|
It's the quitessential book on the economic history of the world the last 4-5 decades. It concerns everyone. It's written from a certain perspective though which you might want to keep in mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.
Anyone read it? It's a very interesting and eye-opening book and I might go as far as to say that it's one of the most important books of the decade. Discuss!
|
Is this Zeitgeist - the book?
|
On December 04 2009 20:19 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Is this Zeitgeist - the book?
Not really
|
|
|
Forget it. Trying to get people to read a book is impossible in this day and age. Guarentee almost no one will go and read the book because of this thread.
Then the typical posts flamewar begins, with each side defending their opinion and claiming the idiocy of the other side.
|
Zurich15328 Posts
On December 04 2009 20:30 Liquid_Turbo wrote:
Forget it. Trying to get people to read a book is impossible in this day and age. Guarentee almost no one will go and read the book because of this thread.
Then the typical posts flamewar begins, with each side defending their opinion and claiming the idiocy of the other side.
This is exactly what is going to happen. You guys have until page 2 to prove me wrong.
|
This is ridiculous. Close the thread
|
Just so you know I'm considering to read this because of this thread  Christmas holidays are coming up and I have alot of free time!
|
Same. I just went and checked the reviews on Amazon. Don't get why there's so much cynicism :-S.
|
NOOOO. Don't tell people to read books. If you read books you'll start thinking and then you'll be left alone and with no one to talk. We don't want that.
|
|
|
I'll buy the book just to prove you assholes wrong.
|
Dumbasses like me still read books. Actually I might read this book. Actually, I won't.
|
are people just figuring this out now? america's middle-class lifestyle is a direct result of our exploitation of third world countries and the lower socioeconomic classes.
|
Norway28669 Posts
this is a very good book but I can't fathom that you have read it - based on your posts you seem to disagree with naomi klein on mostly every issue you've posted about.
|
Canada9720 Posts
just because he's read the book he has to agree with it? ^_-
|
Norway28669 Posts
well normally when you read a book you think is great you at least let it influence you ;p
|
I read it about a year ago. Its a great book. There are many examples on how independent countries are sent to the brink of ruin following new economical policies. It really made me see things differently, especially the events that happened in South America in the 80's, and how people to this day want to implement the same ideas in other nations, ignoring the collapses that happened in the past.
|
Im going to buy AND read it because of this thread, so screw you people.
|
Some nice reverse psychology going on here.
|
well I'm not going to read it. We should just get communism back and get it over with.
|
|
|
oo thanks for reminding me about this book!
I remember seeing it at the bookstore sometime ago and thinking "damn i need to come back and get this book once i have the money"..
Hooray christmas!
|
On December 04 2009 22:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
well normally when you read a book you think is great you at least let it influence you ;p
yeah, but do you necessarily think that great is the same as interesting and eye opening??
to me, great means it has those two qualities and you agree with it :o
though if you disagree with the person, props to y ou for reading the other side of the story. probably 95% of people would never try that
|
The Marshallplan.
It was a trap!
|
On December 04 2009 22:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
this is a very good book but I can't fathom that you have read it - based on your posts you seem to disagree with naomi klein on mostly every issue you've posted about.
Good point, and I do disagree with her alot. I still think it's a great book. Free market capitalism would be awesome in the best of worlds..just like communism.
I let everything influence me. I don't take pride in having certain beliefs and my opinions are always open for change
|
The question is what wouldn't be awesome in the best of worlds?
|
On December 05 2009 02:42 tinman wrote:
The question is what wouldn't be awesome in the best of worlds?
Yeah well just saying
|
READ THIS BOOK
It's the quitessential book on the economic history of the world the last 4-5 decades. It concerns everyone
Do it.
|
On December 05 2009 02:42 tinman wrote:
The question is what wouldn't be awesome in the best of worlds?
tornados
|
On December 05 2009 03:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 02:42 tinman wrote:
The question is what wouldn't be awesome in the best of worlds? tornados
but what other fitting nickname would we give nada if there were no tornados? : (
|
That's funny how people "discover" today pervert nature of capitalism.
We had Marx, and then thinkers such as Debord, Sartre, Adorno, Foucault, Althusser, Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, Rancière, etc etc etc... who have analyzed theses phenomenon ages ago.
It is striking to read The Capital, from Marx, or The Society of the Spectacle from Debord, and to realize that what they describe in the natural process of capitalism is exactly accurate, and perfectly predicted.
