#but disney just wants to exploit nostalgia for a profit!! because that is their one goal

[ceezocico]

me seeing disney give phineas and ferb 40 more episodes, a (while definitely great) show that ran for nearly a decade, while every new cartoon gets cancelled after 2 seasons max

[cartoon-savant]

Ducktales "Let's Get Dangerous" Watch Ramblings

Okay, so. That was amazing.

WHO DID THIS!? WHAT MAD GENIUS SNIPED IN BONKERS!? I CAME TO THIS PARTY FOR SPECIFICALLY INFORMED FUN AND THEN THE HOST JUST THROWS GOLD AT MY FACE!!

- The episode feels like a proper dedication to everything Darkwing Duck. The atmosphere of St.Canard still feels like Gotham City so much. If Launchpad is doing double time moving between Duckberg daytime and St.Canard nighttime it’ll hold that vibe the city and DW have. But I can’t help but believe this is the start of his transition to St.Canard. The responsibilities may just be too big to juggle together. Also, this found family of Drake, Launchpad, and Gosalyn is just too good together. Like Launchpad creates a different vibe for himself when he’s with him. He just taps into a whole different side to care for and support them.

-  So yeah, I’m glad Darkwing is still somewhat underappreciated in St.Canard since it didn’t seem like anyone knows about his efforts in the lab. Gizmoduck didn’t even make it halfway across the bridge into the city and gets all the credit. So now we get to see DW work towards that recognition he deserves.

- It was the best blending of nostalgia and new age. They drop a massive Easter egg in one of my favorite scenes, from one of my favorite episodes “A Whale of A Bad Time”, of my favorite story arc where Scrooge and Glomgold race to deliver their fortunes for weighing in a bet to win a lucrative contract. Also love the Fluppy Dogs shot-out. Wasn’t my jam but I gotta respect that attention given.

- F.O.W.L. involvement made the Missing Mysteries tie-in more logical. Huey is getting more involved here since this season is supposed to be this triplet’s turn in the spotlight. I bet this encounter spurs him into action now that F.O.W.L. is exposed to have interest in the mysteries. Speaking of exposed, poor Bradford. Like he would be more successful in his organized bureaucratic villainy if everyone who works for him didn’t revel in the theatrics.

- With Taurus Bulba falling out with F.O.W.L. it leaves me to believe he’ll stay in St. Canard to be a recurring villain for him. If he keeps the “Bulba’s Super Villain Solutions” thing I expect something like the Spectacular Spiderman animated series. Like Norman Osborn he’ll turn out villains for profit while acting behind the scenes and exploiting the chaos. Bonus points if his cybernetic enhancements keep coming in via collateral damage like with Major Bludd in G.I. Joe: Renegades. Since only Megavolt, Quackerjack, Liquidator, and Bushroot seem to be the only returning OG villains (aside from a couple of cool cameos from some C-Listers, haha) now the writers have a nice say in picking and choosing who gets rolled into the reboot reality. Negaduck is basically confirmed as a reboot villain now since they called themselves the Fearsome Four and Justice Ducks got a name drop but not who’s in it. Gizmoduck was a member but is here as a reboot character and they can just grab Neptunia, Stegmutt and Morgana. Real talk, they’ll probably redo all their designs but I hope we keep Morgana’s vibe close to her original which had such a wonderful goofy Elvira feel. Also let’s get a good Batman/Catwoman thing going.

- Bushroot’s redesign and dialogue silence may have been out of respect to his original voice actor Tino Insana’s passing, also the same year the Ducktales reboot came out. Everyone else is alive but the only reprised role was Michael Bell’s Quackerjack and everyone sounded great. Still hope he left like a seedling clone of himself behind so we can explore more of him.

- Gosalyn was well handled. I loved her reboot personality still feeling like OG but with more smarts and skill. Giving her skill with a crossbow was great (she gets a matching outfit and Huntress much) as well as leaning into the Batman & Robin parallels by making her a proper partner/sidekick, instead of a stubborn tag-along.  I want to see her meet Webby because I feel like she will complete a certain dynamic. Webby is an all rounder being good with magic, quite smart and a top fighter. Webby doesn’t hold top mark in any particular area. Lena is basically becoming sorceress supreme and Violet is very intelligent and composed with her reading situations better than the others. So I want Gosalyn to be surprisingly good at keeping up with Webby in a fight.

The second other series that may actually get this kind of dedication in the reboot feels to me like Talespin.

- We have plenty of mentions of Cape Suzette and a Don Karnage. I say “a” because the Season 3 poster revealed what looked like an older Kit and Molly. This leads me to believe the OG Talespin adventures do take place decades prior to closer match the aesthetics of the OGand current era Karnage is a descendant. Della may have also learned to pilot from or was a fan of Baloo so that can be a good background to add to her character. I feel like Shere Khan will be a David Xanatos type character. He was already a fierce, morally ambiguous self serving businessman. But give him that Xanatos pizazz, keen intellect and foresight to make him be the sharpest of the sharpies that Scrooge will ever deal with.

- So all in all it was everything I didn’t know I wanted and gives me such joy for heights this show can reach being this successful in its ambition. I hope further inclusions from other Disney Afternoon characters will start building themselves up in this reboot just as well. I’m excited for more of the world explored from the sides of the Rescue Rangers and Goofy’s suburban slice of life. Oh, and of course cop/detective work from freaking Bonkers! Like this is how you know your reboot is in good hands. When you keep the appeal of and appreciate the old while introducing well defined new takes, bridging the gap between generations so everyone enjoys it. Man, I need that Animaniacs reboot right now.

[twentiethcenturymoviesandtv]

Why Do Reboots and Remakes?

So, today’s going to get a tad topical.

It’s not news that movies follow trends.  They have done so since the invention of film.  The era of the westerns, the spy films, the cop movies, the action flicks, they have all had their runs and resurgences, each influenced by the audience’s responses to the current trend in Hollywood. Sometimes the trends are specific, sometimes quite broad, but no matter what, the movie industry knows how to exploit what the audiences come out to see, even long after the audience is tired of it.

But let’s say that you want to make money off something that’s already been made.  How do you do that?  

The answer to that is pretty simple, and we’ve seen a lot of it over the years.  Studios have been rebranding, remarketing, and adding new gimmicks to old films for some time, whether it’s Disney’s re-releases, 3-D theater runs, IMAX, or special editions.  That’s not even mentioning the video rentals, VHS tapes, and eventually DVD and Blu-Ray copies of films that have been released.

But recently, the attempts to cash in on previously-successful films have become, if not subtle, less blatant.  They’re no longer giving us the same film with minor changes added, no, they’re giving us something a little different.

Movie studios have found a new way to earn new cash from old ideas: taking a pre-existing film (or franchise, or television series), and telling the story again, usually making a handful of changes along the way.

In other words: a remake (or reboot).

Now, remakes aren’t exactly new to the film game.  Since the inclusion of sound, moviemakers originally sought to take previously silent movies and update them into the sound format with remakes such as The Wizard of Oz, Ben Hur, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Moby Dick and Phantom of the Opera.  In the years that followed, the moviemaking process grew more advanced, and filmmakers began to look at older (usually sound) films and find ways to remake them.  What followed were films such as Scarface, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, The Thing, Little Shop of Horrors, The Mummy, Assault on Precinct 13 and more, all of which are considered superior to their original version.  

On the other hand, reboots like Planet of the Apes, The Mummy, Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Psycho, Guess Who, Halloween, and A Nightmare On Elm Street are disliked, and we currently live in an age where there tends to be a lot of outcry against remakes and reboots in general.  And yet they keep being made.

This leads to a question.

What did the former films get right that the latter ones didn’t? What’s the secret to a good reimagining?

To answer that question, first we have to identify the difference between a remake and a reboot.

Both remakes and reboots are adaptations of previous film or television source material, so in that, they are very similar, but there are important distinctions to be made between them.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a reboot, but The Fly is a remake.  So what’s the difference between them?

Let’s start with the easy one.

A remake of a film is a movie that takes the source material and, well, makes it again.  Remakes will usually be extremely similar to the original, with the same story and characters.  Usually secondary elements will be changed, but not to the point where the story is totally different as a result.  For example, the remake of Little Shop of Horrors keeps the character names and plot from the original 1960 black and white film, expanding on them, while clearly being a remake of that film.

On the other hand, a reboot is something a little broader.

A reboot is more typically done with a franchise.  These usually involve the same universe rather than the same stories, and typically involve reimagined versions of characters. A reboot wipes a universe’s slate clean, used most frequently in comic books as a way to reintroduce characters to new audiences in a way that won’t be confusing.  It’s a way to start over and try something new, such as the many incarnations of superheroes in film.  However, unlike a remake, a reboot typically ends up being targeted towards much at the older fans as the newer ones, full of mythology gags and references to familiar lore, such as Mad Max: Fury Road or Kong: Skull Island.

Both of these methods have had both good and bad individual reception.  Some remakes and reboots are done really well, as previously mentioned, but plenty of others are considerably disliked, accused of being cheap attempts to cash in on nostalgia without what made the originals special.  Some people claim there aren’t enough changes made in remakes, others claim there are too many, a few groups say some things shouldn’t be rebooted, and others declare that they just shouldn’t be done like that.  So, which is right?  Are reboots and remakes good ideas, or not?

The answer isn’t black and white, and lies in something more complicated than the execution.  It’s in the conception.

Our big question today is simple: Why reboots and remakes?  Today, we’re going to answer that question by dividing it into two parts: Why are reboots and remakes done, and why should reboots and remakes be done?

Let’s start with the first one.

Why are reboots and remakes done?

Typically, unfortunately, they’re often done for a very simple reason: to make money.

People will pay for nostalgia.  Franchises as long lived as Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Terminator will attest to that.  Every remake, no matter what, piques the interest of those who enjoyed what is being remade.  Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, but one way or another, the film is getting attention, and that’s what companies want more than anything.

Take the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters, for example.  Same concept, similar universe, but different characters.  Without even looking at the film in terms of quality, the fact is, it caused quite a stir, from both supporters and opponents.  The film got a lot of attention, and as a result, people went to see it.

Whether a remake or reboot is good or bad, fans of the original will go to see it, either hoping to enjoy it or hoping to hate it.  And why?

Because of that connection with the original.  Movie companies count on that more than anything else when it comes to remakes.

Now, is that a problem?

Honestly, no.  Companies look at what people want all of the time in order to find out what the audiences want, and nostalgia is an easy thing to make money off of.  The problem is the leap of logic that they take after that, which often looks something like this:

People will pay to see stuff they know -> It doesn’t have to be good for people to come and see it -> We don’t have to put in that much effort.

The problem with movies based solely on making money is this: If your goal is only to make money, you won’t care nearly so much about the actual quality or faithfulness of the product you are trying to recreate.  As a result, there are lots of remakes that exist simply because they were relying on the fact that ‘people know this’.

The worst thing is, it’s working.

There are plenty of bad remakes and reboots that make a lot of money despite their lack of quality, simply because people are curious.  This, in turn, tells Hollywood that it doesn’t matter whether or not their content is good, because they will still be considered ‘successful’, and they keep doing it.  Reboots and remakes are a safe, easy cash grab, and the movie business has known it for years.  

On the other hand, it’s not all bad.

There are plenty of recent reboots that have severely bombed at the box office, from the 2016 remake of Ben Hur, to Ghostbusters, to the new Mummy film.  Turns out that, while Hollywood measures success by money, audiences measure success by, well, quality.  With more and more of these half-hearted remakes coming to the screen, more and more people are starting to complain about the lack of originality in the movie industry.  With more people wanting something new, there’s a possibility that Hollywood will listen, and the trends will change again.

So, that’s why reboots and remakes are usually made.  At least, that’s how they’re made now.  Now for the other question:

Why should we make reboots and remakes?

See, re-making or re-booting pre-existing films, television and franchises is not inherently a bad idea.  In fact, it can be a very good idea.  There are examples of both that have been as good, and some even better than their original counterparts.  So, what did these films do, that the newer ones can’t seem to manage?

