Well, after two days of intermittent listening to Dolphy only, it turns out that I don't have Out to Lunch on vinyl. It must be among the CDs, so I guess I'll have to do the CDs after a few hundred more LPs. Out There, however, was a delight. Now I have perhaps a day's worth of Earth, Wind, and Fire. It's gonna be groovy.
I finally won my Civilization VI game playing as Poundmaker. Let's see if I start up a new world. I doubt it at the moment. I'm feeling a bit refreshed finally.
Looks like my soundtrack today will be Eric Dolphy. I bought quite a few of his LPs at one time. Looking forward to Out to Lunch.
Now that the status updates are done, I am going to include my draft answers to an email interview initiated by Rocio Paik, a reporter from Brasil's Opera Mundi. It was fun to answer her questions and condense my thoughts on Korea's social situation.
Rocio Paik: Latin America views South Korea's industrial model very positively, since this model has enabled significant advances in the country's economic growth in a short period of time. In 1996, South Korea even joined the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Professor, can you explain how all this was possible and what mechanisms and values South Korea followed to achieve these advances after the Korean War (1950-53)?
Cuz: While there is no question that Korea's economic development was phenomenally rapid, I believe it is a mistake to hold it up as a model for Latin American and other countries. Korea's rapid growth depended much more on fortunate geopolitical circumstances and more complex policy making than is typically discussed. First, since Korea was at the front line of the Cold War after WWII and the Korean War, the US had a strong interest in seeing Korea succeed and invested aggressively to make that happen. For example, US aid to Korea was very high for a long time and Korea enjoyed privileged access to the US market. Second, though South Korean development policy is typically characterized as "export-oriented industrialization" (EOI), which implies that growth was generated through the expansion of competitively priced exports, this is only half of the picture. The other half is its adoption of "import substitution industrialization" (ISI), which is the model most of Latin America adopted during this period. ISI strives to replace imported goods with domestically produced goods typically through high import tariffs, which sustains domestic capital accumulation. (You can go back to Raúl Prebisch for the fundamental arguments supporting this strategy.) Korea was so effective in implementing this strategy that there were virtually no foreign automobiles on the streets of Seoul until after the 1997 IMF Crisis.
This is not to say that Korean policy makers did not make intelligent and somewhat bold choices at times. When the US wanted Korea to stay focused on textile manufacturing (just as it wanted Latin America to stay focused on raw material production), Korea resisted these pressures and moved into heavy manufacturing, following the Japanese strategy of government-guided industrialization known as the "developmental state".
There is much more to the story, but that covers the major points. Latin Americans should adopt a more cautious admiration of the Korean model of development by maintaining awareness that Korea employed many of the same development strategies that Latin America did but enjoyed geopolitical support that Latin America was actively denied.
Rocio Paik: Did these rapid advances leave side effects in South Korea that we can see today? What are the main ones?
Cuz: Of course. All growth and change has long lasting side effects. Following Mannheim, I would suggest that the central driver has been that economic change has been more rapid than social and cultural change. Countries undergoing late, compressed development experience incredibly rapid economic transformation which demands corresponding accommodations in the social and cultural spheres. However, because social and cultural practices tend toward the conservative maintenance of existing relations, they change more slowly. This leaves countries like Korea "underinstitutionalized". For example, industrial capitalism in the West long incorporated extensive social welfare systems, but in rapidly developing countries the economy industrializes, but social welfare continues to depend upon kinship.
It is not simply rapid growth that is reflected in contemporary conditions. We must also consider the slow down of economic growth over the last two decades. Strategies of accumulation developed when an economy is rapidly growing and offering widespread opportunities may no longer function when grows slows and opportunities narrow. This is evident in the housing and employment markets today.
Rapid economic growth in Korea is often described as having produced a dual labor market. The _chaebol_ oligopoly tends to offer the highest paying jobs and social status for educated workers, while smaller firms generally pay less and have lower social status. This generates competition for the relatively scarce _chaebol_ jobs. Combined with Korea's historical admiration for learning, this has created an educational arms race. Students have competed for employment in the _chaebol_ firms by attending after-school schools ( _hakwon_ ) at younger and younger ages and for longer and longer hours. These demands have eviscerated much of the joy of childhood and occupy a large proportion of most families' budget.
The immense pressure to study and succeed combined with sleep deprivation from a very young age has also produced a mental health crisis, as evidenced by Korea's top ranking in the OECD for suicide, most of whom are teenagers and young adults.
The other major demographic group committing suicide are the elderly. The elderly are perhaps the poorest demographic group in Korea. In Korea, each generation has historically been tasked with caring for the previous generation as it ages. However, rapid economic growth outpaced social welfare improvements and social atomization fragmented families, leaving many seniors with insufficient support from either their families or the government. Their families (and increasingly the elderly themselves) have sacrificed all their resources on educating their children and securing housing.
Rocio Paik: South Korea's rapid growth has also generated a serious problem in the country, which is the demographic issue: a country where women refuse to have children, women report gender discrimination, and the society is increasingly aging. Can we say that South Korean policies have failed to serve the population in a democratic way? How can this issue of low birth rates and, consequently, an aging society impact social inequality in the future?
(I wrote a report.)
Cuz: Your article captures the fundamental issues around the low birth rate. Like young people all over the world, incomes are insufficient to pay for housing. In Korea, child education also consumes an enormous proportion of young families budget. Consequently, young Koreans, like most young people today, simply do not have the money to marry and have children.
The problem is magnified by gender discrimination. Women are less likely to be promoted. And it is extremely difficult for women to temporarily exit the labor market to raise children. Well, it is easy to exit, but it is virtually impossible to return afterward. Typically the only jobs available to women who take time off to provide critical early childhood care are those that only pay enough to hire someone to look after their children! So, to maintain their independence and quality of life, women are disinclined to have children so that they can continue to work.
