Re: <nettime> Managerial capitalism?

[Felix Stalder <felix@openflows.com>]

On 2017-09-21 06:27, Brian Holmes wrote:
> 
> In my view, these radical splits have come about due to the excesses
>  of the "fit" represented by neoliberalism, where the state, the 
> military and the corporations worked together to produce tremendous 
> market booms and savage inequality.

That fit stopped working around 2008 in a global scale, due to a triple
crisis: economic, geo-political and ecological.

Economically, quite obviously, due to the financial crisis and the
take-over of private debt by the public making a Keynesian answer to the
crisis economically impossible (expect in China).

Geo-politically, as the liberal, post-war global regime increasingly
challenged by the BRICS dominated by China (e.g. Shanghai Cooperation
Organization and its non-IMF/WB development bank), and ecologically, as
the impact on global warming was becoming increasingly felt as a
destabilizing force (e.g. the role of the heat wave in Russia 2010 in
driving up the prices for bread in Egypt).

The reaction in Europe was been, by and large, extend and pretend. Where
the welfare state exists, populations can be managed, in the former
east, the turn to a hard nationalism can be ignored and the places like
Greece can be suppressed sufficiently to not matter.  In the mean time,
the Turks and now the Libyans can be paid to subdue the refugee crises
outside view of tender European publics.

In the US, despite all the rhetoric of economic nationalism, it was
basically, as Brian put it, a hostile take-over of the two most powerful
faction of the post-war economy -- finance and carbon -- which know that
their prime is over, want to wring out the lemon one last time, while
preparing escape the fall-out on their own private, heavily guarded
island. Musk and Schmidt probably represent the liberal version of this
take-over.

China's response towards managerial capitalism and a strong
state-corporate nexus with a geo-political vision has been described by
Brian.

All of this, however, leaves out the question of the impact of the
ecological crises. One thing is clear, global warming will be very
expensive, so the countries with the least money will be least able to
adapt. And in many ways, this includes China, if you break it down to
per capita numbers.

The Green Climate Found, established in 2010 was supposed to raise $200
billion by 2020 to help developing countries, but that seems unlikely to
be actually met. And the costs of the damage of just to storms,
Harvey and Irma, are estimated to run up to $150 - 200 billion in the US
alone.

> I think whatever ultimately happens in the West is going to matter. 
> Probably we should do a straw poll on this. Do we go green? Do we go
>  fascist? Do we go back to an improbable status quo ante? Or some 
> other outcome? What do you think, nettimers?

If you factor in global warming, the relative position of the US and
Europe might actually decrease slower then pure demographics suggest,
simply because they have the means and the technology to deal with it
best. But in what kind of a world? Bifo is already speaking about
"Auschwitz on the Beach" in regard to the new border regimes of the EU
in Libya.

And while the "wall" at the border of Mexico might not be build, it's
telling that it was one of the main promises that got Trump elected and
only his incompetence prevents it from being built.

So,this leaves us with Musk & co as kind of avant-garde of a new green
authoritarianism, based on a renewed state-corporate fit centering
around a transformation towards carbon neutrality. Add automation to the
mix, and this will not even in the countries/regions that have this
option, include everyone.

And then we arrive at the question Morlock raised:

> What is the value of the attention when the purchasing power is
> zero? The most likely uplifting answer is, after the redundants are
> given some food and shelter ("basic income"), pacification. The
> dystopian prediction being kill them all.

To avoid this, Brian's question is of great urgency.

> I don't think that the post-2008 crisis will ever be resolved until
> some socio-political agency comes up with a vision of the future that
> is inspiring, workable and translatable into mathematical-statistical
> terms.

This vision, I'm convinced, can only come from transformed relations
within the biosphere (be that sustainable socio-economies, perma
cultures or geo-engineering) supported by advanced technologies. And
these visions better have to be more practical and applied than the
musings of our leading theoreticians in the field such as Haraway or Barad.

Felix






-- 

 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com
 |OPEN PGP:  https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x0C9FF2AC

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: