Frontiers 1 - The Exploration of Space

[This is the first in a series of postings that looks at the frontiers of the human condition - space, time, reality - and follows on from our very different Tantra series. The postings are non-specialist so factual corrections are welcomed in comments]

The exploration of space is conducted by unmanned robotic probes and human spaceflight as well as through astronomical means (which we will not be dealing with here). The usual reasons for undertaking all this are scientific curiosity, usually presented, with some justification, as a universal aspect of human nature.  Apart from questions about our environment, this includes our curious interest in some questions about ourselves, not only in terms of the origins of life but more practical questions about the survival of our species as well as philosophical questions about our meaning, if we have any, in a huge material universe.

Our footprint in space is very recent (a matter of around half a century) and very small-scale. The longest human occupation of space is represented by the International Space Station, in continuous use for well over 14 years. Valeri Polyakov made a record single spaceflight of almost 438 days aboard the Mir space station. Long-term stays in space have revealed issues with bone and muscle loss in low gravity, immune system suppression and radiation exposure. As for whether other life exists which would impact on our own sense of uniqueness as an evolved species, some of the main locations for future astrobiological investigation are on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, and Titan. All these locations require at least some form of lander to ask any serious questions about extra-terrestrial life.

We can perhaps take as special pleading spin-off effects (though these exist), the value to earthlings of asteroid or moon-mining (since this material is largely for use off-world in a circular argument about value) and its inspirational aspects educationally since they all rather beg the question of whether a space programme necessarily is the best means of achieving any of the proposed ends. There may also be some fluffy stuff about human political universality that sometimes masks national strategic advantage or special interest lobbying but, lately, special interests have taken to trying to persuade funding bodies (basically, this involves the transfer of funds from the general economy, including current welfare and economic and social investment) to part with cash on the basis of some future existential risk from space – either as direct defensive manoeuvres or in terms of the scientific understanding necessary to avert or survive them in the longer term. Existential risk is not seriously presented as one of aliens in saucers but mostly as a matter of asteroids or other celestial events. These are legitimate concerns though there is some potential over-promising involved as to what may be possible in terms of protection. 

Another line of persuasion likes to suggest that because (allegedly) we humans are going to destroy our own planet, then we must find others to settle in order to survive, begging the question of what it actually means to individuals in having the species survive on such terms. This approach tends to ignore the rather brute facts of vast distances and the effects of radiation and non-earth conditions on biology as well as the expense of such projects (which would be geared almost certainly to the survival of the relative few over the masses stuck on earth). As we will see, the prospects of travelling beyond the solar system to find habitable exo-planets is extremely distant– the effort simply to reach near moons and Mars may take decades yet.

The claims of non-asteroid-related earthly destruction are as likely to be apocalyptic hogwash created by various ideological or scientific lobby groups as genuinely evidence-based worries but the interest in expanding human presence is undoubtedly a primal drive of the species and should not be underestimated or dismissed. Perhaps it is just the tortuous attempts to give rhetorical justification for the acquisitive and expansionary urges of humanity that we should regard with cynicism. However, what we undoubtedly see at the beginning of the twenty-first century is a marked increase in human and robotic space exploration.

After The Cold War

The US human space programme is still a little unclear as to final strategy in an age of economic austerity (though a programme of work exists as a result of the NASA Authorization Act 2010) but the old Soviet programme died with the collapse of the Soviet model. The current trend has been for programmes to be preferred that are relatively cost-effective (making use of robotics more than humans to expand horizons) and focused on scientific discovery within the solar system. Major scientific projects also tend to be spread among many more nations, either directly collaborative or as independent operations that have some element of co-ordination. The more deliberately scientific and robotic and the less human or existential, the more likely that collaboration will be involved though this may change if the feasibility and costs of asteroid management increase.

The current general effect is to create a more diffuse understanding of immediate surroundings in space and to develop basic skills for the future rather than expand immediately the species territory (indeed, the withdrawal from the moon had indicated a reduction in such ambitions in the recent past).Although there are plans to return to the Moon and explore Mars, more distant threats and opportunities (such as exo-planets and new interstellar drives) are left to astronomical science and even cosmology and particle physics. Efforts have largely been concentrated on what is near to hand for very practical reasons. 

However, an era of relative pause seems to be coming slowly to an end before a secondary leap forward based on the possibilities of dealing with material threats, on the assumed resolution of earthly economic difficulties and on that hoary old competition for advantage between States. The legal framework for space exploration is set by the Outer Space Treaty which has been ratified by all current spacefaring nations (as of 2012).

US Strategy

Boeing X-37B

NASA’s Space Shuttle programme no longer counts as space exploration if ever it did. It formally ended at the end of August 2011 in any case. The tasks performed by the Shuttle are now done by many different craft either currently flying or in advanced development and should really be considered logistics for existing capability.  

Secret military missions are understood to flown by the US Air Force unmanned mini-space plane [X-37B]. Cargo supplies to the International Space Station are flown by privately owned commercial craft under NASA's Commercial Resupply Services using Orbital Sciences' Cygnus spacecraft. Crew service to the ISS is flown exclusively by the Russian Soyuz while NASA works on its Commercial Crew Development Program.

The International Space Station is a joint project of NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA, and CSA with ownership and use of the space station established by intergovernmental treaties and agreements. The station is divided into two sections, the Russian Orbital Segment (ROS) and the United States Orbital Segment (USOS). 

The American portion is funded until at least 2024 while Roskosmos has endorsed the continued operation of ISS through to the same date but has proposed using elements of the ROS to construct a new Russian space station called OPSEK. It was understood that Roscosmos and NASA had agreed to collaborate on the development of a replacement for the current ISS but this has yet to be confirmed by the US and it may fall victim to recent political difficulties between the two nations.

The Bush Administration Constellation Program (for a return to the Moon by 2020) was judged inadequately funded and unrealistic by an expert review panel reporting in 2009.  The Obama Administration then proposed a revision (NASA Authorization Act 2010) to a) focus on the development of the capability for crewed missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), b) extend the operation of the ISS beyond 2020 (and now agreed), c) transfer the development of launch vehicles for human crews from NASA to the private sector (see above), and d) develop technology to enable missions such as Earth to the Moon, on the Moon, from the Earth to the near-Sun, to investigate the near-earth asteroids, and to take craft into Phobos or Mars orbit (clearly with the aim of landing on Mars).

