Monday, January 06, 2025

Why have people of Georgia massively risen up against the Government?

Saturday 4 January 2025, by Ashley Smith, Ilya Budraitskis



Why have people of Georgia massively risen up against the Government? What do the protests mean for the left in Georgia and internationally? Posle (Ilya Budraitskis) and Tempest (Ashley Smith) talk to Georgian activists and scholars Ia Eradze [1], Luka Nakhutsrishvili [2] and Lela Rekhviashvili [3]about Georgia’s mass protests

— The people of Georgia have risen up in a new mass protest movement against the Government. The roots of it are, in part, a response to the results of the recent election that brought Georgian Dream back into power. What did they run on? What were the opposition parties and what were their platforms? Were people satisfied by those options? 

Luka: We are in the midst of a mass democratic uprising against the Georgian Dream government. Hundreds of thousands peacefully protest in the main square in Tbilisi and in cities and towns throughout the country. In the past two weeks, we have seen protest marches held across all of Tbilisi at all times. More and more professional groups and neighborhoods have started to self-organize. This is unprecedented in our recent history. 

The immediate root of the protests is the profound crisis of legitimacy produced by the ruling party who is following the script that Viktor Orban used in Hungary to turn its government into an authoritarian regime. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it made a complete U-turn to adopt Euroscepticism, embrace right-wing nationalism, advocate reactionary gender politics, propel conspiracy theories into the political mainstream and express open sympathies with Russia. 

Georgian Dream ran on a platform of fear mongering, deploying the slogan “choose peace, not war” paired with images of a flourishing Georgia on one side and on the other a destroyed Ukraine. Their implication was clear; if you vote for the opposition Georgia will end up invaded and occupied by Russia. 

As for Georgian Dream’s base, while it lost a lot of its voters who are sympathetic to EU-integration, it has gained support among far-right nationalist voters, who approve of their anti-LGBT law, oppose Washington’s supposed plan to drag Georgia into a global war, and express hostility to EU bureaucrats they claim are violating Georgian sovereignty. The rest of their voters supported them out of fear of war, which Georgian Dream cynically manipulated. 

The four main opposition parties coalesced into coalitions to challenge Georgian Dream in the election. They are parties of the technocratic establishment, most of them affiliated to the previous government, and proved unable to address the grievances of the vast majority. Most voters don’t like them and voted for them tactically to defeat Georgian Dream or at least stop them from winning an outright majority and ruling on their own. 

— In the end, Georgian Dream did win a majority amidst wide scale allegations that it had rigged the results. Is that true?

Luka: Yes. Polls indicated it would remain the largest party but without enough votes to independently form a government. No one predicted it would win with 54 percent of the vote. To ensure that result, it resorted to every authoritarian trick imaginable, basically turning the vulnerable social condition of most of the population, which it has systematically reproduced, into an instrument of power. 

The party organized what we call a voting carousel to help their supporters vote in multiple places to drive up their results. Georgian Dream also bullied people into voting for it with the threat of cutting off people’s access to our minimal social welfare system, including medical care. They intimidated workers in the public sector like schoolteachers with the threat of losing their jobs. 

Georgian Dream then overrode the lawsuit that the president had filed to declare the elections unconstitutional because of mass violations of election laws. They didn’t even wait for the decision by the court they control to convene the parliament, something that clearly violates the Constitution. Georgian Dream thus did everything to further exacerbate the crisis of legitimacy engendered by how openly and badly they rigged the election. 

— The trigger of the uprising is Georgian Dream’s decision to suspend the process for accession to the European Union. Why did it decide to do this, especially given that a majority of Georgians support integration?

Ia: Georgian Dream likely suspended the accession talks because it faced little protests after its rigging of the election. It also does not want to agree to the EU’s conditionalities for democratic reform, which would threaten their hold on power. Finally, Russia no doubt put pressure on it behind the scenes.

Their suspension of talks has transformed the situation and awakened people like me who were shocked by the election results. I felt paralyzed for about two weeks. I couldn’t do anything. There were demonstrations after the elections, organized by opposition parties, but they were not that large. 