In my opinion, what they did was very simple:

They were based on ideas for story, not ideas for increased profit.

The aforementioned films weren’t all blockbusters, and they weren’t meant to be.  The purpose of those films wasn’t to make money, it was to tell a story.

The Fly doesn’t remake the original film by simply updating the special effects, it tells the story in a different way, emphasizing the horrors of losing your humanity rather than the simple horror of a monster. The change of styles can also be said of The Thing or Moby Dick.  The 1999 remake of The Mummy was not a re-telling of the original story, but used the original concept as a jump-off point to turn a horror story into a comedy-adventure.  Little Shop of Horrors went from a goofy horror-comedy to a heartfelt musical (if still a horror comedy) about the dangers of giving up your soul for material gain.

What do all of these have in common?

They changed something.

Every one of these films is a totally different entity than the film it was based on.  They were not ‘safe’ retreads of familiar stories, these remakes took pre-existing films and made them their own, unique versions.  More specifically, these movies were made because the people who created them had an idea; a way to do it differently.

See, reboots and remakes work best when they are being done because there is something new to explore.  When they are being created for the express purpose of trying something new because someone thinks it can work, then there’s a genuine chance for that film to be remembered, both as a remake and a movie in its own right.

Trying something new does not automatically guarantee that it’s going to be a success, either in the box office or in the heart of the fans, but the odds of being fondly remembered are in the favor of a remake that did something creative and different.

In the end, film, no matter how much money it makes, is a form of art.  It’s expression, a way to tell a story.  Remakes and reboots are done best when done by people with something to add, something to explore that audiences haven’t already seen.  People go to see remakes in order to see what’s different, what’s new? What hasn’t been done already?

Sure, some changes work, and some don’t, but the important thing is, things are being changed out of a desire to take a story in a different direction.  When someone remakes a movie with the genuine idea to turn it into something different, to recreate it with their own vision, a thought that they can do something new or better, that’s when remakes become good ideas.

So, why make reboots and remakes?

To take a story and make it your own.  Not to replace, but to reimagine, to take away nothing from the original, but rather to use it as a starting point for creativity, for expanding a pre-existing story with ideas of your own.

In short?

Make movies for ideas, not profit.

Thank you guys so much for reading!  Don’t forget to leave an ask in the ask box, I’d like to hear your thoughts and opinions.  I hope to see you all in the next article!

[queenmercurys]

So, I usually refrain from expressing too many “problematic” opinions on this platform mainly because I don’t wanna deal with anon hate. I’ve done so in the past and it’s never been fun. But since I’ve been talking my friends’ ears off about Disney recently, I thought I would give it a go here. Yes, in the safety of the “read more”-button, because overall, my opinion doesn’t matter and I don’t wanna force it on anyone.

Let’s cut to the chase. I kind of hate Disney. Don’t get me wrong, I watch Disney films and I occasionally reblog some Disney stuff. I think some of their earlier things, from The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Atlantis, are truly enjoyable films. But I’ve never been into the whole Marvel phenomenon. I don’t care about superhero movies, and the way Marvel is insistent upon franchising everything and essentially making every film a cliffhanger for another cliffhanger film, just makes the whole sub-genre less appealing to me. I’m not exactly an action film fan as it is, and when it’s done in such a chaotic way as the Marvel films tend to be, I’m even less convinced. I’m not saying every Marvel film has to be a John Wick in the quality of action, but... one of them could be, no? As for Star Wars, well, it is my personal opinion that Disney has thoroughly ruined the franchise, to the point that I actually prefer the prequels. Maybe they were messy, badly acted and boring, but at least they felt like films - rather than products made for a cash grab. 

As for their other products, well, I like Tangled. Moana is passable. Frozen is fine (but only fine). But none of these animated films have touched me in ways that, for example, The Swan Princess, The Prince of Egypt and Quest for Camelot have. Ever since I was a child, I’ve preferred non-Disney animated films without even realizing it. Maybe it’s because to me, the non-Disney films just tackle more complicated, fascinating stories that rely less on the chance to make merchandise and more on the opportunity to make good content. I have often heard the term of something being “too Disney”. Which, basically, kinda means that a film is just too family-friendly when it really doesn’t have to be. And that is probably something missing from the non-Disney examples I just gave. Admittedly, all of these films are from the 90′s, and I’m sure Dreamworks and co. have now fallen into the same cash-grab trap that Disney is currently sitting in. But nevertheless, I still consider most non-Disney animated films to be superior to their Disney counterparts. Part of it is definitely my annoying habit of disliking something that is too popular simply because it is popular - but I don’t think that’s the whole story. And my dislike of Disney has only grown over the years, to the point that I’m considering boycotting the company entirely. And here’s a few of the biggest reasons why:

Disney+. Yes, every company has the right to try to make money, and they should. But I think Disney+ will only mean the death of other streaming services, and eventually, the death of diversity and creative freedom in the film and TV industry. I prefer Netflix over anything Disney has ever spat out, and while I recognize its flaws, I hope that it will not get overshadowed by Disney+. But who are we kidding? It will. Especially in America, Disney is this sacred thing that nothing can defeat. Disney’s mediocre films (such as Frozen and Marvel movies) are praised as gifts from God, and everything else is either compared to Disney products, or discarded because of Disney. From everything I have read and watched, Disney+ is going to be a real threat to all of its contemporaries. It’s going to be cheaper than Netflix and others, and it’s going to have the products the masses adore (again, namely Marvel). Netflix will lose customers, and Disney+ will gain them. This will most likely make it difficult for Netflix to make new original content, and will most likely also affect movie theatres. Because if Disney+ continues their trend of releasing films on the platform rather than in theatres, well, what choice do Disney fans have but to join the service? And in the end, we’ll be left with nothing but films and shows that are so lifeless, or old classics we know from beginning to end. And neither one of these options encourage anything new. 

This brings me to my second point, which is the lack of creativity and new ideas. You only have to look as far as the Disney liveaction remakes to see that they don’t care if they give you new, quality entertainment. All they care about is getting your money. And again, I am also at fault here. I liked Cinderella just fine. I loved the new Aladdin. I paid to go see those films. I gave Disney my money and thus, encouraged them to make new liveaction remakes. So, I can’t really criticize much when I’m also the offending party here. But still. Remaking every single classic Disney film? That is just exploiting nostalgia to the point that it’s becoming absurd. And all this does is stop Disney from working on new, interesting films that don’t exist in an already established franchise, or aren’t direct remakes. It’s not like Disney doesn’t have the money to take risks. It just refuses to, because why take risks when you can make easy money? And make no mistake. Aladdin 2019 was easy money. Frozen 2 was easy money. And however nice these products are, it does show in the end result. The stories are recycled, and feel kind of lifeless. The fact that people are comparing The Rise of Skywalker to Avengers Endgame only proves that Disney is not only recycling its’ own ideas, but that it’s stripping the directors and writers involved of their creative freedom. I’ve read stuff about how much JJ Abrams had to change in The Rise of Skywalker to accommodate Disney, and it’s actually pretty scary. What the hell is even the point of trying to tell original stories if Mickey Mouse is just gonna come and tell you to rewrite everything you’ve worked on? Disney is perhaps the most obnoxious and money-hungry company I have ever heard of in my life, and that’s saying a lot when there’s companies like Amazon and Apple around.

My third and final point is the fact that Disney owns, or is on its’ way to owning, everything. Absolutely everything. Star Wars. 20th Century Fox. You name it. Almost everything in the film industry at this point is Disney. And that sucks. It sucks so much. I can’t put it any other way. It terrifies me that Disney is in charge of so much of the content we are given. Because, let’s face it. Disney is not the most risk-taking company (at least not anymore), and certainly not the most diversity-encouraging one. People of color, LGBTQ+ characters, you name it - all of the representation in film and TV will most certainly lessen even more once Disney has its’ claws in everything. Disney only represents minorities when it serves them, and when they know they’ll get money off of it. Like that lesbian kiss at the end of Rise of Skywalker? I didn’t even fucking spot it when I watched the film! That is not representation. Having a token black character (who is completely wasted in the case of Finn in Star Wars) is not enough representation. Disney is a coward, and has been for a long time. All Disney cares about is profit, and that’s it. That’s 100000% it. And I’m not saying that other companies are much better. Of course Netflix wants your money. Of course HBO wants you to hand over your credit card info. But at least the content we receive from those companies varies. Not everything Netflix produces is another Stranger Things. HBO has done things that vary from Game of Thrones. But Disney (in recent years)? Remakes. Sequels. Rebooting a known franchise. It’s all been done before. And I’m scared that, say, ten years from now, every single action film will have the protagonist say a variation of “I am Iron Man” before doing their own variation of snapping their fingers. And, in my very non-expert, very non-educated opinion, that would suck.

By the way, it goes without saying, but all of this is just MY opinion. If you love Disney+, if you love Marvel, that’s amazing. I am so happy for you. This is a really good time for you. I’m nothing but a pretentious dick who is complaining about what is essentially just harmless fun. Just wanted to make that clear. 

[randomvarious]

S Club 7 - “S Club Party” Now That's What I Call Music! 6 Song released in 1999. Compilation released in 2000. Pop

We love the overly transparent crass commercialism of the 90s and early 2000s, don’t we folks? S Club 7 were the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed septet of British teens and 20-somethings that were concocted in a lab and thrust upon hordes of impressionable tweens across the world. The story of S Club 7 is a rather gross one that consists of young and attractive, moderately talented people being taken advantage of by their manager and his company to churn out gobs of content without just compensation. If you’re an American of a certain age, you probably know a little something about S Club 7. Their ballad, 2000′s “Never Had a Dream Come True,” peaked at #10 and #8 on the Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard Mainstream Top 40, respectively. Two of S Club 7′s other biggest global hits, the Jackson 5-inspired “Bring It All Back” and “S Club Party” never charted in the US, but lots of Americans still seem to be familiar with them.

S Club 7 was the brainchild of Simon Fuller, one of history’s most successful music  managers, who had managed the Spice Girls. Fuller was known for manufacturing a bunch of British boy and girl bands throughout his career and, at the time, also managed Annie Lennox of the Eurythmics and athletes, too. After helping the Spice Girls skyrocket into global superstardom as a brand that sold itself on a gimmicky blend of “girl power” and quirky British-ness, Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice) orchestrated his firing. Citing his unbearably controlling nature and his marketing schemes, the Girls decided to proceed without Fuller.

But the day after his firing, Fuller was back at it. This time, he decided he would start a new band, but rather than it being a boy band or a girl band, it would be a boy-and-girl band, modeled after an idea put forth by another British group, Steps. Steps are a quartet, and while they’ve achieved little to no success in the US, they have enjoyed wild success in Europe, especially in the UK. And they’re still around. After a five year hiatus that followed a twelve year hiatus, Steps released an album in 2017 that reached #2 on the UK charts. 

But they weren’t a Fuller group. Fuller seemed to have the connections and gravitas that Steps’ managers didn’t. To start his new group, Fuller held an audition of an astonishing 10,000 people, which eventually was culled down to seven. These seven would then be formed into a group and be dubbed S Club 7. None of the members had known each other prior, but according to all the articles I could find, they hit it off and they all became close friends.

With this crop of kids, Fuller saw dollar (or pound or Euro) signs. S Club 7 were going to be way more than just a pop group; they were going to be a marketable brand. And to achieve that goal, the first thing they were going to do was not get into the recording studio, but instead shoot a fictional TV series to air on CBBC (Children’s BBC) to introduce themselves to British pre-teens. Each character would have their own personality, which would be loosely based on their true selves, and together the group’s adventures would strengthen their bond. And each episode would consist of a choreographed song performance, too. The first season, set in Miami, would depict the seven constantly being exploited by a seedy hotel manager and made to perform housekeeping duties.

