazy and should stop being such an exhibitionist, to me however, it seems like it's only natural someone like Hugo would sprout sooner or later, if it's not him, it will be someone else.

Thus they are both archetypes, which is why it is difficult to side with any of them completely. Unless you're easily convinced.

Three: Fear is one of the most effective control-techniques, which is why no one objects to anything in a significant scale, consider this:

Would you leave everything you knew [by this I mean worldy possessions, internet, family, school, security, etc.] in order to go live somewhere else where you didn't know the language and practially no one, only for the sake of gaining knowledge at the risk of it changing you as a person??

Think on that for a while before you actually respond.

Change leads to evolution, you can speculate about a lot but until you have touched the reality of the situation you cannot comprehend how fear, etc, are really controlling your life and limiting you as a human being.

[Dark Razor]

Also, you might want to check out Life and Debt a documentary by Stephanie Black. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life_and_debt/ They interview several World Bank and IMF officials as well as former Prime Minister of Jamaica. It's pretty damning stuff and hard to refute, gives you more detail on how the World Bank and IMF specifically set up their programs to bilk these developing economies. The Jamaican example is indicative of their practices elsewhere.

One of the examples the documentary illustrates, is how the US forced selling powdered milk at 90% below market prices to destroy the indigenous dairy industry (so all the cows are slaughtered and machinery sold off). Once the domestic industry is destroyed, they then jack up the price of the powdered milk to 5 times the original price of the fresh milk that used to be available in that market. US farmers get a windfall and Jamaican consumers get expensive powdered milk and debt. These policies are all part of the "development plan" forced upon them in the name of "free trade"; once they get into this debt, that they can't even afford to pay the interest on.


Thank you, I will check this documentary out, I also read a book written by Fidel Castro (yes, THE DEVIL himself) called "Capitalism in Crisis" which adressed this too, although not in much detail. The US also used the IMF/World bank after the collapse of the Soviet Union to destroy and bankrupt the remainder of the Russian economy, so that everything could be privatized and the important industries could be brought under the control of American multinationals, and they almost succeded, until Putin reversed this process.

And Avangardh, you are a perfect example for what I wrote above, this thread is not about Hugo Chavez or George Bush, or about "liberal" and "conservative", but those are the only terms many people can think in, this is part of the narrow official range of opinion, which focuses the public debate on irrelevant topics and creates the impression of multiple very different political directions, such as "liberal" and "conservative" and "centrist", however all of them represent the same concept of capitalist imperialism and the promotion of war to impose one's economic and political will on other nations, the only differ in nuances. At the same time the media creates the image that every use of force is "necessary" and an act of "defence" and that detrimental economic policies and military dictatorships imposed on other nations are "free-market reforms" and "democratic governments" that benefit those countries and leeds them to a better future, onto the shining path of western democracy and freedom. While in reality they are being exploited as slaves and brutally supressed by their governments to defend the interests of the foreign companies against any form of labour organization.

One way the media does this is to ALWAYS portray us as the good guys, a good example was the reporting about the US terror campaign against Central America, specifically against Nicaragua and also Cuba in the name of "democracy and freedom", while at the same time they supported and armed the fascist dictatorships of Guatemala and El Salvador who were at the time killing large amounts of their own people but were creating optimal consitions for foreign "investment", who acording to the US media were "fragile demoracies", while the governement of Nicaragua that actually tried to develop the country and improve the populations situation, was a "communist dictatorship" that needed to be overthrown by CIA spnsored guerilla war. The books I have mentioned go into more detail on how specifically this was achieved. On a sidenote, it is also quite remarkable how the media has managed to portray the US as the victim in the Vietnam war, that is really interesting.

