Albert’s plot of thinkers has elicited some strong reactions. The vertical “Ecotopia”/“Collapse” axis seems somewhat less controversial: it seems that some people are more optimistic, some less optimistic, but that this is a personal preference that others can easily accept. But the horizontal axis, especially in his initial version, where it went from “peaceful transformation” on the left to “violent revolution” on the right, didn’t sit well with many people. The new version, which goes from “transformation” to “resistance” may be more politically correct, but I feel that something is lost in eschewing the concept of violence, which I feel is omnipresent and inescapable.

Perhaps the new axis should start out with “appeasement” rather than “transformation”? Doesn’t it stand to reason that to remain scrupulously peaceful and cooperative in a situation where acts of unspeakable violence are being carried out in your name is to tacitly condone that violence? When US citizens pay their taxes, or cast their vote for President, they, wittingly or unwittingly, give their approval to a system of mass imprisonment that has surpassed both Hitler’s and Stalin’s, become complicit in the mass murder of foreign civilians, a.k.a. “collateral damage,” that number in the hundreds of thousands, and underwrite a system of global surveillance that has put East Germany’s Stasi and USSR’s KGB to shame. By this standard, a law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying American is automatically one of the worst criminals mankind has ever known. How is that nonviolent?

Turning our attention to the right end of the axis, where the label has been changed from “Violent revolution” to “resistance,” things are not any less muddled. A good example of “resistance” is the recent Greenpeace action to stop Russian oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. The activists got arrested, charged with “hooliganism,” imprisoned, and then amnestied and released. The Russians were able to neutralize their effort and to deter any repeat of the action. As far as their drilling program, no damage has been done. Another good example is the “resistance” against XL pipeline, where various celebrities burned lots of jet fuel and gasoline to travel to Washington and get themselves arrested. Unlike most Russians, most Americans can’t seem to see the irony in burning fossil fuels to protest the burning of fossil fuels. It is rather late in the day for the environmental movement, and it seems to have devolved to the status of fossil fuel industry’s “useful idiots.” Is resistance just another form of appeasement?

If so, then the horizontal axis goes from “passive appeasement” on the left to “active appeasement” on the right, and both of them, and all points in between, are soaked through with violence—against people and against nature. The difference between them seems to be a matter of posturing: some people prefer to act in ways that get them invited to international conferences which fail to achieve anything; other people prefer to hire college students to stand around on the sidewalk and get money from passing pedestrians, so that they can then grandstand on the high seas and get caught, charged with “hooliganism” and released. It’s a question of style: some people prefer business-casual, while others like to dress sporty.

If resistance=appeasement, then what is left? What is the actual behavioral difference that actually does make a difference? It is not resistance, it is defiance. Now, there are two types of defiance: open defiance and secret, clandestine, plausibly deniable defiance. Open defiance is the domain of fools and madmen: refuse to pay your taxes, and you get fined and jailed. Secret defiance is the key to success: don’t owe any taxes, and you find yourself living better than most. It is also the key to making tangible improvements to your tiny patch of the world. Now, it would make no sense to ask people to place themselves on the “obedience”/“defiance” axis, since doing so would constitute open defiance, which is foolish. Moreover, secret defiance starts with defying classification.

Classification, you see, is a form of violence—a subtype of “objective violence.” The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek defined the terms “subjective violence” and “objective violence” roughly as follows: subjective violence happens when you are walking down the road and somebody throws a brickbat at your head and robs you; objective violence happens when you then get taken to a hospital emergency room, stitched up, and later receive a hospital bill for tens of thousands of dollars, including $300 for a $3 bandage, plus a separate exorbitant bill from a doctor who didn’t even see you. Now, you could say that the robber “classified” you as an easy mark—somebody who could be robbed—but that’s stretching it, because the robber’s victims do not constitute a recognizable class. On the other hand, when you are received in the emergency room, you are immediately classified as a patient, triaged, treated, and, upon release, pursued in the public realm of collections agencies and bankruptcy courts. Epistemologically speaking, your victimhood in a robbery is a matter of perspectival identification—“that guy over there,” while your victimhood in this commonplace episode of medical extortion is public identification—based on your full name, social security number, date of birth and, if you decide to flee, your fingerprints and biometric data that are on file.

Classifying people is almost always an act of objective violence. Let’s try an exercise. You probably fancy yourself as a member of the middle class. Most people prefer to consider themselves middle-class, because upper-class aspirations seem arrogant and overweening while lower-class aspirations don’t exist. On the other hand, it is often said that the middle class is rapidly disappearing. The parents might still fancy themselves middle-class, but their underemployed basement-dwelling adult children have scant hope of keeping up the appearances. Now, let’s follow this trend to its obvious conclusion. The middle class is gone; what are you now? Let’s introduce some categories: we have nobs (filthy rich bastards), proles (who have a job serving the nobs) and bums (who don’t have such a job). Which one are you? Do you feel slightly offended at being classified in such a manner? Well, you should be. Classifying people is an offensive thing to do.

But this sort of thing goes on all the time, and English-speakers seem particularly susceptible to it. English, with its definite and indefinite articles, which, unlike other languages, convey semantic rather than grammatical distinctions, makes it a grammatical requirement to classify things. In Chinese or Russian, you can only say the equivalent of “president of bank”; in German you can say ”Bank-Präsident”; while in English you might say “a president of the bank” or “the president of a bank”, in each case picking out one or more members out of one or more classes. It is commonly believed that different languages do not set limits on what thoughts their speakers can entertain, but they certainly do set limits on what thoughts their speakers can refuse to entertain, and English-speakers cannot refuse to entertain thoughts about the class membership of the objects they wish to discuss. I believe that this may help explain the appalling level of objective violence and the horrific level of social stratification and inequality that can be observed in most English-speaking societies.