Unfortunately, these fictional circumstances were loosely based on their own reality. Over twelve weeks of shooting in Miami, the group worked tirelessly for eighteen hours per day, and after a long day’s work, would have to take care of their own cooking and laundry. Fuller and his company, who were flush with cash, didn’t provide S Club 7 with any of these needed amenities. The S Club 7 TV series would become an immense hit in the UK and ended up being sold to 120 different countries. As a result, each group member pulled in 52,000 Euro; a total pittance compared to the total sum of all the TV contracts the show received.

Seven months after its UK debut, the S Club TV series would make its way stateside on kids’ TV purgatory, Fox Family. Formerly The Family Channel, which was founded by horrible and insane Christian shitbag grifter, Pat Robertson, it would be acquired by NewsCorp. Fox would control the network’s programming, save for some hours in which Robertson’s daily spoonful of Christian conservative nonsense, The 700 Club, would air. Admittedly, for a time, I was an avid viewer of Fox Family (except when 700 Club was on), but I’m pretty sure I was rare. Year after year, Fox Family would try to replenish its lineup with new shows to attract new viewers, but they failed to peel many eyes off of the likes of Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and the Disney Channel.

The release of the S Club TV series in the U.S. coincided with the group’s debut album. And maybe it was the fact that they only managed to get on Fox Family that led to them peaking at an unimpressive #112, but back home, they topped charts. The TV series-first formula more than paid off (for Fuller, though. Not so much for S Club 7). “Bring It All Back,” the group’s first single, which was released two months after the TV show’s debut, went to #1 in the UK. Its follow-up, “S Club Party” topped out at #2. And their debut album reached #2 as well.

And along with the TV show and the music came all the merchandise. Dolls, makeup, perfume, clothes, school supplies, a PC game, you name it. If there was an object that a kid could use, Fuller wanted it to bear the S Club name. There were also more seasons of TV and movies, too. And Fuller would reap great profits from all of it, but once again, S Club 7 saw minuscule returns from their name and likenesses being marketed and sold. 

Fuller’s cartoonishly-evil-yet-real-life-record-executive persona became more than apparent during a meeting between he, S Club 7, and some of the members’ parents. Asking how they could receive such little compensation as Fuller and his company made millions off of their efforts, Fuller told the members that he could replace them on stage with cardboard cut-outs and it wouldn’t make a difference. Fuller would also be publicly shamed by a radio DJ when it was revealed that while the S Club kids were traveling the world and making him literally millions, he flew them in economy class. Only after his miserliness was made public did he bump them up to business class.

And although Fuller knew the right people to get his band spoonfed to British kids, it didn’t mean S Club’s songs were bad for what they were. They were well-produced bubblegum pop. Five songs on the debut album ended up being produced by a Norwegian duo called Stargate. Total unknowns at the time, Stargate went on to write or produce for some of the pop world’s most successful groups and artists, including Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, Lionel Richie, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Selena Gomez, Janet Jackson, Shakira, Jennifer Lopez, Sam Smith, Mary J. Blige, Ne-Yo, Katy Perry, Coldplay, P!nk, Sia, Kylie Minogue, Carly Rae Jepsen, and Charli XCX. Throughout their careers, Stargate have managed to rack up a whopping seventeen Grammy noms, including four wins  But before building up that long list of accolades, they began with S Club 7. 

The first single Stargate ever produced was “S Club Party”. A piece of sunny and breezy, anthemic kids’ pop, this song is a natural earworm. Underneath mostly loud and shouted vocals, Stargate weave a celebratory, feelgood g-funk whine throughout the choruses as a series of electro-funk synths and string and horn stabs predominate the rest. The first verse, sung solo by member Jo, proceeds from relative sparseness to an addition of hand claps and a simmering choir of backup vocals, before launching into the undeniably catchy chorus. The four female members soothe in unison as the boys contrast with revelrous chants. In the post-chorus, the girls get in on the chanting, too. The second verse, which packs more energy than the one that precedes it because it’s sung in unison, introduces each member of the group with a simple rhyme. Following the bridge, the song undergroes an unexpected key change, which raises the enjoyment, and as the song fades out, Bradley, the group’s lone black member, does some light scatting. 

You know, Fuller admitted that since he was fired by the Spice Girls, there were some ideas he had had for them that he wasn’t able to use, and instead used for S Club 7. Maybe musically, he wasn’t quite finished with that g-funk infused pop sound. The Spice Girls’ “Say You’ll Be There” has that summery g-funk pool party vibe much like “S Club Party” does. Just a thought.

Here’s the music video, which shows the group transporting back to a California desert in 1959 to race a bunch of people. A choreographed song and dance seemingly materialize out of thin air, too: It comes from the movie they shot called Back to the ‘50s.

For the next few years, S Club 7 continued to release high-charting hit after high-charting hit in the UK, but in 2002, band member Paul decided to leave. This ultimately resulted in possibly the worst sentence ever written on Wikipedia:

Talking about his former musical venture three months before he left S Club 7, Paul Cattermole described his school nu metal band — called Skua— as having a "Limp Bizkit vibe" as well as comparing their style to Rage Against the Machine.

Wat.

Following Paul’s departure, S Club 7 shortened their name to S Club and continued to make hits. However, their star was clearly fading, and in 2003, they agreed to a mutual split. In 2008, some of the members got back together and formed S Club 3. In 2014, they expanded by a member and became S Club Party. Eight months after that, all seven members regrouped for a reunion tour to cash in on some nostalgia. Needless to say, Simon Fuller was involved, and hopefully, the contracts weren’t as exploitative this time around. In the meantime, Fuller would continue unabated, amassing management deals with the likes of Carrie Underwood, Amy Winehouse, and Kelly Clarkson. In 2001, he launched Pop Idol, which would be imported to the States as American Idol.

Now you know more than you thought you’d ever know about S Club 7. It’s tragic how Fuller treated them, but the group is responsible for some great turn-of-the-millennium pop hits, despite how manufactured and seemingly preordained their success was. Oh well, we can’t help what we listened to when we were kids and nostalgia has a way of making us love things we definitely wouldn’t as adults. Nothing wrong with coming to terms and embracing that fact.

Stay the fuck inside you freaks.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

#3yrsago Keep your scythe, the real green future is high-tech, democratic, and radical

"Radical ecology" has come to mean a kind of left-wing back-to-the-landism that throws off consumer culture and mass production for a pastoral low-tech lifestyle. But as the brilliant science journalist and Marxist Leigh Phillips writes in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff, if the left has a future, it has to reclaim its Promethean commitment to elevating every human being to a condition of luxurious, material abundance and leisure through technological progress.

Phillips is a brilliant writer and an incisive scientific thinker with impeccable credentials in the science press. He's also an unapologetic Marxist. In this book -- which is one of the most entertaining and furious reads about politics and climate you're likely to read -- he rails against the "austerity ecology" movement that calls for more labor-intensive processes, an end to the drive to increase material production, and a "simpler" life that often contains demands for authoritarian, technocratic rule, massive depopulation, and a return to medieval drudgery.

It wasn't always thus. The left -- especially Marxist left -- has a long history of glorifying technological progress and proposing it as the solution to humanity's woes. Rather than blaming the machine for pollution, Marxists blame capitalism for being a system that demands that firms pollute to whatever extent they can, right up the point where the fines outweigh the savings.

As far back as Engels, Marxists refused to countenance the idea of limits to human growth. While Malthus was (incorrectly) predicting that humanity would exhaust its food stores any day now and plunge into barbarism, Engels wrote, in Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy:

Even if we assume that the increase in yield due to increase in labour does not always rise in proportion to the labour, there still remains a third element which, admittedly, never means anything to the economist – science – whose progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population.

But how can a finite planet sustain infinite growth? Through improvements in material processes. We use a lot less to make things today than we ever have, thanks to science -- and capitalism. The less labor and material used in a process, the less it costs to make and the more profit there is. But growth under market conditions also requires pollution/extraction/waste/overproduction:

The firm not be able to pay for new materials or labour or the upkeep of its machines and will go out of business. This is why capitalists, left to their own devices, have no choice but to pollute or extract or pump out CO2 or catch fish at a rate that is heedless of what remains of our store of resources. It is not that they are evil or greedy. If one capitalist says to herself “To hell with the profits! The planet is more important!” then she will quickly be beaten by a rival who is not so scrupulous. To keep going, they will have to give up on such high-minded thoughts. And this is true regardless of size, whether a globe-rogering, $11-bajillion-market-cap, Taibbian vampire-squid investment bank or a mom-and-pop corner shop that sells nothing but thimbles of rosewater-scented whimsy and hand-sewn felt puppets of characters from Wes Anderson films. If right next door, a big-box chain-store Whimsy-Mart opens up with vats of all-you-can-eat cut-price Owen Wilson dolls and that small business doesn’t toughen up, then they’re fucked.

Companies can only abstain from harmful conduct when the market is regulated -- no longer "free" -- and they are required to do or not do certain things that the state has banned. If all companies are required to follow the rules, then following them won't mean being undercut by a competitor. But regulation can't solve the problem, because it's always fighting a rear-guard action:

...[H]owever much we want to regulate capitalism, there will always be some new commodity or market inadvertently ‘polluting’ that has yet to be regulated. So the regulator is always playing catch-up. Further, capital’s need for self-valorisation tends to strain at the leash of regulatory restraint, as there is always some jurisdiction where this regulation does not exist. Which means that there is a force in the economy constantly pushing toward pollution that we are forever trying to push back against, a beast we cannot tame or cage. This is why social democracy goes further toward preventing pollution than less regulated forms of capitalism, but cannot absolutely prevent the problem.

The answer, Phillips argues, is a democratically planned economy -- a socialist solution. Not the "green lefty" answer, which requires "de-growth," but growth that is guided by democratic, not market, forces:

•  The capitalist says: There may or may not be resource limits, but don’t worry about them! Innovation will come along in time! Full steam ahead!

•  The green lefty says: Innovation can’t save us! There’s an upper limit to what humans can have / an upper limit on the number of humans. Slam on the brakes!

•  The socialist says: Through rational, democratic planning, let’s make sure that the innovation arrives so that we can move forward without inadvertently overproducing. And move forward we must, in order to continue to expand human flourishing. So long as we do that, there are in principle no limits. Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!

"Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!" There's something gloriously anarcho-steampunk about that, right in line with Magpie Killjoy's Steampunk Magazine motto: "Love the machine, hate the factory."

Phillips believes that the green left's anti-consumerist/pastoral view is more aesthetic than political: they don't want to stop consuming, they just want to stop consuming things that poor people like, and limit their consumption to labor-intensive items that are priced out of reach of most of the world. Material abundance is the end of want and immiseration, and it's what progressive activists have demanded for their brothers and sisters since ancient times.

In the wake of the Black Friday sales after US Thanksgiving that in recent years have begun to take place in other countries as well, or Boxing Day sales the day after Christmas in Commonwealth countries, where people line up (or queue) before dawn in the freezing November weather outside the local MegaMart for ridiculously cut-price deals on everything, I’ve begun to notice a welter of Facebook status updates, tweets and ‘news’ articles sneering at videos of the trampling, stampeding chaos and images of people coming to blows over 40-inch plasma TVs, lap-tops or tumble dryers.

A survey of the incomes of those racing through the aisles to get to that hundred-dollar stereo that normally sells for $400 should give the smug tut-tutters pause though. This is one of the few times of the year that people can even hope to afford such ‘luxuries’, the Christmas presents their kids are asking for, or just an appliance that works. In a democratically controlled economy, we may collectively decide on different production priorities, but surely we would still organise the production of items that bring people joy. Why shouldn’t people have these things that bring them pleasure? Is the pleasure derived from a box-fresh pair of Nike running shoes or a Sony PlayStation 4 inferior to the pleasure the subscribers of Real Simple magazine derive from their $2000 coffee table made from recycled traffic signs? Likewise, why is the £59 hand-carved walnut locomotive from a Stoke Newington toy shop any less consumerist than the free plastic Elsa doll from Disney’s Frozen accompanying a Subway Fresh Fit Kids Meal?