The question of how low fertility and aging will impact social inequality in the future is a good one, and I certainly cannot give a definitive answer. The problem is typically framed as a future in which fewer young people have to pay higher taxes to support more older people. Assuming current trends continue, there will definitely be fewer young people working and more older people requiring support. However, I think framing these facts as a conflict between generations is a false narrative. First, increasing automation will continue to reduce the number of workers required, so a declining workforce is not necessarily an issue. Second, workers are not the only source of financial support for the elderly. Corporate taxation is also a viable source. The dependency problem can be addressed by reducing corporate profits through taxation. It is, of course, no surprise that this possibility is not discussed. Third, a shrinking population is likely to improve living conditions for everyone, especially younger people. Streets and subways would be less crowded. There will be less competition for employment and therefore upward pressure on wages. Due to lower demand for housing, there will be downward pressure on housing prices.
The risk is that well paying jobs will also be automated and the labor market will further bifurcate, leaving a small elite workforce managing the economy and a large population performing menial tasks robots cannot yet handle.
Immigration is another possible strategy for maintaining a large working population, but I think lingering cultural biases against non-Koreans will keep immigration for expanding enough to address demographic issues.
Rocio Paik: Working hours are frequently debated in Latin America, including Brazil, with countries increasingly wanting to reduce working hours pressured by labor movements. In South Korea, we know that the country officially adopts a 52-hour work week, although we know that there have already been considerations to increase working hours.
In July 2024, I spoke with the leader of the National Samsung Electronics Union (NSEU) because the union was organizing strikes against the Samsung company (chaebol) in Gyeonggido, and he told me about how employers were violating the labor rights of their employees.
(I wrote a report.)
I would like the professor to comment on current working conditions and labor relations in the country, and what relationship the South Korean government has established with labor throughout its history.
Cuz: My (limited) understanding is that the South Korean government has historically favored capital over labor. It is important to recall that Korea's rapid economic development began under the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee whose regime aggressively suppressed wages and violated human rights. The democratization movement of the 1980s was not just about political democratization but also economic democratization. And while progress has been made, I believe that in general Korea favors the owners of capital over labor.
I do think working conditions have improved on the whole. When I first started working in Korea in the mid-1990s, many workers were effectively home only on Sundays and had to use that day to catch up on sleep. Today, it is less common to work six days a week and workers have regained some of their evenings. But again, lingering cultural practices of hierarchy remain strong, leading to workplace abuse and gender discrimination. And I am sure there are many violations of labor law.
But this is an area in which I am not well versed.
Rocio Paik: Award-winning cinematographic works such as Parasite (2019) and Squid Game (2021, 2024) deviate from the standard production trends in South Korea and portray social inequality in the country (poverty, hunger, devastated labor relations). Has this crisis worsened over time, or can we say that it has currently worsened more clearly? What factors have led to the worsening of social inequality in the country?
Cuz: I don't have statistics available, but my understanding is that poverty and hunger have increased over the last two decades. But note that historically, poverty trends follow a U-shaped curve. Korea was one of the world's poorest countries in 1960. Poverty was very high. With rapid economic development, poverty also declined rapidly. But as the economy has matured and growth has slowed, it is again rising.
Rocio Paik: What are the speculations about the future of society in South Korea? In your view, which policies should the country readjust in the long term to avoid worsening social inequality?
Cuz: The future is always open. But I think things will get worse before they get better.
I think housing prices will stay high, since older generations' retirement income depends on it. This, I think, will lead to further concentration in the housing market. My guess is that the government will eventually allow institutional investors to purchase houses and rent them, sustaining the housing burden of younger Koreans and keeping home ownership out of their reach. Policies that constrain speculative and institutional homeownership would help overall, even though declining house prices would hurt some older Koreans.
I think the labor force will continue to bifurcate into low wage service and manual labor jobs and high wage technical and managerial jobs, increasing social inequality. And I expect capital to increase its power, as it is globally, further amplifying social inequality. A massive expansion of social welfare would help immensely here.
But I am optimistic that young people's negative experience will lead to positive changes. Like many young people in high income countries, young Koreans are questioning the competitive struggle for unrewarding employment and are cultivating new ideas about what constitutes the good life. It may be that social development is finally catching up to economic development.
Let's see how she turns this into an article. I'll link when the article is published.
The others night I finished reading Pierce's The Turner Diaries. I understand that this 1978 novel is widely read on the far right. To the extent that this is true, the novel represents a fantasy of desire fulfillment. It tells the story of the White nationalist "Organization" that successfully revolts against the "System", a global Jewish conspiracy that establishes Jewish superiority and global control through a campaign in support of supposed racial equality.
It was an oddly compelling read. Not because of its literary merit. It has none. The plot is one-dimensional. The characters have no personality. Their interactions are stated instead of depicted. ("I impulsively held out my arms to Katherine. Hesitantly, she stepped toward me. Nature took her course.") Rather, it's interest lies in a combination of its revolutionary strategizing, its parallels with left thought, and its reflection of growing fascist thought.
The whole book imagines how a revolution against the "System" would take place in America. It details concrete, localized defensive strategies, like pressure sensitive pads and escape tunnels and expands steadily into a campaign of terror through targeted bombings and mortar attacks. But it doesn't stop there. It culminates with mass, indiscriminate slaughter of non-Whites and their sympathizers and a strategy of nuclear deterrence that ultimately involves triggering a Soviet nuclear attack on the US that clears the way for the rise of a new order. This practical development of revolutionary strategy is engaging. While I would love to see a revolution in the way we administer our country and planet, I have not thought much about what it might actually take. Though there is no way I would ever endorse much of the tactical choices presented in the book (not being a fascist and all), it does prompt one to consider what forms of violence and resistance may be necessary or acceptable.
For me, the most egregious "self-aware wolves" passage is when the Organization's soldiers systematically work their way through recently captured LA neighborhoods shooting non-Whites, marching mixed race individuals out of the city to their deaths in the countryside, and summarily lynching anyone on a list of race sympathizers. It's a macabre process that leaves tens of thousands of people dangling from light poles with placards on their chests stating their crimes. The author admits that mistakes were surely made, but expediency and the terror generated were necessary to cleanse their territory and initiate correct thinking and citizen cooperation. The hypocrisy of this act is evident at the end of the book where "the Jews and Blacks then went on a wild rampage of mass murder, reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Jew-instigated Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, 75 years earlier." For the Whites, it is systematic and necessary. For the Jews and Blacks, it is a "wild rampage of mass murder".
