In history, we see 3 great revolutions of man: 1) the advent of reasoned philosophy (promulgated by such names as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle), 2) the advent of the scientific method (promulgated by such names as Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Newton), and 3) the advent of democracy (promulgated by such names as Voltaire and Montesquieu). No other revolution in thought, politics, art, or any other field comes as close as these to changing the course of history for mankind as a whole.
What I often wonder is how many more such revolutions are we in for? How many more at this scale? To be sure, the developments we see through history and throughout the world in the present are coming in at such a high rate - faster and faster as the world’s pace picks up exponentially - that I feel, not only that we are in for further developments and revolutions, but that they will be upon us very soon.
It is rare that a revolution in the way of human life can have such an impact that it transcends the boundaries of culture and nationhood and hits man universally - that is, that it brings man as a whole up a whole quantum leap in its social evolution (thus influencing its biological evolution in turn) - and it always strikes me with wonder that we have seen such monumental achievements.
What are we in for next? Can we expect such a series of super-revolutions to end with one in particular, or will they keep springing forth indefinitely? Will the increasing pace of the world’s developments help to bring them in at a matching rate of increase, or will we always have to wait centuries or millennia for their advent? Can we keep working them out to such a degree as to finally achieve a utopian society or is such an ideal unrealistic even in light of what we have achieved looking back on history and understanding what ancient civilizations wouldn’t even have dared to dream?
as for the next revolution, i dont know, but i would guess it will be something along the lines of a worldwide societal movement to a united currency and legal/political system, culminating in the dissolution of sovreign state nations. whether this will end up being a utopian paradise, an orwellian nightmare or a mass gencide to bring the world population down to a “sustainable” 500 million, i dont know… but it seems inevitable that such a global system will be put into place.
once currency is standardized and run completely by internationa institutions, corporations and production will effectively sever ties with nation states. the legal-political infrastructure wouldnt be far behind. naturally, disarmament would then begin at the national level of nukes, standing armies and military tech, and filter down to the individual. i dont know if this could be called a ‘revolution’ or not, but it will certainly be a drastic global shift in consciousness. the end of politics and nationalism as we know it, as well as the end of political independence and the ideal of freedom and individualism— a global political system would leave nowhere to hide, and you would effectively lose the ability to dissent; also, there wouldbe virtually NO way to influence the direction of that structure, it would be so massive. hence, also probably the end of representative politics (if they have not already come to an end). one big happy fucking global family.
other than that, a large revolution could occur along technological lines, such as the development of an infinite or completely clean source of power, or the creation of artificial intelligence. either of these would revolutionize the world in short order.
The ‘Industrial Revolution’ or any further technological ‘revolutions’ will only serve to diminish the prospective future(s) of humanity as a whole, and would therefore seem not to fall into the general category of ‘Evolution’ but rather ‘Destruction’, which in essence is a form of ‘Extinction’. Capital ‘E’.
Yeah, I thought about that one too but I didn’t included for two reasons:
I see it as an extension or a consequence of the scientific revolution, and it could be argued they are different phases or sides to the same movement.
The industrial revolution wasn’t really a ‘revolution’ in the sense that the other ones I mentioned were. Man has always been inventing new technologies, always progressing towards industrialization, and it’s just that the pace of this progression has started to pick up steam within the last 3 to 4 hundred years. What we call the ‘industrial revolution’ is just the point where this pace went from ‘slow’ to ‘fast’, but as with any exponential curve, where you mark this distinction can be arbitrary and it certainly isn’t an abrupt transition.
I think you’re generally right about our heading towards a globalized system (and I especially agree about the currency), but I don’t think it could be as totalitarian as you make it out to be. History shows that when empires become too big, they become exceedingly more difficult to control. They rely on a hierarchical system of command, and when the hierarchy becomes bulky (as it would have to be in the case of global domination), there is more of a tendency for certain branches of the hierarchy to cease control of their own independence and rebel against the higher command.
It’s interesting that as the E U attempts to certralise at the top level there have been fiercer and fiercer moves towards independence at a local level (Basques, Bretons, Catalans etc etc). Its almost like the nation state was a mediating or middle layer which seems doomed - we could be looking at empire but empire full of squabling little sub units - depressing!
The logic of capitalism as far as absolute centralisation seems irresistable.
