What Other World Is Possible?

This was supposed to be a lazy, cut-and-paste from an email, post.  I just realized I was too lazy to even mention that it is an email that I wrote to someone
-------------------------------------

That is the question, isn't it? I think it boils down to the problem you formulated in our last phone coversation: have we reached a terminal point, beyond which no change is possible, or is there still possibility for structural transformation?

I have been reading someone who argues in favor of regionalization, at least as a positive direction to head in. It seems possible that this could occur, if shifting geopolitical alignments and general chaos in the interstate system were to someday intensify to the point of destroying the international apparatus of governance. Though regionalization in and of itself does not guarantee that the relations of production will be significantly altered. I could even imagine an infinite oscillation between the wax and wane of global integration.

One COULD look for the evolutionary regression that Marx expected: a sort of resurrection of the peasant industry, where production is organized more locally and communally, yet with all the benefit of new technology, and coincident with the dissolution of transnational and national forms of governance.

But the question still remains: what would it take to dismantle all of the current power structures? As you noted, the "technologies" - and I don't know if you meant it this broadly, but I would include all of the pertinent physical, institutional, and ideological infrastructure - have grown like weeds and stretched their tentacles into every aspect of life. It is not as simple as targeting corporations, or any single institution, regime, or set of policies. For one thing, the institutional basis of modern power relations is vast. Not only is "the state" very large and lacking definite boundaries (e.g. all the "private" contractors), but there is all the beaurocratic administration that pervades both the public and private sectors (as if there is a difference between the two); the stores of personal records culled from various sources, and to which corporations and banks, in particular, seem to have unfettered access; everything associated with our system of "justice," including the prison-industrial complex and all the suveillance capabilities of the police; the educational institutions and media outlets that often function as propoganda machines; the various foundations, nonprofit organizations, and research centers that attempt to manage populations based, in part, on the collection of copious amounts of individual data; the institutions of public health and medicine that have become less of a public "service" and more of a crusade to influence personal habits, augmented by their newly acquired abilities to define when life begins and ends; and, of course, science itself has become more than a delusional quest to master nature, as human beings and social processes are brought under its aegis (as a form of "nature").

But even then, one must not look solely at the institutions themselves, as they produce an extensive body of rhetoric, concepts, and values (which have in many cases taken on a life of their own) that instill habits, shape consciousness, and legitimize the interests that propogate them. There is the entire corpus of secular doctrine, which enshrines "the individual" as a sacred deity, and promotes vague and elusive values like "liberty" and "democracy," and, of course, "individual rights." As a corollary, there is the neoliberal ideology that equates capitalism with free markets, competition, and private enterprise (although quite the opposite is the case). Most important is the neoliberal myth that the system is just and anyone can be rich if they just try hard enough (with associated value that wealth is the greatest thing to aspire to, as well as a measure of a person's worth). There is also the secular ideology of progress, which views technology and scientific advancements as the only thing that makes life worth living; which would prolong life as long as physically possible; which insists that knowledge and wisdom are not possible without institutions of higher education; and which constantly strives to "reform" rather than to radically question. In addition to various manifestations of secularism, there are all the "isms" that serve to create false unities and enemies: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, etc. These are aided by the attitudes toward violence and war that are nurtured by popular entertainment and public imagery.

It seems that changing the system would entail: getting rid of the entire web of institutions that structure most of human social life, as well as actually altering everyone's consciousness. I guess that would qualify as a tall order.

So, then, to return to the question from which this all started: does this mean we're stuck?