counter-culture inside pop-culture

[TMA_1]

Well - I have heard and seen some things that point to a general malaise that people feel in American society, but that seems to be about it. I believe that much of the "protest" media out there acts as a vent to keep folks docile. Why hasn't a deeper layer of consciousness formed yet in popular culture concerning the war and the presidency? Take shows like the Daily Show for example, resoundingly popular, yet it gives just enough information to make a person laugh at the problems that need to be corrected. If you ask around, you will find that there are quite a few people who actually want to do something to help make a change, they just dont know where to go, and have no idea really of what to do. It is hard for people to change things on a massive scale on an individual basis. There really needs to be a few people who have the power to manage and command (bad word to use, but its the best one i can think of at the moment) a movement that is known not just to the fringes of political society, but to a broader audience. Not a movement to make the grand changes, but to jump start a sort of national conscience. Many people (maybe just speaking for myself) feel that they are being sucked in to the tide pull of globalization and bureaucracy, where there is no more democratic representation. I guess we sheep are pulling the wool over our own eyes by doing nothing. Where are the educated people of the middle classes? Why arent there many attempting to reach the masses to create change? Are the underclass guys going to have to do it themselves?

One scholar said something that makes me a bit afraid, and I believe he could be right. (paraphrase) American society will have a hard time uniting against a common injustice because it is just too diverse. (paraphrase)

[Dude_Doc]

Not a movement to make the grand changes, but to jump start a sort of national conscience. Many people (maybe just speaking for myself) feel that they are being sucked in to the tide pull of globalization and bureaucracy, where there is no more democratic representation.

I think that firstly, people are rapped in their own daily lives and problems, which takes up all their time. Really, the only way to make a change is either by voting, which takes an hour at most, or protest, which takes many days (or even months) to just being heard. Secondly, people are disillusioned by the way of society. The only thing left is capitalism, globalization, and all of that. Even if they somehow "defeat" this administration, or put this law in place, one day, all that will change, and future administrations will do just what this one is doing.

Also, why participate in demonstrations and the like, and spend time on it, when you can spend time trying to better your own life. After all, when (and if) you succeed, all the worldly problems will go away...

I think it is time to make a complete overhaul. 

Where are the educated people of the middle classes?

They are trying to better their own lives, I guess.

Why arent there many attempting to reach the masses to create change?

I'd say because many people have been brainwashed by the current world regime. The students in China protested - look what happened to them. And by now, most of them aren't even involved with democratic and fair movements. Look at the Flower-power movements, they had their times with anti-war and their drugs, now they're all lawyers. People protested back in 2003, and ever since, and nothing happened. What's the point?

Are the underclass guys going to have to do it themselves?

With what resources? And to what end? In the end, they will still slave at the factory for the same low wage they always have...

(paraphrase) American society will have a hard time uniting against a common injustice because it is just too diverse. (paraphrase)

Exactly. This is what the overclasses wants. Or, if it isn't possible, at least unite them under war and domination...

[TMA_1]

Also, why participate in demonstrations and the like, and spend time on it, when you can spend time trying to better your own life. After all, when (and if) you succeed, all the worldly problems will go away...

true, but it is much easier to focus on other peoples lives... lol

thanks for your post, a good one.

[Egeides]

While it might solve issues from ourselves, I think that it goes both sides, or otherwise it'd let an open field to those who are not as concerned. I don't mean implication in grand social issues, maybe just little gestures on the field, but it still isn't passive.

[Tatar Khan]

To really want change people have to be desperate to such extend that they don't want to put up with the government anymore.

In the countries where the government is more or less is stable people don't care since politics don't affect them that much anymore.

Ussually here only students demonstrate because they have less to lose and nothing else to worry about. However now even they don't demonstrate because many need to work and study to get better grades.

Regular person in Western world worries about his mortgage, kids education, retiremnt plans, insurances and such. He has the car to fix, house to clean and prepare the backyard for the summer. Think where he wants to go for a long weekend or holidays. He wants to meet with his friends on the weekend for the BBQ and go to work to get enough money to pay his bills and go on a vacation maybe.

Protesting something is not the thing that comes to his mind right now because at the end of it all government polcies (this is based on his past experience) affect him loosely and if they do not really greatly. That person has more precisng needs to worry about. (such as what dryer to buy so it doesn't increase the electric bill, or how to cheapely clean the carpets in the house, or how to refinance his mortgage.)

