Burning Showboat

Who is an amateur located in history.

Digging In To The Operation Recovery Campaign at Ft Hood

I came to this base town to support service members’ right to heal. I wanted to meet service members where they’re at, and Ft. Hood is one of the best places to do it. Ft. Hood in Killeen is the largest US military installation in the country, with over 75,000 active duty service members; half of which are deployed at any given time. I arrived in the middle of July, the 1st Cavalry, 1st Brigade had started deploying to Iraq and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment was beginning to return from a year-long deployment.

To the city, right?

From New Geography:

California Wages War On Single-Family Homes

It seems as though California is showing some visionary leadership towards combating the hegemony of suburban sprawl. But I could be wrong. Either way, the author didn’t do a very good job of convincing me that California is evil and hates the “little man”!:

That’s not what Californians want: Some 71% of adults in the state cite a preference for single-family houses. Furthermore, the vast majority of growth over the past decade has taken place not in high-density urban centers but in lower-density peripheral areas such as Riverside-San Bernardino. Yet popular preferences mean little in a state where environmental zealotry increasingly dictates how people should live their lives.

He uses typically silly populist rhetoric in the article: the “little man” is being screwed by “the elites” (who are herein constituted by Wall Street bankers and hippies). All he ever wanted was to live in a single-family home, and now California’s trying to take it away from him with its “environmental zealotry” and complete disregard for his stated (and, at least according to the journalist, True) desires for, again, a single-family home!

As if popular preferences arise in vacuums …

… now, with emphasis on the “De-“

I went to Detroit last weekend, and the stories are true: the city felt to me altogether spectral (the looming specter of a post-capitalist future), its architectonic landscape presenting strange and exciting visual juxtapositions of the majestic and abject. The capitalization of this aesthetic, i.e. ruin porn or Detroitism, was critiqued by, among others, Wayne State’s John Patrick Leary over at Guernica: “Detroitism” (Jan 2011).

The contrapuntal offers of Detroit’s champions appear to be true*, as well: the local activists I met, including Grace Lee Boggs, really seem as though they are making “the next American Revolution.”

Social designers nationwide: hark now unto Motown, the city seems to exclaim, for herein lies the fertile soil upon which we can grow a revolution in society, an evolution in humankind.

Photo used w/o permission; taken from the incredible Can’t Forget the Motor City!, co. Romain Blanquart and Brian Widdis 2011.

The unsupplemented ruin porn approach sucks. It depoliticizes and aestheticizes the suffering of the people and land of Detroit, a city of palpable, almost sweaty historical materiality. Please let that city not stand for the “spooky emptiness” of late capitalist society or whatever. Please let it not become some visual metaphor for Death. Please let it not be overrun by you-know-whos more enthralled with seances and weed than re-humanizing a world devastated by capitalism.
 
I was in Detroit for the Allied Media Conference, which “cultivates strategies for a more just and creative world. We come together to share tools and tactics for transforming our communities through media-based organizing.” I was there on behalf of the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (new website to come) and the School for Designing a Society. The former is held in very high esteem at the AMC for our 2005 purchase-cum-capture of the historic downtown Urbana post office building in the name of independent media as well as our crucial role in a little project called Urbana-Champaign Big Broadband:

UC2B is an intergovernmental consortium of the University of Illinois and the cities of Urbana and Champaign dedicated to building and operating an open-access fiber-optic broadband network throughout the Champaign-Urbana area. The project is made possible by a $22.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The State of Illinois provided a $3.5 million grant and local matching funds added an additional $3.4 million to fund the project. 

This direct connectivity will enable improved access/support to health care, educational and recreational institutions, public safety and government agencies, and social service and religious organizations, as well as increased access to public computing centers. and a sustainable adoption and educational outreach program for vulnerable populations. Training, entertainment, and social networking opportunities will also be enhanced.

That’s right: $22.5 million.

 For further evidence of the UC-IMC’s public regard, check out Amy Goodman salivating over us on Democracy Now! April 8th, when she interviewed UC-IMC co-founder/rad media honcho Sascha Meinrath.

I had mixed feelings about the conference: while it was organized beautifully, featured wonderful people talking about cool projects, and was probably the most diverse space I’ve ever had the fortune to be in, there was also some seriously self-congratulory reformism floating around. Media reform is a popular Idea right now (it has its own conference), by which I am tickled due to my political analysis, according to which any institution central to the maintenance and perpetuation of hegemonic power must be incapable of meaningful change (reform or revolution) if it is to serve its purpose. Maybe the media reform folks think that lobbying is the leverage point to push us towards a new society. I certainly don’t think so. I mean, come on, people, you act as though you haven’t read “The Revolution Will Not Be Funded”!  