Zeiteist is a pile of shit, for brainless amateurs of the plot theories. Nothing serious there. And its critic of capitalism is innacurate.
|
Why are you talking about Zeitgeist? I don't even
I've read parts of Marx's writings, and Foucault and many others. I think the OP explains what this book is about, the economy of the world the last couple of decades. It's not a discovery of capitalism it's a "discovery" of it's effects that arent always easily noticed from a laymans point of view.
|
On December 05 2009 03:51 Foucault wrote:
Why are you talking about Zeitgeist? I don't even
I've read parts of Marx's writings, and Foucault and many others. I think the OP explains what this book is about, the economy of the world the last couple of decades. It's not a discovery of capitalism it's a "discovery" of it's effects that arent always easily noticed from a laymans point of view.
Someone in teh first posts talked about Zeitgeist. I forgot to quote.
Anyway, I agree with you. Problem is, you really have to be a complete dummy not to "notice" the pervert effects of capitalism today. Problem is not that people don't see. Problem is people don't want to see. Just go to the next Mc Donald, the next Virgin Megastore or watch the news with a critical eye, and you see straight away what is wrong.
I didn't want to be pessimistic. I am sure it's a good book, and that's great someone succesful writes about it. It's just sad there is any need to talk about it.
|
I read this book about a year ago. It was good, and the little section it had about the Asian Financial Crisis (known as "The IMF" amongst Koreans) was quite accurate.
Of course the idea that capitalism is fucking things up all over the world isn't new, but the book delved into deeper things that are often overlooked which is what made the book a great read.
|
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates.
|
On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates.
If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel.
|
It sounds interesting. I'll get it on hold at the library.
|
On December 05 2009 03:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 02:42 tinman wrote:
The question is what wouldn't be awesome in the best of worlds? tornados
I don't know that tornados would exist in the best of worlds. Or maybe they would, but they would function more like some naturally occuring, surprise rollercoaster ride! Everyone would love life in Kansas!
|
On December 04 2009 22:58 Kong John wrote:
Im going to buy AND read it because of this thread, so screw you people.
i will download it and read it.
|
On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel.
isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things.
|
On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things.
If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists.
|
On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things.
There is much more than just that.
|
|
|
^ I never said that
on sons of anarchy they named the big white money as the biggest baddest gang of them all. not the label but whiteness, trying to gentrify their community and squeeze out white, black, latino, asian, everybody.
good show btw
|
On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists.
so what are you? libertarian anarchist?
|
On December 05 2009 04:27 freelander wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 22:58 Kong John wrote:
Im going to buy AND read it because of this thread, so screw you people. i will download it and read it.
Good luck reading a 600 page book on your computer
|
Thanks for recommending this, buying on amazon.com right now.
|
On December 04 2009 20:30 Liquid_Turbo wrote:
Forget it. Trying to get people to read a book is impossible in this day and age. Guarentee almost no one will go and read the book because of this thread.
Then the typical posts flamewar begins, with each side defending their opinion and claiming the idiocy of the other side.
what.. people dont read books..? of course they do, or am I missing something? I will probably read this one, Ive heard only good of it from a few different sources.
|
I have not read the book, but from reading some of the links and responses I have a question. Does this book propose a alternative to a global free market? I mean sure free market capitalism has problems, but so does every economic system.
|
On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist?
Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist.
|
|
|
On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that.
Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it?
|
I have read the book, and while it does it have good points, it's pretty flawed. Of course, being a Uchicago econ major, I have a massive internal bias. But, I don't think these points are distorted that much to render them moot solely because of my bias.
The idea that times of revolution and chaos are opportune times to "force in" new ideologies is probably true-the very idea of the "Shock Doctrine." I don't see anything wrong with the crux of this particular argument-that times of chaos breeds times of time for people to make changes in a system. For instance:
So in a way, Palin was the last clear expression of capitalism-as-usual before everything went south. That's quite helpful because she showed us—in that plainspoken, down-homey way of hers—the trajectory the U.S. economy was on before its current meltdown. By offering us this glimpse of a future, one narrowly avoided, Palin provides us with an opportunity to ask a core question: Do we want to go there? Do we want to save that pre-crisis system, get it back to where it was last September? Or do we want to use this crisis, and the electoral mandate for serious change delivered by the last election, to radically transform that system? We need to get clear on our answer now because we haven’t had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity, or we lose it. ~Naomi Klein
source: http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/07/capitalism-sarah-palin-style
Her idea of how capitalism works is flawed, however, is primarily from a mixture of guilt-by-association, misrepresentation, and false linkage in the person's mind. As was written in one of the Cato critiques,
One way in which Naomi Klein can blame free market liberals for everything that goes wrong in the world is that she confuses neo-liberalism/libertarianism with neoconservatism and with corporatism. Now she defends herself:
"I never said Friedman was a 'neo-conservative'"
This is another excellent example of how Klein works. That's right, she only wrote things like this:
"Only since the mid-nineties has the intellectual movement, led by the right-wing think-tanks with which [Milton] Friedman had long associations—Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute—called itself 'neoconservative,'" (p. 17)
"Friedman … laid out what … would form the economic agenda of the neoconservative movement" (p. 56)
"the neocon movement — Friedmanite to its core" (p. 322)
"Friedman's intellectual heirs in the United States, the neocons" (p. 444)
Klein does everything to try to establish a connection in the readers' minds, to give the impression that Friedman/liberal economists/neoconservatives/corporations/the Bush administration are all part of one big free-market/corporatism/militarism-complex. And then she can take the worst thing one of them does and blame all the others for it. (Of course, the claim that the Cato Institute is in any way neoconservative, much less "calls itself 'neoconservative,'" is strikingly wrong, as a search of the Cato website for the word neoconservative — which would turn up items like this — would have easily confirmed.)
source: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9626
It's not that I don't think she's a good writer-she's very skilled at that. My main concern is that she attempts to take two different issues, namely:
a) people use times of chaos to force in things that people don't want
and
b) capitalism is bad and makes people worse off
and tries to muddle them together so that capitalism is bad because it uses times of chaos to be forced in, and uses arguments for the former to back this combined argument up.
I highly advise everybody read the critiques and her response to get a full idea of what's going on.
|
On December 05 2009 04:55 InToTheWannaB wrote:
I have not read the book, but from reading some of the links and responses I have a question. Does this book propose a alternative to a global free market? I mean sure free market capitalism has problems, but so does every economic system.
she does have a point where she talks about how we need to replace capitalism with "democracy," in the same way that michael moore did in his latest movie about "capitalism vs. democracy."
although, I'm still confused why people think capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. If anything they are complements as one cannot exist without the other.
|
On December 05 2009 05:10 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:55 InToTheWannaB wrote:
I have not read the book, but from reading some of the links and responses I have a question. Does this book propose a alternative to a global free market? I mean sure free market capitalism has problems, but so does every economic system. she does have a point where she talks about how we need to replace capitalism with "democracy," in the same way that michael moore did in his latest movie about "capitalism vs. democracy." although, I'm still confused why people think capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. If anything they are complements as one cannot exist without the other.
Hmmm.
I recommand you Jacques Rancière's "Hate of Democracy". I am pretty sure that it is translated, and he is a wonderful philosopher.
|
On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist.
From what I recall, this has got to be the best explanation of what communism is that I've seen in a long, long time. I approve. Well, I disagree with your political identity, but I approve that that is your definition of communism. Because that's what it was supposed to be. If only people actually can get through Marx.
|
Im going to read it, just bought it along with...
If anyone wants to read it too.
|
On December 05 2009 05:13 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. From what I recall, this has got to be the best explanation of what communism is that I've seen in a long, long time. I approve. Well, I disagree with your political identity, but I approve that that is your definition of communism. Because that's what it was supposed to be. If only people actually can get through Marx.
Oh! I appreciate, thanks! :---)
It's funny, you know, people have in mind communism as some sort of super-socialism, with the State controlling everything. Like USSR.
State Communism is an oxymoron. Communism means disappearance of the State.
Rosa Luxembourg made a wonderful critic of Leninist State, and the power of bureaaucracy in early USSR.
|
On December 05 2009 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:10 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 04:55 InToTheWannaB wrote:
I have not read the book, but from reading some of the links and responses I have a question. Does this book propose a alternative to a global free market? I mean sure free market capitalism has problems, but so does every economic system. she does have a point where she talks about how we need to replace capitalism with "democracy," in the same way that michael moore did in his latest movie about "capitalism vs. democracy." although, I'm still confused why people think capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. If anything they are complements as one cannot exist without the other. Hmmm. I recommand you Jacques Rancière's "Hate of Democracy". I am pretty sure that it is translated, and he is a wonderful philosopher.