[Dude_Doc]

true, but it is much easier to focus on other peoples lives...

Maybe so, but that takes resources (or, finance), and what demonstration or protest - in the history of the human being - have ever recieved money for their action?

[Caid Ivik]

If you ask around, you will find that there are quite a few people who actually want to do something to help make a change, they just dont know where to go, and have no idea really of what to do. It is hard for people to change things on a massive scale on an individual basis. There really needs to be a few people who have the power to manage and command (bad word to use, but its the best one i can think of at the moment) a movement that is known not just to the fringes of political society, but to a broader audience. Not a movement to make the grand changes, but to jump start a sort of national conscience.

'...but I wasn't so naive to think, that the fall of empire is a result of this moral decay. It was clear to me, that this decay is, inversely, a result of that empire is falling.' 'National conscience' is exactly reflected in the massmedia, so if these aren't inspiring, then your symbols became obsolete. Culture of people crumbles (or perhaps is dividing itself, I can't say), not culture of media as such. But it could be perhaps worse, here in Vienna one doesn't even see a good graffitti, people spray question marks and advertisment phrases. Creativity falls, because its ritualized by the language of propagators of obsolete national symbols, like political debates. So don't bother with it, find a new ground to work on something 'higher'. Or  prophet  ;D

[TMA_1]

Hehe, I was kinda kidding when I posted that last post The Doctor. :)

Some good points caid, and I agree that moral decay isnt the primary reason for the fall of a civilization, in fact it is kind of a hit and miss indicator, because the subject of morality in general is somewhat subjective. You are right in that cultural decay, the loss of comprehension of the goals a nation state aims for, are forgotten in some aspects. more than this, generalizing much here.

There are also many other indicators that go into the decline of a civilization. For America specifically, big key indicators are the bastardization of the military through poor training and a growing pool of inferior people joining the military service. Also the privatization of the military and the untapped growth of the military industrial complex. The fact that as an empire, America is on the decline, and many other reasons as I said before. Really I dont think there is going to be a fall of the west, we are just seeing the power being sapped from the big players in a lot of ways, to pave the way for equalization of countries for the sake of globalization, and other things.

[Caid Ivik]

With 'civilization' I mean usually level of complexity of a culture, and this indicator surely isn't falling. Just culture changes. People tend to get motivated more by announcement of Starcraft 2 than by government priorities. Centralized institutions are avoidable in life by possibilities of banking, travel, education etc, and when they are met in the human activity, one sees it more as a bureacratic barrier than a motivator. One tries to live within a society of friends and important persons, usually a sphere of a single village size, simply that what would satisfy all he thinks to be his needs. That's an old idea, which just became realizable trough the wealth - I'm saluting to EdricO too for his prophecies about this. These 'spheres' are set into cities populated by millions, so they are seeking for ways to separate themselves from the useless noise of the 'masses'. We look for inspiration elsewhere than in the state we live in, in state as it defines itself. Ibn Chaldun said already in 14th century, that urban culture is the last stage in circle going back to nomadism.

The first quote from Saint Exupery was just an allegory to set a mood, it didn't ment exactly the american empire  ;)  as a military power, you still have enough allies, ie here around Slovakia...

[Egeides]

I think that it is a large ongoing train to move if with isolated attemps. Leaders and ideals move many and much at once, but disorientation brings weaker ideals and leaders are more risky (should they be political leaders, religious or any other).

Caid:

If the structure or symbols determine the people (not just interact with), it seems deterministic as for computers or microwaves (no?). And with energy in functional societies too, my impression is that a total nomad-civil distinction is not possible (but 'going back to roots' remains).

[Edric O]

One of the biggest problems in the United States is that all the people who want to make a difference are absorbed into the Democratic Party and eventually become part of the same old system themselves. There is a widespread - and extremely mistaken - impression that the Democratic Party is the party of progressive change. Not true. The Democratic Party is the graveyard of all movements for social and economic change.

I mean, they couldn't even put the brakes on Bush's troop surge in Iraq after winning Congressional elections precisely because of their anti-war stance! They are the most worthless and spineless so-called-opposition I have seen in a long time...

I do not believe there is any lack of people who want to make a difference. Yes, yes, there are all the mundane problems and obligations of everyday life standing in the way, but such problems and obligations have always existed. If it was possible for workers to organize and protest back in the 19th century when they had to work 12-hour shifts, I find it hard to believe that people today don't have the time for politics.