The difference is a poor-hating snobbery and nothing more...

Anti-consumption politics almost always seem to be about somebody else’s wrong, less spiritually rewarding purchases. It is perhaps the pinnacle of conspicuous consumption. At the very least, no one should mistake this lip-pursed bien-pensant middle-class scolding for speaking truth to power.

The left once campaigned for better conditions for the workers who make things, now it is preoccupied with buying less of what's made, but "An anti-consumerist model of campaigning simply and ineffectively replaces that of a trade unionist model." Sure, the stuff is made by terribly exploited workers. That needs to stop. But rather than campaigning for a retreat from the comforts of technology, let's campaign for their provision to all who want them: "Inequality should not be replaced by an equality of poverty, but an equality of abundance."

Rather than campaign against Walmart, lets use its supply-chain management to liberate its goods from exploitation!

Yes, Virginia, while Walmart, the third largest employer in the world, operates within the free market competing against other shops, internally, the multinational firm is the very model of planning, as are all firms. Highly hierarchical and, yes, dictatorial, but planned with brilliant efficiency by humans nonetheless. As American Marxist literary critic Fredric Jameson has scandalously suggested, strip out the exploitation of its workers and the lack of democracy, and the stunning logistical wonder that is Walmart actually becomes an example of planning that socialists should study with keen scrutiny. Walmart is, Jameson asserts cheekily but with sincere admiration, “the shape of a utopian future looming through the mist, which we must seize as an opportunity to exercise the utopian imagination more fully, rather than an occasion for moralizing judgments or regressive nostalgia.

The only way to create a sustainable future is to soak the left in technological expertise, not to turn our back on it. We need to figure out how to make a lot more with a lot less, more efficiently and effectively than ever before. We have to stop pretending that organic food -- which uses more pesticides and requires more land than high-tech farming -- is better. We have to stop pretending that "GMO" is a meaningful category. We need to figure out how to give people the wealth and comfort and the access to contraception and knowledge that lets them have fewer kids -- not insist that the technologies that feed the kids they have today be banned because they originate with terrible companies. The problem is the companies, not the technology (Edison was a colossal asshole, but I still use battery power and lightbulbs all the time).

The left has done this before, with enormous success, in the area of AIDS activism:

But I also know the tremendous advances that evidence-based medicine has achieved over the last 200 years as a result of the germ theory of disease, sanitation, antibiotics, vaccines, pharmacology, lab technology and genetics. As Ben Goldacre, the doctor and health campaigner who manages to be simultaneously Britain’s most trenchant critic of Big Pharma and of medical frauds such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture and ‘nutritionists’, puts it: “Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer.” The socialist left, with its historic commitment to reason and science, has to separate itself from the distractions of the crunchy left.

We could do far worse in this regard than learning from the AIDS campaigners of the late 80s and early 90s in organisations like ACT-UP and the Treatment Action Group. They described and continue to describe themselves as “science-based treatment activists.” While engaging in multiple high-profile acts of militant civil disobedience against the pharma giants and both Republican and Democrat politicians, they also soberly, rigorously plunged deeply into the science of their condition, and were willing to change tack upon the advent of new evidence, as happened when early demands of expanded access or “drugs into bodies,” as was the slogan of the time, proved to be insufficiently nuanced. Despite most of the activists lacking any formal medical training, the extent of their evidence-focussed self-education and the quality of their reports and recommendations were such that clinicians began to recognise them as their equals in an understanding of the disease. And through this combination of a grounding in science and militant activism, ACT-UP and TAG changed the course of an epidemic, forcing governments to care about a plague killing queers, drug users and minorities.

Agrarianism isn't intrinsically leftwing. There's something inescapably Tory about the idea of a world as a Richard Scarry village where everyone is a small shopkeeper in a shire. It's the same force than animates xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment (and there's plenty of people in the green left who also militate against immigration, for the same reason). Small is beautiful only after you get rid of 80% of the world -- otherwise, we need dense, intense, technological living. The more of that we get, the more of the countryside we can be left for wildlife.

We are not in a lifeboat. Lifeboat politics are awfully convenient for thugs who would rather force you to do what they say than convince you. The Earth is imperiled, and it can't be saved by telling the world's majority that they will never enjoy the comfort that the minority of us enjoyed for the past century: "It is important for those who quite rightly care deeply about the threat to humanity represented by myriad ecological problems to inoculate themselves against such thinking, to foreswear anti-modernism and the lifeboat politics of limits to growth."

In the past century, certain leftists pretended that Stalinism's horrors were the price we had to pay for socialist rule. Today, the austere greens tell us that hairshirts, de-growth, and radical population reduction are the unfortunate and inevitable consequence of undoing capitalism's excesses. Neither is right. Dinosaurs walked the earth for ten million years; we've only been here for a couple hundred thousand years. The idea that we'll just stop now, stop progressing and improving on the things we developed, become "steady state" creatures, for the next 9 million years and change is a terrible one. Let's not swear off our futures.

Some people love living in the countryside, genuinely prefer it. But a mass-scale back-to-the-land experiment would be a disaster: "a wistful, sentimental appreciation of nature and lamentation of a lost Eden arises from a certain level of city-dwelling privilege forgetful of the tribulations of rural life and ever-present menace that is the wilderness. It takes a certain kind of forgetfulness to be able to romanticise the hard-knock life of the peasant. The peasant would trade places with the gentleman horticulturalist—or, more latterly, the Stoke Newington subscriber to Modern Farmer magazine—any day."

A sustainable world is one in which we do things better. The better we do them -- the more material abundance we harness -- the more free we will be, both from want and coercion:

As a result of our audacity, our ultimate resource, each of the limits imposed upon us by nature that we have breached—from fire that allowed us to expend less food energy intake on digestion and permitted more energy to be given over to our expanding brain, through electric lighting that allows us to stay up after dark, to the technologies of the bicycle, the washing machine, the pill, abortion, and fertility treatments that have chipped away at patriarchy—has required a growing consumption of energy. All of these natural limits were imposed as arbitrarily as the rules and dictates of any illegitimate government. For this reason, one would think that the most defiant possible demand of anarchism—the political philosophy that challenges not just the power of the state, but all illegitimate authority—would be for the ever greater degrees of freedom delivered by the liberatory power of more energy. Indeed the entirety of the left, not just anarchists, in recognition of this potential for liberation, used to argue not against energy expenditure or technology, but that these advances be shared by everyone, rather than just the elite few.

Energy is freedom. Growth is freedom.

Austerity Ecology marries incisive science writing, radical politics, and blazing prose. It's an important book about climate, and an even more important book about the politics of doing something about the climate.

Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff [Leigh Phillips/Zero Books]

https://boingboing.net/2016/01/12/keep-your-scythe-the-real-gre.html

[towtiems-blog]

The great media deterioration

The great media deterioration.

         Another whiskey fueled read is coming guys, brace yourselves. I am writing this article having just seen the new Star Wars film. And I got to tell you, it was a nice film. A generic adventure flick that got the blood pumping, had us riding the emotional rollercoaster at times too. Was it the gem that all us nerds were expecting? No, by any stretch of the imagination it was not. It wasn’t even close to what it was supposed to be. In this article, I will touch on a couple of subject, including the whole Star Wars issue, that in my opinion describe completely the attitude that major corporations have towards us, the consumers.

         In some cases it is more understandable that a not so straightforward marketing tactic, ie. milking, makes more sense than others. For instance I remember that show, How I met your mother. They stretched that show so much that it got unbearable to watch. It was like they were telling it to our faces: “ You are all idiots, and we will treat you as such.” It got so bad I stopped watching, and I loved that show. It was a Friends substitute and it felt good for a while. After they saw the success of it however, they decided to milk that cow for as long as they could in order to make more money off of it. And that resulted in deteriorating quality and loss of fan base, although in the long run it proved more profitable. In that case it is slightly more understandable mainly because of the fact that a show like that can only provide so much. There is an upper limit as to how much the public can take of a specific product and How I met your mother was reaching that limit fast. So in a way, I am willing to excuse such an indiscretion. Nobody was fully invested in that show the way all us were in Star Wars.

         On the other hand, Star Wars, has not only been a simple movie. For most of us, it has been stories that as children helped us grew. We were taught from it. Lessons about humility, anger, kindness. It had such a great impact on our lives, at least those that really got into it that, it became synonymous to a childhood memory. And that nostalgia exactly is what makes us so passionate about it. And we are not alone. Even the creator of it, George Lucas, treated the movies as him own magnum opus and that really showed. We were blaming him for ruining the franchise with the second trilogy, in the order they were released, but now, looking back, was he right? Looking at what this beloved franchise has become, wouldn’t we rather have him lead us through the story? Me myself, I remember my father bringing home illegal DVDs with foreign subtitles, of all the Star Wars movies just to show them to me. Once I became a bit older, he took me to the cinema with him and it became an event for me that bonded me with him even more. I believe most of us nerds had similar experiences. Thus we treat Star Wars with the same passion.

         Therefore, Star Wars in not to be excused from such an indiscretion. And I am quite aware of the fact, that if I said that to anyone involved with the movie he would laugh in my face. And to which I answer: Do you really think that if you released a million Star Wars movies, I wouldn’t go to see them? I would go to see ALL of them. There is absolutely no need for this non-sense. I would support the franchise and millions more would do the same. We have proven that time and time again. We stood by it when Kristensen destroyed Vader, we stood by it when Luke was drinking green milk for fucks sake. We stood by it when it left the hands of its creator and was owned by a corporation completely irrelevant with anything Star Wars, a company which due to recent event we can certainly say has nothing to do with the reality. Of course I am talking about Disney, and by the way, say hello to the new Disney princess, the Xenomorph queen mother.

         Despite all that, despite the passion that the fans have shown, they keep going in a direction were the franchise is mutilated with the sole purpose of making more money. What baffles me the most is the fact that we have proven our loyalty, yet they insist on providing second grade material.

         I am sorry guys, but I now got it out of my system. Let’s move on.

As started in previous articles, competitions drives companies to do anything necessary to gain the upper hand and control the market. This time is by getting us, the consumers, even more hooked in a drug that doesn’t seem to be available all that too often. So we wait, without a pedestal to voice our opinions. We wait patiently for the next dose to arrive. To pay for it, for some other man to get reach off of it. We have seen records breaking, the highest opening weekend, the highest pre-order sales, multi platinum records and all that shit. All kindle to make a fire burn brighter. To make us want that dose a bit more. A bit more every single time, until we are consumed by it, and all we do it stare at our phones, looking for information about it. But that is a topic for another article. Has it really reached that point where major corporations can control our lives like that? Is that a new low to our society?

         Today I read a Reddit IamA, that Snowden took part in it, about a new law that the congress is trying to sneak in, to expand the surveillance capabilities of the homeland surveillance program. It makes you wonder, if all that doping mentioned above, serves a higher purpose.

         Is the fact that most of us today are completely and utterly mesmerized by the vast stream of information available to us, beneficial to others? Is the fact that we idolize the Kardasians a leverage for those to think, to hold above us?

         Another great fuck up that hasn’t gone unnoticed, is the great Marvel movies those are a spectacle, aren’t they? They took the comics, they made couple of nice movies in the beginning and then they rode that train all the way to the orient. They spitting them out faster that Wendy’s spits out nice tweets. A movie is in the works before another is released. They keep adding depth to it by adding more character an in the minds of some this justifies the situation. Comic books was another big thing for me growing up. It was all about all out silliness really. Nowadays, it is all dumbed down to appeal to a larger audience, once again deteriorating quality. And yes, the original creators did it before it was cool, but then again, in the golden age of comics, the stakes weren’t so high. And with higher stakes, comes greater desire for profit, therefore greater exploitation.

         And I wont stop there. Even in books we have seen similar cases. It hurts me greatly to say, since the Stephen King is one of my absolute favorite authors, but he too is guilty of riding that wave. He has released so many idiotic books I can’t even begin to describe. He wrote something good that caught on, and then proceeded to repeat himself, once every six month or a year. An example would be Desperation. King, you disappoint me.