I have looked it up, I can still read a bit of French (well, not really, but I can at least understand the title T_T) but I haven't seen a copy of it around here and I don't exactly have any money to shell out for it.
edit: found it in my school library: due 01/08/2010
T_T
|
On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist.
Hmmm.
I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did.
The basic pattern of living here is:
I want X
I try for X
I can't get X
I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil!
Down with X!
The process that should follow the last one above is:
What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all!
|
On December 05 2009 05:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:13 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. From what I recall, this has got to be the best explanation of what communism is that I've seen in a long, long time. I approve. Well, I disagree with your political identity, but I approve that that is your definition of communism. Because that's what it was supposed to be. If only people actually can get through Marx. Oh! I appreciate, thanks! :---) It's funny, you know, people have in mind communism as some sort of super-socialism, with the State controlling everything. Like USSR. State Communism is an oxymoron. Communism means disappearance of the State. Rosa Luxembourg made a wonderful critic of Leninist State, and the power of bureaaucracy in early USSR.
If I recall, Marx actually ridiculed those people who claimed that communism was the general division of resources for everybody, or anybody that said communism was, well, something. He said that since nobody has seen communism before, nobody knows what it is, so any pre-existing ideas as to what communism is would result in a society that is not communist.
I also seem to recall how Marx, though opposed to (what masqueraded as, with asymmetric information galore) capitalism, was also appreciative of economics in his work. He was probably the first and last supporter of anti-capitalism that I have seen that has ever had any such appreciation of the ideas of economics, even if I completely disagree with his ideology.
|
On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all!
...
I don't think this has anything to do with Marx...
|
On December 05 2009 05:18 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:10 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 04:55 InToTheWannaB wrote:
I have not read the book, but from reading some of the links and responses I have a question. Does this book propose a alternative to a global free market? I mean sure free market capitalism has problems, but so does every economic system. she does have a point where she talks about how we need to replace capitalism with "democracy," in the same way that michael moore did in his latest movie about "capitalism vs. democracy." although, I'm still confused why people think capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. If anything they are complements as one cannot exist without the other. Hmmm. I recommand you Jacques Rancière's "Hate of Democracy". I am pretty sure that it is translated, and he is a wonderful philosopher. I have looked it up, I can still read a bit of French (well, not really, but I can at least understand the title T_T) but I haven't seen a copy of it around here and I don't exactly have any money to shell out for it. edit: found it in my school library: due 01/08/2010 T_T
Well, there is no emergency :-) You can read it later, I guess!
Rancière is just amazing. He is very careful with what he says, very rigorous, and very open-minded. He brings a completely different approach on the idea of Democracy, which is very original and incredibly refreshing. It's the kind of philosopher you can disagree with and still be incredibly happy to read him.
On top of that, it is quite short.
|
On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx...
Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible!
|
On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible!
Karl Marx married Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian baron, on June 19, 1843 in the Pauluskirche, at Bad Kreuznach. Marx and Jenny had seven children but due to poverty only three survived to adulthood
|
On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible!
I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life.
|
On December 05 2009 05:26 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! Show nested quote +Karl Marx married Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian baron, on June 19, 1843 in the Pauluskirche, at Bad Kreuznach. Marx and Jenny had seven children but due to poverty only three survived to adulthood
Those kids where all from Engel's sperm.
|
On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life.
Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room?
|
On December 05 2009 05:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room?
Is there a mod somewhere to ban this moron?
|
On December 05 2009 05:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:
[quote]
isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things.
If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room? Is there a mod somewhere to ban this moron?
Wow. Touchy much? I thought you were a fan of universal liberation? Meaning -- if you don't like my posts, don't read them! But don't ask the mod (read: the state!) to ban me! Fascist!
|
On December 05 2009 05:31 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room? Is there a mod somewhere to ban this moron? Wow. Touchy much? I thought you were a fan of universal liberation? Meaning -- if you don't like my posts, don't read them! But don't ask the mod (read: the state!) to ban me! Fascist!
At least I loled;
|
i think a mod should ban you too
at least temporarily
|
On December 05 2009 05:33 travis wrote:
i think a mod should ban you too
at least temporarily
Reason?
|
On December 05 2009 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:33 travis wrote:
i think a mod should ban you too
at least temporarily Reason?
Clearly: Travis and I are in agreement that anyone who wants to sleep with Marx needs to spend more time self-reflecting than posting on TL!
|
thanks for the info, but based on the description of the book, this has been the subject of much debate from a lot of sources in the past years. how can come it come as a shock?
|
On December 05 2009 04:48 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:27 freelander wrote:On December 04 2009 22:58 Kong John wrote:
Im going to buy AND read it because of this thread, so screw you people. i will download it and read it. Good luck reading a 600 page book on your computer
EBOOK READER
no i dont have one but I will soon
|
On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it?
Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that".
|
On December 05 2009 05:52 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it? Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that".
This is nonsense.
|
I step away for 15 min to make lunch and this thread gets dosed with BULLSHIT
|
On December 05 2009 05:54 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:52 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it? Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that". This is nonsense.
Yeah, you're right. On second thought capitalism is an eternal wellspring of compassion and fellow feeling.
|
On December 05 2009 06:02 .risingdragoon wrote:
I step away for 15 min to make lunch and this thread gets dose of BULLSHIT
Never step away when a thread is interesting.
Anyway, a thread on capitalism is always potentially explosive on an international forum...
|
On December 05 2009 06:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:02 .risingdragoon wrote:
I step away for 15 min to make lunch and this thread gets dose of BULLSHIT
Never step away when a thread is interesting. Anyway, a thread on capitalism is always potentially explosive on an international forum...
You "potentially explode" when you see a picture of Marx, don't you.
|
On December 05 2009 06:04 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:54 ghostWriter wrote:On December 05 2009 05:52 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it? Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that". This is nonsense. Yeah, you're right. On second thought capitalism is an eternal wellspring of compassion and fellow feeling.
I hate capitalism, yet I will continue to live in America and enjoy all the benefits that it provides for me and become an ignorant, obese American that believes everything I'm told by the media.
|
On December 05 2009 06:08 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:02 .risingdragoon wrote:
I step away for 15 min to make lunch and this thread gets dose of BULLSHIT
Never step away when a thread is interesting. Anyway, a thread on capitalism is always potentially explosive on an international forum... You "potentially explode" when you see a picture of Marx, don't you.
At first it was annoying, then, for a short moment, it has been funny, now it's damn boring again. I think it's fine, now, you can find something else.
|
On December 05 2009 06:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:08 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 06:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:02 .risingdragoon wrote:
I step away for 15 min to make lunch and this thread gets dose of BULLSHIT
Never step away when a thread is interesting. Anyway, a thread on capitalism is always potentially explosive on an international forum... You "potentially explode" when you see a picture of Marx, don't you. At first it was annoying, then, for a short moment, it has been funny, now it's damn boring again. I think it's fine, now, you can find something else.
I can't, Biffy. I'm stuck on you.
|
I'd love to hear from ppl with actual 1st hand experience of the international monetary policies, like central and south americans, africans, etc.
|
On December 05 2009 06:02 .risingdragoon wrote:
I step away for 15 min to make lunch and this thread gets dosed with BULLSHIT
is it just me or did you decide that this
On December 05 2009 05:04 Caller wrote:The idea that times of revolution and chaos are opportune times to "force in" new ideologies is probably true-the very idea of the "Shock Doctrine." I don't see anything wrong with the crux of this particular argument-that times of chaos breeds times of time for people to make changes in a system. For instance: Show nested quote +
So in a way, Palin was the last clear expression of capitalism-as-usual before everything went south. That's quite helpful because she showed us—in that plainspoken, down-homey way of hers—the trajectory the U.S. economy was on before its current meltdown. By offering us this glimpse of a future, one narrowly avoided, Palin provides us with an opportunity to ask a core question: Do we want to go there? Do we want to save that pre-crisis system, get it back to where it was last September? Or do we want to use this crisis, and the electoral mandate for serious change delivered by the last election, to radically transform that system? We need to get clear on our answer now because we haven’t had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity, or we lose it. ~Naomi Klein
source: http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/07/capitalism-sarah-palin-style
was bs?
|
On December 05 2009 06:13 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'd love to hear from ppl with actual 1st hand experience of the international monetary policies, like central and south americans, africans, etc.
It would depends his own ideological conviction, I guess.
My family is Argentinian. Their discourse is that IMF has imposed ultraliberal policies after the country crashed in early 2000's in exchange of its help, and that it benefits foreign big companies and not at all people who are deprived from the social help their were (not) getting.