“The small turnout was a result of collective paralysis. It took weeks for people to grasp the enormity of the rigging that gave Georgian Dream such a victory.”

Frustration began to accumulate under the surface. Georgian Dream’s announcement of the suspension of accession talks, which violates our Constitution, broke the dam of welled up anger and it has burst forth throughout the country. 

Most people are not protesting just about EU accession. We are out in the streets to stop an authoritarian government from continuing to run roughshod over our Constitution, our rights, and our livelihoods. We are protesting to defend our democracy against Georgian Dream’s transformation of every state institution from the schools to the courts into tools to serve its interests and those of the oligarchs that control it. 

The government has responded to our uprising with utter brutality. They have started raiding people’s homes to find people they claim are planning a revolution. They’ve arrested some opposition leaders. The regime is becoming more autocratic by the day. Up to 500 people have been arrested and most of them were beaten up, some were tortured (even the public defender judged the treatment of many detainees to be torture). In the last few days, we see people being kidnapped from the streets by police. Among the prisoners are professors, university and school students, artists, and doctors. 

— What are the protests like? What groups and classes of people are involved and why is accession to the EU important to them? Were these the same that protested the special law? What are the protesters’ main demands?

Ia: They are huge. A large percentage of the country’s 3.8 million people have joined the demonstrations. In Tbilisi, which has a population of about a million people, every day throughout the day and into the night there are at least 100,000 people protesting and on some days over 150,000.

They are much larger than the spring protests against the foreign agent law and they are not just in Tbilisi. They are taking place throughout the country, not only in major districts, but also in small towns in the countryside. 

And they are far more diverse than the spring protests. People of all ages have joined the movement. Young people are out in force, but also everyone else. Different classes of people from professionals to workers are in the demonstrations. It’s really beautiful to behold.

Everyone realizes the danger we face. I’m part of an initiative that organizes actions to defend education. Countless other groups in different sectors of society are doing the same. None of this is very coordinated. It’s like streams of separately organized initiatives converging into massive protests. 

There is not even organized chanting during the day. Many of the protests are just silent defiance of the government. The energy, however, is amazing.

“But the movement is gradually finding its collective voice; it already has articulated two basic demands: new elections and the immediate release of all imprisoned protesters and activists.”

I do want to stress that amidst this spontaneity, people are beginning to organize in small initiatives that come together in the demonstrations. In however decentralized fashion, planning is going on, targets are being chosen, and a movement is being organized. 

For example, protests have targeted a range of public institutions to challenge their slander against the movement or their indifference to the brutality of the regime. Among these institutions is the Public Broadcaster, the country’s main national theatre, the Ministry of Education, the Writers’ House, the National Cinema Center, the Justice Palace, and the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement. 

In some cases public servants have joined those demonstrating outside, which was very moving to witness. Public servants have also started signing petitions and organizing marches notwithstanding pressure from a government that aims to erase the line between party loyalty and state institutions. 

The opposition parties play next to no role right now in the movement. They have been sidelined despite what the western media say. People have been telling a joke that these parties should at least do something like provide hot tea at the demonstrations. 

— These protests seem very similar to the Maidan uprising in Ukraine. Those began among students and then when they faced brutal repression the movement spread rapidly to the rest of society turning into a militant mass uprising that toppled the government. With splits in the government including resignations and opposition politicians joining the protests, do you think the Georgian uprising could follow the same trajectory? 

Luka: It’s clearly escalating. The government has turned to surveillance, raids, and brutal repression. But no one’s been scared off the streets. The movement is now demanding, not new elections, but that the government itself must go and now. The mass sentiment is it’s either us or them. It’s at a tipping point now and we’ll see if it escalates to challenge Georgian Dream’s capacity to rule.

As for similarities with the Ukrainian Maidan, ironically, it is Georgian Dream who follows the Maidan script — from cancelling EU talks like Yanukovich did to banning masks and mobilizing street thugs. They seem unable to make sense of the current uprising as anything other than an attempt by its internal and external enemies to “Maidanize” Georgia. This obsession with Maidan might be one of the reasons why the government has failed miserably to understand — and to quell — these protests. 