Orion Spacecraft

For missions beyond Low Earth Orbit, NASA is building the Space Launch System and the Orion spacecraft.  The Space Launch System (SLS) is designed to carry the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, with important cargo, equipment, and science experiments to Earth's orbit and destinations beyond.  It will serve as a back-up for commercial and international partner transportation services to the International Space Station, incorporating the technology of the Space Shuttle program and Constellation programmes. The first developmental flight is targeted for end-2017

Other National Efforts

Roskosmos, the Russian Space Agency, meanwhile, is still dealing with the after effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The current intention appears to be full re-nationalisation and a return to active programmes, including (in principle) a return to the Moon. There is a major overhaul of the Agency being undertaken to deal with recent serious failures in the proton-M programme and inherent inefficiencies. These involve a concentration of talent. Layoffs and productivity improvements are planned. For commercial and political reasons, one may reasonably expect a Russian return to the sector within the next decade or so. If so, there may be a competitive interest emerging from the US if and once it is clear that the Russians can, in fact, create a more efficient and cost-effective state run capability. 

The Ukrainian Space Agency, the other heir to the old Soviet capability, was always going to be an adjunct of Roskosmos as the industrial supplier to Russian capability which has the main launch capacity. Its future must reasonably be in doubt or (at least) limited until recent political and economic difficulties have been resolved. The best talent may be attracted across to the new improved Roskosmos. Chinese plans include a permanent 60-ton multi-modulspace station by 2020 and crewed expeditions to the Moon and Mars. The European Union is apparently considering manned missions to the moon and to Mars within the coming century but faces economic and organisational issues no less difficult than those of Russia. It is highly active in robotic scientific missions beyond Mars. Japan, and India also plan future manned space missions to the Moon. 

In other words, though relatively cash strapped and with no really firm strategic plans yet fully funded, the two strategic powers of the Cold war, the two most populous rising nations and the more advanced non-US elements of the West (European Union and Japan) all have a manned journey to the Moon and possibly Mars on their medium-term agenda. In addition some private sector interests (largely US) are promoting space tourism (not strictly space exploration) and private space exploration of the Moon.

Between Earth and The Sun

From an unmanned scientific perspective, there is continued interest in the Sun because of its environmental effects. 

BepiColombo en route to Mercury

The third mission to Mercury [BepiColombo] is scheduled to arrive in 2020 and includes two probes. It is a joint mission between Japan and the European Space Agency. MESSENGER (already in orbit around Mercury) and BepiColombo will gather complementary data to help further understanding of the findings of the first flyby mission, Mariner 10 (1973). 

Venus had a great deal of attention from the old Soviet space research programme but does not seem to be a current priority for major investment although there is an Indian Venus Orbiter Mission planned for this year and a Russian brief lander and weather balloon operation targeted for 2024. 

Manned Landing Targets

The Moon remains of interest for robotic missions but the key future event (assuming that none of the other planned human interventions come to fruition before this date) is NASA’s Exploration Mission 2 or EM-2, the first crewed mission of NASA's Orion on the Space Launch System. In 2006 NASA announced they were planning to build a permanent Moon base with continual presence by 2024 which ties in with the date for guaranteed funding for the ISS. The ultimate mission is to restart manned exploration of the Solar System from this base line. In 2021, a crew will undertake a practice flyby of a captured asteroid in lunar orbit (see later) and this will be the first time humans will have left Low Earth Orbit since Apollo 17 [December 1972]. If someone else does not get there first and all goes well, this will be a major psychological boost for US scientific leadership and give the US a new lead in manned solar exploration with the obvious next target being Mars and the physical exploration of the Moon itself. 

Phobos in relation to Mars

Mars is the main target in terms of matching the past cultural impact of the Moon landings. The planet has been the subject of many robotic missions but with a very high failure rate and at huge cost. Around two-thirds of all spacecraft fail before completing their missions. There is talk of a Great Galactic Ghoul which eats Mars probes. India, however, has become the first country to achieve success at its first attempt. Its Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) was also one of the least expensive interplanetary missions ever undertaken with an approximate total cost of US$73 million. A Russian orbiter space mission failed to reach Phobos (2011) which is regarded as a possible ‘transhipment’ point for spaceships travelling to Mars. However, lessons being learned, it is only a matter of time before some attempt is made to land human beings on the planet whether via Phobos or not.

Between Mars and Uranus

Beyond Mars, we are not only into purely robotic missions but the very idea of manned missions are meaningless until the problems presented by the Phobos-Mars system are resolved. Missions beyond Mars are currently related solely to scientific investigation or the long term management of possible existential risk (related to asteroid threats or ‘space weather’). The Galileo orbiter was the most significant scientific mission (1995-2003) in dealing with Jupiter – the planet would probably though not certainly be impossible to land on although it has around 60 known moons. NASA’s future probes include Juno spacecraft, launched in 2011, which will enter a polar orbit around Jupiter to see if it has a rocky core which theoretically (although it is unlikely to be practical) might allow a human to land on its surface. The European Space Agency selected the L1-class JUICE mission in 2012 as part of its Cosmic Vision programme to explore three of Jupiter's Galilean moons, with a possible Ganymede lander provided by Roscosmos. JUICE is proposed to be launched in 2022. 

Saturn is still being orbited by the Cassini-Huyghens Orbiter (2004) and providing data long after its expected ending date. The Huygens probe successfully landed on Titan (2004/2005), the only moon (other than Earth's own Moon) to be successfully explored with a lander. This operation was a joint US-European-Italian project.

Cassini-Huyghens in orbit around Saturn

The success of Cassini-Huyghens has resulted in proposals for another major US-European mission with preference given to a 2020 in-depth exploration of Jupiter's moons with a focus on Europa, Ganymede and Jupiter's magnetosphere [Europa Jupiter System Mission – Laplace). There are other proposed US and European missions. Jupiter’s and Saturn’s moons should be regarded as of joint significance in this context. Whether significant Russian or Asian involvement will be part of these Missions is a political but also a capability issue which will be resolved in the coming decade. 

Beyond Uranus

If Mars represents the realistic next limit of human exploration (with theoretical plans for Jupiter and its moons), Jupiter and Saturn’s moons and their mother planets are where most of the scientific robotic investment is taking place. From this point on, we are almost certainly speaking of unmanned probes this century. The exploration of Uranus, for example, has only been via the Voyager 2 spacecraft (1986). No other visits are currently planned. There are proposals but nothing approved.  

Voyager 2 also flew by Neptune (1989) but the planet has not even had an orbiter yet and it is not seriously a current candidate for significant expenditure. It is probably no accident that a lack of interest appeared just as the old Soviet system collapsed and the incentive for high expenditures in space began to evaporate. 

