Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 01 2019 21:36 Wombat_NI wrote: Rather counter-intuitively I think we’re seeing a return to people voting for easy fix solutions in a time where more people should know that easy fixes don’t exist, possible to outsource all the complexity to politicians who adhere to such rhetoric.
I think there's truth to that. Now that we have access to so much information, it is tempting to throw one's hands up in despair. But someone still has to steer the ship.
On December 01 2019 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I and others have been arguing for a while now that neoliberalism has been instrumental in the rise of Trump. This piece (as well as others) by Henry A. Giroux in Truthout does a good job of consolidating and expanding a form of that argument. This selection from his (much longer) piece headlined as: Neoliberalism Paved the Way for Authoritarian Right-Wing Populism gets at the thrust of what I've been arguing and what I see as one of the most pressing concerns we face.
What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed. In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education.
Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering, the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death.
TLDR : Wages gap are increased, distribution of wealth is flawed, trickle down never worked. then he goes on how clinton and obama destroyed the social contract for w/e it means (weird considering obamacare). Then hes really mad at countries saving their banks instead of letting them sink or jail time. People are unhappy because they're poor. Just a lot of buzzwords for basically nothing. Wealth gap/Wage gap was increasing before 2008. Blaming obama because he was in charge during the 2008 crisis i suppose.
On December 01 2019 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I and others have been arguing for a while now that neoliberalism has been instrumental in the rise of Trump. This piece (as well as others) by Henry A. Giroux in Truthout does a good job of consolidating and expanding a form of that argument. This selection from his (much longer) piece headlined as: Neoliberalism Paved the Way for Authoritarian Right-Wing Populism gets at the thrust of what I've been arguing and what I see as one of the most pressing concerns we face.
What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed. In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education.
I think the conclusion is particularly strong:
Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering, the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death.
TLDR : Wages gap are increased, distribution of wealth is flawed, trickle down never worked. then he goes on how clinton and obama destroyed the social contract for w/e it means (weird considering obamacare). Then hes really mad at countries saving their banks instead of letting them sink or jail time. People are unhappy because they're poor. Just a lot of buzzwords for basically nothing. Wealth gap/Wage gap was increasing before 2008. Blaming obama because he was in charge during the 2008 crisis i suppose.
No idea how you took such a well written piece (a bit wordy I admit) and turned it into... that... summary but thank you for your perspective.
@Wombat, This ^ is what I'm talking about with step 1
On December 01 2019 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I and others have been arguing for a while now that neoliberalism has been instrumental in the rise of Trump. This piece (as well as others) by Henry A. Giroux in Truthout does a good job of consolidating and expanding a form of that argument. This selection from his (much longer) piece headlined as: Neoliberalism Paved the Way for Authoritarian Right-Wing Populism gets at the thrust of what I've been arguing and what I see as one of the most pressing concerns we face.
What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed. In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education.
I think the conclusion is particularly strong:
Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering, the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death.
TLDR : Wages gap are increased, distribution of wealth is flawed, trickle down never worked. then he goes on how clinton and obama destroyed the social contract for w/e it means (weird considering obamacare). Then hes really mad at countries saving their banks instead of letting them sink or jail time. People are unhappy because they're poor. Just a lot of buzzwords for basically nothing. Wealth gap/Wage gap was increasing before 2008. Blaming obama because he was in charge during the 2008 crisis i suppose.
Those gaps increase because well that’s what neoliberalism does if it’s widely adopted as the status quo by society.
People then blame x force for why they’re struggling in said system and others are prospering, like they’re playing a game of whack-a-mole
2008 being a good case in point. A global crash that affected many people’s lives and exposed the worst of the smoke and mirrors of the financial sector, to the extent that taxpayer bailouts were required.
I really thought enough people were pissed off and the consequences so disastrous that some meaningful reform and cultural shifts would occur, but that really hasn’t happened.
10 years on I’ll bring it up in conversation and people will nod and go ‘oh yeah I remember that’ before it returns to x issue of the day.
The norms of the system are so ingrained at this point that even something as catastrophic as the crash, which exposed the ‘one rule for the rich’ regarding the conspicuous lack of any jail time etc, is swiftly moved on from and the microscope away from systemic problems and back onto scapegoating of external forces.
On December 01 2019 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I and others have been arguing for a while now that neoliberalism has been instrumental in the rise of Trump. This piece (as well as others) by Henry A. Giroux in Truthout does a good job of consolidating and expanding a form of that argument. This selection from his (much longer) piece headlined as: Neoliberalism Paved the Way for Authoritarian Right-Wing Populism gets at the thrust of what I've been arguing and what I see as one of the most pressing concerns we face.
What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed. In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education.
I think the conclusion is particularly strong:
Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering, the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death.