The book shares a common frustration with a state captured by private interests and failing to meet the needs of the population. To this extent, there is common ground between the left and the right.The major difference, of course, is that the book presents one of the offenses of the state as being the pursuit of racial equality and, well, the left is okay with that.
This accusation of the state and sympathizers of promoting racial equality at the expense of the glory of the pure White race is a direct precursor to contemporary "woke" politics. It is also no surprise that the book circulates actively among preppers. It embraces a far right accelerationism, an apocalyptic catharsis, that clears the ground for the renewed glory of White nationalism. I find this concerting, as the book is almost fifty years old now, demonstrating that this current of fascism has survived on the fringes, much like far left social movements. Unfortunately, the left seems to have lost its sway over the center today.
Anyway, having completed this trashy White nationalist revolutionary war fantasy, I have decided to read a book on war that literary critics have assured me will be much more rewarding: Tolstoy's War and Peace.
I continue to get a feel for my record collection. I basically transitioned from a full day of John Coltrane to two days of Miles Davis. The Miles in particular has been inspirational.
2025 begins with listening to artists beginning with "C". Right now it's the Jimmy Castor Bunch's It's Just Begun with important bites for The Jungle Brothers and the classic Troglodyte.
Yesterday's highlight was one of my all time favorite albums, Donald Byrd's A New Perspective. It's bluesy, orchestral, and a complete suite. Just incredible.
The title sounds more enticing than this post will be. The gist of it (and the whole post itself!) is simple. Yesterday was spent listening to James Brown. I have enough albums to fill hours. I have also been making sourdough baked goods for the last few weeks, since I've finally got my starter up and active. And I'm getting ready to build a compost pile from shipping pallets. So, putting the last two together, I'm starting to think I should start my own trad wife video channel.
A post on Slashdot reports on a recent article by Himmelstein et al. entitled "Wealth Redistribution to Extend Longevity in the US". The basic point is that money allows people to live healthier and therefore longer lives and that therefore wealth redistribution would improve health outcomes.
Not surprising, really, but the (also unsurprising) bit I want to emphasize is that the gains diminish. This means that the greatest gains accrue at the lowest incomes and that gains from becoming richer approach zero. This finding justifies the redistribution of wealth for health from the richest who gain little to the poorest who gain much.
This finding aligns with my own research with Robert Rudolf on Housing and Happiness (alt) shows something similar for housing. While Koreans generally express greater life satisfaction as their homes grow larger, these gains are largest at the low end and diminish as homes increase in size.
Both studies justify redistributing wealth toward the poor to increase overall well being.
The joy continues.
I chose my Christmas gift this year. I got a reasonably good turntable to replace the one I got for my birthday that my daughter acquired. In preparation, I cut the packing tape on boxes of records, CDs, and tapes that have been sitting in the basement for a decade and a half. This sizeable collection (maybe 400 LPs, 200 CDs, and 100 tapes) was amassed mainly during college and my pre-Internet years in San Francisco. They went into boxes for the five years I was first in Korea, reemerged during my grad school studies, and then returned to the darkness when I moved back to Korea. And now they adorn my little corner of my parents' house.
I also set up a slightly better audio system. I dug up an old JVC amp, CD player, and tape deck from the basement. As the new turntable (AT-LP120) has the option of using a phono pre-amp, which I happen to have from more musically indulgent days, I also connected that up. Though the pre-amp and turntable outclass the rest of the system, there is still a glorious warmth when listening to the LPs that I have missed.
To celebrate, I have embarked on the project of listening to my entire collection in alphabetical order. I've already passed through Cannonball Adderley, Kind Sunny Ade, Audio Two's Top Billin' (one of my most prized possessions), The Beach Boys, The Blackbyrds, and many others to Chill Out with Black Uhuru now. Still less than 20 albums in, so this will take a while!
Listening is also part of my first full vacation in maybe four or five years. My position as Associate Dean over the last few years demanded almost constant attention, even when the workload wasn't heavy. The combination of demands from work, family, and academic performance overloaded my ability to do any of them particularly well. The pressure of always being behind and always failing to meet my perceived obligations has ground me down and burnt me out, leaving me unmotivated and inefficient. For Christmas, I gave myself the present of giving myself permission to ignore work and obligations for a week and a half. Some of this time I have spent baking with my new sourdough starter. But I have also turned to my old decompression mechanism: Civilization. When I was taking classes, I inevitably checked out for a few days at the end of each semester playing a game of Civilization. The complete immersion allowed by brain to slow down and disengage from the intensity of each semester's study. I am trying it again.
The hardest thing about all this is allowing myself to do things that have no productive value. The sourdough bread, pancakes, crumpets, etc. are still productive, but playing Civilization serves no purpose other than play. And play, I am confident, restores.
I have been reading Viktor Frankl's The meaning of life, which mixes psychiatry with his personal experience in concentration camps during WWII. For a person who has not read personal accounts of the camps previously, it is indeed informative.
But the most engaging aspect is his psychological evaluation of the experience of (mostly) men who have been pushed to the absolute limit of existence as human beings. The objectification, the abuse, the starvation, the labor, all were designed to ultimately nudge prisoners over the edge of life. Frankl's commentary on the littoral space between living and not simply cannot be ignored.
One notion in particular caught my attention the other day. Frankl is discussing the heartbreaking reality that prisoners died soon after losing hope for a future. He describes how an individual who who gives up hope ceases to respond to any provocation, be they beatings, yelling, entreaties, and soon leaves only an inanimate corpse. "It is a peculiarity of man that he can only live by looking to the future—sub specie aeternitatis. And this is his salvation in the most difficult moments of his existence, although he sometimes has to force his mind to the task."