         I specifically mentioned King however, because he uses a medium which can easily be translated into another medium. Book to movies. The recently releases It film was a good one by the way, highly recommended. King sells the rights to his books, as history has shown, with no regard as to what quality of film, the producers will provide. We have seen his books being transferred to the big screen and failing miserable. Dark tower, the mist, Dreamcatcher and more. Carrie. That’s a big one.  

         So what is really happening same as with King and Star Wars, they find something that we like and we are hooked on, and they stretch it as much as possible to maximize profit all while, the quality of the product deteriorates rapidly, resulting in us fans being disappointed. Nowadays it is hard to imagine a world where we get what we want. This behavior allows for companies to have greater control in our lives, have a stronger grip to what we want to watch, how we entertain ourselves and as a natural consequence, what types of subliminal messages get across to us.

         Will that ever stop? No, I do not think so. I see things getting much more profit oriented, by each step they take. Is that something that bars us from having quality entertainment however? I think not. Nor should you. One does not cancel the other out. We can have both situations coexist. They can milk the franchises as much as they want, while still maintaining a healthy fan base.

         In conclusion, the great media deterioration is upon us. Reduced quality of all sorts of media in the name of profit. Flicks being pushed out the door as soon as possible and major studios maintaining a year by year release schedule. A tactic acceptable as long as the quality is not hindered as much as it is now.

Towtiems

[jaywhitecotton]

Death Rattle of Provacative

What is the value of free speech? In a world where everyone is a pundit, a commentator, a walking op-ed piece - just what is the value of free speech? What value is a voice that only serves an audience of sycophantic echoes? This week people have been arguing over whether or not alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulis should be given opportunities to speak. Should he be allowed to voice his opinions on talk shows and college campuses? Especially if his speech creates violent reactions like the small anemic riots in San Francisco. Well yes, of course he does. Its pretty simple.If an organization invites you to speak, they have the right to do so - and in turn - you have the right to protest and speak out against it. You have the right to condemn it as well as the right to ignore it. That’s it. You do not have the right to throw a goddamn violent hissy fit and destroy property. Don’t get me wrong – there are plenty of reasons to burn a Starbucks. I can think of twenty in LA right now, filled with budding screenwriters applying the Save the Cat formula to some trite bullshit that will eventually clog theaters with more artless crap. If you’re going to burn anything – start with the university’s student loan office. A greedy and exploitative institution that is actively destroying lives and creating the type of indentured servitude that straight up keeps people chained to shitty jobs with worthless degrees. But over Milo? Are you fucking kidding me? This is what a provocateur is these days?! Did somebody hit the snooze button on ‘effective challenging figures’?! Milo ' Greek Yogurt' Yiannopoulis is about as dangerous and effective as a wet fart. Sure you might need to go to the restroom for a security wipe, but it’s not like you’re going to call a friend to bring you some new pants. Lenny Bruce went to jail for the right to use profanity in his nightclub performances. The Supreme Court was forced to deal with the issue of indecency because of a George Carlin album. Frank Zappa, 2 Live Crew, Dee Snyder – all fought against the likes of Tipper Gore and evangelicals desperate power grabs to block or define their art. Good or bad - They all won in their own way. Maybe the problem here is that art is no longer challenging. It’s been suffocated by corporate monopolies, artless interns who work their way to becoming taste-makers and industry gate keepers. Comedy, music, film – I can’t think of anyone in this current crop of “successes” who is actually saying or challenging anything of merit. Why would they? In a world where media is so prevalent, so saturated in blogs, op-eds and TV pundits – how do you creatively challenge this kind of world? A world where everyone thinks they’re bland talking points are equal and deserving? When Johnny Square Dick Barista and Sally No Tits Paralegal think they have the ‘hottest take’ equal to the wisdom of Mark Twain. Myself included. We have all the free speech you can want and unfortunately – you get what you pay for. No wonder Kanye lost his mind. No wonder our idea of progress is Adele accepting awards in one hand while saying it belongs to Beyonce in the other. No wonder there’s an army of copy n paste ex-Disney kids growing up celebrated for their achievements only because we need the nostalgia to feel like our formative years mattered. That it was all worthwhile. Never mind the fact that art has been predominantly shit for probably more decades than we care to admit. Art is fucking dead. And what good, actual real art that might exist - has been mirrored and co-opted by brand ambassadors and self aware mimickers with WordPress skills. The effect is gone – the audience is on stage and the real artists are stuck suffering while watching this shit show play out. I mean when was the last time you saw a guy walking down the street with a guitar and didn’t think “who does this desperate asshole think he’s pretending to be?” Some people blame the progressives. Progressives were the people who used to defend ‘free speech’. Gradually over time they became the enforcers of shutting down communication. Shrill voices trying to yell down any opposing point of view - be it slight or egregious in disagreement. They unified and then - turned their attacks on themselves. Everyone became apologists deferring in one hand while grandstanding in the other. We couldn’t have a simple Women’s March in solidarity against the new Administration without people pointing out that 'white feminists were bad because they couldn’t effectively speak for black women', then 'black women were bad if they were Christian and felt that abortion was wrong', then 'abortions were bad because they enabled sex workers and it was bad to slut shame sex workers', then 'it was bad they were sex workers because many were virtual slaves to systematic patriarchal pimping'. I think – I don’t know – It’s hard to keep up with all this free flowing sanctimony. Maybe that’s why everyone is so desperate to be on the cross? It’s hard to flutter your opinions when you’re completely nailed down. All i know is you can’t be politically correct every hour of every day. ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE WRONG ONCE IN AWHILE. The need to always be the most right is the snake eating its own tail. Somehow in all this chaos, the conservatives have tried their best to posture as if they were finally on the side of hip and relevance. Even though their whole core being is against this entire concept. Most of their value judgments are either corporate funded or motivated by outdated religious dictum and prejudices. Its why most of their talking points are “See! We found a gay jew who bangs black guys to agree with our hate speech!”, or “Here’s a woman who thinks other women should shut up about who governs their bodies!”, or “Businesses shouldn’t be forced to serve gays ice cream cakes!”,” Indians are in the way of PROGRESSIVE oil pipelines!”, “Solar energy is in the way of Dickens-era coal miners!”, and “Environmental conservation limits corporations from profiting as much as they deserve!”, and also “Corporations are people and black, brown and poor white people need to be gerrymandered out of their districts because they can’t effectively be their own voice and we need to bring Democracy to the Middle East!” Or the now popular “Gender neutral bathrooms only encourage rapists to attack more women and children.” This is why Milo Yiannopoulis is considered a ‘provocateur’?! A rebel fighting for the right to free speech?! Bitch please! This motherfucker is so basic, why do you think the right embraced him? The fact that he’s so transparent makes me wonder how he gets away acting like he’s actually transphobic. He’s not. It’s an act. His only fear is the public realization he’s utterly irrelevant to any conversation. He brings NOTHING to the table. Never trust the conservative right’s opinion of what their version of a rebel is. It’s NEVER AUTHENTIC. This is the party that thought Tucker Carlson was making a rebellious statement because of his dedication to the bow tie. STOP treating Milo like he’s the new bad boy saying it how it is because he waves the free speech flag as if a Hero. I’m sorry, but a real Hero isn’t afraid to use a unisex bathroom. A real brave person doesn’t quiver in fear behind false statistics of sexual abuse in between shaking out mud nuggets in the handicapped stall. Trust me – I’ve taking shits in jail holding cells. I fucking know fear and bravery. Also – Lets clarify this shit once and for all. Milo isn’t a fucking comedian. The same way Ann Coulter isn’t a comedian. Comedy requires so much more than just yelling bland statements for the audience to agree and clap to – NO MATTER WHAT COMEDY CENTRAL PRETENDS OTHERWISE. We should let idiots have a platform. We should use their insipid, tired rhetoric to serve as an example and a teaching point for people to see through them. Nobody said you had to treat them with respect. People get the respect they give onto others and trollish fucks should be openly showcased and treated in kind. It all works out eventually. You ever hear the expression ‘give a man enough rope’? Look at what’s happening to Milo right now. By exposing himself so publicly he has opened himself to the worst trolls of all. The general public. And the general public LOVES false idols. You see – What people forget about the public eye is that it also has a mouth – and a fierce appetite for people who posture as if untouchable. And the public eye is NEVER bigger than our stomachs. We’ll chew every inch of meat on your body until we swallow you up and shit you out, courtesy flushing you into forgotten mediocrity. The best part - this bathroom is gender neutral. Just ask Lena Dunham. It’s already happening. When ill informed, no talent shrills make their living pretending they’re capable of actual satire – they get rooted out for the frauds they are. It’s why Milo is facing actual setbacks now that his recorded support of pedophilia has been unearthed for all to exploit. He’ll still have his audience for now, but the more this kind of attention consumes him, the more he’ll whither like a fish on the hook. The trolls he surrounded himself with will eventually get bored of him - and all he’ll have left are the few scumfucks who genuinely embraced his rhetoric who will eventually gay bash him. Meanwhile Leslie Jones will still be getting work. The fun and the power will be played out and he’ll have nothing left to devour, but himself. Because - again - the need to be right is the snake eating its own tail. Including the alt-right. That said.. I realize I’m just adding another voice to this. I realize that in some possible way, I’m playing a small insignificant part of the very thing I’m railing against. The difference is I’m not selling anything. I’m not even saying I’m right. For fucksakes I can be off a few points here and honestly – there’s plenty I didn’t add for brevity sake. All I can do is challenge myself to do more. To take a chance to be wrong. Maybe that’s what art has evolved to? Maybe art is no longer trying to challenge people – maybe art has evolved into challenging ourselves? Take it or leave it. Free speech. You get what you pay for.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

#2yrsago Keep your scythe, the real green future is high-tech, democratic, and radical

"Radical ecology" has come to mean a kind of left-wing back-to-the-landism that throws off consumer culture and mass production for a pastoral low-tech lifestyle. But as the brilliant science journalist and Marxist Leigh Phillips writes in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff, if the left has a future, it has to reclaim its Promethean commitment to elevating every human being to a condition of luxurious, material abundance and leisure through technological progress.

Phillips is a brilliant writer and an incisive scientific thinker with impeccable credentials in the science press. He's also an unapologetic Marxist. In this book -- which is one of the most entertaining and furious reads about politics and climate you're likely to read -- he rails against the "austerity ecology" movement that calls for more labor-intensive processes, an end to the drive to increase material production, and a "simpler" life that often contains demands for authoritarian, technocratic rule, massive depopulation, and a return to medieval drudgery.

It wasn't always thus. The left -- especially Marxist left -- has a long history of glorifying technological progress and proposing it as the solution to humanity's woes. Rather than blaming the machine for pollution, Marxists blame capitalism for being a system that demands that firms pollute to whatever extent they can, right up the point where the fines outweigh the savings.

As far back as Engels, Marxists refused to countenance the idea of limits to human growth. While Malthus was (incorrectly) predicting that humanity would exhaust its food stores any day now and plunge into barbarism, Engels wrote, in Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy:

Even if we assume that the increase in yield due to increase in labour does not always rise in proportion to the labour, there still remains a third element which, admittedly, never means anything to the economist – science – whose progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population.

But how can a finite planet sustain infinite growth? Through improvements in material processes. We use a lot less to make things today than we ever have, thanks to science -- and capitalism. The less labor and material used in a process, the less it costs to make and the more profit there is. But growth under market conditions also requires pollution/extraction/waste/overproduction:

The firm not be able to pay for new materials or labour or the upkeep of its machines and will go out of business. This is why capitalists, left to their own devices, have no choice but to pollute or extract or pump out CO2 or catch fish at a rate that is heedless of what remains of our store of resources. It is not that they are evil or greedy. If one capitalist says to herself “To hell with the profits! The planet is more important!” then she will quickly be beaten by a rival who is not so scrupulous. To keep going, they will have to give up on such high-minded thoughts. And this is true regardless of size, whether a globe-rogering, $11-bajillion-market-cap, Taibbian vampire-squid investment bank or a mom-and-pop corner shop that sells nothing but thimbles of rosewater-scented whimsy and hand-sewn felt puppets of characters from Wes Anderson films. If right next door, a big-box chain-store Whimsy-Mart opens up with vats of all-you-can-eat cut-price Owen Wilson dolls and that small business doesn’t toughen up, then they’re fucked.

