Thanks Poirot - a good read and seemingly very gloomy conclusion (which by the way highlights the relevance and insights of political economy):

'Social science can do little, if anything, to help resolve the structural tensions and contradictions underlying the economic and social disorders of the day. What it can do, however, is bring them to light and identify the historical continuities in which present crises can be fully understood. It also can—and must—point out the drama of democratic states being turned into debt-collecting agencies on behalf of a global oligarchy of investors, compared to which C. Wright Mills’s ‘power elite’ appears a shining example of liberal pluralism. [22] More than ever, economic power seems today to have become political power, while citizens appear to be almost entirely stripped of their democratic defences and their capacity to impress upon the political economy interests and demands that are incommensurable with those of capital owners. In fact, looking back at the democratic-capitalist crisis sequence since the 1970s, there seems a real possibility of a new, if temporary, settlement of social conflict in advanced capitalism, this time entirely in favour of the propertied classes now firmly entrenched in their politically unassailable stronghold, the international financial industry.'

The key word in that last sentence may however be 'temporary'. We're in a period of rapid - very rapid - change. As the author points out earlier in the article, reconciling the requirements of finance capital and global markets for, on the one hand, austerity and fiscal consolidation and, on the other, steady and increasing economic growth, is looking more and more like one of those thorny 'contradictions'...

DG & Poirot,

It would appear that my play on words is above your capability to comprehend. The wisdom is not mine but from two of the greatest thinkers of the modern age, one of whom is a Nobel Laureate. If you are too narrow minded to consider their ideas, then indeed I cannot make you think.

DG, your arrogance and narrow mindedness in this thread are breath taking. Of the two of us, I appear the only one to make the effort to read more than one point of view. I strongly suggest you take the plank out of your eye first. (biblical metaphor for the uneducated)

SM,

Obviously the supposed "wisdom", to which you were endeavouring to lead Squeers, wasn't yours.

We already knew that...

Have only just got my power back, so sorry for tardy responses.

It's a fascinating area, Banjo and I'm with you. I have faith, or at least I suspect, there is something more to our reality than stupid materialism. My suspicions are based on personal experience as well as "circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both)". Though I've never taken my suspicions to the next level: cleaving to or inventing a belief system to account for them. Reductive materialism is a kind of negative faith, since it forecloses not merely on supernatural possibilities (which might seem excusable), but also on possibilities such as one form or another of dualism. It seems to me our perspective on reality is so limited, preconditioned and altogether dubious that we're in no position to foreclose on anything, at least in philosophical, cultural or political terms.
The way the empirical sciences proceed seems eminently defensible, since discoveries have a proven track record, but the danger is in translating materialist production from a realist paradigm into universal law: in reducing all reality to realist terms. Realism is a hypothetical construct, ultimately without foundation. Though it work for practical purposes, its productions are derivative and bounded by and limited to that spectrum of possibility. More importantly a), realism "as reality" demeans humanity to its base essence and b) its productions remain politically and culturally over-determined. To my mind idealism is vitally important and realism ought to be tempered by it, rather than the other way around.
Not sure if that's of any use.

Now that I have my computer back, I'll have a look at the link, Nick Rose, but in my view the realist paradigm is firmly entrenched and change will occur in a brutally realist mode, rather than via social processes.

Squeers, insofar as changes occur in human institutions (political, economic, cultural etc.), then the change will be social, even if the drivers are apparently external, e.g. climate change, resource scarcity. I take your meaning to be that change will be forced on us in an unpleasant way rather than managed through constructive and non-violent processes. I agree that the odds look to be in favour of the former, but I don't discount the latter because I see it happening now in ways both small and (in some places) large.

I really would commend the Crossroads doco to you as it does shed some light on the 'realism vs idealism' question. The insights of quantum physics are also highly relevant, regarding the 'scientifically-demonstrated' capacity of 'invisible forces' (i.e. energy fields) to impact on 'physical matter' - and indeed to question the very nature of that matter. If you want to delve further, I'd recommend Spontaneous Evolution - http://www.brucelipton.com/flipbook/spontaneous-evolution%23/page/7#/page/1 - which has much to say on the paradigms of scientific reductionism, Newtownian phyics, Darwinian genetic determinism, etc. A good read.

Nick,
have watched half the show and very good--especially since it validates everything I've been arguing on OLO for the last few years--shall watch the rest later.
On your comment; I'm not pessimistic for the sake of it. The human juggernaut has only reached this terrific and precarious dominance of the world via the capitalist mode of production, and only capitalism can maintain it--at least until it goes over the cliff. To attempt to dismantle the capitalist mode of production, with nearly 7 billion dependent upon it, for mine can only mean decimation, at least. That's supposing it was even possible; which would take the concerted efforts and good will of at least a large coalition of powerful countries, which would preside over a completely different way of life, while protecting the "ark" from recalcitrant aggressors. Much easier for powerful nations/coalitions/political orders to follow their realist/pragmatic logic and jockey for position in the aftermath of a major collapse.
We've seen the optimistic version before during the 60's and via the writings of Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm et al; inspirational, idealistic stuff that came to naught. During the whole period of cultural optimism and its various manifestations, including identity politics and the Green movement, neoliberalism has gone from strength to strength. Idealism has had no effect on the capitalist juggernaut, except to make it stronger. "It" got the fright of its life in the leadup to WW1 and as a result, as I said above, it has been responsive to critique (what we call democracy). But all its concessions have been idealistic/institutional (matters of indifference to it), while the material reality has gained ever greater ascendency.

I'll let you know if the film changes my mind.