This observation immediately called to mind my course's reading of Bataille last semester. Bataille argues that awareness of a future self separates the human from the non-human. Roughly, to be human is to do work and to do work one must have the idea of a future. And to have an idea of a future one must possess human sovereignty through work. For Bataille the opposite is to live in the instant, unaware of self. And he seemed to desire both (as a true Hegelian). "If I succeed in living within the instant, I break free of all difficulty, but I am no longer a man (to be a man means living in view of the future); and there is no recourse to animality in this situation, which requires a considerable energy available to few."
The parallel is apparent. Frankl witnessed one version of the moment a man (sic) abandons the future to live in the instant, leaving humanity behind. We must have a notion of future to survive.
I have joined the exodus to BlueSky as an experiment. I will probably stop using it as I stopped using Twitter and Facebook long ago. But in the meantime...
If the Claims Adjuster's ( #Mangione) social media suggests a far right mindset and the left has been praising his anti-capitalist action, this should move Americans toward unity in opposition to an inhumane social order rather than divide us further. It calls us to look beyond pundits to the ideas.
— Cuz Potter (@72cuz.bsky.social) December 11, 2024 at 9:00 AM
My opinion piece on Trump and accelerationism has now been published online by Korea on Point.
The following is a short opinion piece I just submitted to Korea on Point.“History has accelerated. The world is going to change, and change in a quicker way than before,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán recently exclaimed about Donald Trump’s reelection at an informal summit of EU leaders in Budapest.1 If Orbán is correct, we have moved beyond the “end of history” (Fukuyama 1989) to the acceleration of history.
Given the ideological exchange between Orbán’s Fidesz and Trump’s MAGA movement and their mutual opposition to immigrants and people of color, we can assume that this statement is at least loosely drawn from right-wing “accelerationism”. Far right-wing accelerationists (R/acc) like James Mason, William Pierce, and the Order of Nine Angles (ONA) argue that societal fragmentation and conflict, especially racial conflict, should be actively fostered to hasten the emergence of a white Christian ethno-state from the wreckage.
The far right is not alone in seeking disruption. In fact, they have adopted the term from the left. The term “accelerationism” was coined by Noys (2022) in 2010 to characterize ideas developed by Nick Land and CCRU (e.g., Land 2024) and later repackaged by Srnicek and Williams (2016), among others. Drawing on the work of Deleuze and Guattari, left accelerationists (L/acc) argue that reforms cannot overcome the contradictions of capitalism (like capitalism’s destruction of the environment on which it depends) and that the only choice is to accelerate capitalism’s development in order to usher in a new order.
More recently Silicon Valley venture capitalists have also adopted the concept. Though Silicon Valley has long embraced disruption, Marc Andreessen of the venture capital firm a16z recently published The Techno-Optimist Manifesto (Andreessen 2023), which calls for unhindered and ever more rapid technological development, since the positive long run benefits will outweigh the short term costs of creative destruction. This “effective accelerationism” (E/acc) has faith that the only ethical action is to push forward the development of artificial intelligence (and other technologies) to the point that it exceeds human intelligence and is capable of making better choices for humanity, an achievement known as the Singularity.
What all these approaches to accelerationism have in common is the anticipation of a period of disruption, chaos, disorder, confusion, and uncertainty before a new order establishes itself. For Giovanni Arrighi this transition would be the fourth such period in the long history of capitalism’s evolution. In The Long Twentieth Century (Arrighi 1994) and other works, Arrighi argues that capitalism has experienced four “long centuries” since roughly 1350: the Spanish-Genoese, the Dutch, the British, and the American. Each long century reflects a particular hegemonic socio-political economic order in which power, production, distribution, and consumption are organized into a new stable arrangement. Each order experiences a material expansion of commodity markets that eventually fails to provide returns to capital as profitable as investing in an emerging socio-political model, leading to financialization of the economy and a turbulent transition to the new model under a new hegemon, as was the case when Dutch financiers invested in English industrialization.
Arrighi refers to these disruptive transformations as periods of “systemic chaos”. His description is worth quoting at length.
[Systemic chaos] is a situation that arises because conflict escalates beyond the threshold within which it calls forth powerful countervailing tendencies, or because a new set of rules and norms of behavior is imposed on, or grows from within, an older set of rules and norms without displacing it, or because of a combination of these two circumstances. As systemic chaos increases, the demand for ‘order’—the old order, a new order, any order!—tends to become more and more general among rulers, or among subjects, or both. (Arrighi 1994: 30)
Indications that the global economy is entering a period of systemic chaos abound. The result of centuries of environmental exploitation are undermining the viability of the contemporary economy, as extreme weather events threaten long established settlement patterns, as livelihoods are destroyed by climate change, as conflicts over dwindling resources ratchet upward. Economically, the US is increasingly financialized (Krippner 2005), and has spent several decades actively investing in an emerging challenger. Arrighi himself and affiliated thinkers (e.g., Frank 2008) hypothesized that China will emerge as the new global hegemon. However, technological advance, especially the rise of automation (including both roboticization and artificial intelligence) and platform capitalism (like Google and Apple) (Srnicek 2019), suggests the emergence of a different deterritorialized hegemony of global firms (Bratton 2015; Durand 2024; Varoufakis 2024).
In many ways the details do not matter. If the accelerationists and Arrighi are correct that the planet is entering a period of system chaos, then we must anticipate growing disorder, regardless of who is in power. As Orbán’s excitement conveys, Trump’s reelection will contribute to the disorder of our period of systemic chaos and the fracturing of global governance. As the transition is structurally driven by the superhuman force of capitalist and technological development (or God’s will for some), if it were not Trump working to dismantle contemporary governance arrangements, it would be someone else. The rise of other populist iconoclasts like Bolsanaro, Milei, DeSantis, and Orbán suffices to show that global restructuring is not driven by singular personalities.
While the broad contours of the breakdown of global governance are systemic rather than individual, we can identify specific ways in which President-elect Trump will accelerate the process.