Companies can only abstain from harmful conduct when the market is regulated -- no longer "free" -- and they are required to do or not do certain things that the state has banned. If all companies are required to follow the rules, then following them won't mean being undercut by a competitor. But regulation can't solve the problem, because it's always fighting a rear-guard action:

...[H]owever much we want to regulate capitalism, there will always be some new commodity or market inadvertently ‘polluting’ that has yet to be regulated. So the regulator is always playing catch-up. Further, capital’s need for self-valorisation tends to strain at the leash of regulatory restraint, as there is always some jurisdiction where this regulation does not exist. Which means that there is a force in the economy constantly pushing toward pollution that we are forever trying to push back against, a beast we cannot tame or cage. This is why social democracy goes further toward preventing pollution than less regulated forms of capitalism, but cannot absolutely prevent the problem.

The answer, Phillips argues, is a democratically planned economy -- a socialist solution. Not the "green lefty" answer, which requires "de-growth," but growth that is guided by democratic, not market, forces:

•  The capitalist says: There may or may not be resource limits, but don’t worry about them! Innovation will come along in time! Full steam ahead!

•  The green lefty says: Innovation can’t save us! There’s an upper limit to what humans can have / an upper limit on the number of humans. Slam on the brakes!

•  The socialist says: Through rational, democratic planning, let’s make sure that the innovation arrives so that we can move forward without inadvertently overproducing. And move forward we must, in order to continue to expand human flourishing. So long as we do that, there are in principle no limits. Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!

"Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!" There's something gloriously anarcho-steampunk about that, right in line with Magpie Killjoy's Steampunk Magazine motto: "Love the machine, hate the factory."

Phillips believes that the green left's anti-consumerist/pastoral view is more aesthetic than political: they don't want to stop consuming, they just want to stop consuming things that poor people like, and limit their consumption to labor-intensive items that are priced out of reach of most of the world. Material abundance is the end of want and immiseration, and it's what progressive activists have demanded for their brothers and sisters since ancient times.

In the wake of the Black Friday sales after US Thanksgiving that in recent years have begun to take place in other countries as well, or Boxing Day sales the day after Christmas in Commonwealth countries, where people line up (or queue) before dawn in the freezing November weather outside the local MegaMart for ridiculously cut-price deals on everything, I’ve begun to notice a welter of Facebook status updates, tweets and ‘news’ articles sneering at videos of the trampling, stampeding chaos and images of people coming to blows over 40-inch plasma TVs, lap-tops or tumble dryers.

A survey of the incomes of those racing through the aisles to get to that hundred-dollar stereo that normally sells for $400 should give the smug tut-tutters pause though. This is one of the few times of the year that people can even hope to afford such ‘luxuries’, the Christmas presents their kids are asking for, or just an appliance that works. In a democratically controlled economy, we may collectively decide on different production priorities, but surely we would still organise the production of items that bring people joy. Why shouldn’t people have these things that bring them pleasure? Is the pleasure derived from a box-fresh pair of Nike running shoes or a Sony PlayStation 4 inferior to the pleasure the subscribers of Real Simple magazine derive from their $2000 coffee table made from recycled traffic signs? Likewise, why is the £59 hand-carved walnut locomotive from a Stoke Newington toy shop any less consumerist than the free plastic Elsa doll from Disney’s Frozen accompanying a Subway Fresh Fit Kids Meal?

The difference is a poor-hating snobbery and nothing more...

Anti-consumption politics almost always seem to be about somebody else’s wrong, less spiritually rewarding purchases. It is perhaps the pinnacle of conspicuous consumption. At the very least, no one should mistake this lip-pursed bien-pensant middle-class scolding for speaking truth to power.

The left once campaigned for better conditions for the workers who make things, now it is preoccupied with buying less of what's made, but "An anti-consumerist model of campaigning simply and ineffectively replaces that of a trade unionist model." Sure, the stuff is made by terribly exploited workers. That needs to stop. But rather than campaigning for a retreat from the comforts of technology, let's campaign for their provision to all who want them: "Inequality should not be replaced by an equality of poverty, but an equality of abundance."

Rather than campaign against Walmart, lets use its supply-chain management to liberate its goods from exploitation!

Yes, Virginia, while Walmart, the third largest employer in the world, operates within the free market competing against other shops, internally, the multinational firm is the very model of planning, as are all firms. Highly hierarchical and, yes, dictatorial, but planned with brilliant efficiency by humans nonetheless. As American Marxist literary critic Fredric Jameson has scandalously suggested, strip out the exploitation of its workers and the lack of democracy, and the stunning logistical wonder that is Walmart actually becomes an example of planning that socialists should study with keen scrutiny. Walmart is, Jameson asserts cheekily but with sincere admiration, “the shape of a utopian future looming through the mist, which we must seize as an opportunity to exercise the utopian imagination more fully, rather than an occasion for moralizing judgments or regressive nostalgia.

The only way to create a sustainable future is to soak the left in technological expertise, not to turn our back on it. We need to figure out how to make a lot more with a lot less, more efficiently and effectively than ever before. We have to stop pretending that organic food -- which uses more pesticides and requires more land than high-tech farming -- is better. We have to stop pretending that "GMO" is a meaningful category. We need to figure out how to give people the wealth and comfort and the access to contraception and knowledge that lets them have fewer kids -- not insist that the technologies that feed the kids they have today be banned because they originate with terrible companies. The problem is the companies, not the technology (Edison was a colossal asshole, but I still use battery power and lightbulbs all the time).

The left has done this before, with enormous success, in the area of AIDS activism:

But I also know the tremendous advances that evidence-based medicine has achieved over the last 200 years as a result of the germ theory of disease, sanitation, antibiotics, vaccines, pharmacology, lab technology and genetics. As Ben Goldacre, the doctor and health campaigner who manages to be simultaneously Britain’s most trenchant critic of Big Pharma and of medical frauds such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture and ‘nutritionists’, puts it: “Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer.” The socialist left, with its historic commitment to reason and science, has to separate itself from the distractions of the crunchy left.

We could do far worse in this regard than learning from the AIDS campaigners of the late 80s and early 90s in organisations like ACT-UP and the Treatment Action Group. They described and continue to describe themselves as “science-based treatment activists.” While engaging in multiple high-profile acts of militant civil disobedience against the pharma giants and both Republican and Democrat politicians, they also soberly, rigorously plunged deeply into the science of their condition, and were willing to change tack upon the advent of new evidence, as happened when early demands of expanded access or “drugs into bodies,” as was the slogan of the time, proved to be insufficiently nuanced. Despite most of the activists lacking any formal medical training, the extent of their evidence-focussed self-education and the quality of their reports and recommendations were such that clinicians began to recognise them as their equals in an understanding of the disease. And through this combination of a grounding in science and militant activism, ACT-UP and TAG changed the course of an epidemic, forcing governments to care about a plague killing queers, drug users and minorities.

Agrarianism isn't intrinsically leftwing. There's something inescapably Tory about the idea of a world as a Richard Scarry village where everyone is a small shopkeeper in a shire. It's the same force than animates xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment (and there's plenty of people in the green left who also militate against immigration, for the same reason). Small is beautiful only after you get rid of 80% of the world -- otherwise, we need dense, intense, technological living. The more of that we get, the more of the countryside we can be left for wildlife.

We are not in a lifeboat. Lifeboat politics are awfully convenient for thugs who would rather force you to do what they say than convince you. The Earth is imperiled, and it can't be saved by telling the world's majority that they will never enjoy the comfort that the minority of us enjoyed for the past century: "It is important for those who quite rightly care deeply about the threat to humanity represented by myriad ecological problems to inoculate themselves against such thinking, to foreswear anti-modernism and the lifeboat politics of limits to growth."

In the past century, certain leftists pretended that Stalinism's horrors were the price we had to pay for socialist rule. Today, the austere greens tell us that hairshirts, de-growth, and radical population reduction are the unfortunate and inevitable consequence of undoing capitalism's excesses. Neither is right. Dinosaurs walked the earth for ten million years; we've only been here for a couple hundred thousand years. The idea that we'll just stop now, stop progressing and improving on the things we developed, become "steady state" creatures, for the next 9 million years and change is a terrible one. Let's not swear off our futures.

Some people love living in the countryside, genuinely prefer it. But a mass-scale back-to-the-land experiment would be a disaster: "a wistful, sentimental appreciation of nature and lamentation of a lost Eden arises from a certain level of city-dwelling privilege forgetful of the tribulations of rural life and ever-present menace that is the wilderness. It takes a certain kind of forgetfulness to be able to romanticise the hard-knock life of the peasant. The peasant would trade places with the gentleman horticulturalist—or, more latterly, the Stoke Newington subscriber to Modern Farmer magazine—any day."

A sustainable world is one in which we do things better. The better we do them -- the more material abundance we harness -- the more free we will be, both from want and coercion:

As a result of our audacity, our ultimate resource, each of the limits imposed upon us by nature that we have breached—from fire that allowed us to expend less food energy intake on digestion and permitted more energy to be given over to our expanding brain, through electric lighting that allows us to stay up after dark, to the technologies of the bicycle, the washing machine, the pill, abortion, and fertility treatments that have chipped away at patriarchy—has required a growing consumption of energy. All of these natural limits were imposed as arbitrarily as the rules and dictates of any illegitimate government. For this reason, one would think that the most defiant possible demand of anarchism—the political philosophy that challenges not just the power of the state, but all illegitimate authority—would be for the ever greater degrees of freedom delivered by the liberatory power of more energy. Indeed the entirety of the left, not just anarchists, in recognition of this potential for liberation, used to argue not against energy expenditure or technology, but that these advances be shared by everyone, rather than just the elite few.

Energy is freedom. Growth is freedom.

Austerity Ecology marries incisive science writing, radical politics, and blazing prose. It's an important book about climate, and an even more important book about the politics of doing something about the climate.

Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff [Leigh Phillips/Zero Books]

https://boingboing.net/2016/01/12/keep-your-scythe-the-real-gre.html

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Keep your scythe, the real green future is high-tech, democratic, and radical #1yrago

"Radical ecology" has come to mean a kind of left-wing back-to-the-landism that throws off consumer culture and mass production for a pastoral low-tech lifestyle. But as the brilliant science journalist and Marxist Leigh Phillips writes in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff, if the left has a future, it has to reclaim its Promethean commitment to elevating every human being to a condition of luxurious, material abundance and leisure through technological progress.

Phillips is a brilliant writer and an incisive scientific thinker with impeccable credentials in the science press. He's also an unapologetic Marxist. In this book -- which is one of the most entertaining and furious reads about politics and climate you're likely to read -- he rails against the "austerity ecology" movement that calls for more labor-intensive processes, an end to the drive to increase material production, and a "simpler" life that often contains demands for authoritarian, technocratic rule, massive depopulation, and a return to medieval drudgery.

It wasn't always thus. The left -- especially Marxist left -- has a long history of glorifying technological progress and proposing it as the solution to humanity's woes. Rather than blaming the machine for pollution, Marxists blame capitalism for being a system that demands that firms pollute to whatever extent they can, right up the point where the fines outweigh the savings.

As far back as Engels, Marxists refused to countenance the idea of limits to human growth. While Malthus was (incorrectly) predicting that humanity would exhaust its food stores any day now and plunge into barbarism, Engels wrote, in Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy:

Even if we assume that the increase in yield due to increase in labour does not always rise in proportion to the labour, there still remains a third element which, admittedly, never means anything to the economist – science – whose progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population.