The controllers of Voyager 1 had preferred to fly by Titan than head for Pluto (now regarded as a dwarf planet) while Voyager 2’s trajectory was nowhere near it. However, Pluto is of great scientific interest. We currently have the excitement of a mission arriving (closest approach) on July 14^th this year. New Horizons got US funding in 2003 and 2006. Scientific observations of Pluto will already have begun around January and they will continue well into August. It also happens to be the fastest spaceship ever launched at 36,000 mph.

Existential Threat - Asteroids

Asteroids are of great interest because of their ultimate existential threat to the species. Several asteroids have been visited by probe since 1991. The first unmanned landing on an asteroid was that of the NEAR Shoemaker probe in 2000 after an orbital survey. NASA’s Dawn Mission (launched in 2007) is targeting the dwarf planet Ceres and the Asteroid 4 Vesta (two of the three largest asteroids). The first colour map of Ceres was released while we were drafting this Note (April 13^th, 2015).

The Dawn Mission

A number of missions by a different space agencies are either under way or are planned but perhaps the most interesting planned scientific project is by NASA - a mission to capture a near-Earth asteroid and move it into lunar orbit where it could possibly be visited by astronauts and later impacted into the Moon. Last year, NASA suggested that Asteroid 2011 MD, very close to the Earth but not deemed to be a major threat, was the best candidate for capture as soon as the early 2020s. The existential interest in such technology is fairly obvious but there is also interest in space mining for materials that would permit construction in space. There have also been comet landings and investigations but these are relatively rare events and we know of none planned since the successful Philae landing that transmitted for ten years after 2004 (which may transmit again if solar power is restored) and two subsequent fly-bys in 2005.

Beyond the Solar System and Summary

Voyager 1

The furthest deep space probe is Voyager 1. This reached the edge of the solar system in December 2011 and entered interstellar space in August 2013. Space engine technology effectively limits further unmanned space exploration to the solar system until new propulsion systems are designed. Anything beyond the solar system is currently the province of astronomy. Within the solar system, unmanned robotic probes can, in theory, reach anything but are still expensive and need to be highly focused on outcomes. 

There is much to learn but the costs for earth-based powers (the only ones we know of) suggest that most activity will be related to four central ‘war aims’:

• the understanding of space weather (centred on the Sun);
• support for manned missions ultimately targeting Mars and the moons around the large planets  Jupiter and Saturn;
• asteroid risk management and the potential for mining for deep space use; and,
• further scientific investigation of the frontier between Mars and Uranus in the first instance and beyond Uranus only in the second. 

The main strategic development is the potential development of autonomous artificial intelligence that can be applied to unmanned missions, especially into deep space, and support for manned missions. Human activity in some senses requires a degree of ‘relearning’ although there is now an experienced body of astronauts and their non-US equivalents and travel technology is well established, though not without risk. Both long distance travel (with its unknown biological effects) and landings on the Moon, Mars and moons of other planets (including Phobos) require some a return to old skills (the Apollo Missions) and new ones, including very extended periods in cell-like conditions where (in the early cases) there may be a one way trip involved and nothing at the other end except the broadcasting of discoveries before extinction. 

For and Against Situationist Thought

Situationist thought might seem like a mere historical foot-note from Cold War history but it is worth some reconsideration now that we have seen ‘capitalism’ go through one of its periodic bouts of creative destruction. It depended intellectually on yet another attempt by mid-twentieth century Marxists to weasel out of the tough fact that their Idealist origins meant that they could never actually relate to the human condition as most people lived it – life for Marxists is an expression of theory. On the other hand, shorn of its ridiculous and patronising Marxist rhetoric, it has been 'detourned' into every avenue of commercial art, that is where it has not become the hobby of marginalised contemporary anarchists operating on the fringe of political reality - and sometimes of reality itself.

Where Situationist Thought Sits

Yet it would be foolish to under-estimate its importance. Although derived from an untenable Hegelianism, still being played out by the buffoons in the European Commission, it had one big thing to offer. What the situationists wanted to do was to make individuals, especially individuals at the very base of society, critically observe and analyse their daily conditions of life, calculate their own intrinsic desires and act on them.

Forget the Young Hegelian padding, this was potentially pre-Socratic in form, a half-way house to a proper existentialist political ethic. Perhaps they needed to claw their way out of the very ideology in which they had set themselves and just failed and perhaps we should honour them simply for trying. Their contribution to Western culture is precisely to expose the impossibility of one’s own desire being encompassed by any theory.

Debord recognized this to a degree by opposing any attempt to turn the situationist impulse into 'situationism', an ideology. Unfortunately, he failed to escape the dominant intellectual ideology of his time. One can imagine a group of Christian radicals (anti-trinitarians perhaps) playing with similar ideas, yet getting trapped into a necessary but ultimately fruitless faith in God.

The Situationist and the Left

Debord understood Sartre’s insight into one aspect of our condition – that the will to the universal, embedded in ‘official’ left-wing thought, is deeply absurd. He saw ideology as legitimated in modern society ‘by universal abstraction and by the effective dictatorship of illusion’. What the Situationists expressed was a peculiar form of revolt that has resonance today. Within the Left, it was a revolt against the bureaucratic impulse of contemporary socialism and the repulsive dictatorship of Stalin’s nomenlatura. That particular argument was won in any case by history. From the Left, however, it was a revolt at the process of having one’s reality, desires and needs dictated by machineries that were no less bureaucratic than those of sclerotic communism but which were hidden within the operations of capitalism.

Later, the great left-wing weasel himself, Gramsci, managed to perform a trick whereby the official Left simply abandoned overt bureaucratism and adopted the manipulative techniques of capitalist enterprises for social engineering purposes. The Situationist impulse is thus important because the problems they identified have not gone away but have merely transformed themselves. Mow, the manipulation of reality comes not only from advertising agencies but from liberal-left infiltration of our culture.

Anti-Capitalism and Neo-Bureaucratic Socialism

What we have now is a culture of self-righteous and manipulative activists, all talking their book and using their minority power to force universalist regulation and legislation on a powerless population. From a Cold War situation of communist bureaucratic tyranny and ‘free world’ corporate drabness, we have transformed into a world of government by liberal-left elites amidst an economic chaos which they are incapable of managing.

The Situationist International was anti-capitalist (whatever that can mean today) but their revolutionary impulse embraced what they saw as the positive elements within capitalist development. Despite the bleatings of Marxist-Leninists, there are positive aspects. Capitalism, by lurches and starts, eventually provides for needs and desires far better than any other system, better than political traditionalism and provenly better than communism.

At a certain level of development, people began to have the opportunity for personal choice. This was certainly not the case in the industrial factory culture of mid-twentieth century France and it is not the case across most of the world for most of the time but, where the market (let us drop the loaded term capitalism) operates well, persons do have more choices although this does not mean that the choices are the ones we always want ... better is not to be taken here to mean good, just not-so-bad.