What we need is not media reform but a total media revolution, which is what the Indymedia folks were trying to start a decade ago.  Replace the humiliated lobbyists with armies of designers-in-resistance! You won’t give us net neutrality? How about we just design our own open-source networks?

Despite these concerns, and despite the fact that about 50% of the participants had really hip haircuts and were wearing TOMS, those seductive gargoyles of charity capitalism (cf. Zizek), on my way back from Detroit, I felt suddenly swept up, as by divine inspiration or revolutionary fervor. The conference was actually really effective at getting me to think about media strategies, to feel energized and like I’m part of a movement.

 But back to Detroit, the city: After a presentation on “How and Why We Work in Detroit,” which featured a short radio piece by radio producer Zak Rosen (who used to be involved with State of the Re:Union), a formulation presented itself to me: Detroit was the first Detroit.** This sentence seemed to flop down on me from the future, when lots of American cities will resemble Detroit in one way or another. Re: the term post-capitalist: we can choose whether this is a description of a desirable society or the dystopian representation of a total dependency on something long-deceased and unreachable: i.e. do we, as a society, want to become the Beatles —

or the Beales?  


 
I’m sorry, have I obscured the issue?

*I mean, by believing in them, I made them true. This is an important distinction for those of us concerned with re-making the world, for it isn’t enough to simply describe things as they are: you have to believe in a thing and identify yourself in it (the generation of political subjectivity). Or whatever.

 **”What about St. Louis?” Mark Enslin asked me — that hobgoblin.

     Further reading/looking:

Consider the case of neoliberalism. Rights cluster around two dominant logics of power: that of the territorial state and that of capital. However much we might wish rights to be universal, it is the state that has to enforce them. If political power is not willing, then notions of rights remain empty. Rights are, therefore, derivative of and conditional upon citizenship. The territoriality of jurisdiction then becomes an issue. This cuts both ways. Difficult questions arise because of stateless persons, illegal immigrants, and the like. Who is or is not a ‘citizen’ becomes a serious issue defining principles of inclusion and exclusion within the territorial specification of the state.

—David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 42-43 (via defiantlyours)

Why I Call Myself a Socialist: Is the World Really a Stage?” By Wallace Shawn

The following essay by playwright Wallace Shawn is simply breathtaking. A beautiful exposition of the revolutionary spirit. “The costumes are wrong. They have to be discarded. We have to start out naked again and go from there.”

In most reasonably large towns in the United States and Europe, you can find, on some important public square or street, a professional theater. And so, in various quiet neighborhoods in these towns, you can usually also find some rather quiet individuals, the actors who work regularly in that theater, individuals whose daily lives center around lawns and cars and cooking and shopping and occasionally the athletic events of children, but who surprisingly at night put on the robes of kings and wizards, witches and queens, and for their particular community temporarily embody the darkest needs and loftiest hopes of the human species.

The actor’s role in the community is quite unlike anyone else’s. Businessmen, for example, don’t take their clothes off or cry in front of strangers in the course of their work. Actors do.

Contrary to the popular misconception, the actor is not necessarily a specialist in imitating or portraying what he knows about other people. On the contrary, the actor may simply be a person who’s more willing than others to reveal some truths about himself. Interestingly, the actress who, in her own persona, may be gentle, shy, and socially awkward, someone whose hand trembles when pouring a cup of tea for a visiting friend, can convincingly portray an elegant, cruel aristocrat tossing off malicious epigrams in an eighteenth-century chocolate house.

On stage, her hand doesn’t shake when she pours the cup of chocolate, nor does she hesitate when passing along the vilest gossip about her closest friends. The actress’s next-door neighbors, who may not have had the chance to see her perform, might say that the person they know could never have been, under any circumstances, either elegant or cruel. But she knows the truth that in fact she could have been either or both, and when she plays her part, she’s simply showing the audience what she might have been, if she’d in fact been an aristocrat in a chocolate house in the eighteenth century.

We are not what we seem. We are more than what we seem. The actor knows that. And because the actor knows that hidden inside himself there’s a wizard and a king, he also knows that when he’s playing himself in his daily life, he’s playing a part, he’s performing, just as he’s performing when he plays a part on stage. He knows that when he’s on stage performing, he’s in a sense deceiving his friends in the audience less than he does in daily life, not more, because on stage he’s disclosing the parts of himself that in daily life he struggles to hide. He knows, in fact, that the role of himself is actually a rather small part, and that when he plays that part he must make an enormous effort to conceal the whole universe of possibilities that exists inside him.

Actors are treated as uncanny beings by non-actors because of the strange voyage into themselves that actors habitually make, traveling outside the small territory of traits that are seen by their daily acquaintances as “them.” Actors, in contrast, look at non-actors with a certain bewilderment, and secretly think: What an odd life those people lead! Doesn’t it get a bit — claustrophobic?

The Haircut Speaks

It’s commonly noted that we all come into the world naked. And at the beginning of each day, most of us find ourselves naked once again, in that strange suspended moment before we put on our clothes.

In various religions, priests put on their clothes quite solemnly, according to a ritual. Policemen, soldiers, janitors, and hotel maids get up in the morning, get dressed, go to work, go to their locker rooms, remove their clothes, and get dressed again in their respective uniforms. The actor goes to the theater, goes to his dressing room, and puts on his costume. And as he does so, he remembers the character he’s going to play — how the character feels, how the character speaks. The actor, in costume, looks in the mirror, and it all comes back to him.

When the actor steps onto the stage to begin the play, he wants to convince the audience that what they’re seeing is not a play, but reality itself. The costume that the actor wears, and the voice, the diction, the accent, the way of speaking that begin to return to the actor when he puts on the costume, are devices designed to set in motion a capacity possessed by every member of the audience, a special human capacity whose existence as part of our genetic makeup is what makes theater possible — that is, our capacity to believe what we want and need to believe about any person who is not ourself.

Because let’s be frank — other people are not me, and people who are not me will always in a way be alien to me, they will always in a way be strangers to me, and I will never know with any certainty what they’re like. So yes, it’s possible to believe a fantasy about them.

Now, I’ve never met my own genes or looked at them under a microscope, but nonetheless I feel I can make some guesses about what they’re like. One thing I feel I know is that I’m amazingly responsive to visual cues about other people, and I’m prepared to guess that this is characteristic of our entire species. And this is why people who can afford it spend enormous sums of money on haircuts and clothes. And this is why films, which deal in close-ups, put an enormous amount of attention on makeup and hair. And this is why actors in plays take their costumes very, very seriously.

Read More

Changing bread and water into tea and cakes: Mary Poppins and capitalism

“You see that’s precisely what I mean, changing bread and water into tea and cakes indeed. No wonder everything’s higgledy-piggledy here!” -George W. Banks on the magic of Mary Poppins/the 2008 financial crisis

Since I’m currently in the process of reading Capital, Vol. 1 for the first time, everywhere I look, I see reflections of Marx. Take Mary Poppins for example. No, please, take her — she’s enabling the capitalist class to redesign themselves in a more friendly, playful, less stodgy & patriarchal visage, while maintaining the underlying systems of power. Zizek explores this territory — “capitalism with a human face”, or capitalism that is willing to fly a kite — in this video:

Mary Poppins is an excellent consultant for George W. Banks (yes, that’s the character’s actual name) and his colleagues at the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank: while somewhat responsible for a minor financial crisis in the 4th act, her manipulation of the children towards charity and individual “kindness” (“Feed the Birds”) is an excellent diversion in case Jane & Michael Banks might start questioning why depositing tuppence in a bank account has anything to do with railways through Africa, and why foreclosures are desirable. The film has stuff on domination and the capitalist family, the antagonism between use-value and exchange-value, fin de siècle capitalism, British imperialism, the wisdom of chimney-sweeps, and so on:

There’s also great stuff in the film about controlling the oppressed (“If you don’t scold and / dominate us / We will never give you / Cause to hate us,” Jane sings in her advertisement for a “nanny” [state]), women’s suffrage, PTSD (Admiral Boom, this seemingly retired psychopath who sets off an actual cannon on his roof regularly, literally shaking the entire neighborhood - late in the film, Boom and his assistant-of-sorts start shooting at the soot-covered dancing chimney sweeps because he thinks they’re “Hottentots” — return of the repressed qua imperial Britain, anyone?).

The movie’s so rich! Also the songs are great. Also, Dick Van Dyke.

I’m Not Straight-Edge, But … / Or: What Is To Be Drunk?

STRAIGHT-EDGE: When the first bloom of social agitation appears in the adolescent body, the introduction of stupefying intoxicants renders this world-changing power impotent and misdirected.

YOUR RESPONSE: Although some of us may have flirted with the social engineering project known as straight-edge in our teens, we all know that this kind of idealistic thinking — that contemporary drug culture (from the prison-industrial complex to Cheech & Chong, from the murder of countless Latin Americans to getting a drink after work) cannot be interfaced with in any critical manner leading to the scary conclusion that our personal choices matter/have consequences, that they “add up” — is outre and ultimately totalitarian!

BAR OWNER et al: The more we can discredit the notion that alcohol consumption has significant social consequences, the more money we stand to make. Discredit the thoughtful alternative, i.e. that uncritical participation/perpetuation has consequences and should be alienated from its doxic connection to rites of passage or any emotional this-or-that (e.g. sad things happening, good things happening), and you have in your hands a potential universe of loyal customers.

Just say “het!”

There is a necessary distinction here, as opposed to rejecting the consumption of alcohol/drugs from the standpoint of morality, deterritorializing our alcohol/drug culture* it as part of ethical practice/interjecting asynchronicity in the discourse surrounding/supporting it towards increased thought and conversation about its function in society.

Liquor? I barely know her!

Liquor? I barely know her! 

Did you know that one of the central ideas making temperance part of early feminist movement was the association of drunkenness and domestic violence/rape? The association obviously remains relevant today.

*These formulations are trying to critique specific ways of thinking about drugs and alcohol, not, i.e., drinking in and of itself.

‘Capital’ Compositions

This summer, I’ve been in exploring a new romance with one Karl Marx, whom I met through organizing one of those trendy ‘Reading Marx’s Capital with David Harvey’ reading groups at my house.  

Over the past however-many weeks it’s been going on, participants in the reading group have created/curated some strange & wonderful compositions in response to the material, such as:

  • a love letter to money from a commodity underscored by ‘If I Were a Rich Man’ (co-written by my good friend Pathologically Defiant), 
  • a fraternal argument between money as means of circulation and money as measure of value (“Mom always said, ‘Why can’t you be more like your big brother?!’” Money as means of circulation reports),
  • this Tumblr post about Mary Poppins

The first time I hosted, I composed of didactic table drama from Pt. II of Capital. Here’s a sample from the piece, entitled Usury is a Sin: Or, a Confused Re-Articulation of Pt. II of Marx’s Capital, the Transformation of Money into Capital. Much credit is due to David Harvey:

Scene 3: GRANDMA EATS SOME ANCHOVIES
 
BERNARD Consider: C-M-C is a finite process. You sell your shoes, get $14 bucks, then sell them to buy some anchovies for your Italian grandmother. Your grandmother than actualizes the use-value of the anchovies by putting them on some fusilli with parmigianno regianno and fresh basil. The end. Grandma needs something else? I hope you have a reserve fund. If not, you have to go back to the shoe factory and make some more shoes to sell to start up another process. But this is not how the capitalist’s M-C-M process works, because, you see, it is a never ending story. It isn’t M-C-M at all. It’s M-C-M-C-M and on and on. It doesn’t end because there is no consumption: there is no interest in continual expansion of the same thing. Nothing is withdrawn. The money returns to where it started, bigger than before, like your son coming home from college after his first year eating unlimited pepperoni pizza in a cafeteria every day.
 
JOSEPH The capitalist wants to increase his profits, enrich himself. So he throws money into circulation again and again. He could just hoard it, like a miser. He could. But he doesn’t. He wants more than the value of what he owns. He goes into fantasyland and decides that he wants to make an exception of himself: he wants to pay and sell at commodity values, but get more value from it than what he puts in.
 
BERNARD He isn’t an exception, though. This is a system of the augmentation of value. 
 
Scene 4: CAPITAL IS 
 
BERNARD Capital is ever moving, always in motion, but does take on physical forms.
 
JOSEPH Capital is money, capital is commodities.
 
BERNARD Capital is the automatic subject. The capitalist is capital personified. His pocket is his home, but he does a lot of international traveling on business.
 
JOSEPH Capital is a transformer going from money to commodity and back again, but never settling down.

BERNARD Capital is value as it becomes self-valorizing, value which is, so to speak, a hydra capable of asexual reproduction, ever embiggened by its social autogamy.

JOSEPH ‘Embiggened’? I’ve never heard that word before.

BERNARD Well, I don’t know why. It’s a perfectly cromulent word. But valorization, to be clear, is value realizing a capitalist intent. It is a process, or characteristic, needless to say, somewhat familiar to certain insects.

JOSEPH The capitalist knows that all commodities, however tattered they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, are by nature circumcised Jews, and, what is more, a wonderful means for making still more money out of money —

BERNARD Wait — what? What’s that crazy bullshit about Jews?

JOSEPH Oh, let me clarify. I simply mean that all of those nasty stereotypes about Jews are in fact true, but true about another class of people: the capitalists! Hence we should take this prevalent bigoted discrimination and apply to it to an individual generated by this economic system!

BERNARD Huh. Okay. Well, you should really be careful how you phrase that, because people might interpret that.

JOSEPH Oh, let the people talk. I’m sure the 20th century will vindicate my words.

[…]

Capitalism with a human face? “Let’s go act as if we were free!, i.e. fly kites with wonderful smiles while underneath our frivolity capital augments surplus-value and blah blah blah …” you get the idea!