— Georgia seems trapped between various major imperial powers — the US, EU, Russia and China — because of its role as a transit site for global trade. Explain Georgia’s role in global capitalism. Would Georgia Dream’s suspension of EU accession change its position in global capitalism? Would it become more integrated into Russian capitalism? 

Lela: Georgia is a typical peripheral country, in which imperial powers have facilitated creation of a predatory economic system masquerading as development. The EU and the US have significantly shaped the country’s political economy since the early 1990s, contributing to creation of unsustainable contradictions. On the one hand, they want Georgia to be democratic, but on the other, they and local capitalists, especially the most powerful oligarch, Ivanishvili, want to plunder the country for profit. 

Their development program is impossible to implement and sustain a democracy. Why?

“Because the plunder and impoverishment provokes opposition, one that challenges the development strategy. To contain that resistance requires repression and with that a turn to authoritarianism.”

The energy sector is a good example of this contradiction, especially since Georgia’s becoming an “energy hub” and part of a “green” energy corridor is currently a common goal of the EU and the Georgian government. In the 1990s, but especially since the Rose Revolution of 2003, Western governments, aid agencies (e.g. USAID) and development banks (e.g. World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) have played a major role in creating state institutions that would facilitate privatization and deregulation of the energy sector. 

By 2008, Georgia had privatized all but 2 of its up to 50 Soviet inherited hydropower plants. While Western institutions supported privatization and the creation of an FDI-dependent economy, it was predominantly Russian capital that actually bought up power plants and energy distribution facilities. 

When the opportunities to attract FDI through privatization dried up, the government — again in cooperation with Western actors — began to promote greenfield hydropower plants as part of the EU’s green transition agenda. By 2024, the government had signed contracts for 214 new hydropower plants across the country, even if existing capacities almost cover domestic electricity demand. To attract financial capital, it offered land and water resources at nominal prices and promised that the state would protect investors from a range of financial, regulatory, and political risks. 

Given the extractive nature of the new hydropower projects, local popular movements have succeeded in opposing and sometimes cancelling or obstructing such projects, especially the large ones such as Namakhvani, Nenskra, Khudoni. 

The government got a new impetus to revive all the opposed hydropower plant projects and to propose new ones in 2022, when the EU started creating a “green energy corridor” across Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania and Hungary, and committed to finance undersea electricity cable on black sea. European institutions, most notably the European Energy Community, have participated in the planning activities through which the Georgian government declares electricity exports to be key to their development agenda and committed to building all previously contested large hydropower plants. 

“Throughout these 15 years since the new hydropower was promoted as a “green transition” agenda and developmental panacea,”

a range of local capitalists have learned how to benefit from the construction process, some linking new plants to cryptomining, hence creating a strong local lobby for continued expansion of the sector. 

Georgian Dream declares anti-hydropower opposition movements to be one of its main enemies. They openly declare that consolidation of power, including the adoption of the Foreign Agents Law, is important to suppress such opposition to Georgia’s economic development. 

This is what I mean when I say that the developmental agenda that the Georgian government has elaborated in collaboration with the Western powers and also to the benefit of other, including Russian and Chinese capital (which is not featuring in energy but is prominent in transport infrastructures), is hard if not impossible to implement democratically. So Georgian Dream, much like its political predecessors, turns towards authoritarianism, to be able to better serve the interests of local and international capital. 

When we insist that breakdown of the EU integration is dangerous, this is not because we are unaware of the problematic consequences of the EU integration, or that we are unaware how right-wing populism is shaking Europe’s core and peripheral economies alike, and how many European countries are trashing their commitment to human rights, international law, the UN, the ICC, and the ICJ in carrying out their joint war, their genocide, in Palestine. 

Instead, for us it is crystal clear that the current authoritarian consolidation serves to unroll the same problematic economic development agenda with an even more brutal face, suppressing any possibility of even protesting against it. This means being Europe’s periphery without being protected from the worst effects of this peripherality by the most basic mechanisms of protection of social and political rights. 

Now what about Russia and China? We can’t really say much about Russia, because all the deals they have done have been behind the scenes, not in public. Did Russia put pressure on Georgia? It’s likely but we don’t have the details on its nature. We can clearly observe, however, that Russian officials express satisfaction with the disintegration of EU-Georgia relations. 

