It seems to me that among all the "fundamentalisms" we suffer from, market fundamentalism may well be the most insidious and destructive - if only because it is too often not recognized and critiqued as one ... This is a great series and i hope to read others ...
Amazing article. You hit on so many relevant points which reflect both the situation around the world today and my own research. Yes, I agree that this construct was assembled in the Bronze Age, and yes metalworking played a huge role in that. But the hierarchies were already there in our minds, where we still can't get them out. Societies began to be organized hierarchically during this period: God-King/Elites/merchants and soldiers/the poor and wrestling fans/ slaves. It was also during this period that PHYSICAL hierarchies sprouted up in the form of ziggurats, which in turn mirrored the volcanoes which gave these ancient peoples the fire it needed to smelt metals AND grow the crops it needed to feed an exploding population their fertile soil. It's high time for decentralization! Well done!
What do you think of Kirkpatrick Sale's "Human Scale" and "Rebels Against the Future", the latter referring to the Luddites' revolt, quite literally, against the "machines" of their day.
Frankly I think the "Digital Revolution" is proving to be as disastrous as the "Industrial Revolution" - and requires as much, or more, energy to produce less and less of anything of real worth ... I confess to having an analogue brain, in my world there is an infinity of numbers between 1 and 0 ....
If you carefully read the article you will see there is public policy action. What this is saying is no one size fits all master plan for all nations and cultures.
True. However, the social and political world do not actually divide down the middle, as either private or public. There is another space in which legitimate politics can--and should--also take place. I explain this here: On Commoning: https://rword.substack.com/p/on-commoning
Your "no one size fits all" slogan has been to dismiss planning and a larger vision. It is a Neoliberal corporate construct, along the lines of "command and control" and "bureaucratic red tape" used to dismiss regulation. The faux liberation left parrots the same slogans and attacks a "reductive" and "totalizing" oppression of the State. Corporate America loves it.
Again, a careful reading of my piece would show you are projecting views onto it that are not there. Scheidler does not call for elimination of the state. “ . . . decentralized structures must be built from the bottom up, and centralized state structures must be transformed to permit more democracy.” It is not a critique of regulation or planning, but a call for democratization of public agencies. He certainly endorses public provision of vital needs such as water and housing, as is reflected in the piece.
In addition, the council models he cites developed and are developing a bottom-up form of democratic planning by cooperation, as do the economic cooperative models he calls out. The "Revolution Without a Master Plan" is about bottom-up initiatives that can coalesce into something greater. I perhaps should have added his qualifier to my review. ". . . this pluralism can also turn out to be a fatal weakness if it does not connect the various struggles at strategically critical points and occupy political spaces where systematic breaks appear." Coordination is required.
What he critiques are grand designs imposed in a top-down fashion that, each in their own way, root in the "one valid truth" of the western mission tradition. In fact, the neoliberalism you cite is the latest version, an imposition of "free market" ideas around the world, a "one size fits all" destructive of nations and cultures, imposed by the IMF, World Bank, WTO and other institutions of western hegemony.
It should be noted that the figure from whom Scheidler drew the term, Megamachine, Lewis Mumford, was an advocate for planning, notably at the regional scale. I did a series on Mumford's thinking. His thoughts on regional planning are most focused here - https://theraven.substack.com/p/utopia-as-a-yardstick-for-the-present. The series begins here -https://theraven.substack.com/p/in-a-time-of-breakdown-return-to. The issue is not whether to plan, but who does it, and at what scale. I tend toward regionalist and decentralist approaches because these are more likely to reflect democratic will.
I've read a lot of Mumford, and he was an early intellectual hero. I studied regional planning in Graduate School. I spent a 40 year career in government, ENGO's, and activism, and am well versed in all these arguments, in theory and practice. I still sometimes have fun with him, .see:
But I have a keen sense for loaded language, and you tripped my meter again with this phrase, which is another rhetorical bludgeon of the corporate libertarians and voluntary localist/anarchists:
You have, I think, stated the problem, being triggered by language without looking at the context in which it is stated. Scheidler's critique is of universalism that imposes its grand designs by force. He sees its deepest roots in the ideological justification for hierarchical rule in the emergence of a dominant god evidenced in the Bronze Age, and transmitted to us through the apocalyptic universalism of Christianity. I cover this in the first part of the series.https://theraven.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-megamachine
Yea, guess I'm always "triggered" (I hate that fucking word too!). Too ironic, in that my point is based purely on the "context" that the language implicates.