Puritan Reactions

There is a current attempt at a back-lash against choice from the sourer elements of the liberal-left but this neo-puritanism, which can descend to complaints about the complexity of mobile phone tariffs in a world of stupid and lazy people, deliberately ignores that late capitalism gives us other more critical choices of real value.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century in the developed west, we have been given remarkable choices over our sexual identity, who we associate with, where and how we live, what we take into our bodies and what we can say (despite liberal-left attempts to control this last). These freedoms derive entirely from our relative prosperity and so from late capitalism. The tragedy of the current economic crisis is that many people have not found a way to extend their freedoms independent of prosperity and regardless of the cynical interest of the ‘capitalists’.

This is where the situationist impulse comes in because the situationists were ahead of their time by half a century in asserting the primacy of the ordinary person’s ability to assert his or her right to choose his or her condition of life according to his or her desires - against centuries of social control. What we can continue to do is bring desire as a reality to the forefront of the population’s minds so that these desires can be recognized as good in themselves and, if transgressive against some dictated norm, inspirational towards changing the norm itself.

Sanguinetti

Instead of the liberal-left activist transforming a norm to meet abstract universalist principles over the heads of the population, the population might be liberated to assess its own condition and then demand that ‘norms’ be transformed away from the universal and back to the particular. What they can also do is what Sanguinetti and Debord did in their hoax pamphlet of 1975 where they ‘tricked’ major figures into showing their true thoughts and feelings on the murderous fascist interventions in Italy at that time.

This was unforgivable to elites – Sanguinetti had to flee Italy and was denied entry to France. Yet all he had done was to get the elite to show its true sentiments to the ruled. This should have been the task of journalism but journalists were and are fully embedded in the elite. As we have seen in the outpourings of garbage over the Ukrainian and Greater Syrian situations, the 'free Press' is little more than the 'father of lies' (on all sides).

Marxism & Value

Let us turn to what is wrong with Situationist Thought. Almost everything that is wrong with it can be put down to its Marxist origins and its easy acceptance of Marx’s labour theory of value. Everything in Marxism depends on this theory – and on its elaborations such as commodification, reification and alienation – so that any theory that did not accept it could not be called Marxist. The Situationists had to see themselves as Marxist if they were to be credibly ‘of the Left’.

In fact, value is not created by work but by perception, in a very different way from Marx’s simple view of all production being simply economic and ‘scientific’. How we perceive value arises from considerations that relate to our desires as much as our needs. The Marxist impulse is not merely to diminish these desires but to start creating concepts such as 'false consciousness' that will be the basis of the totalitarian manipulation of desire. Above all, the Marxist will not investigate and respect (and socialise) the animal core of desire and the 'divine' aspiration within it. While not going so far, the Situationists made the revolutionary step of interpreting Marxist theory in terms of experience and perception but laid claim to this being a stage in capitalism, ‘advanced’ capitalism.

Today, the capitalist seeks out and enables a creativity which would not be expressed at all if it was not for the capitalist who permits both efficient and wasteful organisation of resources. The Situationists, however, were hobbled by their need to fit in with ‘progressive’ historicism. Their profound insight was vitiated by the fact that they failed to understand that all value is based on experience and desire once very basic needs are met and that even those needs are contingent on experience and desire. In short, experience and desire (if only to continue living) are far more intrinsic to value than some gobbledy-gook that inserts the capitalist between the worker and his product. Even the form of basic needs can be dictated by perceptions and experience as in those situations where markets are perverted by taboo.

The Age of Spectacle

The Situationists assumed that we lived in an age of Spectacle that was different from all other ages. The latest adaptation of this is the current interest in the hyper-real, best exemplified by the work of Baudrillard. But they were entrapped within Marxist historical thought here as well. In fact, all ages are ages of spectacle and of simulacra because that is the central fact of the human condition. The only difference today is the sheer extent of the technological enhancement of the real that is available to us.

The human condition is always one of interpreting too much data from too many sources through perceptual apparatus that are not only limited by genetics but by history, habit and other people. Our species is constantly creating a version of reality that is pragmatically designed for survival.
Our reality at any one time is not the only possible reality. If it is true that it is constructed (as Marxists claim) from a particular relationship to the means of production, it is also true that it is constantly being recreated by the minds of millions of persons with instinctive wants and desires that are independent of those means.

This spectacle, this unified and always growing ‘thing’, made up of objects perceived and turned into value by the perceiving (detached from any underlying reality and certainly from the analysed reality of the intellectual) is a Heraclitean flux that can never be made solid or fully understood (despite the fantasies of the AI and Big Data enthusiasts).  The Marxist theory of alienation may be true analytically but it also contains an intrinsic problem that it derives from the Judaeo-Christian cultural tradition – that is, it does not want it to be true. Implicitly the Communist society is supposed, if not to abolish it, to reduce alienation of this type and yet this alienation is precisely what makes us evolve and be creative.

Why Alienation May Be A Good Thing

It may be far more sensible to embrace the flux, identify one’s own desires and then pragmatically seek fulfillment without collapsing into madness, in other words to be functionally happy within the flux by creating islands of vital personal rather than of sclerotic collective stability. Marxism is deeply conservative, terrified of change (unless a revolutionary blood-letting to end change), and nervous of emotion, desire and instinct.

Many Leftists would stand aghast at my comment and immediately suggest that such an acceptance of these things must be intrinsically ‘fascist’. So be it ... they misunderstand because they are wired to misunderstand these things. The Situationists embraced radical change in the short term, but their grand narrative still assumed that somewhere further down the line ‘revolution’ would bring some concordance between real reality and imagined reality. In this, they were wrong.

Though we may develop as a species in a robotic or purely intellectual direction over tens of thousands of years, we are defined now by having an individual reality (embracing our desires) that is disconnected from social reality ('norms’) which, in turn, is often out of kilter with the facts of the matter in the world. To seek to align our own situation with the ‘pseudo-reality’ of society by transforming the social into something that is in accordance with our own reality is absurd, utopianism of the worst sort, the basis of Hitlerism to name but one manifestation.

Utopian Absurdity

Why? Because there are millions of such realities, all competing and without any clear common class, race, sexual or other identity that is not created by the very society that we recognize as un-real. Faced with the flux of our desires and situation in a world where imbalances of power dictate the social norms which are imposed on us, where these same norms might be counter-productive to the effective management of scientific reality (as in some faith-based cultures), the Situationists have something to tell us but not precisely what they thought they wanted to tell us.

