Okay, so we’ve officially entered the “intellectual dark web” phase of cultural discourse, haven’t we? A conversation between authors Jasper Bernes and M. E. O’Brien, stemming from Bernes’s book The Future of Revolution and O’Brien’s Everything for Everyone, isn’t exactly the kind of thing that’s going to break Twitter. But the fact that it *happened*, and the ideas being floated – a serious reappraisal of communism, the abolition of property, the very notion of a post-capitalist future – speaks to a deep, simmering dissatisfaction that’s bubbling up in the cultural zeitgeist. It’s less about a direct call to arms and more about a desperate need to imagine alternatives when the present feels…terminal.
- The discussion centers on the need for “technical inquiry” – understanding the infrastructure of capitalism to dismantle it.
- Speculation about a post-capitalist future isn’t about blueprints, but about distilling the implicit desires emerging from mass movements.
- The authors caution against co-option, noting how even radical ideas like “defund the police” can be neutralized by the mainstream.
Bernes’s argument about needing to “expropriate the knowledge” alongside the means of production is particularly interesting. It’s a subtle but crucial point. It’s not enough to seize the factories; you need to understand how they *work*, and then imagine how they could work differently. O’Brien’s contribution, a fictional piece set in a future Brazil, feels like a direct response to that call – a practical exercise in that “technical imagination.”
The conversation’s framing around the George Floyd Rebellion is key. O’Brien points out how a fringe idea like police abolition suddenly became mainstream during the uprising, demonstrating the power of mass movements to shift the Overton window. But the cautionary tale about New York City mayoral candidates running from “defund the police” is a stark reminder of how quickly that momentum can be lost. This isn’t a failure of the idea itself, but a testament to the counterinsurgency at play – the deliberate effort to “forget” the uprising and reassert the status quo.
What’s fascinating is the deliberate rejection of “blueprints.” Both authors emphasize that revolution isn’t about imposing a pre-determined plan, but about a process of collective reason and imagination. Bernes’s warning against constitutional interventions – the temptation to work *within* the existing system – is particularly astute. It’s a recognition that true change requires transgressing boundaries, overcoming divisions, and fundamentally reimagining the relationship between people and resources. The scale of this project – “remaking the world so that people have access to the things they need” – is, frankly, breathtaking. It’s a vision that demands not just political commitment, but a radical shift in our collective consciousness.
This isn’t a conversation that’s going to translate into a Netflix docuseries anytime soon. But it’s a sign that, beneath the surface of celebrity gossip and streaming wars, there’s a serious intellectual current flowing. And that, in itself, is a story worth paying attention to. The question now is whether this speculative energy can translate into actual praxis, or whether it will remain confined to the realm of academic debate and fictional futures.
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