BTW, It was shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculture and subsequent production of surplus that "triggered" our current hierarchical, military/police, and capitalist nightmare, not bronze.
My notions of "universalism" do not include "force" (mutually agreed upon coercion is not force). That's another myth used to discredit "universalist" thinking (aka as "totalizing" or "reductionist").
"This won't happen via voluntary individual cooperation and individual consciousness raising."
Insofar as "individual" means isolated self-atoms working independently without cooperating, collaborating and coordinating together, this is true. But all cooperation, collaboration and coordinating (governance) need not happen within a state system, or "government". This is the chief political insight which guides my writings in The R-Word. The state, in other words, is not all of governance, but is merely a subset of the set. And the state has evolved together with centripetal (not centrifugal) systems of power. That is, power is organized within a state system on the basis of hierarchy.
Voluntary engagement need not be motivated by fear. It can be motivated by love and voluntary association around an ethos of loving-kindness.
With sea level rise, there is a probable collapse of civilization coming. When it is rebuilt privately held corporations must be prohibited. The liability shield of private corporations attracts and nurtures pathological narcissists that have no empathy. Almost all the evils of the modern world have been perpetrated by private corporations. Even the American Revolution was precipitated by private corporations, mainly The British East India Company and the Bank of England. The Boston Tea Party was because B. E, I. Company with shares held by members of Parliament received favorable tax laws. The Currency Acts favored the Bank of England and caused unemployment and poverty. Here again major share holders were in Parliament. George Washington, already rich, was a share holder in the Bank of England.
Thanks for the wonderful and insightful summary, Patrick. Now I'll have to finish reading the book! But I'll begin at the beginning again, as is just after such long neglect.
It seems to me that among all the "fundamentalisms" we suffer from, market fundamentalism may well be the most insidious and destructive - if only because it is too often not recognized and critiqued as one ... This is a great series and i hope to read others ...
Amazing article. You hit on so many relevant points which reflect both the situation around the world today and my own research. Yes, I agree that this construct was assembled in the Bronze Age, and yes metalworking played a huge role in that. But the hierarchies were already there in our minds, where we still can't get them out. Societies began to be organized hierarchically during this period: God-King/Elites/merchants and soldiers/the poor and wrestling fans/ slaves. It was also during this period that PHYSICAL hierarchies sprouted up in the form of ziggurats, which in turn mirrored the volcanoes which gave these ancient peoples the fire it needed to smelt metals AND grow the crops it needed to feed an exploding population their fertile soil. It's high time for decentralization! Well done!
What do you think of Kirkpatrick Sale's "Human Scale" and "Rebels Against the Future", the latter referring to the Luddites' revolt, quite literally, against the "machines" of their day.
Frankly I think the "Digital Revolution" is proving to be as disastrous as the "Industrial Revolution" - and requires as much, or more, energy to produce less and less of anything of real worth ... I confess to having an analogue brain, in my world there is an infinity of numbers between 1 and 0 ....
We need a "Master Plan" derided here.
We need the "State" to implement it. There is no escape from coercion (mutually agreed upon).
This won't happen via voluntary individual cooperation and individual consciousness raising.
If you carefully read the article you will see there is public policy action. What this is saying is no one size fits all master plan for all nations and cultures.
True. However, the social and political world do not actually divide down the middle, as either private or public. There is another space in which legitimate politics can--and should--also take place. I explain this here: On Commoning: https://rword.substack.com/p/on-commoning
Your "no one size fits all" slogan has been to dismiss planning and a larger vision. It is a Neoliberal corporate construct, along the lines of "command and control" and "bureaucratic red tape" used to dismiss regulation. The faux liberation left parrots the same slogans and attacks a "reductive" and "totalizing" oppression of the State. Corporate America loves it.
Again, a careful reading of my piece would show you are projecting views onto it that are not there. Scheidler does not call for elimination of the state. “ . . . decentralized structures must be built from the bottom up, and centralized state structures must be transformed to permit more democracy.” It is not a critique of regulation or planning, but a call for democratization of public agencies. He certainly endorses public provision of vital needs such as water and housing, as is reflected in the piece.