R/acc adherents will be heartened by Trump’s past performance, his public announcements about policy, and the promise of his Cabinet nominations. His actions will amplify racial conflict. His campaign demonized all immigrants with an implicit racial bias, as the false accusations that documented Haitian immigrants were eating people’s pets demonstrates. He has vowed to employ the military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants from his first day in office.2 Presumably viewing his first election as an endorsement of racial bias, racist perpetrators committed more hate crimes (Rushin and Edwards 2018). His pro-Israeli Cabinet selections and pronouncements that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was recently indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, should “finish the job” also promise to inflame conflict between the Arab world and the West.3 So humanity can anticipate a rise in global racial tension as white supremacists push for modern Crusades and ethnic cleansing that will reestablish the old order.
E/acc aficionados will be enthusiastic about the promised removal of guardrails for digital technologies in particular. Trump’s campaign was generously funded by Silicon Valley interests.4 The most prominent of these was, of course, Elon Musk, who is already pushing for less regulation and more privatization in his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). However, cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence interests also funded the campaign and expect less regulation of crypto markets and AI development, hastening a shift from a managed sovereign currency to unregulated private currencies on the one hand and from ethical and property rights concerns that slow the development of AI toward a free-for-all rush toward the Singularity on the other. If the E/acc dream of a new social order run by artificial intelligence is realized, democratic governance will be undermined as decision-making is delegated to a black box algorithm that is unlikely to have humanity’s best interests in mind, were it even capable of understanding them (cf. Bostrom’s paperclip maximizer).
L/acc adherents will recognize Trump’s acceleration of capitalism’s expansion. Through initiatives like DOGE and a Cabinet arguably deliberately designed to dismantle and weaken existing governance arrangements, capitalist markets will be given a freer hand over a wider scope of activities, amplifying systemic contradictions. For example, privatization of education, social welfare, and environmental regulation will undermine workforce quality, inflame political tensions, and poison our bodies. For L/acc thinkers the chaos wrought as Trump’s administration turns our lives over to the inhuman demands of capitalism will only bring us closer to another form of order.
“The old order, a new order, any order!” Arrighi’s quote is echoed in the calls of the accelerationists. From their perspective, the incoming Trump administration will accelerate history by damaging global governance and amplifying systemic chaos. “Après moi, le déluge!”
References
Andreessen, Marc. 2023. “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto.” October 16, 2023. https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/.Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. New York: Verso.Bratton, Benjamin H. 2015. The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. Software Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Durand, Cédric. 2024. How Silicon Valley Unleashed Techno-Feudalism: The Making of the Digital Economy. Edited by David Broder. London: Verso.Frank, André Gunder. 2008. ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. [Nachdr.]. Berkeley, Calif. [u.a.]: Univ. of California Press.Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. “The End of History?” The National Interest, no. 16, Summer 1989: 3–18.Krippner, G. R. 2005. “The Financialization of the American Economy.” Socio-Economic Review 3 (2): 173–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwi008.Land, Nick. 2024. Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007. Edited by Robin Mackay and Ray Brassier. Twelfth edition. New York: Sequence Press.Noys, Benjamin. 2022. The Persistence of the Negative: A Critique of Contemporary Continental Theory. Edited by Benjamin Noys. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Rushin, Stephen, and Griffin Sims Edwards. 2018. “The Effect of President Trump’s Election on Hate Crimes.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3102652.Srnicek, Nick. 2019. Platform Capitalism. Reprinted. Theory Redux. Cambridge: Polity.Srnicek, Nick, and Alex Williams. 2016. Inventing the Future. Verso Books. https://www.ebook.de/de/product/25685379/nick_srnicek_alex_williams_inventing_the_future.html.Varoufakis, Yanis. 2024. Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.
Footnotes
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. -- Karl Marx
I've been getting some nudges to write to the blog. And since I've been meaning to...for months, I'm going to just put some random bits up in random order.
In theory I am now on sabbatical. In practice, it may start at the end of next month. In my mind, sabbatical should mean that I am free to clear my head a bit, work on independent research, and perhaps even develop a hobby, or at least do some things just because they are interesting. Instead, I am still occupied with addressing others' needs.
I am still Associate Dean of GSIS for another six days. And that has entailed a bit of work this summer. I've also got two research projects eating up my energies. In theory, these should be exciting and interesting in their own right. But in practice, they are driving me forward without opportunity for real engagement. This is not the fault of the projects. It is the fault of the larger complex of obligations I am caught up in.
I have returned to my childhood home to be with my family and care for my mother in a semi-rural area near Mystic, CT. And this summer it has me living through a farmer's lens. Five or six weeks ago my wife and kids left to visit Korea (more below). This means that all of the household responsibilities fell upon me. In addition to the basic cooking, cleaning, and shopping involved, my wife left behind a fertile garden and plots of decorative plants. It's all wonderful, but now I have to tend to them on a daily basis. Just as the farmer is obliged to milk their cows every day. I have to pick tomatoes, kale, cucumbers, eggplant, and tomatoes almost daily. I have to make sure these and the watermelons, asparagus, cauliflower, carrots, pumpkins, swiss chard, jalapeños, and cabbage are well watered. The basil has to be stopped from flowering. The coriander had to be harvested for its seeds. Potatoes and red onions had to be dug up. And then I have to figure out how to cook and consume them! They taste great. And there is something special about eating food that you have grown yourself. But it is a relentless responsibility.
Also relentless is the lawn, which grows abundantly during the summer and all the more quickly with the amount of rain we've been having.
The truth is that most of these activities are rewarding in and of themselves and I typically enjoy them, but it is so much more the case when you have the time to relax in your pursuits. However, that is not the case when one must work for school, for research, and for others as well. Still, it is not terrible and I enjoy many aspects of the work. In fact, I am convinced that more people should experiment with such activities as the hard labor of yard work. I believe there is something inherently rewarding in maintaining one's environment, nay, in improving one's environment.