But how can a finite planet sustain infinite growth? Through improvements in material processes. We use a lot less to make things today than we ever have, thanks to science -- and capitalism. The less labor and material used in a process, the less it costs to make and the more profit there is. But growth under market conditions also requires pollution/extraction/waste/overproduction:

The firm not be able to pay for new materials or labour or the upkeep of its machines and will go out of business. This is why capitalists, left to their own devices, have no choice but to pollute or extract or pump out CO2 or catch fish at a rate that is heedless of what remains of our store of resources. It is not that they are evil or greedy. If one capitalist says to herself “To hell with the profits! The planet is more important!” then she will quickly be beaten by a rival who is not so scrupulous. To keep going, they will have to give up on such high-minded thoughts. And this is true regardless of size, whether a globe-rogering, $11-bajillion-market-cap, Taibbian vampire-squid investment bank or a mom-and-pop corner shop that sells nothing but thimbles of rosewater-scented whimsy and hand-sewn felt puppets of characters from Wes Anderson films. If right next door, a big-box chain-store Whimsy-Mart opens up with vats of all-you-can-eat cut-price Owen Wilson dolls and that small business doesn’t toughen up, then they’re fucked.

Companies can only abstain from harmful conduct when the market is regulated -- no longer "free" -- and they are required to do or not do certain things that the state has banned. If all companies are required to follow the rules, then following them won't mean being undercut by a competitor. But regulation can't solve the problem, because it's always fighting a rear-guard action:

...[H]owever much we want to regulate capitalism, there will always be some new commodity or market inadvertently ‘polluting’ that has yet to be regulated. So the regulator is always playing catch-up. Further, capital’s need for self-valorisation tends to strain at the leash of regulatory restraint, as there is always some jurisdiction where this regulation does not exist. Which means that there is a force in the economy constantly pushing toward pollution that we are forever trying to push back against, a beast we cannot tame or cage. This is why social democracy goes further toward preventing pollution than less regulated forms of capitalism, but cannot absolutely prevent the problem.

The answer, Phillips argues, is a democratically planned economy -- a socialist solution. Not the "green lefty" answer, which requires "de-growth," but growth that is guided by democratic, not market, forces:

•  The capitalist says: There may or may not be resource limits, but don’t worry about them! Innovation will come along in time! Full steam ahead!

•  The green lefty says: Innovation can’t save us! There’s an upper limit to what humans can have / an upper limit on the number of humans. Slam on the brakes!

•  The socialist says: Through rational, democratic planning, let’s make sure that the innovation arrives so that we can move forward without inadvertently overproducing. And move forward we must, in order to continue to expand human flourishing. So long as we do that, there are in principle no limits. Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!

"Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!" There's something gloriously anarcho-steampunk about that, right in line with Magpie Killjoy's Steampunk Magazine motto: "Love the machine, hate the factory."

Phillips believes that the green left's anti-consumerist/pastoral view is more aesthetic than political: they don't want to stop consuming, they just want to stop consuming things that poor people like, and limit their consumption to labor-intensive items that are priced out of reach of most of the world. Material abundance is the end of want and immiseration, and it's what progressive activists have demanded for their brothers and sisters since ancient times.

In the wake of the Black Friday sales after US Thanksgiving that in recent years have begun to take place in other countries as well, or Boxing Day sales the day after Christmas in Commonwealth countries, where people line up (or queue) before dawn in the freezing November weather outside the local MegaMart for ridiculously cut-price deals on everything, I’ve begun to notice a welter of Facebook status updates, tweets and ‘news’ articles sneering at videos of the trampling, stampeding chaos and images of people coming to blows over 40-inch plasma TVs, lap-tops or tumble dryers.

A survey of the incomes of those racing through the aisles to get to that hundred-dollar stereo that normally sells for $400 should give the smug tut-tutters pause though. This is one of the few times of the year that people can even hope to afford such ‘luxuries’, the Christmas presents their kids are asking for, or just an appliance that works. In a democratically controlled economy, we may collectively decide on different production priorities, but surely we would still organise the production of items that bring people joy. Why shouldn’t people have these things that bring them pleasure? Is the pleasure derived from a box-fresh pair of Nike running shoes or a Sony PlayStation 4 inferior to the pleasure the subscribers of Real Simple magazine derive from their $2000 coffee table made from recycled traffic signs? Likewise, why is the £59 hand-carved walnut locomotive from a Stoke Newington toy shop any less consumerist than the free plastic Elsa doll from Disney’s Frozenaccompanying a Subway Fresh Fit Kids Meal?

The difference is a poor-hating snobbery and nothing more...

Anti-consumption politics almost always seem to be about somebody else’s wrong, less spiritually rewarding purchases. It is perhaps the pinnacle of conspicuous consumption. At the very least, no one should mistake this lip-pursed bien-pensant middle-class scolding for speaking truth to power.

The left once campaigned for better conditions for the workers who make things, now it is preoccupied with buying less of what's made, but "An anti-consumerist model of campaigning simply and ineffectively replaces that of a trade unionist model." Sure, the stuff is made by terribly exploited workers. That needs to stop. But rather than campaigning for a retreat from the comforts of technology, let's campaign for their provision to all who want them: "Inequality should not be replaced by an equality of poverty, but an equality of abundance."

Rather than campaign against Walmart, lets use its supply-chain management to liberate its goods from exploitation!

Yes, Virginia, while Walmart, the third largest employer in the world, operates within the free market competing against other shops, internally, the multinational firm is the very model of planning, as are all firms. Highly hierarchical and, yes, dictatorial, but planned with brilliant efficiency by humans nonetheless. As American Marxist literary critic Fredric Jameson has scandalously suggested, strip out the exploitation of its workers and the lack of democracy, and the stunning logistical wonder that is Walmart actually becomes an example of planning that socialists should study with keen scrutiny. Walmart is, Jameson asserts cheekily but with sincere admiration, “the shape of a utopian future looming through the mist, which we must seize as an opportunity to exercise the utopian imagination more fully, rather than an occasion for moralizing judgments or regressive nostalgia.

The only way to create a sustainable future is to soak the left in technological expertise, not to turn our back on it. We need to figure out how to make a lotmore with a lot less, more efficiently and effectively than ever before. We have to stop pretending that organic food -- which uses more pesticides andrequires more land than high-tech farming -- is better. We have to stop pretending that "GMO" is a meaningful category. We need to figure out how to give people the wealth and comfort and the access to contraception and knowledge that lets them have fewer kids -- not insist that the technologies that feed the kids they have today be banned because they originate with terrible companies. The problem is the companies, not the technology (Edison was a colossal asshole, but I still use battery power and lightbulbs all the time).

The left has done this before, with enormous success, in the area of AIDS activism:

But I also know the tremendous advances that evidence-based medicine has achieved over the last 200 years as a result of the germ theory of disease, sanitation, antibiotics, vaccines, pharmacology, lab technology and genetics. As Ben Goldacre, the doctor and health campaigner who manages to be simultaneously Britain’s most trenchant critic of Big Pharma and of medical frauds such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture and ‘nutritionists’, puts it: “Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer.” The socialist left, with its historic commitment to reason and science, has to separate itself from the distractions of the crunchy left.

We could do far worse in this regard than learning from the AIDS campaigners of the late 80s and early 90s in organisations like ACT-UP and the Treatment Action Group. They described and continue to describe themselves as “science-based treatment activists.” While engaging in multiple high-profile acts of militant civil disobedience against the pharma giants and both Republican and Democrat politicians, they also soberly, rigorously plunged deeply into the science of their condition, and were willing to change tack upon the advent of new evidence, as happened when early demands of expanded access or “drugs into bodies,” as was the slogan of the time, proved to be insufficiently nuanced. Despite most of the activists lacking any formal medical training, the extent of their evidence-focussed self-education and the quality of their reports and recommendations were such that clinicians began to recognise them as their equals in an understanding of the disease. And through this combination of a grounding in science and militant activism, ACT-UP and TAG changed the course of an epidemic, forcing governments to care about a plague killing queers, drug users and minorities.

Agrarianism isn't intrinsically leftwing. There's something inescapably Tory about the idea of a world as a Richard Scarry village where everyone is a small shopkeeper in a shire. It's the same force than animates xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment (and there's plenty of people in the green left who also militate against immigration, for the same reason). Small is beautiful only after you get rid of 80% of the world -- otherwise, we need dense, intense, technological living. The more of that we get, the more of the countryside we can be left for wildlife.

We are not in a lifeboat. Lifeboat politics are awfully convenient for thugs who would rather force you to do what they say than convince you. The Earth is imperiled, and it can't be saved by telling the world's majority that they will never enjoy the comfort that the minority of us enjoyed for the past century: "It is important for those who quite rightly care deeply about the threat to humanity represented by myriad ecological problems to inoculate themselves against such thinking, to foreswear anti-modernism and the lifeboat politics of limits to growth."

In the past century, certain leftists pretended that Stalinism's horrors were the price we had to pay for socialist rule. Today, the austere greens tell us that hairshirts, de-growth, and radical population reduction are the unfortunate and inevitable consequence of undoing capitalism's excesses. Neither is right. Dinosaurs walked the earth for ten million years; we've only been here for a couple hundred thousand years. The idea that we'll just stop now, stop progressing and improving on the things we developed, become "steady state" creatures, for the next 9 million years and change is a terrible one. Let's not swear off our futures.

Some people love living in the countryside, genuinely prefer it. But a mass-scale back-to-the-land experiment would be a disaster: "a wistful, sentimental appreciation of nature and lamentation of a lost Eden arises from a certain level of city-dwelling privilege forgetful of the tribulations of rural life and ever-present menace that is the wilderness. It takes a certain kind of forgetfulness to be able to romanticise the hard-knock life of the peasant. The peasant would trade places with the gentleman horticulturalist—or, more latterly, the Stoke Newington subscriber to Modern Farmer magazine—any day."

A sustainable world is one in which we do things better. The better we do them -- the more material abundance we harness -- the more free we will be, both from want and coercion:

As a result of our audacity, our ultimate resource, each of the limits imposed upon us by nature that we have breached—from fire that allowed us to expend less food energy intake on digestion and permitted more energy to be given over to our expanding brain, through electric lighting that allows us to stay up after dark, to the technologies of the bicycle, the washing machine, the pill, abortion, and fertility treatments that have chipped away at patriarchy—has required a growing consumption of energy. All of these natural limits were imposed as arbitrarily as the rules and dictates of any illegitimate government. For this reason, one would think that the most defiant possible demand of anarchism—the political philosophy that challenges not just the power of the state, but all illegitimate authority—would be for the ever greater degrees of freedom delivered by the liberatory power of more energy. Indeed the entirety of the left, not just anarchists, in recognition of this potential for liberation, used to argue not against energy expenditure or technology, but that these advances be shared by everyone, rather than just the elite few.

Energy is freedom. Growth is freedom.

Austerity Ecology marries incisive science writing, radical politics, and blazing prose. It's an important book about climate, and an even more important book about the politics of doing something about the climate.

Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff [Leigh Phillips/Zero Books]

https://boingboing.net/2016/01/12/keep-your-scythe-the-real-gre.html

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Keep your scythe, the real green future is high-tech, democratic, and radical #1yrago

"Radical ecology" has come to mean a kind of left-wing back-to-the-landism that throws off consumer culture and mass production for a pastoral low-tech lifestyle. But as the brilliant science journalist and Marxist Leigh Phillips writes in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff, if the left has a future, it has to reclaim its Promethean commitment to elevating every human being to a condition of luxurious, material abundance and leisure through technological progress.

Phillips is a brilliant writer and an incisive scientific thinker with impeccable credentials in the science press. He's also an unapologetic Marxist. In this book -- which is one of the most entertaining and furious reads about politics and climate you're likely to read -- he rails against the "austerity ecology" movement that calls for more labor-intensive processes, an end to the drive to increase material production, and a "simpler" life that often contains demands for authoritarian, technocratic rule, massive depopulation, and a return to medieval drudgery.