Now, why should the media do all this? The main aspect is that all the mainstream media are profit-oriented corporations, who make most of their money by selling space for advertising on their papers/program, which means that they will spin their reporting in such a way that maximizes their potential advertising customers, these are the very same corporations who also profit from the outlined policies towards foreign countries and from keeping the population of the western nations ignorant and basically turn them into mindless consumo-bots. Both goals are of course diametrically opposed to truthful reporting, and if all the main media outlets are motivated to report in this way, then for the vast part of the people, their lies and distortions will become truth, and the truth will become "conspircacy theory", quite fascinating.

[meanlittlechimp]

I wasn't going to reply but I have to say this thread stopped me after I read Hugo Chavez; the title was too long for my P to pay attention until you mentioned it on IRC.

One: It IS all a game, a large part of the "conspiracy theories" some people might come up with could be based on real life events.

There is no way to really find out how things are working anywhere until you live or have continuous contact with several people from said country.

Two: The truth is that the vision of "liberal" is certainly very skewed by the common-thought everywhere [I mean globally, however there are exceptions]; Hugo Chavez and Bush represent two extremes, which is why it's natural for both to fight it out all the time.

Does Hugo actually care about his people? Some wonder, some say he doesn't and he's crazy and should stop being such an exhibitionist, to me however, it seems like it's only natural someone like Hugo would sprout sooner or later, if it's not him, it will be someone else.

Thus they are both archetypes, which is why it is difficult to side with any of them completely. Unless you're easily convinced.

Three: Fear is one of the most effective control-techniques, which is why no one objects to anything in a significant scale, consider this:

Would you leave everything you knew [by this I mean worldy possessions, internet, family, school, security, etc.] in order to go live somewhere else where you didn't know the language and practially no one, only for the sake of gaining knowledge at the risk of it changing you as a person??

Think on that for a while before you actually respond.

Change leads to evolution, you can speculate about a lot but until you have touched the reality of the situation you cannot comprehend how fear, etc, are really controlling your life and limiting you as a human being.

I don't agree that you have to live somewhere to understand what is going on there. I didn't have to live in Vietnam, to know the US set up a puppet government and dropped more bombs there than all the bombs dropped in the history of military warfare (up to that point). I don't have to live in Jamacia to know what polices the World Bank and IMF set up. You can find that information without having to move there.

I don't have to know anything about Hugo or Bush as people to understand how US foreign policy works and the international lending system works. I think Bush and Chavez are both patriots. They both think they're doing the right thing for their countries. Bush is dumber than Chavez, but it doesn't make him less patriotic or less caring. I don't think you have to side with either of them.

I believe in free markets, free trade, democracy and capitalism. Neither of those men are huge proponents of either of the above things, so I don't see why I have to take sides at all. I can take sides on debates like, "are US actions really about promoting democracy and freedom?" Obviously an empaphatic no, and it never has been. or on debates like, "Are the IMF and World Bank really trying to develop 3rd world economies or aid the poor (as they claim)? Again, an emphatic no.

Is Hugo Chavez really care about his people? Probably, but who the hell knows that for sure. He's no Marcos, or has the self interest the despots we put in power elsewhere, that's for sure. Is Bush a true patriot and thinks he's helping his country? probably but who cares what his intentions are, his actions are idiotic.

[Avengardh]

And Avangardh, you are a perfect example for what I wrote above, this thread is not about Hugo Chavez or George Bush, or about "liberal" and "conservative", but those are the only terms many people can think in, this is part of the narrow official range of opinion, which focuses the public debate on irrelevant topics and creates the impression of multiple very different political directions, such as "liberal" and "conservative" and "centrist", however all of them represent the same concept of capitalist imperialism and the promotion of war to impose one's economic and political will on other nations, the only differ in nuances.

I never said it was.

I am not quite sure how I am a perfect example either.



I don't agree that you have to live somewhere to understand what is going on there.

No, I didn't say that, I said:

"There is no way to really find out how things are working anywhere until you live or have continuous contact with several people from said country."

Either way you are only working with the limited information of those news, I am also not saying this is good or bad, or if this is actually what happens in real life.

I also didn't say you had to side with either of them, they're just examples, like I said, opposite sides, nothing more.

