I’ve just been alerted to an interesting article in Psychology Today by Michael Bader (a psychologist from San Francisco), hypothesizing that right-wing attitudes to health care reform may come from a deep-seated fear of dependency. There’s some interesting ideas in here, whether you agree with him or not, it certainly gets you thinking. Often people cite the pursuit of freedom as their primary reason for being against Government-run healthcare. But surely this is irrational? If you are desperately sick and can’t afford to pay to see a doctor you are far from ‘free’ in any sense. In these type of cases Obamacare would increase the level of people’s freedoms. Why are people opposing policy that will ultimately benefit them? Is it that they don’t want to accept a societal responsibility to help others who can’t help themselves? Surely freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin, and one without the other is an illusion? Bader tries to plumb the deep psychological depths of these questions and comes up with some interesting suggestions.
Read it here
Are Right Wingers Scared of Dependency?
owen jones, cringing in the shadow of margaret thatcher
^^^
I’m usually a fan of Owen Jones’ work. I thought ‘Chavs’ was a good book that said some important things that had gone very much un-said in recent times, where even supposed ‘lefties’ started bashing the lowest echelons of our increasingly stratified society. This post from the Commune raises some good points about his views and positioning however; I can’t help but agree with the author that his misplaced faith in New New (One Nation) Labour will lead a lot of his followers and fans to disappointment.
Why Socialism X: Socialised Capital
How would a nascent Socialist State get hold of the necessary financial resources to build new services and re-tool old ones? Mammoth opposition from the privileged layers of the old regime will not make it easy…
Why the VICE generation are apocalyptic and frightened
Vice Magazine’s Alex Miller interviews one of Red Eye’s favourite filmmakers, Adam Curtis, in this new piece called Looking Beneath the Waves. In the article Curtis shares some of his latest theories on why the news (in its current guise) is unable to shed any light on the real reasons for the global financial meltdown, why economics is a failed pseudo-science, why a whole generation has grown up to be supremely cynical and paranoid, and the frightening reality of a world in which no-one really knows what’s happening, including both the journalists and politicians that pretend to have all the answers.
The Problem With Science
New documentary film by Michael Coldwell on philosopher Jim Schofield’s latest theories. Science has made several crucial assumptions that are fundamentally flawed, and may have skewed our view of the world around us.
Music is supplied by our friends in the Urban Exploration collective 🙂
Clay and the Collective Body
Just read a really interesting interview with sculptor Antony Gormley (in New Scientist magazine, of all places) that had a surprisingly political slant.
His recent installation Clay and the Collective Body explores “conversations between people – through objects or through the process of creating” by locking 100 random people in a stark white environment, with only a monolithic block of clay for entertainment. This “gave rise to an extraordinary and explosive outpouring of, you could say, collective unconciousness.”
This alien place seemed to trigger something in the participants, something primal that if I was more of a “yogurt-weaver”, I may be tempted to call a universal human connection – certainly the only familiar sight were other people, and the only way of killing time was to create.
“What’s absolutely beautiful is the way that people have occupied that space and become the absolute opposite of what capitalism wants us to be – passive consumers of spectacle, of information, of entertainment, of objects of desire – they become participatory and productive and cross-fertilising.” I thought it was particularly apt that Gormley chose to use the word occupy in that context.
Although Gormley goes on to state that he never intends to make overt political statements with his work, he lets slip that “…there’s no question that many of my works, in different ways, are asking about the connection between humans and our environment. And I think that all my installations in cities of the naked human animal in effigy form – surrogate fossils, industrialised fossils – are asking, where does humankind fit? Now that we seem to be well into the sixth great extinction, how long are we going to contribute to the evolution of life? Those are very big issues” – and undoubtedly political ones.
Another subject that Gormley brings up in the interview, that is also a favourite of my own, is that of Easter Island.
This ‘ghost island’ captured my imagination from a very young age, as it seems to encapsulate the power that art and iconography can hold over people, our self-destructive tendencies, the damage that can be caused by a flawed belief system and the folly of excess that human civilization seems prone to follow.
“What was in the mind of the man or woman on Rapa Nui who cut down the last tree? It seems the answer to that question is “Well, I cut down this tree because that was what my father did and that was what my father’s father did.” I think we’re in the same position, but we are running on the myth of progress. My work is there to ask pretty serious questions about how we can shift our perception of what constitutes viable human actions or viable human behaviour.”
I always thought there was an eerie connection between Gormley’s sculpture and the statues on Easter Island, and I’m pleased to learn my instincts were close to the mark. Both signify mankind’s strange detachment from the world that bore him, and the lonely marks left on the land after he has gone.
