'Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal: A Theory of Political Organisation' might turn out to be the most important book about political organizing since David Graeber's book 'The Democracy Project'. Here's an interview with the author, Rodrigo Nunes:
https://www.versobooks.com/books/3810-neither-vertical-nor-horizontal
"To be sure, the far right does not paint a rosy picture of the present. On the contrary, theirs is a narrative of civilizational conflict, in which a fantasized spirit of the Crusades is retooled to fight such enemies as migrants, independent women, and Black people. What is remarkable about this narrative, however, is how it displaces the real threats looming on the horizon into distorted, fun-house-mirror versions of themselves."
Sounds to me like a caricature is being created.
Pedophile networks do exist among elites and are used for blackmail and control.
Unfettered immigration does put downward pressure on wages and extra load on the social services which disproportionately affects the working class.
Science has become politicised.
It's possible for both the (far) right and left to have valid points. They're both blindfolded, touching the same elephant, and coming to different conclusions based on limited observations, assumptions and ideological programming
@jcbrand Indeed. Nunes goes on:
"Liberals, on the other hand, often appear to be suffering from another illusion. It consists in drawing false symmetries between political extremes and idealizing the centrist consensus that prevailed until 2008. Ultimately, this attitude boils down to supposing that people have taken temporary leave of their senses, but everything can carry on as before as soon as the sensible guys are in charge again."
(1/2)
@jcbrand
"That mindset ignores that wealth distribution and political representation have become so lopsided as to demand an overhaul that cannot but seem radical compared to what we have now; and that, on an issue like the environment, the time for gradualism is long gone: winning slow is as good as losing."
(2/2)
The piece is not super long and well worth reading in full.
The link you shared doesn't have the interview, at least I don't see it on mobile, just an ad for the book.
I'm skeptical of anyone who tells me that the apocalypse is coming and that radical change is the only solution and I don't trust people who think they know what everyone else should be doing.
The responses to a perceived threat may very well be worse than the threat itself.
I'm not saying nothing should be done about perceived threats, but IMO it should be done bottom up, avoiding authoritarianism and power centralisation and maintaining liberty.
These appeals to radical action can very easily be used to centralise power and reduce freedom.
Eco-feudalism or a totalitarian surveillance state that justifies itself based on (among others) ecological concerns appear real possibilities and threats to me.
@jcbrand
> Eco-feudalism or a totalitarian surveillance state
... is a bad outcome, agreed, but total human extinction would definitely be worse. I would argue total civilization collapse would be worse too. Authoritarian systems can be overthrown much more quickly than civilizations can be rebuilt from scratch.
To be clear, I agree there are anti-authoritarian ways to avoid these threats. But I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about that. They need to be avoided regardless.
Strypey
JC Brand