And so I am quite happy that Albert’s plot produced such great discomfort; maybe there is some hope for us English-victims after all… I certainly have resented the classification “Orlov is a collapsitarian” (whatever that means) with which some fool writing for Mother Jones once tried to pin me down. I defy efforts to classify me. I suppose this puts me somewhere on the defiance spectrum, but I can’t tell you how high or I’d be openly defiant, i.e., I’d be a fool. Maybe you can do even better. This is one parameter in which some one-upmanship might be called for. How defiant are you?

9 Comments on "Orlov: The Peace-Violence Axis"

J-Gav on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 12:43 pm 



I like the idea of “clandestine defiance.” It implies exploiting the options which are actually available to you whilst remaining ‘under the radar.’

Meld on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 1:38 pm 



Wow, look at kunstler there in the middle. Does that mean what ever happens he’ll be right or he’ll be wrong?.

Strange that Greer is in the Doomers portion (even though he spends every week writing about how doom is highly unlikely) whereas Mcpherson (who constantly argues we have decades left as a species) is in the doers quadrant. Very interesting, I would suggest the nearer they are to the horizontal line the more inclined I would be to reading them. I’m still not sure what being directly in the middle means, does that basically mean nothing will change at all? Does Kunstler believe that everything will stay totally static for the rest of time? probably best to ignore him on that.

Meld on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 1:39 pm 



Also where is MCR? he spends every day writing post after post about how the world will end tomorrow and quoting Guy McPherson. Does he not count anymore because he went a bit gaga?

Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 2:04 pm 



Orlov has great ideas on collapse and all its various effects and outcomes. He is also has a great dry sense of humor. Writers like Orlov and Kunstler have to be somewhat excessive in their view to make their point. Orlov’s attitude turns me off sometimes when he wants to bash the US. I am also sick of the fake American bullshit exceptionalism, patriotism, and global superpower feelings. I am sick of the Orwellian state, industrial/political corruption, and unhealthy consumerism. Yet, I am just as sick of everyone who singles out the US like it is the only bully, villain, and culturally sick society in the world. The world is no longer local we have delocalized the world into a complex macrocosm of peoples connected digitally in a globalized world. Bashing the US is to bash the Chinese and he Europeans. They are no better and contribute their dirty laundry. Their feces smell just like Americans. Orlov likes to talk about the stages of collapse and how Russia will fare better than the US for a variety of reasons. He is especially hard on Americans and their prospects of survival. I am with Korowics and Tainter in that we will all collapse together and it will be “Lady Luck” on who fares better. I get tired of the talk about the dollar being dropped as a world currency. The dollar probably will be rejected eventually. Yet, do you really think the rest of the world will prosper when this happens. We already see the excessive systematic risk in every corner of the global system and how tied together the who house of cards is. I here talk about the collapse of the US but no mention about mass global famine when the American bread basket has trouble supplying food to the Midwest USA let alone China, Mideast, and Africa. Lets all grow up and quit blaming everyone else and realize we are all in this together.

ted on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 3:33 pm 



I have read a lot of doomer sites and a lot of them are predicting utter chaos and collapse in 20 years well that is not to far away. Some advocate permaculture and growing your own food and that is fine if you don’t mind getting fat while your neighbor is starving. I see all countries going down at once…the question is where will it be first…China—has tons of problems—-Europe—–tons of problems—-United States…We are all connected and heavily invested in each other so when one sinks it drags us all down. I just wonder how bad it will be…should I keep investing in my 401k?

Steve on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 6:35 pm 



“…I feel that something is lost in eschewing the concept of violence, which I feel is omnipresent and inescapable…”
I agree. Violence has always been part of humanity and our interactions with each other; from intertribal warfare to nuclear bombs (without checking I think the only level of society that hasn’t used violence at some time or another would be hunter-gatherers). I think that the blowback from those railing against its use is reflective of the relatively ‘peaceful’ times most in the West have grown up with and lived in. It is our hope/wish that things could be settled without violence but it rarely, if ever, is. History and prehistory have shown that our darker side rears its ugly head virtually every time during great crises.

Northwest Resident on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 7:51 pm 



Davy — I totally agree with your sentiments. I guess it is to be expected that when people direct their hostility and anger, they do so at the most visible target.

I do think Orlov has a good point, however, when he writes that the Russian people (and other countries) will fare better than America in a total collapse scenario. The reason why, as Orlov explains, is that American food and almost ALL products are dependent on high-tech “just in time” delivery. JIT is a fragile system, dependent on the grid being up and readily-available gas/diesel for all the delivery trucks. If JIT crashes in America, people starve. In Russia, a large (huge) percent of people are already doing their own local food production — it isn’t high tech, but it also isn’t dependent on the grid being up or on JIT systems. I’ve taken the Moscow-to-St.Petersburg train trip and back several times, and all along the tracks most of the way you see people at their little tiny country houses, growing food and tending the gardens. They have the skill, they have the seed, they have the land and the ability to ramp up on local food production as needed. In America, definitely not.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 21st Jan 2014 8:55 pm 



Northwest you are right about the grass roots Russian ability to survive predominantly in the rural areas and the areas that are not subsidized because of the harsh conditions of say Siberia. Believe it or not but there are many small and medium size American farms that are pretty good at the same. The problem is Walmart, Mcdonalds and Monsanto are working hard on dumbing them down to dependence!

rollin on Wed, 22nd Jan 2014 1:43 am 



These pieces remind me of Moaning Myrtle in Harry Potter.

“US citizens pay their taxes, or cast their vote for President, they, wittingly or unwittingly, give their approval to a system of mass imprisonment that has surpassed both Hitler’s and Stalin’s,”
Over the top on this one, who would believe such claims?

Orlov, feel free to go back to Russia permanently.