Gormley also goes on to criticise elitism and the determinism of scientific progress – it is a thoroughly thought provoking and enlightened article, that has once again piqued my enthusiasm for art’s potential to induce change, by making us take a long, hard, look in the collective mirror.
Read the whole interview in New Scientist
Shape on Austerity
“Are you wondering what is going on among the leaders of the Euro Zone of the European Union? Do you, along with British Prime Minister Cameron and his Tory colleagues, put the whole thing down to their stubborn refusal to act! Or do you decide that all such efforts to rationalise our World (including the lauded United Nations) are doomed to failure from the outset. Yet what is really happening is certainly none of these things! It is the final Dissolution of the Fictitious Value on which Capitalism rests. It is the regularly occurring and inevitable Crisis of Capitalism!”
More articles on Socialism and the collapse of Capitalism have recently been published on Shape Blog:
Austerity: The Rape of the Poor
The Major Crisis in World Capitalism
The latest in the Why Socialism series: The Essential Development of Marxist Theory 1
How do the Tories get away with it?
Nice bit in The Independent by Owen Jones on the working class and how Tories win elections.
“Just how do the Tories get away with it? Since they were founded as a modern political force in 1834, the Conservatives have acted as the parliamentary wing of the wealthy elite. When I was at university, a one-time very senior Tory figure put it succinctly at an off-the-record gathering: the Conservative Party, he explained, was a “coalition of privileged interests. Its main purpose is to defend that privilege. And the way it wins elections is by giving just enough to just enough other people”.”
Why Socialism VII: How are Decisions Made Within Capitalist Democracy
Read the latest instalment of Jim Schofield’s series on the Shape Blog.
The Means to Inform
The crucial opposing factor in informing the general populace of “the truth” has always been the ownership and control of the means of dissemination by a very limited class with very different interests and motives than the bulk of the population in any given country. And this means that it would be universally extremely unlikely to be allowed access via any form of Mass Media (to socialists in a capitalist society for example). And, in the same way the bureaucracies in the so-called ‘socialist countries’ such as the Soviet Union and China, were in a similar position, and thus determined exactly what was allowed to be delivered to their populations at large.
NHS Carve-up… the Spending of Public Money. A Couple of Well-Worded Links!
This succinct map and the article that goes with it is to be found on this blog, a terrifying indication of the rapid onset of privatisation of our NHS… important if very depressing information…
I thought I would include this guy too- expresses his anger at the spending of public money better then I could muster without quite blowing a fuse…
Why Socialism IV: Can It Be Established?
The latest instalment of Jim Schofield’s series on socialism is on the SHAPE Blog
Why Socialism III: Why Nationalisation Failed
The latest instalment of Jim Schofield’s series on socialism is on the Shape blog.
Don’t get sucked in to Kony 2012
“KONY 2012 is a cleverly orchestrated campaign specifically aimed at today’s youth, the future citizens of the world. Using state-of-the-art techniques and new technologies, the campaign is a first attempt at “reverse propaganda”, where the agenda APPEARS to emanate from the people. By using emotions, irrational thoughts and superficial explanations, KONY 2012 attempts to trick well-meaning people, who desire to make a positive change in the world, to instead fuel a gigantic war machine that is controlled by the world’s elite.
Is KONY 2012 trying to eradicate child-soldiers or is it attempting to create a new kind of child-soldiers?”
Ben Keesey defends Invisible Children
Critical article from Alternet
Why are The Telegraph and The Sun pseudo-defending it (Right Wing Press) and the Left and Liberal media are suspicious?
Why are there so many seemingly subliminal style edits in the film, and cryptic iconography?
Why is the TRI logo an INVERTED peace sign, similar to the Yggdrasil ‘tree of life’ rune used by right-wing extremists?
The above image is a shot from the Kony 2012 film – it is shown for less than a second…
Too many oddities and unanswered questions for me. Not solid evidence I know but I do not trust the people behind this, there is definitely a hidden agenda of some sort.
It’s the weird manipulative cultish overtones and glossy american christian-ness that sent my own alarm bells ringing – but yeah, don’t take this at face value anyway, do some background reading and make up your own mind.
Just a heads-up.
Why Socialism II: Socialism within Capitalism?
Is it possible?
Find out in the latest instalment of Jim Schofield’s new series about Socialism on SHAPE
Why Socialism I: Primitive Accumulation
This is the first part of a new series on Socialism to be published collaboratively with Shape Journal
Primitive Accumulation:
How Investors First Got Their Capital
At such a time as this, when Capitalism is being exposed for what it really is – it becomes increasingly important to recall just how it came to be – how our “entrepreneurs” accrued the wherewithall “to invest” and “support” money-making ventures of all sorts.