The load has gotten worse recently, just to really push me. My kids came back to the US to start school, and my wife will stay in Korea for another month. So now I have to cater to the needs of an increasingly childlike mother and two teenagers.
But I am so happy my kids are here with me and my wife is finally getting a real break. And I'm even more proud of my kids for flying back from Korea to New York on their own. They only had to go from security to customs, but that meant going through passport control, boarding, flying for 14 hours, passport control again, baggage claim, and customs. And my kids rocked it! I'm really proud of both of them for handling things effectively. And I'm thrilled that they have exercised so much independence. And now that they are teenagers (well, almost in one case), it is time for them to cultivate their own independence. And I may now be ready to help them do that.
And, and, and...
Truth be told, the summer has not been bad for me as an individual either. I spent a month (with more to come) learning python and NLP strategies. It didn't go as hoped, but learning is never a clean, flawless process. I've also been able to stay fit. In fact, at my cousin's invitation, I changed up my cycling-dominated exercise regime to incorporate running so that I could participate in the Shore 2 the Pour race with her in Stratford, CT. My mother grew up in Stratford, but I only ever saw the relatives' houses. This event allowed me to see the more attractive shoreline of the city. More surprising---and I guess rewarding---was that my running performance was much better than I had expected, and I placed in the top quarter for men and higher than that overall. I don't really care about rankings, but it is reassuring to know that my fitness level must be pretty decent. I mean, if I'm honest, it's also nice to beat people.
In a few weeks, when my wife returns and my administrative responsibilities end, my sabbatical will really start. And I am looking forward to reading books and (hopefully) writing one.
One of KU GSIS's Korean Government Scholarship students is from Serbia. They just aired this short piece on this program's students at KU. And I make a few brief appearances. You can view it here. Too bad my voice isn't as rich as the dubbed voice!
In my Advanced Seminar class this semester, we read James Ferguson's The Anti-politics Machine, which employs a Foucauldian approach to evaluating development discourse and how it interacts with other institutions to generate unintended effects. Basically, the books argues that the development discourse has to objectify a national economy in order to legitimize more or less pre-determined programmatic interventions. To do so, the discourse ignores the role of politics and sociocultural practice, which typically leads to little to no genuine developmental progress but has the effect of extending state power. The book is a superb examination of how development functions on the ground when it interacts with concrete practices.
Some of the people in the class---and perhaps myself---fell into the easy trap of the questioning what the point of being involved in development is at all. Should one support the aid programs of nations or international organizations if they will only distort and perhaps damage people's lives? It can be devastating when one's optimism and passion to make the work a better place are smashed against the walls of reality. What can one person do inside a monumental, implacable organization like the UNDP, the World Bank, or USAID? If one works in the development industry or hopes to, one must either close one's eyes, reject truth, or question one's moral compass.
Ferguson's own answer is that people interested in development should do one of two things. You could work with the people of developing countries to promote particular, concrete political interests. That is, you can contribute to the efforts of a political interest in a given country. But this doesn't really contribute much, since you would be an individual in a context where you are comparatively ignorant and from which you are somewhat disconnected. Alternatively, you could work domestically to shape your own country's policies.
He doesn't elaborate on the latter, but the book itself offers some clues that Ferguson himself does not appear to recognize. Though he makes the following argument throughout the book, it is clearest in the chapter on the Bovine Mystique. In that chapter, Ferguson demonstrates how cultural practices and social relations are constantly contested and either altered or reinforced. He shows, for example, that women and men in Thaba Tseka, Lesotho regularly conflict over whether to invest the wages earned by the husband in South African mining on more cows or other productive assets. The man advocates for buying cows, since this places the resources in an asset he primarily controls (among other cultural reasons), while the woman might push for purchasing more immediately productive assets like pigs or for depositing it in a saving account, which are both assets she can access (and may genuinely generate more capital long term). He depicts this tension as an ongoing negotiation of sociocultural organization, representing the possible slow transition of social organization. And indirectly, Ferguson seems to suggest that a development practitioner might take action to support one or the other position.
I see no reason why this same anthropological argument over the slow transformation of social practice through the continuing negotiation of social disagreement can't be applied to working within the development industry itself. Development practices are constantly questioned and debated. It does appear that particular interests, especially economic interests, generally dominate the outcome of these negotiations. But these outcomes are always negotiated and this leaves open the possibility of slowly shifting the social practices of the organization for which one works. The book itself suggests that one can take a political position within one's organization, even if this comes with some risks that one must take into consideration. One can act as a guerrilla in the bureaucracy (as Needleman and Needleman argue).
Arriving home from work on my bicycle yesterday, I came upon a toddler walking next to her mother. She saw the crack,the gaping abyss, in the sidewalk, stopped, lined herself up, and made a majestic, two-legged leap that carried her far past the danger.
That's who I want to be.
I will start again with, "I can't believe it's been months since I last wrote anything on this blog." It's all too requisite and all too true. I guess I have lacked motivation.
In fact, I feel like I lack motivation more generally. I am not quite enthusiastic about cycling and hiking, though I continue to do them. I am not excited to try cooking new things, though I am curious enough to do so. And I am not passionate about teaching, writing, and researching, though I must do them.
It may well be the "must" that is my libido killer. Over the last two years I have blamed my family situation and my enervating administrative position for throttling my passion in its crib, as Blake might have had it. And I think this is to a great extent true. At the beginning of the fall semester, my family situation was significantly improved (though still challenging), and I was invested in making a new start on research and writing. Teaching was more engaging than it had been. But then I lost all my freedom as I was pulled back into administration in October. So I believe my whining was right. But I fear the frustration and limitation has now sunk in deeper, superseding its own limits. In short, I fear I have been infected by futility and depression.
More likely than not, it is not so bad and is more of an issue of transitioning through jet lag from family life in the US to solo living here in Korea. I have not yet rested up sufficiently, and I have not yet gone to campus or class to interact with others. And winter had its ups and downs, but opened some new horizons.