China has also been quiet, but its economic interests are clear. It views Georgia as a transit site that enables it access to Europe’s market. Georgia is important especially after Russia’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine cut off China’s northern route to Europe. 

— So given this transit hub situation, how have all these powers that have a stake in Georgia for different reasons, how have they responded to the uprising and the crisis now for them in Georgia, China, Russia, U.S., European Union?

Luka: In the worst-case scenario, the EU will abandon putting normative, political pressure on Georgia to democratize and continue doing business with Georgia even under this wretched government like they do with those in Azerbaijan, Serbia, and other Central European and Central Asian countries. Serbia might be a particularly salient case as a country that seems permanently stuck in the accession process. While denouncing Serbia’s authoritarianism, the EU stipulates unpopular contracts regarding the extraction of lithium in the country.

Campists abroad or our local sovereigntists might interpret this as the West finally leaving a sovereign country alone. But in reality, this will be a problem for us, because the normative horizon of democracy, associated with the European framework, is an indispensable tool to put popular pressure on a government that is otherwise bent on crushing democracy altogether. In this sense, the EU, for protesters, is a symbol of rule of law, civil rights, and equality. 

At this point, on a mass level, the striving towards Europe and the language of “defending Georgia’s bright, European future” seems to be the only language available for articulating demands for democracy and social justice. The question then is how the people will rearticulate these in case the European horizon actually collapses? How do we and can we fight for political democracy and economic equality isolated from the norms of democracy and human rights emanating from the “collective West”? 

— In this dynamic situation, what do you think the Georgian left, social movements, and unions should be advocating? Is there any possibility of forging a political alternative on the left to challenge Georgian Dream and the pro-capitalist opposition parties?

Luka: Our first task is to build the struggle and maintain it. The government’s authoritarian response to our movement is driving people to think about strategies and tactics that the liberal opposition have tried to discredit like a general strike to preserve our democracy. 

The left, social movement organizations, and unions do not have the capacity now to give political coherence and infrastructure to this mass movement. So, people are almost entirely focused on daily protest tactics, not big political projects and larger discussions of strategy and tactics. 

— What position should the international left take in this situation? And what can we do to help Georgia’s struggle for self-determination, democracy, and equality?

Lela: The international left actually faces the same question as the Georgian left — how to transcend the obscuring framework of a conflict between the EU and Russia. The key is to understand and explain how geopolitical rivalries are squeezing peripheral countries.

“No one on the left should expect any of the imperial powers — the US, EU, Russia, and China — to serve our interests.”

Whatever their rivalries, they share a predatory agenda and will support an authoritarian regime to ensure they can carry it out. Importantly, the inter-imperial competition and struggle for hegemony creates new risks and vulnerabilities for the peripheral states that need to be taken seriously. 

It would be nice for the international Left to engage with more Georgian leftists and activists. At this point, there is a strong tendency for much of it to search out people who confirm its inaccurate and misleading framework that Western imperialism is the sole culprit, indict a mass popular movement as its catspaw, and exonerate the local oligarchic regime. 

If the international left follows these people’s lead it will end up supporting Georgian Dream’s rule over peripheral capitalism. Some on the Western left would benefit from stopping being so self-centered and limiting their critique to Western imperialism alone. I’m not asking them to not criticize the West; but to do it more seriously and to criticize non-Western actors as well. That’s the only way to uphold a consistent position to oppose not just the West but capitalism and imperialism without exception. 

25 December 2024

Questions were prepared by Ashley Smith (Tempest) and Ilia Budraitskis (Posle.media). We publish an abridged version of the interview from Posle, the full interview can be accessed on the Tempest website 

Footnotes

[1Ia Eradze is a political economist, with a research focus on finance in the post-socialist space. She is currently an associate professor at the Georgian Institute for Public Affairs (GIPA) and a CERGE-EI Foundation teaching fellow. She is also a researcher at the Institute for Social and Cultural Research, Ilia State University.