The Spectacle is not just a matter of contemplation but one of action where we, as individuals, have considerable opportunity to transform our and other lives if we only understood the degree of our freedom within our material and power constraints (so much, so Sartre).

What is not going to happen is any lasting transformation of society that is simply derived from a manipulative cadre – the sort of activist element we noted above – where a few individuals impose their phantasy on the majority without their own participation or informed consent. In practice only education (the art of questioning) and the market (the art of choosing) can liberate enslaved minds. Situationist events and cadres, in that context, are useful only insofar as they jolt us into questioning and into considering the value of our choices to ourselves.

Ideology as False God

From this perspective and as an example, AdBusters, which ‘detournes’ commercial advertising, is extremely valuable not because it will overthrow capitalism (it won’t) but because it raises questions outside of formal schooling institutions and it allows us to ask questions about our own values. However, if AdBusters simply replaces one world-view (slavery to the market) with another (slavery to an anti-capitalist rhetoric) nothing has been achieved.

The choice must include a value-driven choice for the product or service by the individual where that choice is informed and functionally useful to them. When an ideology like feminism raises questions for a woman (or man) about their relationship and offers a choice (to accept or not accept it) as well as a means of action (to act to make it a positive and effective choice), it is doing good.

But when it dictates an agenda that precludes questioning (‘all men are predators’) or forces a choice (‘sisterhood requires such-and-such an action'), then it is as oppressive as their invented Aunt Sally ‘patriarchy’. All ideologies need to be questioned in the same way. Debord’s ‘pseudo world’ of the spectacle is thus seen as a problem whereas in fact it is also a solution. There is no possible world that cannot be a pseudo world, in effect an imaginative construct limited by material reality, because the human species is defined positively by its own intrinsic alienation.

Taking Hold of the Spectacle

Once this is understood, we can abandon our puritanical moral panic about the lack of stability within existence and see the spectacle as something that we can create incrementally in our own image to the degree that we can ensure its and our functionality. What Debord is right to point out is the dangers of a liar lying to himself but, even here, we should not go too far.

A phantasy that is functional for the person is a tolerable madness. The issue is whether it is functional and not whether it is a phantasy. There is nothing wrong with phantasy at all. The liberatory element lies in an assertion (the only concession to the universal abstract) that the rights of persons to their phantasies are all equal and that the conditions of life should not include the acceptance of an unwilling submission of (or dominance over) one of another.

The lie that the liar may be telling himself is that he is happy or content when he has repressed and suppressed his true nature. An effective situationist response would be a socialized psychotherapeutic one, a revolutionary act of multiple enablings of self-assertions against the ‘given’. The current late capitalist spectacle works quite well at this critical level – the power of the consumer (which offsets the disempowered position of the employee or family member) permits an assertion of personal desire against the desire of capitalism to desire more resources.

The Hidden Moralism of Debord

A situationist economics might even emphasise the power of withdrawal of desire or the deferral of desire as a tactical act to get more of what is desired – not unlike the sexual politics within many relationships. The Spectacle is thus not the ‘concrete inversion of life’ (the Situationist view) but life itself, or rather what happens to life once individuals (who are truly alive) start to deal with one another in a constant process of gaming and trading.

Debord would have had much fun with our current obsession with zombies. This fascination is largely a construction of commercial interests but it is almost certainly hitting a sense in the population that the ‘system’ does treat them like zombies, units of production and consumption. But this does not mean that we are zombies, only that we are aware that we might become zombies. Zombies do not know that they are zombies.

Debord also argued that ‘things that were once directly lived are now lived by proxy’ but he exaggerates, sounding like a Christian moralist of the late pagan era. He has no proof for his statement because he was not 'there'. The literary evidence for the claim can be shown to be flawed and suppositious. He says that ‘once an experience is taken out of the real world, it becomes a commodity … the spectacular is developed to the detriment of the real. It becomes a substitute for experience’. But there is no harm in anything becoming a commodity if the trade is still good for the desiring subject. There is certainly no reason why the spectacle should not be regarded as being as real as the ‘real’ if it is felt as real by the person.

The Real

There is no real to be had in the sense that Debord is implying. Commodified experience is not only real to all intents and purposes but ‘more real’ insofar as it is the purchased expression of the fulfillment of a desire (albeit usually partially) that would otherwise not be experienced if it was not purchased. Marxism is riddled with pseudo-Judaeo-Christian moralizing about authenticity of experience and Debord cannot escape it. Here he is again: ‘our psychic functions are altered, we get a degradation of mind and also a degradation of knowledge’. He puts this down to capitalism. I put it down to socialisation under any system.

As soon as we relate to a single other person, we are beginning to see our psychic functioning altered, our mind is ‘degraded’ (meaning limited in its imaginative options) and our knowledge ‘degraded’ (made functionally useful to the system rather than ourselves). This altering and degradation increases to the degree that we are embedded in bigger and bigger institutions.

Intellectual Arrogance

We have to recognize that this ‘degradation’ applies to all human systems (not just capitalism) and that many people actively choose such ‘degradation’ as enhancing to them (our bureaucrats, corporate men and women, the military, the churches). But it is the height of intellectual arrogance to assume that such people are somehow inferior in their choice to libertarians like Debord and myself – all we can ask is that they do not force us into their mould.

Where he has an important point to make is where he says that ‘knowledge is not used [any more] to question, analyze or resolve contradictions but to assuage reality’. The ‘any more’ is highly questionable but the statement is a true representation of most people for most of the time but whether this state of affairs can ever be changed by revolutionary action is to be doubted. What the 68-ers and most Leftists of that and earlier periods did not and could not ‘get’ (because of the scientific knowledge of the period) is that this is the human species – mostly uninterested intrinsically in questioning, analysis and resolving contradictions. It is the creature that lives rather than 'thinks through' its contradictions.

Contradictions

In fact, the last thing most people want to do is resolve contradictions. Contradictions are the only way they can cope with life. No revolutionary operation is going to remove the reality of and necessity for contradiction. There is no evidence that the allegedly ‘real’ experience was, in fact, ever more interesting or pleasurable or life-changing than any acquired experience through the market. To think otherwise is a moralistic myth, an ‘ought’ from a traditionalist perspective rather than an ‘is’. It is what we think that we ought to think – no more.

Contemporary technology has made this clearer. Most desires cannot be fulfilled and will never be fulfilled wholly. The reality was always that experiences of value were few and often turned sour – think of the romp in the hay that led to a lifetime being shackled to a podgy harridan. New technologies create a culture of life-enhancing vicarious pleasure that, far from making persons less able to cope with ‘reality’, lance the boil of desire and create the language for getting some simulacra of desire into private life.