In other words, what forms of Primitive Accumulation produced the necessary Capital to fund a growing Capitalism?
Of course, it wasn’t anything like how it is portrayed today.
It was only possible via an accelerating concentration of available social wealth into much fewer hands, and this was first achieved by the regular application of bullying, violence and even war.
Causes
What were the motive forces behind these regrettably emergent systems?
One could easily say that it was simply down to the push for profits. Though this is certainly true, it doesn’t tell us much about what was done to achieve it. A profit motive has been around for a long time, yet these phenomena (at least as the prevailing dominant form) are quite recent.
What is it, therefore, that has brought about this significant change in mode?
The two most obvious starting points are globalism and technology.
Historical Constraints – Transport
After the start of the Industrial Revolution, which emerged wholly in the richer western countries like Great Britain, the work in manufacture had to be carried out at, or closely adjacent to, where the raw materials could be easily obtained.
Why? Because transport was the limiting factor – the price of a sack of coal could be doubled in moving it just a few miles! Also, the market had also to be within easy reach of the places of manufacture, and for the same reasons!
Such constraints were so dominant for thousands of years, that the vast majority of commodities that were traded over long distances had to be both small, and extremely valuable to make the process at all profitable.
Even with the post-industrial revolution development of empires, and the consequent procurement of both more distant sources of materials, AND new, expanding markets, the factor of transport still strangled the growth of trade to a major degree.
Historical Constraints – Primitive Accumulation
NOTE: It has always fascinated me that the most important factor in getting such processes off the ground, was the necessity for the centralisation, and concentration of wealth, and in particular the major role of direct theft in this process.
It did not surprise me that the result of the fall of the economies of Eastern Europe led to the emergence of gangster groups such as the Russian Mafia, and the direct stealing of state-owned resources to put into the hands of private individuals to re-establish capitalism.
Such methods of primitive accumulation were indeed the only ones open to the local, and potentially national ruling class. Otherwise such a re-establishment would have had to be funded externally, probably by the USA.
The same thing, of course was universal at the beginning of the modern era. Everybody has heard of the “enclosures”, where rich landowners simply stole the “common” land from the peasants, put a fence around it and used it for producing sheep and wool. Also similar sources were used to initially fund pirates and “privateers” to steal enough from the Spaniards (who themselves stole their gold from the civilisations of South and Central America), to allow new “capitalist” undertakings to be initiated.
Does it surprise you what the Zionists do to obtain Palestinian land in the Middle East?
It is essentially the same process – but given a more “legal” look by the fact that the forces of the state of Israel make these processes happen, and even buying up some such properties well below market value, much easier. Earthmovers, Tanks, Tractors and guns can easily change the rules of the game can’t they?
The biggest contradiction in the early years of the industrial revolution was the concentration of wealth at the same time as the reduction in the standards of life of the “required” local working class.
NOTE: Let me make an important point about the myths of rural deprivation that are usually put forward in this context. It is suggested that the concentration of rural peasants into an urban working class “rescued” them from acute deprivation in the countryside. The response must be, “NO!” But, in saying that it does not mean that there wasn’t any rural deprivation, indeed there was.
But it was NOT a feature of rural life. It was a feature also of nascent capitalism, in its first real theatre of operations – agriculture. The process started with the “enclosures” – the stealing of the common land, and the impoverishment of the rural peasants, who were then forced to work for the “thieves” who had stolen their livelihood – the rural aristocracy. The great impoverishment and degradation of the rural work force preceded the main rampant growth of urban industrialisation, but was generated by the same source of primitive accumulation – the wealthy landowners. AND these complementary processes overlapped to some extent.
At one particular period it was to the owners’ advantage to drive the peasants from the countryside, and drive them into the cities as factory fodder. They were an important source of extra wealth at both stages of the primitive accumulation of capital.
It is not for nothing that the “dark, satanic mills” and degradation were contrasted by privileged dreamers, with the idyllic lives of those in the pre-industrial societies such as South Sea Islanders.
Globalisation
Of course, to talk about globalisation as being entirely new is also incorrect.
The need to find raw materials, at low prices, and new markets for the ever-increasing supply of goods, drove the expansion of the capitalist system from its outset, and dramatically changed the world. But transport developments and technological innovations accelerated the pace and content of these changes, and led ultimately to the export of the manufacturing process itself, AND the import of food and products in an altogether new scale. Quantity changes led to changes in quality, and NEW upheavals became regular, and indeed, almost continuous.
I well remember the “reason” for shutting many viable coal mines in the UK, was given as the impossibility of competing with cheap imports from abroad (e.g. Poland), whereas, only a few years later, the very same Polish mines are being shut with the same kind of excuse.