IntoTheWow would be better than me to talk about it. But from what I have experienced, I don't think people think that differently in general.
|
On December 05 2009 06:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:13 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'd love to hear from ppl with actual 1st hand experience of the international monetary policies, like central and south americans, africans, etc. It would depends his own ideological conviction, I guess. My family is Argentinian. Their discourse is that IMF has imposed ultraliberal policies after the country crashed in early 2000's in exchange of its help, and that it benefits foreign big companies and not at all people who are deprived from the social help their were (not) getting. IntoTheWow would be better than me to talk about it. But from what I have experienced, I don't think people think that differently in general.
That's pretty much what happened in Korea except the IMF didn't get their way completely.
|
I am so happy free market (at least on some extent) is implemented on my country I can't even begin to describe it. Most of you people have no idea at all what living under statism is; having not food to buy, money devaluating every day, an almost ongoing civil war.
Pinochet is an ass for killing people and stealing money, left wing politicians take advantage of that to stay on power (even though they are not as left wing hardcore as they used to be, and just accepted the fact that the market did worked from the 70's to 90's and therefore has continued till today). People forget that in 20 years a non-working economy got fixed into what it is today, because Pinochet dirtied up what was done with his crimes.
Moreover, foreigners think Allende was some kind of hero. He was not; he fucked up my country and promoted social class fights leading to a an inevitable civil war.
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better.
|
On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am so happy free market (at least on some extent) is implemented on my country I can't even begin to describe it. Most of you people have no idea at all what living under statism is; having not food to buy, money devaluating every day, an almost ongoing civil war.
Pinochet is an ass for killing people and stealing money, left wing politicians take advantage of that to stay on power (even though they are not as left wing hardcore as they used to be, and just accepted the fact that the market did worked from the 70's to 90's and therefore has continued till today). People forget that in 20 years a non-working economy got fixed into what it is today, because Pinochet dirtied up what was done with his crimes.
Moreover, foreigners think Allende was some kind of hero. He was not; he fucked up my country and promoted social class fights leading to a an inevitable civil war.
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better.
Ouuuch.
You see, what I meant? Depends the ideological position of the person you would ask.
|
I would read it if it were already on my table. Or if someone buys it for me 
On December 05 2009 06:24 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:13 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'd love to hear from ppl with actual 1st hand experience of the international monetary policies, like central and south americans, africans, etc. It would depends his own ideological conviction, I guess. My family is Argentinian. Their discourse is that IMF has imposed ultraliberal policies after the country crashed in early 2000's in exchange of its help, and that it benefits foreign big companies and not at all people who are deprived from the social help their were (not) getting. IntoTheWow would be better than me to talk about it. But from what I have experienced, I don't think people think that differently in general. That's pretty much what happened in Korea except the IMF didn't get their way completely.
not OT: every time i see IMF i think "intermolecular forces" ... fucking chemistry >.>
|
On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better.
Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides?
|
On December 05 2009 06:09 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:04 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 05:54 ghostWriter wrote:On December 05 2009 05:52 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it? Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that". This is nonsense. Yeah, you're right. On second thought capitalism is an eternal wellspring of compassion and fellow feeling. I hate capitalism, yet I will continue to live in America and enjoy all the benefits that it provides for me and become an ignorant, obese American that believes everything I'm told by the media.
The results of over-indulgence in CAPITALISM!
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/123665/thumbs/s-OBESE-MAN-ON-AMERICAN-AIRLINES-large.jpg)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/obese-man-on-american-air_n_379979.html
|
On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides?
Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism.
|
On December 05 2009 06:51 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:09 ghostWriter wrote:On December 05 2009 06:04 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 05:54 ghostWriter wrote:On December 05 2009 05:52 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it? Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that". This is nonsense. Yeah, you're right. On second thought capitalism is an eternal wellspring of compassion and fellow feeling. I hate capitalism, yet I will continue to live in America and enjoy all the benefits that it provides for me and become an ignorant, obese American that believes everything I'm told by the media. The results of over-indulgence in CAPITALISM! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/obese-man-on-american-air_n_379979.html
Last year United Airlines had received "more than 700 complaints last year from passengers 'who did not have a comfortable flight because the person next to them infringed on their seat,' an airline spokesman said."
lololol
Imagine if he didn't have the aisle seat and had to squish his body into one seat?
|
On December 05 2009 06:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides? Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism.