These technologies allow desires to be identified and then managed. The commodification of sexuality has included Ann Summers whose very existence has permitted sex-positive discussion between couples and has created an atmosphere of desire that counters the inability to speak of pleasure – as was the case in the past.

The Spectacle as Process

How does Debord see authority in this Society of the Spectacle? As always, he follows the Marxist pattern of making authority a thing rather than a process. There is some intention in someone somewhere apparently to maintain social control and handle threats. This is absurd.

There is no controlling mind at the centre of capitalism inventing processes for social control. It is a process in itself. Social controls are intrinsic but also subject to our own engagement in personal and so social liberation. The process includes ‘recuperation’ (the interception of radical ideas, their commodification and safe incorporation) but this is not sinister or willful. It is just natural evolution. It should be regarded as a good thing.

Even attenuated once-radical ideas (like, say, the scientific reality of human racial equality) become included within the ‘spectacle’ and the whole moves forward on the basis of its functionality and facts on the ground. Intellectuals want perfection where there is no perfection to be had. Capitalism is not degrading the life of the people. The people degrade their own lives as victims of circumstances they fail to will to change. As all intellectuals (especially Marxist intellectuals) do, Debord treats the mass of the population as fools, to be enlightened by types like himself.

What We Need

The ‘people’ (that is actual persons in the world) are embedded in a process which is ‘given’ to them but which they change each and every day of their waking lives through their actions. We do not need grumpy Marxist theory. We only need a commitment to a questioning education and the freedom to make choices for ourselves – and intervention, the legitimate role of the community as collective, to ensure that no person is hobbled from making informed choices.

Under this more moderated form of the Situation, questioning and assertive persons can create ‘situations’, reconstruct their localities, choose their relationships, engage with their environments and merge playfulness, free choice and critical thought. There will be no help from a revolutionary proletariat while any ‘art’ that thinks it will transform the conditions of humanity is living in a phantasy all of its own. It is the other way around. The transformation of society will enable an art that can exist for its own sake and is not burdened by theory or politics. Rather Wilde than Marx …

The aim of the Situationist International was much the same as mine – a world of luxury, happiness and freedom but allowing education and the market (a proper market and not socialism for corporations) to thrive is almost certainly more likely to produce these goods over the long term than reliance on a revolutionary proletariat and a bunch of artists.

The Indiscipline of Protest

There have been at least two great intellectual failures in the last hundred years - the first is Marxism-Leninism and the second has been the liberal rejection of some of the central insights of the Marxists.

Class But Not As We Know It, Jim

This is not to praise Marxism except as an analytical tool under defined conditions because Marxism is, fundamentally, a poor guide to our human condition. Despite its alleged materialism, it is an idealist philosophy which has been quite historically effective for seizing power. But idealism is intellectually sanctioned lying about the world. Marxism is Hegelian which, in turn, is an historicism derived from the Western Christian tradition which, in turn and philosophically, is ultimately an adaptation of Platonism.

The trajectory from Plato's Cave to the Gulag has been well if simplistically argued by others but the summary is that this Western tradition of idealism is ultimately religious and 'spiritual' and that it can kill when brooked. But the proverbial baby has been thrown out with the bath water in at least two respects. We have forgotten Marx' and Engels' insights that politics and culture derive intimately from economic conditions and that, though each person is greater than his class, there are class interests in politics.

Modern liberal democracy has tried to eliminate the language of class because it is not convenient for its preferred model of professionals organising functional coalitions of special interests and lobbies to share out the benefits of growth - but when growth falters, then Marx becomes analytically relevant.

Where Should We Be Looking

For this reason, in trying to understand what might develop out of the continuing economic crisis, we have to return both to theory and to what is happening where we are not looking - much as in 1910, we might have been wise not to ignore intellectuals in Zurich or school teachers in Bavaria. We should be studying not the machinations of the ideologues of the future (that is the job of the security services) but what they are saying that resonates with those who are either resentful of the current order of things or who are suffering and have the energy to do something about it.

It is that last clause that matters 'who 'have the energy to do something about it' - because there are an awful lot of resentful older middle class people, intellectuals and poor and vulnerable people who sit in their armchairs or on their sofas and have neither will nor ability to act. Liberal democratic hegemony (indeed, all hegemonies) ultimately relies on inaction - that moan in the pub, grumble in front of the TV, meaningless letter to The Times, rant in a Facebook comment. None of this morphs into organisation or action. It is the 'art of being ruled' (Wyndham Lewis' phrase).

In this context, the Occupy Movement, the hackers of LulzSec and the Anonymous operation both fascinated and appalled the establishment some years ago. It alternately tried to contain them within their laws and infiltrate them with progressive rhetoric or secret policemen (the Tsarist model). In the end, these 'protest movements' seem to have collapsed of their own volition, achieving very little.

Who Are These People?

But who were these failed protestors as a class? Not who was behind the 'attacks' or 'occupations' (some might as easily be provocations by the establishment as genuine acts of revolt) but who was participating not only in 'new' models of political action but in confused riots as states weakened? We have written elsewhere about the new anarchism but it is the class base of this movement that interests us here - and further investigation suggests that we were not seeing something new but something very old, the blockage of the aspirations of an educated young by the failed old.

This was a movement of graduates and not of workers (though there is a separate union-driven public sector defence movement whose self interest is so apparent that even middle class liberals can resent their claims) and of persons who are 'cleverer' than their parents. We get back to Marx. As in the print revolution of the 1500s, a revolution in communications has created a new technological and economic structure where value has shifted from one generation to another but where the necessary political or cultural change is lagging.

It is an old theme of these postings. The new technologies are not so much removing the ability of intermediaries to create value for themselves out of their oligarchical control of knowledge (the professionals, if you like) but are making intermediaries of all sorts potentially wholly redundant.

Paul Mason's Analysis

The young who know things the old do not know, including the absurdity of many of the rules designed to hold the old system together, were starting to use new technologies to combine and protest in ways that were entirely new. Their failures hide the fact that methods may have failed but the intent and the revolutionary potential for technology remain. A February 2011 analysis by Paul Mason of BBC Newsnight gave a number of reasons why this needed to be understood and, to a degree, embraced if we are to transit from one world to another without repression and killing. This is our gloss on that work after four years had passed.

• Young graduate women are emerging who are not stuck in the specific feminist resentments of the older generation but simply get on with practical organisation in their own interest and what they believe to be right. Mason was right that educated women were at the core of protest but what is interesting to observe since his analysis is that the 'feminisation' of protest, conducted in 'feminist' language has developed a counter-reaction from young males not in terms of reactionary politics but political disinterest, a sort of 'why bother?'