Maybe the capitalist system itself was the final revolution.
the collectivizing force itself which led to nation-states within the (relatively) closed geological/cultural/economic borders of the peoples in those nation-states themselves has spawned a new collective apparatus as a result of the loss of essential boundaries between peoples: the global state. centralization “at the top levels” will continue naturally and is unavoidable as long as technology continues to connect all people of the world within one single field (or Field of lesser fields).
it is of course the case that the structuring of such a global state or Field will be chaotic and imperfect, resulting in many inefficiencies along the way. individuals and nations will resist to the extent that it is in their nature to perfer relative autonomy over the loss thereof. each step centralization takes at the top levels will be accompanied by opposing steps on some other levels… but this interplay will still, over time, swing the world into greater centralization of global powers. we are just in for a long and rough journey as the new Field attempts to stabilize itself against the prevailing fields, which will resist such efforts of the Field’s encroaching upon their sovreignty and powers.
depends on how you define capitalism. its just a word. capitalism can and is a mechanism facilitating global statism and centralization of Field powers at the expense of field powers. but just because capitalism is used in this way (as a medium through which collectivization occurs) does not mean that this is the ONLY function or the INTENDED/NECESSARY function of “capitalism” [note also that all other political-economic systems seem to also be used by collectivizing forces, and that therefore it is not in the nature of capitalism that it is utilized for this purpose, but rather is in the nature of political-economic systems themselves]. it is likely that capitalism, where existing within fields which lack a common Field, would lead not to collectivization of those fields in question but rather the opposite, as capitalism fundamentally frees individualistic energies for deterritorializing exploration, with less restrictions and controls as other political economic systems.
however, since it seems that capitalism inevitably leads to the technology such that a Field is generated, and that this Field then uses and undermines the individualistic/freeing potential of capitalism itself, capitalism can be seen to be working toward its own ends… but it can also be seen as the victin of political and psychological forces ultimately ourside of its domain, yet nonetheless generated in part by the natural operations of capitalist systems themselves.
perhaps if strong political restrictions on interglobal technologies or international exchange were implemented universally then capitalism would continue to function as it does within fields. of course, each field is its own Field relative to lesser elements and groups within itself that are universally and exclusively present within all spaces of the field— because of this, capitalism will seem to generate centralization wherever it comes up against “global” limits of expansion.
perhaps it is necesasry to modify current capitalist models to take into account these factors, and potentially mitigate them. or perhaps it is impossible to prevent capitalism from centralizing Fields with regard to their lesser fields. either way, i doubt that capitalism will be the final revolution. it anything, with the creation of a universal Field and with the continued growth and expansion of its scope and power, along with the continued growth of technologies, we are likely to see new economic and political models and systems emerge within the next 100 years that are completely unprecedented in human history. possibly these systems will have such drastic effects upon humanity that they will be new revolutions in their own right; perhaps not. but the progressive and ever-changing nature of human systems, combined with the now-closed global space, seems to at least potentially lead to the generation of new rules of the game which will probably cause unexpected and unforseeable ‘revolutions of man’ in the near future.
I sincerely hope you are right - since its emergence in what the C 17th or so?
This system seems to have been the context for the emergence of everything and within which everything must struggle for recognition and position - it seems to be absolutely dogged and tenacious in its continious expansion and capable of mopping up every counter trend, development, abortive attempt at alternative or argument, every technology or idea. - gracefully, seemlessly converting them into another trendy niche market!
I dunno what the new models might be or where they can come from?
But I have to say almost anything would be better then a system which seems hell bent of continuous insatiable expansion without regard for people or planet, mass starvation, ecological chaos, resources running out etc etc…
It’s a beast!
(a beast of a bar, a tiger in your tank - jaysus does it even give me my language!)
As Marx and Engels put it in the Manifesto in some of their most purple prose:
This
just seems to have continued and accelerated through two world wars and onwards - sometimes seems to me that every minute aspect of life right down to peoples very thought processes
(see under Leopold Bloom in Ulysess vainly fighting against the image of “plumtrees potted meat” which continually re-colonise his head meme-like through out the book…)
it is a manifestation of life itself, whatever you want to call that natural inclination to aggregate and assimilate that which is around you into yourself based on your ability to do so. the social “totalising” force (what i call collectivization) is a higher, more abstracted, more broad and integrated and powerful expression of the basic life force. we give birth to it through our relations with each other and technology, and it is defined in part by our psyches and inner natures and instincts.
