[p2p-research] Fwd: Julie Graham -- A Postcapitalist Politics for Difficult Times

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> [Julie Graham wrote:]
> It seems to be easier for us today to imagine the thoroughgoing
> deterioration of the earth and of nature than the breakdown of late
> capitalism; perhaps that is due to some weakness in our imaginations.

I agree, and have said similar things. Even on this list. :-)

For example, we are all too willing to despair over the energy needs of 
billions of people on this planet without imagining that billions of people 
(or at least millions) might literally stand up and do something about the 
problem (like put in solar panels and wind turbines, do R&D on better 
batteries, conserve helium or invent cooling methods that don't use helium, 
and so on).

Examples with pictures:
   "Plugging Into the Sun: Sunlight bathes us in far more energy than we 
could ever need—if we could just catch enough."
   http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/solar/johnson-text
"""
It is hard to imagine that a power plant could be so beautiful: 250 acres of 
gently curved mirrors lined up in long troughs like canals of light. Parked 
facing the ground overnight, they are starting to awaken—more than 182,000 
of them—and follow the sun. ... The steam drives a turbine and dynamo, 
pushing as much as 64 megawatts onto the grid—enough to electrify 14,000 
households or a few Las Vegas casinos. "Once the system makes steam, it's 
very traditional—industry-standard stuff," says plant manager Robert Cable, 
pointing toward a gas-fired power plant on the other side of Eldorado Valley 
Drive. "We get the same tools and the same parts as the place across the 
street."
"""

"Can Solar Save Us? Probably. Eventually. With lots of government help. "
   http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/solar/carroll-text
"""
Another option is for the federal government to invest directly in solar—for 
example, says Ken Zweibel of George Washington University, by funding the 
construction of giant solar plants in the desert Southwest, along with the 
high-efficiency transmission lines needed to carry the power nationwide. In 
Zweibel's version of the future, the sun would satisfy more than two-thirds 
of U.S. electricity needs by 2050, for an investment of about $400 billion. 
"Compared to what we just paid for the financial bailout, it's pocket 
change," he says.
"""

So, plenty of technology. But some sort of disconnect there socially. 
(Government corruption? Or government group think?)

 > [Julie Graham wrote:]
> The project of rereading the
> economy depends on the familiar (to Marxists at least) proposition that
> knowledge is neither neutral nor singular; instead multiple, politically
> inflected knowledges coexist in unstable relations of dominance and
> subordination. Rereading the economy entails excavating subjugated
> knowledges, both academic and popular, and drawing upon them as
> resources—to bring what is unsayable into language and what is hidden into
> visibility.  Rereading is necessary to empower novel social and political
> possibilities but it will never be sufficient, as those who are impatient
> with language activism frequently remind us. Moreover, it exposes us to
> the dangers of intellectual arrogance and social isolation. 

So true on isolation, and see my comments on the Venus Project (on the OM 
list) or my comments here on activist failure modes.
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-July/003766.html
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-July/003768.html

The beginning point here is maybe what I was trying to make in my comments 
to Ryan and Tomas about science and vaccination and other medical 
interventions. "Knowledge is not neutral or singular." While Ryan may be 
right in saying I set up a strawman if I'd say there is one kind of 
alternative, it is also perhaps a strawman argument to think there is 
essentially just one kind of "science" to defend. Rather, there are many 
ways of knowing, or even many ways of legitimacy, as Ryan points out. And 
there are many people who call themselves scientists or engineers that 
approach problems from different perspectives and with different degrees of 
competency in different areasp

Then, there are different groups of people engaged in an area (like studying 
the immune system or doing research on energy systems) who participate in 
different social processes (including group think or norm formation in 
different ways). Related:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming-storming-norming-performing
"The Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing is a model of group 
development, first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that 
these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, 
to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan 
work, and to deliver results. This model has become the basis for subsequent 
models."

This book on the USA energy system is a prime example of showing thirty 
years of misleading group-think about energy policy:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
"Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by
Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon
study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book
argues that domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption,
by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to
the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works
better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy. In the
preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still
very current."

So, in that sense, it is a little unfair to say we have no imagination as a 
society. The existence of Gene Rodenberry's vision in Star Trek is another 
example. What might be fairer to say is there is a disconnect somehow 
between policy and imagination (as with Brittle Power), or a disconnect 
between mainstream media and local imagination (Star Trek sci-fi seemed safe 
for mainstream media because it was set 100s of years in the future).

Or, more fundamentally, a disconnect between imaginative education and 
compulsory schooling. Though even that last is unfair, in the sense that in 
high school in the 1970s, the after-school debate team was involved in 
debates one year about energy policy -- though that was a small part of 
time, and it was outside of school. How does one connect imagination and 
action? Well, to begin with you need to practice it, I guess. That is really 
the obstruction with schooling -- it gives children little time to practice 
connecting imagination to action. Sure there are "arts" classes, but they 
are at the edge of the framework. "Constructivism" is a related idea to get 
people learning through building things. But even there, it is not explained 
as practice connecting the imagination with action. (Of course, not all 
things we imagine are good things, so there are other issues there, too, in 
how we pick what of our imaginings to bring into reality.)

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/