• Ideological formulations are dead as organising principles. There will be Marxists, conspiracy theorists, faith-based loons, environmentalists and liberals but none of them can control a propaganda process or impose an organisational model that can stifle internal dissent or insists on a 'line' to assert political discipline. The very fact of seven party leaders with different interests and ideologies sitting in a row on TV last night (in the UK) to present their wares to the public when only two realistically represented the possible ideology of governance for the next five years (and both of those agree on more than they disagree) tells you something about the emergence of hyper-real politics disconnected from the actual levers of power.


• An international 'elite' of protesters seemed to be emerging in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 'crash'. They operated quasi-professionally across borders or supplied technical skills across a borderless internet. This is an analogue with the intellectual diaspora dissidents who fuelled the rise of anarchism and Marxism-Leninism. Unfortunately, it became clearer that their history was not only one of political development a decade before (that is, they were ideologues exploiting a situation rather than emergent from the situation) but that a proportion of them were trained and managed during the Arab Spring by State actors seeking easy wins over rival States.


• The central economic issue remains State and personal debt at a time of lack of employment opportunity. The protests might rapidly disappear with job creation or free education and debt forgiveness but States are in no position to deliver these during the current crisis. The resentments of the young are real but it is not being expressed in revolutionary politics but in evolutionary democratic politics if at all. The real impulse here seems not to be engagement but gritting teeth, getting on with the job and waiting for a righteous revenge when the old codgers start to die off and inflation transfers wealth from the old to the young as recovery gets under way. It may be easier to get on a boat and plane and find a new home than stay in the old one and be left with the burden of paying for the profligacy of parents. Many young people are just voting with their feet.


• If this problem of a generation without prospects and with old codgers getting in the way is causing difficulties in the West, then it is boiling up to violent proportions in the many countries where there is now a massive demographic bulge of frustrated urban young. And yet this explosive material which might have been assumed to have been progressive because it was young, now turns it to be just as likely to be traditionalist, nationalist and even fascistic when it decides to get off its behind and do something. It is not just that ISIS and other insurgencies are fuelled by the young but that a 'fascist' Maidan 3 lurks around the corner and that the student leaders of the Hong Kong revolt are not modern secular atheists but as likely to be Christians with a hot line to the local CIA man.


• Organised labour is pretty well bankrupt as a revolutionary force. It has been a conservative force against 'clercs' (socialists) since the 1940s but it has degenerated further into being representative largely of those who are already ensconced within the State since the 1980s (in the UK) - a truly conservative interest at this time. Yes, there is a slow, steady movement by which a new generation of trades unionists (including a strong feminist element linked to the low paid private and public sectors) is reasserting their position on the centre-left but this is happening just as the official centre-left is beginning to crumble under the burden of managing austerity-lite because of the trap it has got into as the primary promoter of 'capitalism with a human face'. 

As for protest as 'fun', this should not be underestimated because contemporary protest seemed to permit people to 'take a day off' and join a camp. There is a history of carnival and, of course, situationist theory to fall back on, quite consciously so amongst urban anarchists. But four years on, the fun has gone out of protest - in the non-Western world, it is clear that people can get killed and, in the West, the magistrates are minded to take a dim view of carnival that destroys property

The educated young activist now has a better understanding of power relations than his forebears and has learned a lot since 2008. Most of it has been a repetition of the lesson of the 2003 Iraq protests - that the system is not responsive and will do anything to ensure its own survival, including violate whatever human rights are to hand if necessary.

The alternative is a level of commitment to organisation and discipline that just does not seem to be worth the effort compared to having fun, mating and building tradeable skills for the future. The young do not run on hope any more but on manipulative skills as effective as those of their opponents - it is just that they are choosing to re-direct those skills now to the game of life rather than political change.

There are mobilising exceptions - such as the Scottish Referendum - but the exceptions point up the problem: elites have to concede the opportunity for change. The moment cannot be seized independently. There is no ideological movement seeking to mobilise the masses for change, just minorities of 'activists' ducking and diving between methodologies and compromising with the very system of power they claim to despise.

Internal Contradictions

The fluidity and lack of ideology is the central weakness in the street. Occupy events proved weaker on the ground than they might have been because they attracted every type of conspiracy nut, weak-minded New Ager and middle class narcissist looking for self-expression. It also brings us back to class because young activists are driven by some understanding of power but not by allegiance to class or, bluntly, any real comprehension of economics.

The situationism in contemporary revolt is there for all to see. I am certainly not saying that the young should adopt Marxist models for success, quite the contrary since the end result would be bureaucratism, authoritarianism and soullessness, but there are issues here of organisation. We are only suggesting, by referring to Marx, that this is, despite its lack of self awareness, a form of class action because it is based, despite itself, fundamentally on economics and on technological changes to the means of production and that this leads to some interesting 'internal contradictions'. The protestors rarely seemed to understand their own condition - they could soon become manipulable mobs.

The intellectual base for rejecting Marxism as anything more than analytical tool is well summarised in a quotation from a French intellectual that Mason offered. Foucault advised Deleuze:

We had to wait until the nineteenth century before we began to understand the nature of exploitation [a nod to Marx], and, to this day [second half of the twentieth century], we have yet to fully comprehend the nature of power.

The problem of organisation is a profound one because the current model of power relations only offers inclusion within liberal democratic coalition-building or the sort of bureaucratic organisational ability that allowed socialists to out-manouevre the anarchists between 1910 and 1940.

This is at the very heart of the debates already current in the British trades union movement at the turn of this century. The decision to go the way of a dogged turning around of the official Left (which has nothing much to say to the wider population as we can see in the lack of enthusiasm for Ed Miliband the front man of the movement) rather than recreate a socialist-labour movement to challenge capitalism was inevitable under such conditions. The Labour Movement might effectively and ideologically 'run' the next British Government and yet, while many individuals will benefit in the short term, nothing will have fundamentally changed at the end of their Party's' term of office. The objective conditions for change are simply not present.

The New Anarchism?

The logic of recent protest was different from that of the 'insider' approach but it is was soon very unclear how it could 'organise' anything at all. The fundamental self interest of the young and the Darwinian struggle between memes within that generation suggest that their primary tools are little more than their effect on the market (the rhetoric of action) and withdrawal from the law.

By withdrawal from the law, I mean not lawlessness but something entirely different and potentially more dangerous to the system - forcing the elite to acknowledge that its authoritarianism is unenforceable in any practical sense. The internet language of 'work-arounds' when systems fail springs to mind. But it still requires courage and involves risk in dealing with a system that likes to make examples of people and frighten the rest by publicising their exemplary law enforcement actions.

