Sunday, September 10, 2017

Corporatocracy prefers Civil War to Social Revolution

Corporatocracy is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests. It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States. This is different from corporatism, which is the organization of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.

- Wikipedia

In a recent post on the wonderful and illuminating weblog: Groupname for Grapejuice, the great social commentator and Joycean scholar, known obliquely as: Znore, outlined with brilliant clarity, the critical difference between a sub-cultural phenomenon, such as the so-called: Alt-Right… and a true, bona fide, honest-to-god counter-cultural revolution. The following excerpts are from an essay titled: Broke & Woke, wherein Znore has artfully articulated our evolving zeitgeist. Please enjoy…

The alt-right argument is essentially that the counterculture of the 1960s, which was in every respect liberal, has (since when exactly?) become the dominant culture. It is now conservatives and people on the right in general who are the cultural revolutionaries.

The dominant culture, the argument goes, has become so liberal, so politically correct, so intolerant of traditional values, so globalized, that it is only the right that offers any sort of genuine alternative. It is now the right… and more accurately the hardcore far right… that is truly different, that is edgy, that is new, that is hip. Everything else is awash in and captured by identity politics; paradoxically puritanical and utterly degenerate, riddled rotten with hypocrisy.

But while there is some legitimacy in its critique of the dominant “liberal” culture, and this needs to be examined closely, it is entirely inaccurate to call the alt-right a counterculture. The alt-right argument goes very wrong, and misleadingly so, with its first premise. This, intentionally or not, consists of a mistaken view of the original 1960s counterculture.

An authentic counterculture (regardless of inevitable Agency infiltration and misdirection within it) did emerge in the 1960s; and it can be called authentic not because it was liberal, but because it was anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-imperialist, anti-police state and opposed to anything that would seek to place bounds on the limits of consciousness. And in fact it was largely directed against an Establishment that fashioned itself as being liberal.

When the system (read: corporatocracy) enters into a period of crisis, as it did in the 1930s, as it did in the 1960s, and as it has been in since 2008, it chooses from a handful of available strategies. If the crisis is primarily economic, like it was in the 1930s, it seeks either to cut off slack (namely reforms won the people in previous struggles) by implementing austerity programs or, if the movement against it becomes too powerful, by preempting revolution with the introduction of “reforms” and “benefits.”

And likewise, if the crisis is primarily cultural, like it was in the 1960s, it seeks to co-opt and direct any authentically revolutionary elements to consumerism and empty platitudes. And when the crisis, as it has been since at least 2008, is in nearly equal measure economic and cultural it deploys all of the above. And in all cases it does what it is the very best at: dividing and conquering.

Since 2008, or perhaps 2001 yet stemming back for decades, the internationally-coordinated response from the global 0.001% has been a combination of austerity, fear, hyper-consumerism and constant distraction.

The articulated goal worldwide is the “Chinese model” ie: police-state capitalism with constant intervention in the markets by the central government, which in turn justifies its repressive actions through the use of nationalist propaganda. It is basically a historical truism that when a state goes into crisis that it seeks by propaganda to direct the anger of its people outward in order to deflect anger away from itself. But if a viable outside enemy is unavailable, it far prefers civil war to social revolution.

The original article from whence these excerpts came is a must-read for those discerning readers who seek social clarity and political perspective in these troubled times. The original article must be read in its entirety. Follow the link to read the unabridged post…