[2Luka Nakhutsrishvili teaches critical theory at Ilia State University Tbilisi and is a researcher and project coordinator at the Institute for Social and Cultural Research at the same university. He studies projects of modernity, popular resistance, and revolutionary culture in Georgia and the Caucasus.

[3Lela Rekhviashvili is a researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, specializing in political economy and regional geography, with a regional focus on post-socialist Eastern Europe and Eurasia.

The Emergence of Time as a Social Force



 January 3, 2025
FacebookTwitter

Photograph Source: Alex Lehner – CC BY 2.0

In 1336, Milan was expanding to become one of the richest and most important cities in all of Europe. From the end of the 13th century, it was ruled by a powerful dynasty that would go on to found the Duchy of Milan, a major state that would remain intact until Napoleon’s armies swept across Europe centuries later. That year, Milan cemented its position as a burgeoning technological powerhouse by introducing “the first documented hour-striking clock in a public setting.” Milan’s spectacular clock was an international sensation and “has been described as the first true automat in Europe and the locking wheel as a precursor of the computer.” The hourly ringing of its bells heralded the modern world, the world we know today, dominated by the power of time, where nothing would fall outside of its ambit. It was spellbinding, the cutting edge breakthrough of its day. Until then, time was conceived not as fixed and linear, as a standardized grid within which to situate the tasks of daily life—rather the tasks of daily life were the clock, dictating and defining time rather than the inverse. The prevailing model of time was as something relativistic, informed by patterns in nature that were not rigid and unmoving. But time assumed a new form and social energy. From the early modern period on, “time” becomes one of the most frequently used words, tightening its grip on the social order and our imaginations. Time of this new kind is an artifice that must be produced through social norms and institutions. It is neither natural nor necessary, but is rather a development from complex material realities and the interests of an emerging ruling class.

After these developments in the Late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, in which time is invented or at least socially reinvented, the concept undergoes a series of refinements that deepen its penetration of social and economic life. Until today, when the reification of time into a powerful tool of social control and domination seems almost complete. Ever more precise instruments for measuring time and smaller and more exact units of measurement have created a new and distinctly modern understanding of and relationship with time. Time continued to magnify its power, and the separation of production into smaller and more discrete steps tracks the invention and development of time. But it did more than just reshape patterns of production; it reshaped the human subject and her conception of herself and her physical and social environment. The subject would now always understand herself as being within time, adopting its purposes and logics, justifying her decisions in its terms. Later, with the social relationships and patterns of the industrial age, time is reconceived as yardstick, taskmaster, and disciplinarian, as a new God to which unending sacrifices are owed. Increasingly, every waking minute must be filled to propitiate the insatiable gods of productivity and efficiency—every activity and minute required to complete it must be scheduled and optimized. “The growth of a sense of time—the acceptance of time—is a process of adaptation to an ever more reified world.” We have become the subjects of highly refined, historically contingent new absolutism. One can express himself in any way, adopt any lifestyle in private, just insofar as he can never exercise any meaningful control over his time. The inexorability of time makes it “the ultimate model of domination,” fragmenting and dispersing everything before it by artificially separating us from the reality of experience as continuous, unified, and fluid. By breaking time into ever smaller units, we are disintegrating human life and experience itself, creating abstract, unnecessary distinctions between fundamental aspects of human life. Once meaningless and essentially unknowable, time as a social construct and system is now inescapable, “mirroring blind authority itself.”

Our lifelong relationships with time under capitalism are emotionally fraught. Time presses upon us with increasing energy and persistence in the age of the smartphone, as our calendars and other “productivity” applications ensure a steady outpouring of reminders and alerts. Time is there and it is running out fast, grains of sand piling up on the floor of the hourglass. In our era of ever-increasing pace, in which our culture places enormous value on speed, precision, and efficiency, there is the temptation to inspect each grain. Was that unit of time spent wisely? Now we have wearable devices that can provide us with information about the user’s heart rate, sleep patterns and quality, and exercise habits. Review the data and optimize the system—that’s the message, and it carries with it an indispensable temporal quality, because what is maximally efficient in any given case is dependent on time and how much of the precious commodity one has. Time is now conceived of in its pure commodity form, perfectly reducible and fungible. Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film In Time, though widely panned, explored an interesting iteration of this idea: the story plays out in a future where time has become the standard currency, and how long you can stay alive is determined by how rich you are. People are separated into segregated “Time Zones,” where the poor live out their short lives in ghettos. Even in our so-called free society, the lives of workers and the poor are necessarily shortened, for even if they are long, the amount of time free from toil—that is, the real life of the individual—is painfully and tragically short.