NOTE: The Polish experience is somewhat different, as the nationalised industries had somehow to be got into private hands for a song (primitive accumulation) in order to re-establish capitalism in Poland.
Transport has radically changed many aspects of the sources of perishables such as food. Coupled with refrigeration and wide-bodied jets, it is possible to import certain food stuffs CHEAPER than getting them locally. In addition climates more conducive to mass production in agriculture, plus powerful and large machinery (impossible to use in many traditional contexts), and sophisticated bulk transport systems, have brought prices down.
Small scale personal-use production in many developing countries, has been largely (and sometimes forcibly) replaced by large scale production of single crops (sugar, cotton, cocoa etc.) at very low prices and exclusively for export. This process has moved so far that such subsistence farming has almost vanished, and the population (when they don’t get jobs on the plantations as workers) find that they cannot feed themselves and have to rely on bought-in produce, when they can afford it, and foreign aid, when they cannot, or most likely of all, move into the fast growing cities to increase their chances on all these fronts.
Finally, the constant march of technology (particularly information technology) has led to automated, computer controlled manufacture, such that, with the appropriate machinery, cheap labour can easily be trained to do what once was only possible by skilled workers (on a much higher wage) in the so-called advanced countries.
Even Help and Advice services are now incessantly exported to “cheap-labour” countries. Almost all the cold-call phone salesmen and help lines for many products are now abroad – first in Ireland, but latterly in India, and other ex-colonial countries where English is widely used.
The sort of advice that you can get from these sources is of a characteristic and very narrow type!
What the workers are “trained” to deal with is wholly determined by the frequency with which the set of questions is generally asked. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are even automated via the Internet so that they require no human interface at all, and even when you do get hold of an “advisor” on the phone, in Bombay or wherever, you will many times only get help on the very commonest problems – those encountered by the largest number of ill-informed callers
Specialist, detailed and unusual queries are often NOT addressed by these systems. Statistics is the base, and the excuse!
“80% of our callers get immediate help!”, we are told. Yes, help like, “Have you turned on?”, or “Have you checked the fuse”, plus a full set of similar and occasionally slightly more ambitious levels. Complex problems are attempted (sometimes), but only on phone lines that are extremely expensive (some would say prohibitively expensive!).
It is, as I said at the beginning of this section, determined by profit, but the situation has substantially changed, and the employers have been extensively empowered in the last few decades.
There was a time when my stepfather could legitimately hold his employer to ransom with his irreplaceable skills, and demand good wages for the work of his “gang” (he worked in a major foundry in Manchester). They would regularly sack him, then re-employ him, on his own terms, when they couldn’t do what he could do. But, those days are gone!
The skills are replaced by technology, both in methods, control and materials, and the availability of, and access to, adequate (and cheap) labour forces across the world, means that bargaining power by workers with something significant to sell has been well nigh extinguished, if only organised locally.
Primitive Accumulation:
The Chicken-and-the-Egg
Capitalism is sometimes hard for people to grasp, because it has an inherent contradiction at its very heart. As distinct from prior economic systems, where individuals, small groups or even states gathered sufficient funds to finance various types of scheme, the new feature of Capitalism was to draw in initial funding from a much wider area of subscribers on the basis of regular, and where possible, lucrative returns.
When economic activity was essentially local, such centralisation of funding was not necessary due to the smallness of the potential market, but the extending reach of markets elicited larger scale production, and such undertakings required substantial capital investment to initiate the process.
Early on (really in a pre-capitalist era) investments were in daring trading voyages to exotic sources of luxury goods, but as the wherewithall for wider scale production and distribution became available, the classic capitalist form of investment in manufacture gradually emerged.
By the time of the industrial revolution the requirements for manufacture grew at an alarming pace. Buildings, tools, machinery, raw materials and labour were all necessary, in a particular place at a particular time. And all these things must be in place prior to a final acquisition of payment for the resultant goods. Without mechanisms to concentrate the required Capital to finance such undertakings, it became the famous impossible case of “pulling you up by your own bootlaces”. A classic chicken-and-egg situation!
It is therefore not surprising that pre–capital seats of accumulated wealth were the first ports of call for acquiring financial backing.
Feudal Focuses
The landowning aristocracy and royalty were initially often the only suppliers of capital, via their established means of wealth accumulation – via rents or taxes!
But this was a very limited source, and could only finance a tiny fraction of the possible set of profitable enterprises. It is not surprising that the supporters of the new, capitalist way of gathering the required funds should in their day have been quite revolutionary.
They considered the old feudal system to be the major brake on the development of enterprise, and were an important part of the forces that coalesced into the English Revolution in the 17th century, which not only overthrew the old system, but also separated the King’s head from his body!
New Methods of Accumulation?