I guess that's true. People who are poor and have to make ends meet daily are more prone to seek answers in socialism/communism, which of course is quite natural because the wealth becomes divided etc.
My issue with communism in general is not the actual ideology per se but the fact that it will never work due to the human nature. Greed and egoistic agendas will always prevail, sad but true. Capitalism also gives people an incentive to strive for higher education as a means to make money which as a whole makes society more intelligent, but in the end it's always at the expense of the people who for some reasons can't educate themselves and make money.
So the obvious downfall with capitalism is the big differences in standards of living.
|
On December 05 2009 06:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides? Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism.
Indeed I wasn't very old, but I have access to first hand testimonies from both sides. U are not taking into account the left wing which was in power; it was not some modern welfare state like france, germany or netherlands. I'm talking cold communism, like Russia or ukraine after WWII. I would not be surprised at all if things had continued it's course chilean's development would be compared to Nicaragua´s.
Comparing our militar regime to Hitler is bullshit. Indeed there was a dictator, but he was not attempting to exterminate ethnics groups nor invade neighbord countries. It was a counter measure to an ongoing communist regime. Pinochet was a horrible person, but under his regime free market was instaurated.
Point is people mistake one thing with another: that people where killed has nothing to do with the fact that our actual economical development is a direct consequence of the economical policies taken after 1973's.
They also forget that Allende was as bad or worse than him.
|
On December 05 2009 06:59 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides? Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism. I guess that's true. People who are poor and have to make ends meet daily are more prone to seek answers in socialism/communism, which of course is quite natural because the wealth becomes divided etc. My issue with communism in general is not the actual ideology per se but the fact that it will never work due to the human nature. Greed and egoistic agendas will always prevail, sad but true. Capitalism also gives people an incentive to strive for higher education as a means to make money which as a whole makes society more intelligent, but in the end it's always at the expense of the people who for some reasons can't educate themselves and make money. So the obvious downfall with capitalism is the big differences in standards of living.
Also the fact that people who already have a lot of money and power use it to promote their own progeny and keep others down. There's a ton of people who are in ivy league schools that don't deserve to be there, simply because their parents are rich or powerful. Just look at George W. Bush. There are many times when your connections and your status are more important than your abilities and your accomplishments. However, in general, capitalism does tend to reward those with ideas, abilities and accomplishments.
|
On December 05 2009 07:07 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:59 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides? Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism. I guess that's true. People who are poor and have to make ends meet daily are more prone to seek answers in socialism/communism, which of course is quite natural because the wealth becomes divided etc. My issue with communism in general is not the actual ideology per se but the fact that it will never work due to the human nature. Greed and egoistic agendas will always prevail, sad but true. Capitalism also gives people an incentive to strive for higher education as a means to make money which as a whole makes society more intelligent, but in the end it's always at the expense of the people who for some reasons can't educate themselves and make money. So the obvious downfall with capitalism is the big differences in standards of living. Also the fact that people who already have a lot of money and power use it to promote their own progeny and keep others down. There's a ton of people who are in ivy league schools that don't deserve to be there, simply because their parents are rich or powerful. Just look at George W. Bush. There are many times when your connections and your status are more important than your abilities and your accomplishments. However, in general, capitalism does tend to reward those with ideas, abilities and accomplishments.
Yep. Money equals power, and the corridors of power are unfortunately often times hidden from the "common people". We don't know much of what is going on in the white house but rest assured that the people in power stay in power, and so does their friends and family. And the reason they stay in power is because they have connections and money.
|
On December 05 2009 07:12 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 07:07 ghostWriter wrote:On December 05 2009 06:59 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides? Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism. I guess that's true. People who are poor and have to make ends meet daily are more prone to seek answers in socialism/communism, which of course is quite natural because the wealth becomes divided etc. My issue with communism in general is not the actual ideology per se but the fact that it will never work due to the human nature. Greed and egoistic agendas will always prevail, sad but true. Capitalism also gives people an incentive to strive for higher education as a means to make money which as a whole makes society more intelligent, but in the end it's always at the expense of the people who for some reasons can't educate themselves and make money. So the obvious downfall with capitalism is the big differences in standards of living. Also the fact that people who already have a lot of money and power use it to promote their own progeny and keep others down. There's a ton of people who are in ivy league schools that don't deserve to be there, simply because their parents are rich or powerful. Just look at George W. Bush. There are many times when your connections and your status are more important than your abilities and your accomplishments. However, in general, capitalism does tend to reward those with ideas, abilities and accomplishments. Yep. Money equals power, and the corridors of power are unfortunately often times hidden from the "common people". We don't know much of what is going on in the white house but rest assured that the people in power stay in power, and so does their friends and family. And the reason they stay in power is because they have connections and money.