I learned the rudiments of most of the woodworking equipment my father left behind. I used the drill press, planer, jointer, router, and a drill countersink to make a simple monitor stand. I used the jointer, planer, and router to make railings for the high school theater production for which my daughter is running props, slightly damaging the planer along the way. Learning always involves mistakes, I guess. But though my daughter was perhaps not overjoyed that I volunteered to help build the set, I genuinely appreciated the opportunity to do so. First and foremost, it was a chance to contribute to the community, something I do not think I do enough of. Second, it provided a chance to connect with people who live in my other home. I grew up in Mystic, CT, but I don't know anyone other than family there now...I don't think. This kind of bonding---as transient and superficial as it may be---is essential to reconnecting to a place. It also offered a safe space of overlapping activities that reconnected meme with my daughter, who is actively trying to disconnect and establish her own independence.
Reconnecting with my wife went through its own winter. Though initially upbeat, trapped in the house by cold weather, our sharing took a primarily anxious and depressive form through our worry over a family issue. There was bonding, but not of a particularly generative form. Once that issue more or less resolved itself and the temperature started to warm up, we were able to reconnect as individuals and as stewards of the property that I increasingly think of as ours. We spent a couple of weeks pruning bushes and trees to create conditions for a healthier and more robust growing season. Blueberries, laurels, rhododendrons, birch, crab apple, grapes, Rose of Sharon, choke cherries, burning bush, wisteria, butterfly bush. And we purchased a fire pit to begin the process of reducing our unsustainably tall mounds of brush. We worked together to prepare the future.
I feel compelled to mention my other daughter and my mother, but there was less dynamism there. Ice cream and The Bear punctuated by UCONN basketball with my mother. Preparing for creative endeavors by setting up a computer drawing pad and an acoustic guitar that sandwiched many entertaining good night greetings for my daughter.
These were the important things over the winter. A barely net positive winter break that has me questioning the utility of the work I am paid to do and have been passionate about. Over the winter I produced tangible outcomes: a monitor stand, a stage set, a mound of brush. I began to bond more deeply with my hometown. And I worked to prepare a more robust future. But now I am disconnected, isolated, and cold in Uijeongbu, trying to catch up with externally driven commitments that I find irritating for the most part. And they are irritating precisely for having been externally imposed.
Perhaps the more robust future I should be preparing for lies after this semester with the beginning of my second sabbatical.
I love it when students push back with questions. I'm no genius, so it often leads to fruitful investigations. Like today.
I was teaching Marx's circulation of capital model and simply introduced the labor theory of value. "Under capitalism, the worker must first create enough value through labor to pay for his or her own reproduction. Then they must work extra time to create surplus value for the capitalist, the owner of the means of production." A student afterward raised two issues about owners' profits. The first was about the role of machines, which are purchased by the capitalist. This is fairly easily addressed. Machines embody dead labor, which means that their value was created by labor in the first place. Following from this (and something I failed to mention) is that the machines do pass on some of their value to the commodities they produce through wear and tear. So the capitalist contributes no value here.
It's important to note capitalists who do labor---for instance, by organizing production or making deals---do contribute value to the final commodity. But it's not nearly as much as they believe and claim it is. [Insert relevant meme here.] These claims ignore the social nature of work (we all contribute to the final product as a collective), which obscures the relative contributions of all workers and undermines the distinction between manual and intellectual labor. Instead, these claims conflate domination with labor by implying that holding power is in and of itself a form of labor.
But the student also asked about the bourgeois economic claim that the owner of the means of production deserves profits because they take such a huge risk with capital. He also accurately cited standard legal arrangements that provide for higher rates of return for investors who choose to accept the risk of being lower of the list of creditors receiving compensation in the event of a bankruptcy. (If that student is reading this, he should know that I inaccurately replied to this observation.) And this has always been one of the arguments that I have found persuasive. There is something about the entrepreneur's courage to test their mettle in the market that I do admire.
I offered the simple response I have come up with over the years. "Who is taking the bigger risk: Jeff Bezos or the person who works in one of his warehouses? The mine owner or the miner?" One could also add that workers take a risk by working for two weeks or a month before getting paid, effectively investing in or extending credit to the capitalist. One could go even deeper by claiming that any capital was expropriated from the common person at one time or another and therefore there is no moral justification for it. Though this claim is a bit harder to defend for individual capitalists who may have invested their life's savings from working in a business venture, for the capitalist class as a whole I think it basically holds up. As do the other arguments.
But these argument have never quite satisfied me. So I did a bit of reading on my subway ride home. And it seems that Marx himself provided a better explanation: risk is reflected in profit. But it's not the only thing reflected in profits and may not be a large component.
I will do a disservice to Marx with my poor explanation, but I must try nonetheless. The first thing to consider is that the value of a commodity is distinct from its price. For Marx, the value of a commodity is determined by the "socially necessary labor time" employed in producing a commodity. In essence, this is the average amount of labor required to produce a commodity across all enterprises with their wide variety of production processes. Marx claims that market prices fluctuate around this value (as measured by the average wage). (This is why surplus value in not exactly the same as profit.) Those firms that are efficient enough to use less than the socially necessary labor time make a profit. Those firms that are less efficient lose money and eventually go out of business. This pushes the socially necessary labor time (the average labor time) downward, which pushes profits downward.
Once we have distinguished profits from surplus value, it is easy to see that profits can be influenced by a number of other factors as well. Scarcity can push up prices. Artificial scarcity through monopoly power can push up prices. Borrowing can push up prices. And higher risk can push up prices. In the Grundrisse (p. 722), he suggests that the risk lies in realizing the surplus value created by labor at the point of sale. Thus, if the capitalist is obligated to pay interest on money borrowed, then risk is perceived by that capitalist as a cost of production, even though it is distinct from value.