Another source of funding was certainly required.
It was clear what it should be. It required sufficient investment to initiate the process, and then the return on such investments, to re-invest into the next stage. Successive and widening iterations of this process would multiply up the funds available, and vastly increase the amount of enterprise and production. But, it wasn’t simply an alternative mode of economy that people with money to invest could simply choose to use.
The old economic system directly intervened to prohibit such an independent process. The old powers of royalty and aristocracy had a stranglehold on trade (and, of course, on the accumulation of wealth). And such a small number of privileged sources, or well-connected entrepreneurs were always going to be insufficient. “
If we don’t do it, someone else, perhaps in another country, will!” (.. and presumably “We, will have missed the opportunity!”). To significantly increase the amount of capital available AND the number of people with sufficient disposable resources to “risk” on a much wider range of enterprises – new methods were clearly necessary. In addition to breaking the stranglehold of the old aristocracy on wealth, other independent methods of “primitive accumulation” had to be developed.
The most important such method was what it had always been for millennia – THEFT!
Killing people and stealing their wealth was a very efficient method of primitive accumulation. From mounted hordes of nomads out of the steppes, to Viking raiders and Elizabethan privateers, the really effective method had always been “robbery with violence”. Most of the early historical regimes in the Middle East were the result of warlike conquering of the productive farmers and civilisations of the so-called Fertile Crescent. Hittites, Assyrians, Persians and the rest were all successful accumulators, but they knew nothing of using their ill-gotten gains as a primer for further acquisitions and enterprises. It was, on the contrary, simply a matter of dividing the spoils.
The result of their accumulation was simply consumption.
It always amazes me how the uses that these people put their wealth to are universally commended as “civilisation”. The “consumption” of these resources in the building of palaces, country residences, and even “Hanging Gardens” etc., could only move forward if the robbery was ongoing.
So the building of empires was necessary to continue the process. Once this was no longer possible, some form of collapse was inevitable.
In the more modern era we are considering, the primitive accumulation was used in a different way.
Of course, we cannot leave Primitive Accumulation without including what was probably the most important contribution over a considerable period – the crucial and highly lucrative role of Slavery in the process. It too is a form of robbery with violence, but of people who were then sold and put to work (without pay), to ensure a substantial return upon their cost when bought.
And these slaves even reproduced to deliver an ever-growing slave population at absolutely zero extra cost. And, to complete the picture, the real giants of the rise of Capitalism were substantially funded by the accumulation provided by the Slave Trade, for these slaves, in the main, produced highly saleable products.
The triangular Route from Britain to West Africa (for slaves), then crossing the Atlantic to the West Indies and America (to sell their living assets) and also to pick up valuable cotton and sugar, to take back and sell in Britain. And this was a major generating engine for colossal wealth, and available for investments in the burgeoning Industrial Revolution back home in Europe.
Theft – for investment
A good and revealing story to consider is the use of identical mechanisms by organised crime in the USA. Once more we have “robbery with violence” as a means of primitive accumulation, but then the crime bosses realised that a great multiplication of wealth would be involved if these resources were not simply consumed, but used to accumulate at an ever increasing rate. So they invested in legitimate enterprises.
Crime gave them the necessary wherewithall to buy into Capitalism.
Now, such a consideration of the effects of Primitive Accumulation on the growth of Capitalism, cannot be sufficient, when addressing the situation as we are experiencing it today. For, there are now no longer any such “easy” means of pump-priming this system, that ever needs such injections, never actually reaching a self-sustaining level, as its incentive is always to increase profit. And, the impossibility of such an objective shows itself at regular intervals, as the system runs out of steam and suffers unavoidable recessions. The modern methods have always involved the extraction of surplus value (profit) from the actual producers of the traded wealth – the workers in the factories and in the fields, but the unavoidable contradiction between necessary repression and the need for ever bigger markets, not to mention the ever deceasing rate-of-profit, has meant that NO permanent solution within Capitalism will ever be possible. It consumes its own resources, and hence must continually lay waste to a greater proportion of the planet, until the final, fatal slump occurs.
Jim Schofield
Generation OS13
For a new era, generation OS13, the repression will not be tolerated; do the government really think they can win that war if the young people are like fuck this, you cant beat that you, can’t beat us, it’s Impossible – Saul Williams
Slightly flawed but welcome documentary from someone ‘Anonymous’
Give it a watch, keep your eyes open <o>
Black March is coming…
I’m a musician and DJ, I help to run a record label and have been involved in running live music events, promoting independent music and writing about it online for many years – I love music and the people that make it, but I don’t have much love for the music ‘industry’. Like most big business entertainment, the music biz leeches off the hard working and the talented, makes huge profits and routinely fucks over both the artist and the consumer.