Yeah, this is why I don't believe in democracy. A choice between two candidates that are very similar for the most part isn't much of a choice at all. All the rhetoric used turn out to be shams in the end anyway. I can't believe that so many people believed in "change". But then again, the people who voted for him probably knew nothing about Obama's positions during the campaign and are little more than vaguely familiar, if they are aware at all, about his actions now.
|
On December 05 2009 06:59 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides? Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism. I guess that's true. People who are poor and have to make ends meet daily are more prone to seek answers in socialism/communism, which of course is quite natural because the wealth becomes divided etc. My issue with communism in general is not the actual ideology per se but the fact that it will never work due to the human nature. Greed and egoistic agendas will always prevail, sad but true. Capitalism also gives people an incentive to strive for higher education as a means to make money which as a whole makes society more intelligent, but in the end it's always at the expense of the people who for some reasons can't educate themselves and make money. So the obvious downfall with capitalism is the big differences in standards of living.
I have more faith in humanity than you :-)
PS: and communism is not something which "work" or "doesn't work". Read my dialogue with Caller about what Communism is.
|
On December 05 2009 07:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:59 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 06:47 Foucault wrote:On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Well I assume you weren't very old when Pinochet was in power but I could be wrong. So maybe you didn't have to endure the tough times and see more of the possible "good" sides? Well, we had a discourse in France before the second world war which was "plutôt Hitler que le front populaire" (better Hitler than the Front Populaire, which was the first left side French governement, which introduced first holidays, 8 hours work/day etc etc etc, and which was very very very much hated by the bourgeoisie and the right wingers in general). Maybe Pinochet was not Hitler, but it's not unusual that some people prefer fascism to any kinnd of socialism. I guess that's true. People who are poor and have to make ends meet daily are more prone to seek answers in socialism/communism, which of course is quite natural because the wealth becomes divided etc. My issue with communism in general is not the actual ideology per se but the fact that it will never work due to the human nature. Greed and egoistic agendas will always prevail, sad but true. Capitalism also gives people an incentive to strive for higher education as a means to make money which as a whole makes society more intelligent, but in the end it's always at the expense of the people who for some reasons can't educate themselves and make money. So the obvious downfall with capitalism is the big differences in standards of living. I have more faith in humanity than you :-) PS: and communism is not something which "work" or "doesn't work". Read my dialogue with Caller about what Communism is.
I think he's aware. I think he just meant to say "the viability of communism in theory and in practice" in the way it was understood and interpreted, not the way Marx meant it.
|
On December 05 2009 06:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 06:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
I am so happy free market (at least on some extent) is implemented on my country I can't even begin to describe it. Most of you people have no idea at all what living under statism is; having not food to buy, money devaluating every day, an almost ongoing civil war.
Pinochet is an ass for killing people and stealing money, left wing politicians take advantage of that to stay on power (even though they are not as left wing hardcore as they used to be, and just accepted the fact that the market did worked from the 70's to 90's and therefore has continued till today). People forget that in 20 years a non-working economy got fixed into what it is today, because Pinochet dirtied up what was done with his crimes.
Moreover, foreigners think Allende was some kind of hero. He was not; he fucked up my country and promoted social class fights leading to a an inevitable civil war.
I am happy the military took over, even though they screw up later. What was before that was way worse, and was not gonna get any better. Ouuuch. You see, what I meant? Depends the ideological position of the person you would ask.
haha had to step away again
I have no problems with that actually. It comes down to many different factors, in fact it's two different sets of circumstances. There's nothing wrong with having your basic needs met, but it's something else to be infringing on others.
Getting society to behave like the cells of the body is ongoing. If my stomach is taking excessive oxygen supply from my other organs I'd be worried too, likewise any forms of lopsided distribution model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://maulanusantara.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/the-shock-doctrine_naomi-klein.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/George_Catlett_Marshall%2C_general_of_the_US_army.jpg/524px-George_Catlett_Marshall%2C_general_of_the_US_army.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://greencrescent.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/making_globalisation_work.jpg)
