Alex, your last posts have been spot on and I am totally fascinated to
read more. I agree with you that the broad framework of crisis theory is
predictive and above all, it shows that in the wake of past crises, some
mix of decisions, inventions, organizational forms, cultural trends and
governmental interventions has always come together to form a new
pattern, a new phase or period of global society. With Felix were
talking about possible stagnation or a continuingly chaotic, entropic
phase opening up now, and I would suggest that these two things could at
worst coexist: you would see a new pattern emerge _for the oligarchies
and their closest supporters_, while the rest would limp on in a
continuing decline of the old system.
This leads me to question one of your ideas:
A schumpeterian state that redistributes innovation opportunities in a
democratic, transgender polity where citizens are not disenfranchised
by social exclusion could be a way to go.
Indeed, this was the kind of state we theorized with the old gang at
Multitudes, but can it really become egalitarian? That was exactly the
Clintonian vision of the 90s (education, education, education) and to
some extent it has been realized. Precisely to the extent that such a
state is possible under capitalism, I would argue. The innovation
society is hypercompetitive, it depends on a social divide between the
brightest/most agile and the exploitable others. I guess that's crucial
to the whole Schumpeterian framework. An ecopopulism would have to be
sustaining rather than hypercompetitive in my view.
But let's hear some more about it!
best, Brian
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
