Profit and loss

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Profit and loss


>
> ----------
> >From: "Phil Wise" <philwise at paradise.net.nz>
>
> > In
> > Prairie it probably has something to do with Zoyd'd being a "weak"
father.
> > I wonder how related this weakness is to that "virus" Weissmann talks
about
> > in GR?
>
> The one passed on from fathers to sons which makes young men want to
become
> all macho and unfeeling like their fathers and go out warring and
conquering
> and killing one another? That cycle of infection and death which Blicero
is
> trying to "break out" from (722-4)? Can't really see a connection there
...

Dear me.  Okay: words of one (maybe two occasionally) syllables.  One is a
disease passed from father to son.  The other is passed from mother to
daughter.  They are both passed, according to the metaphors used by
Weissmann and Frenesi.  One has to do with hypermasculine behaviour.  The
other with feminine sexual attraction to behaviours of this sort.  Use your
imagination a little, can't ya?
>
> > If Vineland suggests that the participants of the 60s democratic
movements
> > could stay "revolutionaries" (these days mostly translated into
alternative
> > lifestylers) or be "turned", depending on various factors (i.e., the one
> > cause can have two opposed results), why do two other historical
phenomena
> > that derive from the same sequence of events (i.e. democracy, laissez
faire
> > capitalism) have to be identical?
>
> The comparison is a spurious one. You're trying to correlate people (let
> alone that it's an interpretation of fictional characters in a novel) with
> political and economic systems. I didn't say democracy and laissez faire
> capitalism were "identical", I said that the latter was the archetypical
> economic expression of the former. And it is.

Okay.  One part of the comparison involves people.  The other involves the
historical development of systems.  Pynchon is interested in systems.
Pynchon's implied author appears to say that systems can reside in and
influence human consciousness.  Therefore, if a sequence of events can lead
to the systems in Pynchon's people turning out one way or the other, why can
two "non-identical" bigger systems that derive from the same historical
place not turn out one way or the other.  Is it not possible that the
mechanism exploited by Vond to turn people onto his system also applies to
systems?  If people can tweak people, why not systems?  Is it not possible
that one can be a metaphor for the other?


>
> > No, even with disingenuous snipping
>
> What's disingenuous is your attempt to retract the comparison you made
> between totalitarianism and globalisation.

Why would I attempt to retract something and then say it again?  Yes, I made
a comparison between the two.  Your reply suggested I was comparing Russia
to Germany - perhaps I read it wrongly.

>
> > it is clear that the comparisons I am
> > making are between the two examples laid out just above and the
possibility
> > that the move to a global free-market is underpinned by a metanarrative
of
> > capitalist progress - a myth of the entrapreneurial subject's rise
which, if
> > universalised, will lead to a free-market utopia of global growth
>
> In other words, what you were and are asking is whether globalisation
falls
> into the same "totalitarian" schema as Marx's projection of the
dictatorship
> of the proletariat and Hitler's aspiration to Aryan supremacy and world
> domination. You're doing quite a bit of "metanarrating" yourself there I
> think. But the answer is obviously no, and those who suggest otherwise
> (whether in question or statement form) are imo merely scare-mongering
using
> inflammatory rhetoric. There's neither Marxist nor Nazi ideology involved.

I also said, "Totalitarianism is neither about economics or ideology.  It is
about the total domination of its subjects, and about the official ideology,
which
could be virtually anything, infusing its way into every aspect of
social life. "  It is utterly obvious that I was saying that IMO
totalitarianism does not require Marxist or Nazi ideology.  I was suggesting
the possibility that market ideology would do.

Why the answer is "obviously no" I don't know, because the only reason you
have given is a seriously basic misreading of what I was suggesting.

> The objective is to rectify market distortion caused by national and
> regional (eg the EU) protectionism to effect economic growth globally.

I'm no economist, but there are economists that dispute that this will be
the result.  I can't argue that one way or the other.  If it is implemented
as dogmatically as you state it, my own suspicions will be reinforced rather
than alleviated.

The
> anti-globalist protest is underpinned by a metanarrative or myth which
says
> that all corporations are "evil".

This is simply not true, for a number of reasons, among which are that there
were many protests from over a very large range of the political spectrum,
many if not most of which don't hold that "all corporations are evil".  Many
more might say that if a corporation acts unethically then that is evil, and
Thomas Pynchon may well number among those (not that he was there...)  What
many are suggesting is that free trade agreements such as the one they are
protesting allow corporations to act unethically and limit Governments'
powers do stop them if they do so.  Many also take issue with the economics,
and are not convinced that the promised improvements in third world living
standards will eventuate.