It wasn't always thus. The left -- especially Marxist left -- has a long history of glorifying technological progress and proposing it as the solution to humanity's woes. Rather than blaming the machine for pollution, Marxists blame capitalism for being a system that demands that firms pollute to whatever extent they can, right up the point where the fines outweigh the savings.

As far back as Engels, Marxists refused to countenance the idea of limits to human growth. While Malthus was (incorrectly) predicting that humanity would exhaust its food stores any day now and plunge into barbarism, Engels wrote, in Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy:

Even if we assume that the increase in yield due to increase in labour does not always rise in proportion to the labour, there still remains a third element which, admittedly, never means anything to the economist – science – whose progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population.

But how can a finite planet sustain infinite growth? Through improvements in material processes. We use a lot less to make things today than we ever have, thanks to science -- and capitalism. The less labor and material used in a process, the less it costs to make and the more profit there is. But growth under market conditions also requires pollution/extraction/waste/overproduction:

The firm not be able to pay for new materials or labour or the upkeep of its machines and will go out of business. This is why capitalists, left to their own devices, have no choice but to pollute or extract or pump out CO2 or catch fish at a rate that is heedless of what remains of our store of resources. It is not that they are evil or greedy. If one capitalist says to herself “To hell with the profits! The planet is more important!” then she will quickly be beaten by a rival who is not so scrupulous. To keep going, they will have to give up on such high-minded thoughts. And this is true regardless of size, whether a globe-rogering, $11-bajillion-market-cap, Taibbian vampire-squid investment bank or a mom-and-pop corner shop that sells nothing but thimbles of rosewater-scented whimsy and hand-sewn felt puppets of characters from Wes Anderson films. If right next door, a big-box chain-store Whimsy-Mart opens up with vats of all-you-can-eat cut-price Owen Wilson dolls and that small business doesn’t toughen up, then they’re fucked.

Companies can only abstain from harmful conduct when the market is regulated -- no longer "free" -- and they are required to do or not do certain things that the state has banned. If all companies are required to follow the rules, then following them won't mean being undercut by a competitor. But regulation can't solve the problem, because it's always fighting a rear-guard action:

...[H]owever much we want to regulate capitalism, there will always be some new commodity or market inadvertently ‘polluting’ that has yet to be regulated. So the regulator is always playing catch-up. Further, capital’s need for self-valorisation tends to strain at the leash of regulatory restraint, as there is always some jurisdiction where this regulation does not exist. Which means that there is a force in the economy constantly pushing toward pollution that we are forever trying to push back against, a beast we cannot tame or cage. This is why social democracy goes further toward preventing pollution than less regulated forms of capitalism, but cannot absolutely prevent the problem.

The answer, Phillips argues, is a democratically planned economy -- a socialist solution. Not the "green lefty" answer, which requires "de-growth," but growth that is guided by democratic, not market, forces:

•  The capitalist says: There may or may not be resource limits, but don’t worry about them! Innovation will come along in time! Full steam ahead!

•  The green lefty says: Innovation can’t save us! There’s an upper limit to what humans can have / an upper limit on the number of humans. Slam on the brakes!

•  The socialist says: Through rational, democratic planning, let’s make sure that the innovation arrives so that we can move forward without inadvertently overproducing. And move forward we must, in order to continue to expand human flourishing. So long as we do that, there are in principle no limits. Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!

"Let’s take over the machine, not turn it off!" There's something gloriously anarcho-steampunk about that, right in line with Magpie Killjoy's Steampunk Magazine motto: "Love the machine, hate the factory."

Phillips believes that the green left's anti-consumerist/pastoral view is more aesthetic than political: they don't want to stop consuming, they just want to stop consuming things that poor people like, and limit their consumption to labor-intensive items that are priced out of reach of most of the world. Material abundance is the end of want and immiseration, and it's what progressive activists have demanded for their brothers and sisters since ancient times.

In the wake of the Black Friday sales after US Thanksgiving that in recent years have begun to take place in other countries as well, or Boxing Day sales the day after Christmas in Commonwealth countries, where people line up (or queue) before dawn in the freezing November weather outside the local MegaMart for ridiculously cut-price deals on everything, I’ve begun to notice a welter of Facebook status updates, tweets and ‘news’ articles sneering at videos of the trampling, stampeding chaos and images of people coming to blows over 40-inch plasma TVs, lap-tops or tumble dryers.

A survey of the incomes of those racing through the aisles to get to that hundred-dollar stereo that normally sells for $400 should give the smug tut-tutters pause though. This is one of the few times of the year that people can even hope to afford such ‘luxuries’, the Christmas presents their kids are asking for, or just an appliance that works. In a democratically controlled economy, we may collectively decide on different production priorities, but surely we would still organise the production of items that bring people joy. Why shouldn’t people have these things that bring them pleasure? Is the pleasure derived from a box-fresh pair of Nike running shoes or a Sony PlayStation 4 inferior to the pleasure the subscribers of Real Simple magazine derive from their $2000 coffee table made from recycled traffic signs? Likewise, why is the £59 hand-carved walnut locomotive from a Stoke Newington toy shop any less consumerist than the free plastic Elsa doll from Disney’s Frozen accompanying a Subway Fresh Fit Kids Meal?

The difference is a poor-hating snobbery and nothing more...

Anti-consumption politics almost always seem to be about somebody else’s wrong, less spiritually rewarding purchases. It is perhaps the pinnacle of conspicuous consumption. At the very least, no one should mistake this lip-pursed bien-pensant middle-class scolding for speaking truth to power.

The left once campaigned for better conditions for the workers who make things, now it is preoccupied with buying less of what's made, but "An anti-consumerist model of campaigning simply and ineffectively replaces that of a trade unionist model." Sure, the stuff is made by terribly exploited workers. That needs to stop. But rather than campaigning for a retreat from the comforts of technology, let's campaign for their provision to all who want them: "Inequality should not be replaced by an equality of poverty, but an equality of abundance."

Rather than campaign against Walmart, lets use its supply-chain management to liberate its goods from exploitation!

Yes, Virginia, while Walmart, the third largest employer in the world, operates within the free market competing against other shops, internally, the multinational firm is the very model of planning, as are all firms. Highly hierarchical and, yes, dictatorial, but planned with brilliant efficiency by humans nonetheless. As American Marxist literary critic Fredric Jameson has scandalously suggested, strip out the exploitation of its workers and the lack of democracy, and the stunning logistical wonder that is Walmart actually becomes an example of planning that socialists should study with keen scrutiny. Walmart is, Jameson asserts cheekily but with sincere admiration, “the shape of a utopian future looming through the mist, which we must seize as an opportunity to exercise the utopian imagination more fully, rather than an occasion for moralizing judgments or regressive nostalgia.

The only way to create a sustainable future is to soak the left in technological expertise, not to turn our back on it. We need to figure out how to make a lot more with a lot less, more efficiently and effectively than ever before. We have to stop pretending that organic food -- which uses more pesticides and requires more land than high-tech farming -- is better. We have to stop pretending that "GMO" is a meaningful category. We need to figure out how to give people the wealth and comfort and the access to contraception and knowledge that lets them have fewer kids -- not insist that the technologies that feed the kids they have today be banned because they originate with terrible companies. The problem is the companies, not the technology (Edison was a colossal asshole, but I still use battery power and lightbulbs all the time).

The left has done this before, with enormous success, in the area of AIDS activism:

But I also know the tremendous advances that evidence-based medicine has achieved over the last 200 years as a result of the germ theory of disease, sanitation, antibiotics, vaccines, pharmacology, lab technology and genetics. As Ben Goldacre, the doctor and health campaigner who manages to be simultaneously Britain’s most trenchant critic of Big Pharma and of medical frauds such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture and ‘nutritionists’, puts it: “Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer.” The socialist left, with its historic commitment to reason and science, has to separate itself from the distractions of the crunchy left.

We could do far worse in this regard than learning from the AIDS campaigners of the late 80s and early 90s in organisations like ACT-UP and the Treatment Action Group. They described and continue to describe themselves as “science-based treatment activists.” While engaging in multiple high-profile acts of militant civil disobedience against the pharma giants and both Republican and Democrat politicians, they also soberly, rigorously plunged deeply into the science of their condition, and were willing to change tack upon the advent of new evidence, as happened when early demands of expanded access or “drugs into bodies,” as was the slogan of the time, proved to be insufficiently nuanced. Despite most of the activists lacking any formal medical training, the extent of their evidence-focussed self-education and the quality of their reports and recommendations were such that clinicians began to recognise them as their equals in an understanding of the disease. And through this combination of a grounding in science and militant activism, ACT-UP and TAG changed the course of an epidemic, forcing governments to care about a plague killing queers, drug users and minorities.

Agrarianism isn't intrinsically leftwing. There's something inescapably Tory about the idea of a world as a Richard Scarry village where everyone is a small shopkeeper in a shire. It's the same force than animates xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment (and there's plenty of people in the green left who also militate against immigration, for the same reason). Small is beautiful only after you get rid of 80% of the world -- otherwise, we need dense, intense, technological living. The more of that we get, the more of the countryside we can be left for wildlife.

We are not in a lifeboat. Lifeboat politics are awfully convenient for thugs who would rather force you to do what they say than convince you. The Earth is imperiled, and it can't be saved by telling the world's majority that they will never enjoy the comfort that the minority of us enjoyed for the past century: "It is important for those who quite rightly care deeply about the threat to humanity represented by myriad ecological problems to inoculate themselves against such thinking, to foreswear anti-modernism and the lifeboat politics of limits to growth."

In the past century, certain leftists pretended that Stalinism's horrors were the price we had to pay for socialist rule. Today, the austere greens tell us that hairshirts, de-growth, and radical population reduction are the unfortunate and inevitable consequence of undoing capitalism's excesses. Neither is right. Dinosaurs walked the earth for ten million years; we've only been here for a couple hundred thousand years. The idea that we'll just stop now, stop progressing and improving on the things we developed, become "steady state" creatures, for the next 9 million years and change is a terrible one. Let's not swear off our futures.

Some people love living in the countryside, genuinely prefer it. But a mass-scale back-to-the-land experiment would be a disaster: "a wistful, sentimental appreciation of nature and lamentation of a lost Eden arises from a certain level of city-dwelling privilege forgetful of the tribulations of rural life and ever-present menace that is the wilderness. It takes a certain kind of forgetfulness to be able to romanticise the hard-knock life of the peasant. The peasant would trade places with the gentleman horticulturalist—or, more latterly, the Stoke Newington subscriber to Modern Farmer magazine—any day."

A sustainable world is one in which we do things better. The better we do them -- the more material abundance we harness -- the more free we will be, both from want and coercion:

As a result of our audacity, our ultimate resource, each of the limits imposed upon us by nature that we have breached—from fire that allowed us to expend less food energy intake on digestion and permitted more energy to be given over to our expanding brain, through electric lighting that allows us to stay up after dark, to the technologies of the bicycle, the washing machine, the pill, abortion, and fertility treatments that have chipped away at patriarchy—has required a growing consumption of energy. All of these natural limits were imposed as arbitrarily as the rules and dictates of any illegitimate government. For this reason, one would think that the most defiant possible demand of anarchism—the political philosophy that challenges not just the power of the state, but all illegitimate authority—would be for the ever greater degrees of freedom delivered by the liberatory power of more energy. Indeed the entirety of the left, not just anarchists, in recognition of this potential for liberation, used to argue not against energy expenditure or technology, but that these advances be shared by everyone, rather than just the elite few.

Energy is freedom. Growth is freedom.

Austerity Ecology marries incisive science writing, radical politics, and blazing prose. It's an important book about climate, and an even more important book about the politics of doing something about the climate.

Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff [Leigh Phillips/Zero Books]

https://boingboing.net/2016/01/12/keep-your-scythe-the-real-gre.html