The problem is not a lack of time, not even a lack of interest. The problem is a lack of hope (most people don't really believe anything can be changed) and a lack of organization (particularly in the US, there are no big, obvious political organizations for you to join if you want to work towards left-wing social change).

Now, how can we, as individuals, overcome these problems? Hope is an individual matter that we each have to find on our own, though if you ever feel that the world can't change I suggest you look more at history. ;) As for finding organizations, that's what the internet is for...

[TMA_1]

Many people have talked about the shattering of culture with extreme population growth, the advent of modern communication and travel, and general wealth of a nation's citizens. the author of Future Shock discusses this a lot. This cannot be a good thing for a democracy. The expansion of sub-cultures in the information age leads to danger because it is harder for these splintered groups to come together, things become too diverse, people become more apathetic to serious issues (in all classes and cultures), the power of numbers is lost as a result. people drown out their own voices. A great example of this danger is global climate change. The time limit for drastic cut-downs in solid, liquid and gas emissions is shortening every month. Many are beginning to see that there is nothing we can do, and within half a century you are going to see mass migration on a scale never even concieved of, death and disease that is hard to even fathom.

Because people are individualized to a perverse level, and because culture is fracturing, we are dependant on the machine that gives us the things we have grown addicted to. It is a machine that has no operator, and fairly soon you will see that the cogs will slow, and eventually stop pretty quickly.

There are so many reasons why what we see happening in the west is dangerous for us. If only I would get off my ass and start educating myself, I could be a competent voice in discussion, but sadly I am afraid a lot of what I am saying gets lost in translation.

I think it is a bit arrogant to blindly go either way on the health of a civilization. The doom and gloom types suffer at times from too much self delusion, and those who say culture is just evolving are sadly suffering from the same delusions. We are not just seeing global equalization and homogenization of culture, we are seeing the dilution of society, and a numbing of the societal mind, and a deadening of the conscience of a civilization.

[Tatar Khan]

I do not believe there is any lack of people who want to make a difference. Yes, yes, there are all the mundane problems and obligations of everyday life standing in the way, but such problems and obligations have always existed. If it was possible for workers to organize and protest back in the 19th century when they had to work 12-hour shifts, I find it hard to believe that people today don't have the time for politics.

The problem is not a lack of time, not even a lack of interest. The problem is a lack of hope (most people don't really believe anything can be changed) and a lack of organization (particularly in the US, there are no big, obvious political organizations for you to join if you want to work towards left-wing social change).

It is not always the lack of interest although that is there since we would stand up for things that touch us close to the heart and ignore the rest. And quite often the things that touch us close to the heart are everyday things and everyday concerns.

But people will stand up and fight when they will be cornered. Workers in 19th century stood up and protested because they saw themselves in the corner. They saw that their lives can't get any worse and so out of despiration they started to try to push for change. Most people in the west don't see their lives as complete bucket of crap, they don't feel cornered.

[Dude_Doc]

...though if you ever feel that the world can't change I suggest you look more at history.

But change can take a long time. Many changes in history also happened during times of unrest, or war, or even the mistakes of the rulers. Besides - what is there to change for? Haven't all types of government already been tried? What's lacking today is the vision for a new future society. A new idea to fight for.

As for finding organizations, that's what the internet is for...

That only creates more fractioning between a united vision. On all sides of the political spectrum people fight inbetween all kinds of organizations. Everybody must have their way.

This cannot be a good thing for a democracy.

It depends on how society is built and how change is affecting the population. In a world of fast, stressed competition, where the strongest always wins and the loser ends up on the streets, fast technological change can become a problem. 

The expansion of sub-cultures in the information age leads to danger because it is harder for these splintered groups to come together, things become too diverse, people become more apathetic to serious issues (in all classes and cultures), the power of numbers is lost as a result.

Unless these sub-cultures mirrors the decay of the mainstream. In the end, people will have nowhere to turn, and I think that will be the beginning of the new, global change. Order out of chaos, one might suggest.

Many are beginning to see that there is nothing we can do...

This is also an interesting aspect of the human unity. In times of iminent danger, everybody seems to be unite for the survival of all. Of course, there are some who still doubt the environmental change, but those have - in under a decade, become the minority. Why wouldn't this be the same for social change? When society collapses around us, won't people think that "there is nothing we can do, this is it"?

Most people in the west don't see their lives as complete bucket of crap, they don't feel cornered.