i dont really see how social animals can NOT develop social systems which end up taking on a life of their own, as they further and further repress and contain/control the individuals within those systems themselves. at the point where technology, language, psychological needs, the proliferation of relations all come together sufficiently to form individuals into “neuron-like” nodes within an overall “network”, social totalizing/saturating/deterritorializing/mediating/stabilizing forces are given new life of their own: they now have a relatively consistent and growing medium through which to develop their own self-determination and autonomy. \
and there is enough UNCERTAINTY and CHAOS within these human mediums for social forces to become creative, self-determining and adaptive/evolutionary. such is the nature of how all life is born, how the “life force” drive itself manifests: through a sufficiently stable, interconnected yet malleable and uncertain medium.
human consciousness is not necessary for such self-determination, autonomy or intelligence to develop. just look at the emergent behavior of simple insects or even cells. they create insanely elaborate and LIMITING structures with and around themselves purely because the nature of their arrangements to each other and their environment is such that it allows for a magnifying and unleashing of this “life force” potential (totalizing force), which then goes about reorganizing and restructuring everything within its reach, following the natural laws.
or a universal adhesive. probably both, necessarily.
remember though that this is only natural, and is the result in part of human psychological and instinctive drives, as also in part because it is the nature of all life and possibly all matter/energy everywhere to “totalize” (saturate) its possible environments… think of hot air flowing into a cold front in weather, or of gas molecules filling an empty space.
reality creates countless vaccuums of all shapes, sizes, scopes and depths. and these vaccuums demand to be filled by similarly-typed energies of that same shape/size/scope/depths etc.
i just dont know if we can really stop this type of life-force behavior, nor even if it would be desirable to do so, even on a global social level. but i agree that “something needs to be done” regarding the problem of a runaway beast. the question is just “what can we even do?” and “do the benefits of trying to stop such a force really outweight the risks or harms?” remember, life is nothing without such “aggressive” totalizing behavior. selfishness, desire, destruction and aggression rule life in all of its aspects. it is important not to forget this universal fact when confronting the problem of a runaway global social system.
yes im sure that the influences of capitalist productive systems indeed do extend this far. the question is, given the alternatives, is it really undesirable that such capitalist systems exist? could it not be more desirable to simply try to reform or make more efficient/containable the negative aspects of these systems, rather than seek their complete destruction at all costs?
interesting book. yes, there is “only one field”, but its always comprised of lesser fields. always. no field stands alone. everything is connected to everything else, necessarily so.
Well this come backs to the nature of the real risks involved in any rebellion
You never know it’s the right time until it succeeds – deterministic versions of Marxism are utterly wrong in maintaining there is some sort of dialectical computer that can tell you where we are at in terms of objective forces or whatever - that “the time is ripe”.
A revolution is surely an emergent phenomenon
Also you will almost always fail…though later given your side wins you my be privileged as a martyr in retrospect “greetings Brian on this the occasion of your martyrdom”…
Absolutely agreed you have work with humanity as it is – revolution must expand and use aggressiveness, greed, lust and selfishness in its attack – no doubt.
In fact the great are great in some ways because of our weakness in that we are not selfish enough in our own desires.
The great only appear great because we are on our knees (max Sirner)
I remain very pessimistic – I think this particular totalisation may do us in way before we can harness it!
(anyway there is no we here right? There aren’t even Cartesian subjects?
Oh great revolutionary tools we have here from the current state of philosophy in late capitalism.
The intellectual might of “the alternative” have you read Hardt and Negri?
Oh the tools we have inherited in continental/incontinental Philosophy.
– If this is the left might as well…
We are all ind duh viduals in this system, molecular aggregates, bits, instantiations in quantum quintessence and there is no time in capitalism, no future just the sparkly present of the eternal recurrence of what I can buy with me few cents)
The system’s demands and damage seems to be increasing exponentially.
There is no real opposition even in a utopian sense. (Besides lonely loony cyber warriors like me self or the Spartacus!)
Reforms get incorporated into the totalised narrative very quickly. Even revolutions.
Hence my pessimism on both fronts.
I think this is the last narrative and we all have bit parts in it
Your choices in the late capitalist Titanic…
Be a deck chair, be the band on deck, stack at the wheel, dive for the ice berg, kick the women and children outa the way to get to the ice life boats, yell “I told you so”, sip more champagne…
We can’t rein it back!
There aren’t sufficient vacuums or spaces left in it
– it has one prime logic that always seems to win out…
It’s a great book!
Well worth a bit of time and effort and a fantastically affirmative and optimistic ending…