TLDR : Wages gap are increased, distribution of wealth is flawed, trickle down never worked. then he goes on how clinton and obama destroyed the social contract for w/e it means (weird considering obamacare). Then hes really mad at countries saving their banks instead of letting them sink or jail time. People are unhappy because they're poor. Just a lot of buzzwords for basically nothing. Wealth gap/Wage gap was increasing before 2008. Blaming obama because he was in charge during the 2008 crisis i suppose.
Neoliberalism didn't start in 2008.
I think talking about populism is interesting because it illustrates the issue with a leftwing that is too centrist and trying to fit with the liberal rightwingers too much. Populism is vaguely defined but usually it's something along the lines of "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups", or "refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".
If we take this definition at face value, populism is very clearly a leftwing concept. Liberalism doesn't have an issue with the elites, because they're the right elites that got there through a meritocracy, and the far right doesn't have an issue with the elites because this kind of talk goes against social cohesion, you want to be united against the enemies, who are "the others", and if you spend your time talking about elites of your own far right group instead, that undermines the vision of society that you're going for.
When the left merges with the right on issues and you get Clintons and Blairs, the left can't really describe itself as populist anymore, obviously. So what happens then is that populism becomes a bad word, as both traditional parties agree that it's wrong, and people who don't mind lying about themselves can present themselves as populist, when they aren't. They aren't attacking elites, they're attacking some specific ideas among elites, for example globalism, and painting that as an attack of elites. And the word is redefined and can now mean people like Bolsonaro or Trump, who are very obviously not in favor of the people against the elites.
I would like to end with the notion that the original form of populism is necessary to counter neoliberalism. The elites are fighting to increase their own power and better their own condition under capitalism; if they didn't, they wouldn't have raised to this point in the hierarchy in the first place. If we decide that class war is bad, then we are disarming in that particular fight. But they aren't. They continued, and they will continue.
On December 03 2019 02:42 Mohdoo wrote: "Philosophize this" is a great podcast that discusses liberalism in detail. I recommend people give it a listen.
Not familiar with the person/podcast but thumbing around a bit I came across this from the previous episode on Gramsci, (neoliberal in our case) hegemony and the resistance we see to challenging capitalism
... nonetheless these ruling intellectuals often times dominate the ideas that are available to citizens of a society. So often these intellectuals are the ones that write the articles, they’re the ones published in journals, they conduct the studies, they write the textbooks…so often these intellectuals control the education of the next generation of citizens when so much of their prominence as an intellectual was only given to them simply because their ideas corresponded with the existing social order.
...don’t be surprised if there are some pretty glaring holes in your understanding of Capitalism…because just statistically…most pieces of information you’ve ever had access to have been written by people that reached that level of social influence by participating in a Capitalist system that benefits them. Your high school or university wasn’t taught by unbiased monks.
That most likely, once again just statistically, you have come up in a world where you are far more likely to hear about the merits of Capitalism and all the good that it is doing for people in the world. When conversations about the downsides of Capitalism come up you are far more likely to hear them glossed over by other people…you’re less likely to have someone call you out for glossing over them, and the conversation is likely to go in the direction of how the good of Capitalism drastically outweighs the bad. When you hear people talking about Socialism…when coming up in an advanced Capitalist culture you’re far more likely to have run into conversations about the horrors of Socialism, how it’s failed everywhere it’s been tried and if anyone brings up something good that Socialism has done it’s written off as a broken clock is right twice a day sort of thing.
TLDR;
if you’re an intellectually honest person you’d at least for a second have to consider that maybe your entire understanding of Capitalism and Socialism has been given to you by a handful of intellectuals you’ve entrusted your worldview to…that are intellectuals and gained their credibility simply because their view of the way the world is corresponds with a dominant cultural narrative that keeps the status quo going
The problem with that article is that its basically phrased as a conspiracy theory about how intellectuals lied to you for your entire life, but now we intellectuals are telling you the truth and you should totally believe what we say because we said so.
Which is stupid because it would accomplice the same thing but a lot better if it said that common thinking of capitalism and socialism are products of superpowers that proclaimed it was the champion of either capitalism or socialism. That without those forces controlling what exactly is capitalism and socialism we need to evolve the understanding of both.
The hate on capitalism ala "late-stage capitalism" just comes off most of the time as hyper-cynical smugness about blaming the winner for all the problems we face in the aftermath.
On December 03 2019 06:36 Sermokala wrote: The problem with that article is that its basically phrased as a conspiracy theory about how intellectuals lied to you for your entire life, but now we intellectuals are telling you the truth and you should totally believe what we say because we said so.
Which is stupid because it would accomplice the same thing but a lot better if it said that common thinking of capitalism and socialism are products of superpowers that proclaimed it was the champion of either capitalism or socialism. That without those forces controlling what exactly is capitalism and socialism we need to evolve the understanding of both.
The hate on capitalism ala "late-stage capitalism" just comes off most of the time as hyper-cynical smugness about blaming the winner for all the problems we face in the aftermath.