Yet. :)

[Egeides]

Yet. :)

I am not sure that people will automatically feel cornered simply by the situation becoming worst.

As long as a majority is kept, maybe it can go as Rome for quite some time. Keeping 51% not feeling unjustly treated, it permits to use the other 49%. When you've done this, they might have less but you can rinse and repeat.

[Caid Ivik]

If the structure or symbols determine the people (not just interact with), it seems deterministic as for computers or microwaves (no?). And with energy in functional societies too, my impression is that a total nomad-civil distinction is not possible (but 'going back to roots' remains).

It is sure that historical circumstances of Ibn Chaldun could have led him to think more radically as we do, but especially in the world of symbolics we are already 'nomads', as me personally am using 3-4 languages per day (today perhaps 5  ;D ). Trend is to gain independence on domestic structures. My generation will probably be only migrational, later attaching itself to other structures, but I expect creation of radically new ones in the future, which will try to be self-sufficient - what cities aren't. This is from view of one city settler, surely from global perspective it can't be said so, as urban cultures differ. Bratislava functions in many aspects otherwise than ie St.Polten.

[Dude_Doc]

I am not sure that people will automatically feel cornered simply by the situation becoming worst.

Maybe not at first. But as more and more groups form, and as more people realise the hopelessnes in the current global system, the unknown and uncertain future, people will begin to feel cornered. Consider that coupled with global stagnation.

As long as a majority is kept, maybe it can go as Rome for quite some time. Keeping 51% not feeling unjustly treated, it permits to use the other 49%.

Sure, but like you said, only for a prolonged time. I mean, consider the history of crime in the current system. The only way to fight it is to implement new laws and use new technology to prevent it. This has to increase as time goes, but also the increase of policing. In the end, the government must put in laws that can only be found in Orwell's 1984 - total control of the population, in order to stop crime.

Now, people probably are willing to go these lenghts, if you tell them the right thing, like "your children can play safely now, because the kindergarten have cameras, and all children have chips in their brains". The question is if we want such a society. All problems can be solved, but they require extraordinary measures. The world can forever be owned by global corporatism - but do people really want that?

[Egeides]

The world can forever be owned by global corporatism - but do people really want that?

Given that "Keeping 51% not feeling unjustly treated, it permits to use the other 49%", 51% do in practice. :P

[TMA_1]

I keep hearing that the internet is going to be the great equalizer, that it is the thing that will help protect democracy. Now I agree that it is an amazing resource, and who knows how it will be used in the future, but the internet will not always stay free, and will become a privatized commodity wholly and completely within the not too distant future, it wont stay the way it was when it was made popular. Also internet thoughts seem to stay on the internet, and seem to have a problem taking root in the real world.

people are throwing their cultural ties away, their religions away, their ethnicity even. These things unified their people, brought them together for good and bad. If we dont have these great unifiying forces the way we have had them in the west for a long while, what will bring such diametrically apposed groups together when the going gets tough? If some great tribulation occurs, if power by the powerful is abused, or if some natural disaster tears through the earth, how will we unify to protect ourselves? We cant depend on the powers that exist, because they no longer wish to include the somewhat or completely uneducated masses in the execution of powerful decisions. We in the west are losing our democratic voices! Our nations make decisions that we cannot call to change, decisions that are destructive to us, the people. We are losing our democracies, and that is something to be concerned about. the division in classes is growing dramatically, especially here in america. Now I wish someone would respond to what I am saying, and not just skim it over.

[Tatar Khan]

If you believe that there is a way to take control of the internet by private companies than please do elaborate on the ways that could be done.

As for the reason why people would join together when things go bad is the psychological reason. People join in groups they have something in common and so when things go bad people will join together because they will have the  same thing in common the fact that they are in shit bucket.

As for loosing our democracies well that is up to the electorate to fix. We live in republics or parliamentary monarchies and so we choose the people who represent us by the majority vote. so what you might see as destructive decisions some must see as good one, it is either that or that there are no good candidates. This is turn is fault of the electorate for failure to show that they want a different candidate.