In addition, the council models he cites developed and are developing a bottom-up form of democratic planning by cooperation, as do the economic cooperative models he calls out. The "Revolution Without a Master Plan" is about bottom-up initiatives that can coalesce into something greater. I perhaps should have added his qualifier to my review. ". . . this pluralism can also turn out to be a fatal weakness if it does not connect the various struggles at strategically critical points and occupy political spaces where systematic breaks appear." Coordination is required.
What he critiques are grand designs imposed in a top-down fashion that, each in their own way, root in the "one valid truth" of the western mission tradition. In fact, the neoliberalism you cite is the latest version, an imposition of "free market" ideas around the world, a "one size fits all" destructive of nations and cultures, imposed by the IMF, World Bank, WTO and other institutions of western hegemony.
It should be noted that the figure from whom Scheidler drew the term, Megamachine, Lewis Mumford, was an advocate for planning, notably at the regional scale. I did a series on Mumford's thinking. His thoughts on regional planning are most focused here - https://theraven.substack.com/p/utopia-as-a-yardstick-for-the-present. The series begins here -https://theraven.substack.com/p/in-a-time-of-breakdown-return-to. The issue is not whether to plan, but who does it, and at what scale. I tend toward regionalist and decentralist approaches because these are more likely to reflect democratic will.
Is "subsidiarity" perhaps a description of what you advocate?
A good description. Yes. Take decisions down to the lowest level possible.
I've read a lot of Mumford, and he was an early intellectual hero. I studied regional planning in Graduate School. I spent a 40 year career in government, ENGO's, and activism, and am well versed in all these arguments, in theory and practice. I still sometimes have fun with him, .see:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2012/10/mcharg-and-mumford-are-rolling-over-in-their-graves/
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2014/06/progress/
But I have a keen sense for loaded language, and you tripped my meter again with this phrase, which is another rhetorical bludgeon of the corporate libertarians and voluntary localist/anarchists:
"grand designs imposed in a top-down fashion"
What's next, "command and control"?
You have, I think, stated the problem, being triggered by language without looking at the context in which it is stated. Scheidler's critique is of universalism that imposes its grand designs by force. He sees its deepest roots in the ideological justification for hierarchical rule in the emergence of a dominant god evidenced in the Bronze Age, and transmitted to us through the apocalyptic universalism of Christianity. I cover this in the first part of the series.https://theraven.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-megamachine
Yea, guess I'm always "triggered" (I hate that fucking word too!). Too ironic, in that my point is based purely on the "context" that the language implicates.
BTW, It was shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculture and subsequent production of surplus that "triggered" our current hierarchical, military/police, and capitalist nightmare, not bronze.
My notions of "universalism" do not include "force" (mutually agreed upon coercion is not force). That's another myth used to discredit "universalist" thinking (aka as "totalizing" or "reductionist").
I've read your prior posts.
"This won't happen via voluntary individual cooperation and individual consciousness raising."
Insofar as "individual" means isolated self-atoms working independently without cooperating, collaborating and coordinating together, this is true. But all cooperation, collaboration and coordinating (governance) need not happen within a state system, or "government". This is the chief political insight which guides my writings in The R-Word. The state, in other words, is not all of governance, but is merely a subset of the set. And the state has evolved together with centripetal (not centrifugal) systems of power. That is, power is organized within a state system on the basis of hierarchy.
Voluntary engagement need not be motivated by fear. It can be motivated by love and voluntary association around an ethos of loving-kindness.
With sea level rise, there is a probable collapse of civilization coming. When it is rebuilt privately held corporations must be prohibited. The liability shield of private corporations attracts and nurtures pathological narcissists that have no empathy. Almost all the evils of the modern world have been perpetrated by private corporations. Even the American Revolution was precipitated by private corporations, mainly The British East India Company and the Bank of England. The Boston Tea Party was because B. E, I. Company with shares held by members of Parliament received favorable tax laws. The Currency Acts favored the Bank of England and caused unemployment and poverty. Here again major share holders were in Parliament. George Washington, already rich, was a share holder in the Bank of England.
Thanks for the wonderful and insightful summary, Patrick. Now I'll have to finish reading the book! But I'll begin at the beginning again, as is just after such long neglect.