Have a look at this link if you are still in any doubt about who this parasitic behemoth really benefits. It aint the musician.
These are the people that are lobbying governments worldwide to monitor online content, censor and remove websites they don’t like, and they support the introduction of draconian litigation such as the now infamous SOPA, PIPA and PCIPA bills, to defend their industry.
While I completely support the musician’s right to earn a living from their craft, clamping down on internet freedom is not the way to defend it. A free internet is vital for a free world. If governments and corporations have increased powers over internet content that freedom is threatened. The web is the most powerful tool we have for self-expression, inducing social change and for the dissemination of great art and music. We cannot allow these people to take that away from us.
This is why I support the Black March campaign.
From the 1st of March 2012 to the 31st, we ask you not to buy any music, DVDs, computer games or books – don’t even torrent a song! Wait till the 1st of April and buy it then. No one will actually lose any money, but the visible dent in their profit margins for the first quarter will send a powerful message to the corporations and organisations that wish to push these online censorship measures. We can stop this going through. Wikipedia and others going dark last month, and the attacks by Anonymous have already made policy makers hesitate. If music consumers join the fray, they will have another powerful enemy. Vote with your wallet and support Black March – boycott the music industry next month.
Some of my friends have expressed concerns that this campaign will somehow hurt small labels and record stores, who of course have nothing to do with lobbying for increased control of internet content. My answer to this dilemma is very straightforward. Buy the music you would have bought in March now. And spend more again in April. Of course you should support the small businesses and record labels you respect. This isn’t about them. This about sending a message to the industry as a whole, the big distributors, the fat cats and to governments around the world. We will not tolerate internet censorship in any form.
If you care about online freedom, please get involved in this campaign. If you wish to see a fairer music industry, buy music directly from the artists and from small record shops. Fuck Universal. Fuck Disney. Fuck News Corporation. Fuck Sony Music Entertainment. Support freedom and creativity.
Sorry for the rant peeps! If you’ve read this far I salute you. Peace out.
Reflections on another Black Mirror
The second installment of Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror leads us to another implausibly grim vision of the future, but the main difference between The National Anthem and 15 Million Credits, is that the latter is actually rather good.
Co-written by Kanak ‘Konnie’ Huq (of Blue Peter fame) and directed by Euros Lyn (Doctor Who), this modern fable is a surprisingly entertaining glimpse at a possible future dystopia. We can only guess that what unfolds is society’s answer to the impending energy crisis, as people are put to work on millions of exercise bikes to fuel a hi-tech, computerised existence, obsessed with mindless entertainment and online living – distractions from their slavery.
The plot is much more emotive and engaging than the first episode, with characters you actually care about and everything – and it does what all great satire should do, which is to push the current way of things to the extreme, in order to reveal some hidden truths about their nature.
It’s also really heartening to see some proper Science Fiction back on the television. The best Sci-Fi uses the future to tell us about the present, and 15 Million Credits does this better than most. Its exploration of the cruelty innate within Reality TV shows like The X Factor is undertaken by pushing them further in that direction. Its subversion of the idea that social networks somehow bring us closer together, its parody of throwaway digital culture, web advertising and online pornography and its use of a Microsoft Points-style credit system in place of a currency – all have deep sociological and psychological resonances with the new ways we have begun to live our lives through technology.
Black Mirror’s dark future is like our own world with the volume turned up, and what is reflected back is not a pretty picture. Most worrying of all is how the technology is used to placate us, used to make the population do the bidding of the powers-that-be, by removing people’s freedom of choice and disempowering them, while making them believe they are actually getting exactly what they want. In full high definition. Just keep peddling and saving up those credits and all your dreams will come true, citizen. It’s the same lie we’ve always been told, and the black mirror of the ubiquitous LCD screen reflects both that, and a ghostly wan imitation of our vitamin D-deprived faces. Now plug in, shut up and resume viewing.
This is a very clever caricature of our increasingly digital world, the full consequences of which, we are still oblivious to. Let’s just hope Brooker and Huq’s vision of a malevolent force behind the network is just another dark fantasy and not a true sign of things to come.
Can’t wait for next one now…
Watch On 4OD
The Trap
If you have not yet seen Adam Curtis’s 2007 documentary series The Trap now is your chance. All three episodes are included in full, below.
Here Curtis explores what we mean when we talk about Freedom, the ideas of negative and positive liberty, and the strange dichotomy between coercion and it’s apparent opposite.