Solidarity is required to resist the tactic of control through exemplary fear. The fate of recreational drug users provides the template for the failure of an element in the community to challenge their masters through evidence-based analysis and organisation. The protests of 2011, we were told by Mason, were based on 'autonomy' and personal freedom within a democratic framework and (self-evidently) on opposition to state-protected special interests such as Wall Street and the finance markets. But this was the autonomous behaviour of very few people.

Four years on, nothing (and we mean nothing) had changed in regard to those ultimate power relations. Where the agenda had changed (as in the tax avoidance campaigning), it turns out that the prime beneficiary of increased taxes was only indirectly the people - the prime beneficiary was to be the State in its fight to deal with deficits and maintain social cohesion and its war machine.

This is where things start to get confused because if Anonymous and libertarian socialists are anti-capitalist, it is also clear that the Greek riots around the same time (2011) were also about preserving an economic system that was socialist in the worst sense - corrupt at every level including the level of the working classes themselves.

Syriza has proved to be far more interesting since then, offering perhaps the opportunity to structure an anti-corrupt anti-austerity model but it has had to do so by taking on the Goliath of the Franco-German European Project as a David looking for a Deus ex Machina to emerge out of the hearts of stern-faced Teutons and the opportunists in Moscow. This is David without a catapult.

The young Italians coming to London to escape local corruption are in direct class opposition to the public service workers at home expecting to be feather-bedded for life. Anonymous was with the first and Occupy was increasingly representing the last. This was an internal contradiction within the Western protests that was never resolved, any more than the contradiction was resolved between young liberal middle class liberals in Tahrir Square and young and hungry working class Islamists wanting bread and wives.

Conservative Welfarism And Personal Autonomy

On the one side, hackers, anarcho-libertarians and situationists and, on the other, a special interest socialistic coalition of state workers, liberals and communitarians. On the one side, bourgeois liberals wanting a comfortable freedom and, on the other, traditionalists wanting a legal system and socio-economic structure based on Iron Age texts. These are very different movements and they cannot work long together. The 'neo-socialists', for example, tried appealing to the police by saying that they were protesting to protect their pensions (and making headway with that argument), while the libertarians were wondering what the police were doing there anyway.

The State also needs economic growth and surplus capital to impose law and order. Reducing the need for law and order to its core becomes necessary - and this is why we now have a serious public debate on the treatment of sex workers and the war on drugs. Scarce resources were looking at solving the wrong problems - social cohesion and warlord organised crime are now more of a threat than the pleasures of layabouts. There is some complex intellectual negotiation going here - between justification for tax expenditure on guns and butter, about what constitutes threat to the people and what constitutes threats to the State and about public intrusion into private life.

States & Protest

In both the West and the emerging world, it is likely that States and foreign powers quickly started to identify elite operatives in protest networks and became busy in not merely tracking but 'turning' and infiltrating them. Some of the operatives are often well-heeled and not representative of most of the young by any means - state funds can permit other new entrants to rise rapidly. There is also a rather sinister potential turn to events that the more naive activists may not see. As we noted above, State bureaucrats may see protesters as allies in bringing the market to heel and protecting the tax base for precisely the sort of activities that Anonymous was set on exposing.

We noted this as a possibility three or four years ago and the populist assault on HSBC suggests that we were right - and there is more to come. Radicals are easily diverted into a global rights and anti-corporate agenda that neuters any serious opportunity for changes in the structures of power at home and helps to extend markets for domestic corporations. We predicted that an alliance with liberal NGO-based coalitions might be rather convenient for authority when faced by the demands of finance capital so that the heirs of the Occupy and Anonymous movements might become useful in shifting the terms of political trade back towards auctoritas. And this is what was to transpire.

But, yet another issue identified at that time for the protest movements is one already well identified in the mainstream media ... er, what do they actually want? The 'internal contradiction' here is that much of the rhetoric is anti-State and yet jobs and free education can only be provided by a strong State with a decent tax base. Here we have another possible convergence of State and liberal aspirations at the expense of personal autonomy and libertarianism.

Liberty or Jobs?

In both New York and London, the Occupy protesters appeared to be targeting finance capital rather than government and to be drifting from the territory of Anonymous (which emphasised state action as generally 'wrong') to territory associated with socialism and social liberalism (more state is needed). This internal contradiction is profound, mirroring that between anarchism and socialism in the late nineteenth century. It represents the difference between left-libertarian ideology and the self interest of the coalition of the vulnerable threatened with penury by the current crisis. We certainly saw libertarians moving away from the British Occupy Movement as it fell into the hands of the traditional Left (not helped by an Archbishop backing it).

The real reason we are in economic crisis is not 'imperialism' (which is unwieldy and expensive but probably pays its way in market access and access to resources) but the massively greater social spending and job creation programmes of social liberal states without the investment in infrastructure to support it. When Anonymous strikes at US behaviour in Iraq, it is striking at the State as both imperialist and liberal capitalist (including its size and welfare basis) whereas when Occupy protesters seize territory, they eventually want the State to remain big but do the 'right thing' i.e. give them economic prospects and security. But States do not do the right thing. They never do the right thing. They exist to exist and aggrandise power. This is a lesson the Left should have learned from 1917.

Anarcho-Libertarianism or Neo-Socialism?

This internal contradiction is so profound because it is about whether a new generation will be led by neo-socialists wanting to over-turn capitalism by means of the State or anarcho-libertarians wanting to get the State out of the market and stop supporting big capitalists so that communal self-organisation can take place in 'safe space'. Occupy people reluctantly vote Labour or Democrat (or possibly Green) but Anonymous people probably don't bother to vote at all. Anonymous may be the wiser when faced with rule by a Clinton or a Milliband ... The unpredictability of things lies in another point made by Mason back in 2012 - that there are a multiplicity of narratives from which both the young and dissatisfied older citizens can draw. Fundamental world views do not change but the expression of those views can change very rapidly under the influence of the internet. Support or withdrawal of support from causes no longer takes place within a narrative of 'solidarity' or 'loyalty' but one of 'truth' or 'effectiveness'.

This is why older generation liberals are confused and are becoming reactionary. There is now no fixed feminist, black or gay narrative any more than there is a nationalist or working class narrative. There is just 'my' or 'our' narrative according to who I am or to the interest of my adoptive tribe. Constant self development and neo-tribalism mean enormous adaptability and flexibility but they also mean difficulty in pinning people down to organised collective action as opposed to participation in an action organised by others from which they may withdraw at a moment's notice. In this struggle between modes of resistance, nothing is as yet predictable. Church, unions, police and military may join the protesters for a neo-socialist solution or States may have to adapt to situational anarchism by reducing their scope and being better at what they do. Either is possible. We are in flux.