In seeking to preserve the status quo
> these protesters and their attempts to hinder the paradigm change in
global
> economics are in fact serving the interests of extreme conservatives and
> nationalists in the developed Western nations, possibly without even
> realising it.

I'm glad you agree that there is a paradigm shift.  I believe I described it
as a fissure, and confused you terribly.  The rest of it is debatable to say
the least - more dogma (i.e. unargued).

>
> > , which
> > apparently has no need for democratic process.
>
> What are the WTO talks if not "democratic process" at a global level?

possibly, um "conditions in the process of being set in place to  achieve
the inevitable rise of the entrapreneurial subject leading to a free-market
utopia."  Also possibly something else again.  But it isn't the talks
between governments that are so much at issue, but what they might
facilitate.  Remember, Hitler was elected democratically under the rules of
Weimar Germany.  You've veered this off the subject - how do people like you
or me exercise our democratic rights in a "globalised" society that has
limited the nation state's ability to protect them?  How do people in the
third world exercise the democratic rights they may or may not get when the
nation state has been watered down?  How will this brave new world operate,
beyond economic process?


>
> > This is a very long way from calling George W a Nazi.  There
> > are a number of points at which you could argue against this comparison,
but
> > you chose to portray it as a cheap rhetorical trick and ignore the
concerns
> > in it.
>
> The comparison I made was between those who describe globalisation as the
> onset of totalitarianism and those who call George W. Bush a Nazi. I
accept
> that you were merely asking whether it was feasible to suggest the
> possibility that it could become something like etc etc, but it's
> essentially the semantic move you were making in order (I assume) to voice
> your opposition to it.

It is fair to say that that is where my thoughts are, based upon what I've
read, what I've seen, debates I've had with people.  But I would naturally
be willing to change my opinion, if I were given a compelling reason to.  So
far you have made no attempt to supply this.
>
> Your "concerns" were based on false comparisons and hokey history.
>

You've already utterly failed to comprehend the comparisons.  The history
you haven't even touched on except to call hokey.  To quote Michael Palin:
"this isn't an argument!"

> > if totalitarianism
> > in history was faciliated by the end of the European aristocracy's
influence
> > (basically WW1 is a watershed here),
>
> Well, no, this isn't right.

What is right, then?  I admit that I should have modified this to read,
"partly faciliated", but aside from this, how about some argumentation?

>
> > then if the Nation State is nearing the
> > end of its natural life,
>
> Do Nation States have "natural" lives?

Sir Humphrey!

>
> > how do we know this fissure won't lead to something
> > similar?
>
> What "fissure"?

Um, the thing you called a paradigm shift above.  Easily discernable from
what I wrote, by the way: the fissure between the old and new paradigms that
would open if the nation state were to lose its effective power.

>
> > Why aren't we debating the question?
>
> What question?

The question of what the consequences are of the end of the effective power
of the nation state.  This is, after all, the paradigm shift, isn't it?

If the question is "Is globalisation totalitarian?" then the
> answer is "No".

WHY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!  You don't have any reasons!  Are we to just take your
word for it, like we are to take the word of those organising the deals?
Even if they have the best wills, the best intentions, WHAT IF THEY ARE
WRONG?  My point is that nobody in power was having the political debate.
Any attempt to go there was immediately deflected into economics.  Why
shouldn't protesters attempt to hinder this paradigm shift with these
questions up in the air?


>
> best
>
>
> p.s.
> > There's a song on the famous Eminem CD in which he robs a bank, kills
the
> > teller, and then says "thank you!" in his cheeriest voice as he is
leaving.
> > I take it you'd regard that as a salutation, nothing more?
>
> I'm not sure what these personal slurs about the way I sign off have to do
> with anything.
>
>
Which personal slurs are those?  Okay, back to the words of one syllable -
you ignore an argument put up in good faith which uses wording that invites
people to argue against it, even if it pretty obviously reflects my
provisional position.  Instead of disagreeing and stating why, you reduce
the argument to the tactic of calling the opposition "fascist".  This is an
insult.  You then immediately sign off "best" (it's written automatically, I
know...), even though you have just figuratively extended your middle
finger.  If you had engaged, like Jane did, I would have cheerfully engaged
back.  Instead you offered no respect.

Phil
>
>
>