It’s really interesting stuff whatever political side of the fence you prefer. The concept of freedom lies at the heart of many political ideologies, from the Neoconservatives and the Bush Administration to Anarcho-Communists to New Labour – what differs is how freedom is conceptualised and administered, who that freedom really benefits and what it is actually liberating us from…
The Facebook Illusion
A few months ago, I made the decision to leave the popular social networking site. I gave no explanation, or warning to my facebook ‘friends’, I just deleted my profile. It was quite a spontaneous decision, but left me with an immediate feeling of relief. Since then, I have contemplated about why I made that snap choice, and why I have a continuing feeling it was a very wise decision. This has led me to thinking about the very concept of facebook, the purpose intended by its designers and its global domination. It has brought me to consider the personal, social, and psychological effects it was having on me, my friends and the world at large. The more deeply I unravel its framework and the social processes it has unleashed; the more unnerved I find myself. The more I see people glued to their screens for a facebook fix; the more concern I have for people’s mental health and general social evolution.
Yes, yes… here harps on the technophobe hippy, full of conspiracy and with a failure to see how facebook is really connecting people. Actually no; I was as hooked to the website as everyone else for many years. I used it to keep in touch with old friends, promote music and community events, encourage political debate and thought, share photos of fun memories with friends. What I failed to see is the illusion facebook creates, and the damage it was doing to my own mind and my relationships with others, until a few online events and arguments caused me to open my eyes.
I could probably write a book on facebook, but sadly I do not have the time, or patience, so instead I will give a few snippets of what revelations caused me to be so against the website, and provide food for thought with a few links.
It seems pretty obvious to me how a tool such as facebook has warped the reality of social reaction. Your facebook profile is not you. It’s a representation of certain parts of your character and that includes what you write on facebook in statuses or to others. They are not things you’d just drop into conversation, they are snippets of your life and thoughts that you think are going to provoke a reaction from others in the facebook unreality. The very nature of facebook determines how you express your thoughts and ideas; you consider not just how you come across to others before you type, but how you come across to the unreal facebook community at large (the entirety of your friends). These are all very different people; who on a face to face basis you would talk to differently, depending on who it was and who was around. You cannot alter your language and communication to personally speak to 300 friends. In reality, you would be very unlikely to speak to that many people at once – so a strange facebook personality begins to emerge, perhaps without you even realising, and this virtual facebook you, does not react or communicate in the same way as the real you.
I find this pretty unnatural and also it has an effect on how we perceive others in reality based on the facebook unreality. For example, the idea of the facebook wall. We communicate to one another in personal messages and yet these are public to all the friends we mutually share. This includes people we both don’t know that well in reality, maybe we met them once at another mutual friend’s house, or they work in the next office, or they frequent the same club night. This is material that would not in reality be public knowledge and allows others to form opinions or prejudices based on this interaction. It is so easy for such information to be misinterpreted, especially as this is just disembodied text. These words never left your mouth, yet hundreds of people will be judging you on an interaction that wasn’t even intended for them. Or was it, the very fact that you know that this interaction is public will consciously or subconsciously affect the very nature of the way you speak to your friends through facebook. The special connections we share with our real friends are lost in translation with the very fact that it is all so public. This leads to feeling of social isolation, as special bond with friends seem less significant when they are public property. We can make sure our responses to people are witty and quirky, we could spend an hour getting funny quotes off the internet to make ourselves look more interesting; but that’s not the real you, is it?
This facebook unreality has slowly been taking over from real interaction with friends – there is less need to make the effort to see friends when you can chat online. It is all made too easy and this exacerbates social laziness, also as social interaction is always a click of a button away, it prevents us from spending as much quality time alone; thinking, creating, reading or whatever else. Time alone is important for reflection and learning and social networking discourages this activity. Why use your brain when you can spend some time blankly looking at your news feed and feeling closer to people who are physically further away. Or in the next room in some cases!
Facebook encourages prejudice. We judge others on their profile, their ‘likes’ and unreal facebook interactions instead of how they come across in reality, because we have much more contact with them through facebook, so of course it will colour our perceptions of people. Yet this is the unreality.
Facebook encourages narcissism, as each time we are logged in we come across the unreal projection of ourselves. We begin to see this projection as the reality. What our profile picture is becomes important and how this will make us come across to others. We start discussing trivial facts about our day because if it gets some ‘likes’ from your friends then it must be worth saying. But some people will ‘like’ anything. Because the very action of ‘liking’ something makes them feel connected as they have had some input in an unreal social interaction. It also makes us judge others for the stuff they post in status that is of no interest to ourselves. How dare they clog up my news feed with such trivia…. this in itself is another form of self-importance. We are essentially often projecting to others look at my beautiful holiday, look at my perfect loved up relationship, look how many friends I have and how often they post on my wall. I must let everyone else see how perfect my life is. I must prove to myself how perfect my life is by representing it in the best possible way on facebook. Deleting the unflattering photos. Being all slushy with your other half on their wall when in reality, you are both on facebook in the same room and not interacting properly with the person that is under your nose!