[Ferrus]

The two accounts of actuality are not incommensurable, not by a long chalk. They both have the same epistemological, and perhaps more appositely, material cause.

[joft]

shit, maybe I used the term wrong. I'm not sure that they have the same epistemology though... but do I need to invent a new word for this? I mean they are both comprehensive world views with answers to every challenge that can be brought against them and explanations for all of the indisputable facts. it seems to me like it's impossible to accept either view on anything but something like faith-- so, should we call them religions? i think religions are just a subset of the category though, not the template

[Madrigal]

What kind of activist are you, joft? I thought you mentioned being one, either here or in another thread.

[sorabji_66]

so people in control are not nice. WHAAAAAAAAA.

let me know how this inside "knowledge" helps except for some warm inner FEELING that you are transcending others.

us INTPs only have 10 cents of energy to spend on the day and it ain't much use wasting it on things beyond your control.

[Madrigal]

so people in control are not nice. WHAAAAAAAAA.

let me know how this inside "knowledge" helps except for some warm inner FEELING that you are transcending others.

us INTPs only have 10 cents of energy to spend on the day and it ain't much use wasting it on things beyond your control.

"What does it matter that they walk all over us if we can't do anything about it? You just speculate on it to feel superior to those of us who don't give a shit!"

Inane opinions like these are very useful for the establishment.

[joft]

I'm not actually an activist of any sort, just interested in the whole thing intellectually. protesting or whatever is a complete waste of time as far as I can tell. if anything I'll fight the war of ideas by writing about it and trying to propogate the ideas in a way that doesn't get ignored (like protesting). i like culture jamming and the Yes Men, etc.

[Madrigal]

I'm not actually an activist of any sort, just interested in the whole thing intellectually. protesting or whatever is a complete waste of time as far as I can tell. if anything I'll fight the war of ideas by writing about it and trying to propogate the ideas in a way that doesn't get ignored (like protesting). i like culture jamming and the Yes Men, etc.

Activism isn't just about blocking streets, in fact I've met many activists who think it's wrong (???), but I see where you're coming from and that's why it surprised me you said you're an activist. I think the intellectual's ego often leads them to believe that mass action is a waste of time, whereas the solitary task of writing and elaborating theories gets the undivided spotlight the intellectual craves. Ironically, though, the progressive intellectual could never exist without mass movements to reflect upon.

There are three axes to the analysis of a global situation at any given time, and that would be:

1) the relationship between countries (war, diplomacy, international alliances and alignments, etc.)

2) the economy (boom, recession, crises etc)

3) the class struggle (strikes, uprisings, regime change, civil war, revolution, coups, etc.)

You can't ignore any one of those aspects as they interweave to create the scenarios that you analyze as an intellectual. Therefore, simply stating that "activism is futile" makes no sense at all, since in reality activism, militancy, politics and mass action all play a fundamental role which influence the other two axes I mentioned. By denying it's significance you're artificially annulling one of the pillars upon which your theories are created. That is to say, you erase it from your intellectual horizons but not from reality itself.

Surely some types of activism are pointless, though. Discerning which makes a difference and which is just the dust of history is a matter of both personal perception and political inclination.

[Ferrus]

I think years of Ghandi-esque protest movements based on 'non-violence' have lead people to believe activism is useless, but clearly activism that is violent or activism that results in the crippling of the economy (a general strike) is going to affect the political situation.

[meanlittlechimp]

so people in control are not nice. WHAAAAAAAAA.

let me know how this inside "knowledge" helps except for some warm inner FEELING that you are transcending others.

us INTPs only have 10 cents of energy to spend on the day and it ain't much use wasting it on things beyond your control.

So people that have an interest in the way the world works are whiners?

As for the warm inner feeling that you are transcending others; I think you're projecting here. Most of your posts are one liners that imply how smart you are but with no content whatsover.

Wasting time on things beyond your control? You mean like sports.... Go back to all your basketball and hockey threads and stay there.