Several thinkers have drawn historical connections between the technologies that give us time as we know it and the social mechanisms of domination today associated with it. If we have been tempted to treat such technological advances as necessarily opening the way to increasing convenience and improved quality of life, then they give us reasons to at least subject this story to scrutiny. The work of eminent historian E.P. Thompson provides us with one of the seminal treatments of the cultural transformation wrought by the “new immediacy and insistence” of time as “[t]he clock steps on to the Elizabethan stage.” In his 1967 article “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,” Thompson argues that new technologies for tracking time were attended by dramatic shifts in “the inward apprehension of time of working people” and thus by “a severe restructuring of working habits—new disciplines, new incentives, and a new human nature upon which these incentives could bite effectively.” Time crept into every corner of life, as the day was bent into conformity with the needs of the economic system. In a short but fascinating aside, underlining the connection between these new ways of conceptualizing time and the most private and intimate aspects of human life, Thompson observes that, for a time, “winding the clock” took hold as a slang term for sexual activity following the 1759 publication of the popular and influential novel Tristram Shandy. Among the humorous scenes early in the novel is a question from the protagonist’s mother, put to his father during the carnal act resulting in Tristram’s conception: “have you not forgot to wind up the clock?” Everything is susceptible to commodification and exchange, time and sex included. The advent of time as we know it gave us small, discrete units capable of being alienated (in the sense of a conveyance or transferral); it fit perfectly with commodity capitalism.

There is a sense in which freedom is reducible to free time, in which domination and unfreedom are bound to the historical establishment of control over the time of others. Today, there is an overwhelming feeling “that people shouldn’t really have control over their time—that they can’t be trusted with it, that they need to be dominated in order for there to be some social order.” From the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) we receive one of the most trenchant looks at the concept of time in its current social dimensions. Adorno’s 1969 essay “Free Time” attempts to ground a critique of our approaches to free time under contemporary conditions, contending that our relationships with it are shaped in decisive ways, “functionally determined” by “relations of production into which people are born.” Adorno believes fundamentally that we are living within an “age of truly unparalleled social integration,” in which institutional cohesion and consolidated power are such that the individual is functionally trapped, unable to contend with the almost total subjugation of free time. Adorno thinks this means “that ‘free time’ is tending toward its own opposite, and is becoming a parody of itself.” Adorno’s arguments, though filled with a kind of curmudgeonly condescension, cut into the inescapable social totality created by capitalism: “The miracles which people expect from their holidays or from other special treats in their free time, are subject to endless spiteful ridicule, since even here they never get beyond the threshold of the eversame … .” For Adorno, there is a deep sense in which the cultural fixation on and celebration of not being at work, of engaging in carefully curated and choreographed hobbies and leisure activities, itself shows the extent to which capitalism and its characteristic program of time discipline has come to dominate all of life. “If people were able to make their own decisions about themselves and their lives, if they were not caught up in the realm of the eversame, they would not have to be bored.”

Adorno demonstrates that, by themselves, the technological mechanisms necessary for the distillation of time were insufficient to bring about the new power of the clock; also necessary were the social and economic predicates. Successive advances in the sophistication and accuracy of timekeeping coincided with efforts to rationalize uses of land and labor. When the English ruling class engrossed the land, they engrossed the time of the peasantry along with it as a matter of course. The political world, its problems and possibilities, are inconceivable absent their temporal character; we cannot imagine the political world without reference to time. We could almost index political categories by their attitudes toward time and the ceaseless flow of history, where conservatives “stand athwart history,” hoping to slow in some way the passage of time. For their part, progressives associate movement into an unknown future with social and technological developments and steady advancement. In the current moment, when capital continues to concentrate and the crisis realities of this growing inequality visit us with increasing frequency, capitalism seems to have conceptually preempted the future: even as we live under its domination and see its innate tensions play out, there is a sense that the system of global capitalism cannot end. Progressives and liberals have made their peace with capitalism, quietly resigning efforts to imagine and build alternatives. We’re stuck at the end of history, without the tools to go beyond the dead end.