[TMA_1]

but if the media outlets arent acting responsibly, then the people do not have an easy and accessable means of information. You have to treat the people of a country differently when dealing with such a mass of specific cultures and ideologies. The people are not solely responsible in this case, the media holds a huge amount of responsibility to give the people correct and untarnished information. If this is not given, then the people do not know of the amazing diversity of options that they have concerning officials that they are able to elect. Also, when the media constantly bombards people with misleading information about smaller parties and political groups, the people tend to start believing that there is no hope in any alternative to what they already have. If all of the smaller groups are labeled as "crazies" or "characters", then their credibility becomes shot. You cannot just lump all the blame on the masses, this is rediculous. You also cannot say that the people in this information age will simply ban together when the going gets tough. We live in an age of information distortion that we have never seen before.

[Tatar Khan]

Well true media usually plays for the market they assume that they have, however there is outside media available. We talk to others everyday and we get infromation from them. If one friend says to another that he/she looked in into one of those "crazyes" and they turned out to be ok, the other friend will reconsider his/her stance. There are sources of information on the internet from around the world, so if people really want to they can get more information and they can get things done, all they need is the want to do it. And when life becomes too miserable too withstand people will have that common want for change. They might form several different movements but they still will want the change.

[Anathema]

Well, once voter turnout in US congressional elections drop to under 30% maybe we'll see some interesting third parties getting a foothold in national politics.

Well - I have heard and seen some things that point to a general malaise that people feel in American society' date=' but that seems to be about it. I believe that much of the "protest" media out there acts as a vent to keep folks docile. Why hasn't a deeper layer of consciousness formed yet in popular culture concerning the war and the presidency? Take shows like the Daily Show for example, resoundingly popular, yet it gives just enough information to make a person laugh at the problems that need to be corrected. If you ask around, you will find that there are quite a few people who actually want to do something to help make a change, they just dont know where to go, and have no idea really of what to do. It is hard for people to change things on a massive scale on an individual basis. There really needs to be a few people who have the power to manage and command (bad word to use, but its the best one i can think of at the moment) a movement that is known not just to the fringes of political society, but to a broader audience. Not a movement to make the grand changes, but to jump start a sort of national conscience. Many people (maybe just speaking for myself) feel that they are being sucked in to the tide pull of globalization and bureaucracy, where there is no more democratic representation. I guess we sheep are pulling the wool over our own eyes by doing nothing. Where are the educated people of the middle classes? Why arent there many attempting to reach the masses to create change? Are the underclass guys going to have to do it themselves?

One scholar said something that makes me a bit afraid, and I believe he could be right. (paraphrase) American society will have a hard time uniting against a common injustice because it is just too diverse. (paraphrase)[/quote']

I understand the problems, but why do you assume everything was better 40 years ago?

[TMA_1]

I dont really know what it was like to live in America two generations ago, and I would like to think that I keep that in mind, maybe I havent. I think people lose the pain of the past and keep only the most novel of the good and bad drama that existed. All I know is that there are totally different problems we are facing at the moment. These problems stem from the creation of things that have changed the way we humans live with eachother, and with the world itself. The things I am speaking of, mass communication, quick travel, accessable information, also carry the best things in themselves as well. Hell, really this could be a kind a continuing future shock of new concepts, and we humans are going through a transition phase of politics and economics on a global scale.

[Dude_Doc]

Given that "Keeping 51% not feeling unjustly treated, it permits to use the other 49%", 51% do in practice.

Sure, maybe in practice, but most likely they do so because of the constant media-propaganda. Many differences are propagated through, for example, media - in the news, in movies, nowadays in computer gaming too.

...and will become a privatized commodity wholly and completely within the not too distant future, it wont stay the way it was when it was made popular.

Technically, you'll have to pay for the internet already - although experiments are made all over the world (including here in Sweden) to have parts of the city completely "internet-covered" - and free, for that matter.

If we dont have these great unifiying forces the way we have had them in the west for a long while, what will bring such diametrically apposed groups together when the going gets tough?

Maybe the very idea that we're all humans, and have to share this world together? The idea that the world can't be owned by a handful of people?

We are losing our democracies, and that is something to be concerned about.

I don't think that we are losing our democracies - but that we have for some time. That is the works of selfish powermongering and greed. Maybe at first people could "go out there" and make their dreams come true, but established conglomerates have existed for decades, and they are consolidating wealth and power. My meaning is that this is inevitable for capitalism. The very point is to make more wealth for oneself, to own and control as much as possible - even if you don't need it. That means taking control over governments in order to extent their power to other places on this world.

the division in classes is growing dramatically, especially here in america.

It's because America has the most less security systems for people in the western world. Hell, even in social-democracies like my own the gap between classes are growing.