I think this has two interesting implications that I gleaned from some internet surfing. First, risk factors into prices and thus profits, adding to the surplus value. Such risks are typical of innovative ventures that reduce the amount of socially necessary labor time and thus a component of the super-profits of innovation. As an innovation becomes more commonplace and reflected in a lower socially necessary labor time, the risk decreases along with profits and indeed accounts for some of that decline. The second observation is that the distinction between surplus value and profit opens up the strategic terrain for deflecting risk. All actors involved in commodity production will work to shift the risk onto other actors. The capitalist will push some risk onto employees by paying them only after they have worked. The capitalist will try to establish property rental and labor contracts that allow the capitalist to avoid the risk of downturns by allowing them to cancel the contract at short notice. Or the capitalist might push market risk on the government, so called social risk, as so many of the large financial firms have done. Too big to fail is, after all, equivalent to privatizing gains and socializing losses. The landlord, the banker, and the worker will, of course, try to push risk onto the others as well, but I leave that to your imagination. It is too late for me to continue.
So, thanks to a student provocation, I am now up well past my bedtime but with a renewed appreciation and understanding of the relationship between surplus value, risk, and profits.
Writing again to start building my chops again. Writing, like any other activity, requires regular practice to do effectively and efficiently. So here I am.
I haven't hiked as much as I used to when I lived in Gireum New Town. Trails are equally accessible. However, I have concluded that the drive to hike was a drive to get outdoors since the rest of my workouts were in a gym, on a treadmill, staring at the same thing every morning. Now that it is so easy to cycle, I seem to be getting my outdoor fix that way. But the leaves are dropping fast, and one should not neglect these passing moments of transitional beauty.
So today I planned to hike up Suraksan. One path up runs along a steep stream with broad, rocky faces that create the wide, smooth flows that feel so Zen. Due to the heavy rain the other day, today would have been lovely. Lots of water and reasonably dry trails.
But other responsibilities intervened and I decided to save time by going even more local but to explore some new territory. This turned out to be a mistake.
Things went well for a while. I went over the familiar territory and into a semi-rural village on the other side of the hill, where expensive homes with views are muscling in on small vineyards and vegetable plots. So I was mixing a bit of urban exploration with the autumn leaves. And things were fine until I tried to follow Naver Maps a little out of the way onto a promising path. After passing two snarling dogs on dismayingly short chains, I was abruptly stopped by a chain link fence with a camouflage tarp-covered tank behind it. The path was there, but it was base's patrol path.
So I backtracked to the main road and tried to follow another path on Naver Maps. It, too, was blocked by a chain link fence demarking someone's fancy private property. More backtracking.
And then more backtracking. Several more routes I tried were also blocked. Very frustrating. By the time I got home it was later than it would have been if I had climbed Suraksan.
Still, on the plus side, I did explore a wide new terrain and learned about my vicinity. I passed a chicken coop, a cattle shed, the local agricultural product stall strip, some pleasant views, and new developments trying to take advantage of them. Not a net loss, but not what I was planning for.
Curiously, my exploration of new routes and my encounters with the unexpected resonated quite nicely with this podcast from Radiolab that I listened to tonight while making my dinner.
It's been more than six months and I keep seeing the previous April date, so I decided I had to at least add something new, even if simple.
I guess the most interesting information(?) involves my position as associate dean of GSIS. My term ended two months ago on August 31st. It has been phenomenal to be be free to research and teach again. The biggest surprise was the joy of not having to check my document approval box every day to put my stamp on the myriad of pointless and half-understood documents. The new freedom has improved my spirit immensely. Unfortunately, in two weeks they're going to make me start doing the job again. There is really no other option from teh departmental view, so, alas!, my quality of life is about to tank.
More excitingly, I am about to begin a project with the UNDP Seoul Policy Centre to identify ways that AI can improve the IATI database user experience. The project will also help a couple of students move their own dissertations forward. Hope I can handle the new position, the new research project, and the new research!
Because I do think I have an emerging research project. In Chicago I presented the not yet fully written paper on smart cities as the territorial expression of the emerging systemic cycle of accumulation that I call fully automated capitalism. I'm increasing convinced that there is value (for whom?) in identifying other urban forms that represent diagrams for earlier systemic cycles of accumulation. The hope is to understand how urban form and technology reflect the ideals and needs of capitalism in their time (in accordance with Arrighi's framework).
But, of course, it is just about November. November is the month of theses, class planning, and admissions. The activities dominate all else and mean that I am unlikely to get any other work done. I'm sure that will put me in a good mood.
Going to be busy, that's for sure.
As usual, it has been long since my last post. As the post suggests, I have had a lot on my plate. But things seem to be on the mend.
In particular, since the last post I made a fairly instinctive choice to move to Uijeongbu, north of Seoul. The logic was that I could get a spacious new apartment for incredibly cheap. I would be closer to the mountains. And I could ride by bicycle to work. And so far this is what I have gotten. My 85m2 apartment was built five years ago and costs $500 per month (if you account for lost interest on the deposit). In 200m I can be walking in the woods, albeit among low mountains. In 20 minutes I can be going up Suraksan, a 640m mountain. And I can ride on bicycle paths along the stream for 22km of the 26km ride to work.
That distance of 26km does have its drawbacks, mind you. It takes about an hour and twenty minutes each way (outside of stretching, prepping, and changing). But this is roughly the amount of time it takes on buses and subways, too. So I am a bit isolated and distant from the action. A little over one month in, this is not yet a problem. I'm still trying to figure out how to balance out my home and the office. I am having trouble being comfortable enough to work in the office. I always feel like I need to hurry home before the buses are too crowded or before it gets dark and cold. Hopefully with the warmer weather, longer days, and experience, this will resolve itself soon. It should be okay since I do not even need to be on a road after the first 4km.
One side not about the mountains here. Less so in Suraksan---I just realized---but the lower hills are full of burial tombs and orchards. It seems like everyone in Korea is buried up here. Then you turn the corner from the tombs and encounter an apple or peach orchard or some small agricultural plots for vegetables. It's wonderful. It is incredibly urban here, but there is still so much rural activity interspersed. It feels like the area is more relaxed and outdoorsy (though that is probably just me!).
Anyway, despite being alone, which I am sure I'll write about more in the future, life in Uijeongbu is feeling quite good. And the future looks bright.