But even as we’re stuck, we seem to be moving faster and faster, careening even. The incredible salience and ever-increasing speed of these cultural and technological changes has been such that they have changed the way we talk about history and time. Long before the spread of the consumer internet pushed us into a new Information Age, generations of modern people had noticed that the technological developments and scientific discoveries and advances were increasingly frequent. Contemporary scholarship on the Anthropocene and the global impact of human civilization across multiple domains has introduced the concept of the Great Acceleration, “twin surges, of energy use and population growth.” This notion of an ongoing age of Great Acceleration can be generalized as a framework for analysis. Today we observe unprecedented, transformational acceleration in general technological development, the overwhelming pace of work, the frenetic information flows and consumption patterns, the ominous concentration of capital, and unsustainable environmental degradation. Everything has been picking up speed. Just as more granular company data provide a clearer picture and thus more focused and complete control over workers and the processes of production generally, so did increasingly precise time measurement mean stronger and more inescapable control over workers and society at large. As capitalist society has grown more complex and fast-paced, the amount of information we are being asked to confront, analyze, and produce every day has grown tremendously, informing and changing our subjective impressions of the passage of time: we can think of the increasing compression and density of information as accelerating time, an adjustment to our experience of time phenomenologically.

If time is experienced as the constant, irreversible outpouring of changes in the state of the system, higher degrees of information density may be experienced as an acceleration of time. Our most scientifically sophisticated concepts of time are intimately bound up with the fact of our limited knowledge and understanding, of its slippery, relativistic nature. We cannot define time without reference to physical space, without a description of its relative, flexible coextension with space. This relationship holds in politics and philosophy no less than in physics. Several related concepts from these fields help give form and substance to the notion of time. One common way of thinking about time presents it as an arrow—always pointed in one direction, toward the future, away from the past, always moving in that direction. But why does time run only in one direction? Our understanding of time is connected to models of thermodynamics, in particular the Second Law, which is the idea that the measure of disorder in a given closed physical system tends to increase. This measure of disorder is called entropy, where a higher entropy value expresses the lack of organization that grows as the component parts of the system attempt to move toward a state of equilibrium. More precisely, entropy is a measure of the number of states the overall system could produce while maintaining the same overall energy profile. “Entropy,” according to leading theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, “is a way of characterizing our ignorance about the system.” As disorder and disorganization spread through a system, it becomes increasingly difficult to describe in formal, mathematical terms. The emergence and multiplication of these asymmetries are experienced as the passage of time.

We live in a time when many of our most advanced scientific minds wonder aloud whether we will be replaced entirely by computers—and, more than that, whether such a replacement might be desirable and good. Many of our leading technophiles and techno-optimists believe that in inventing AI, we have accelerated evolution and inaugurated a new age. And if all that matters to us is speed and efficiency, then perhaps they are right. But if there is more to measure than efficiency, narrowly constructed in terms of capitalist logics, then we need tools to pass beyond the dead end and reimagine time socially. We have inherited varied critiques of time as a social reality, and these can help us render both better concepts of time and new ways to counter its power in social and economic life. Without full and complete access to our time, we are deprived of our lives themselves. The real mystery is “that there is not more active resistance to this state of affairs,” that people have come to see the total conquest of their time on earth as a condition both natural and inevitable.

David S. D’Amato is an attorney, businessman, and independent researcher. He is a Policy Advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation and a regular opinion contributor to The Hill. His writing has appeared in Forbes, Newsweek, Investor’s Business Daily, RealClearPolitics, The Washington Examiner, and many other publications, both popular and scholarly. His work has been cited by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, among others.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CLOCK

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for TYRANT TIME

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Tyrant Time-Tempus Fug'it

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Tick, Tock, We Live By The Clock