I’ll give you an analogy I thought of:
My screen tells me you had a sausage sandwich today and it was tasty. I think – god – so what? That’s well boring. That person is dull. Why do they need to tell everyone about a sandwich – they must really love themselves to think all their facebook friends need this useless information. However let’s transfer this interaction to reality. We meet for a coffee. It’s nice to see you – it’s been ages. We smile and hug. You tell me about your sausage sandwich. I say “right, fair play, cheers for that” (this info still isn’t fascinating) but I laugh in a joking way and you smile too at the lameness of your sandwich story. It actually turns out to be a funny moment. We share a little laugh and now the sandwich story is almost endearing rather than leaving me wondering why I am friends with you.
I am trying to highlight the differences between real interaction and facebook interaction – obviously not all sandwich stories would play out like this 🙂
Then of course the facebook addict. I have my theory on facebook addiction. I think it comes from a cycle of feeling alienated or isolated so therefore needing the constant flow of social interaction, this in turn makes you more isolated because you spend all your time alone on the computer, so look to facebook to allow it’s perceived social fix. There are also laziness cycles in place. It is so much easier to log into facebook and chat or spy or post than to put your efforts into things that require more patience, concentration or effort. Facebook decreases your attention span because it’s all there on a plate… and the more you do it, the less arsed you can be to put this time into things that require more effort. This could include creative outlets, or going and seeing friends in person. Why go out when you can chat in bed? Facebook also because of its unreal nature makes people more comfortable with this false interaction than real interaction. It makes people more fearful or ill at ease with real interaction.
It can be argued that facebook allows free flow of ideas to lots of people at the click of a button. But using politics as an example, don’t you ever feel like your preaching to the converted? The ‘likes’ are always from the same people and those that don’t agree will use the opportunity to troll, to argue, to vent how they are right and you are wrong. Is that really a positive force or does it just further cause social divides. People don’t listen on facebook. They rant, they show off, they express what media they like or dislike, but they certainly don’t listen in the same way you would to a person you are talking to in reality. You can argue, be mean, be pig-headed to a disembodied profile – it takes a lot less courage than arguing to someone’s face. And it is easier to forget compassion when all you have is some text and a cheesy profile picture of that person in front of you. That sense of ‘unreality’ again stopping your tact and preventing the usual censorship you would normally use to spare people’s feelings. You are almost ranting to yourself not the individual(s) in question.
Facebook is changing the way we interact as people. That’s certain. But why do the creators want to manipulate the way we interact; to control, to mediocritize and ultimately to create unthinking, unquestioning consumers. If you learn about the background behind facebook they will tell you themselves; facebook is used as an advertising tool and to sell and spread consumer information. Of course you’re being manipulated, even if you like to think it’s not affecting you; it will be, especially if you have this stuff in your face for several hours a day. John Smith likes Smarties and X Factor. Lucy Jones likes Pirates of the Caribbean and Primark. Every day. In your face. Personalised adverts.
You could convince yourself that as long as you still have lots of facebook interactions you have a relationship with those people. They might be just as bored and unfulfilled as you, and you happened to post something that caught their attention for a second so they commented. Does that equal a lifelong friendship? With real friendships you don’t need facebook. Remember phones, and going to see people, even email? Leaving facebook will only destroy your social life if it was all an unreality in the first place. And I don’t know about you but I’d rather know who my real friends are and be free from a fake social circle that leaves me feeling paranoid about true intentions and allows me to be manipulated by the Facebook Corporation and their business contacts.
Technology can be shared in person. Get off your arse and watch those funny videos at your friend’s house. You’ll enjoy it more. I’m not preaching here, and if people want to continue using ‘the book’ that’s their choice. But from what I’ve seen facebook users aren’t any happier or more life enriched. I care about people; and long for a society with improved links and bonds between people. Social gatherings, community groups, artistic workshops and real life social interactions a plenty. I miss those archaic, outdated times of yore before facebook. I certainly feel like I did more in those days. Or maybe I’m just living in the past?
Some links (some questionable – but I read them.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017ywty/Mark_Zuckerberg_Inside_Facebook/
http://rield.com/faq/why-is-facebook-bad
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-05-03/tech/29974530_1_zuckerberg-open-graph-facebook-s-ceo
http://socialmediacollective.org/2011/11/28/in-defense-of-friction/
http://www.doncrowther.com/facebook/is-facebook-ruining-your-life
http://www.thecrowned.org/how-facebook-is-killing-real-relationships
Team Red Eye in the in order in which they joined...
-
The Red Eye Portal 