It's from a transcript of the podcast that preceded the one linked by Mohdoo
I've mentioned this several times and he mentions it as well, hegemony isn't a conspiracy theory and people often have no idea they are a part of it.
Dominant social classes have the ability to dictate cultural norms, these cultural norms often times serve to reinforce themselves and people born into these cultures often times view the normalized state of the world around them as nature rather than culture
So the rest of the argument based on that premise is going to be critically flawed imo.
He continues addressing your line of argumentation as well as touching on Wombat's earlier points on acceptance, or as I referred to it, complacency.
Cultural norms become to the average person what Gramsci calls the “common sense” that they use to make sense of their place in the world. When the common sense of your world serves to legitimize the dominance of a particular class of people and tells you that anything you don’t like about your socio-economic situation is just the natural order of things…then your very existence becomes reinforcing of cultural hegemony…you are reinforcing the political status quo simply by participating in the culture that you were born into. This is why people that would otherwise never stand for getting pushed around can find themselves getting worked into the ground in a factory during the time of Gramsci only to accept their place in the world as a necessary part of how the world works. Parts of my life may be hard…but you know what…that’s life.
He also addresses what fueldup was getting at (I believe) regarding why people would support Trump (or other poorly performing politicians) despite him(/them) exacerbating economic turmoil for the benefit of other billionaires.
even people that are struggling within a Capitalist system have often times lived their entire lives immersed in a culture that promotes the merits of Capitalism…this, in turn, creates a sort of economic Stockholm Syndrome, where despite the fact they are struggling, the citizens identify themselves and their place in the world in relation to Capitalist ideology.
While a socialist or a capitalist hegemony suffer the same issues of hegemony in general, a socialist hegemony and a capitalist hegemony have radically different material consequences.
I’m not some idealist hippy, nor an iconoclast for the sake of it.
In discussions around certain issues, revert to childhood and ask ‘why?’ all the time. Aside from reactions and exasperations amusing me, it can be a useful exercise.
A child asks why people starve when there’s so much food in the world, an adult placates them with ‘its complicated’ (or insert any other comparable issue.
This isn’t to say these issues aren’t without complexity, but the child’s questioning is purely black and white moralising, and the adult’s placation comes from a leaden acceptance that ‘this is how things are’.
Said acceptance is basically what Gramsci and many others are getting at when there’s a hegemonic systemic framework in place.
We have American farmers killing themselves because the food supply is so over saturated that their labour now has negative value and their produce is less than worthless while we also have people starving. It’s a weird world we’ve created.
That doesn't address the argument I made at all and just reads as someone who read the first half of the first line and ignored the rest.
The hedgmon of "capatalism good socialism bad" is real beacuse it was defined that way by the two ideologically opposed superpowers and the "socialism" one lost. It's not beacuse of a grand conspiracy to lie to the world about the unimpeachable glory of capatalism and the impossible madness of socialism. The binary definitions of each is now outdated but the "socialism" that the article is advocating for is far more capatalism than any socialist would support a few decades ago when the current academic world was growing up.
Gh has always supported a capatalist society at its core even by his definitions I would hope.
We dont have capitalism anywhere in the world today. What we have today is more in alignment with Cronyism.
Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics and between politicians and supportive organizations.
Capitalism is freedom. The individual owning the means of production and the fruit of ones labor. Which would and is freetrading.
It goes by the selfownership principle. Meaning, the individual owns ones own body, energy, emotions, actions etc. In context, I own my self, I do not own you. If you attack me you do wrong since you dont own me. If I attack you I do wrong since i dont own you. I can decide what to do with my own property, i dont have the right to decide what to do with other peoples property. All individuals are equal to the law(natural law)
Goes hand in hand with consent and volyntarism.
There is no third party involved here, today a third party is involved all the time (Government.. The elephant in the room). If I go to a boss of a corporation, and i want him to hire me. I can come up with a good or bad deal deponding on the circumstances and so forth.
If i am forced to make a deal. Is this the corporations fault? Its not. Its not the corporation that makes life miserable for you, its the GOVERNMENT. Instead of blaming the corporation, blame the real deal, GOVERNMENT!
This 8min video explains it better, good tempo with a lot of visuals about SELF-OWNERSHIP, the videos title is: Philosophy of Liberty = Liberty in etymology; "free choice, freedom to do as one chooses,"
The self-ownership principle goes hand in hand with the homestead-principle. To put it simple:
The homestead principle is the principle by which one gains ownership of an unowned natural resource by performing an act of original appropriation.
Think about it, i cant point my finger at unoccupied/unseen land and say "i now own this land" and then get money if someone steps on there.. I need to buy it first, right? With real cash, real paper money. Correct? From whom??? Who to buy it from? If I do not have the right to point my finger to this land and claim ownership of it, then that means I cant buy the land from someone else since.. No one can claim ownership of it that way.
An example of homesteady principle:
If i see unoccopied land. I create my own house at one spot, and I plant tomatoes in a small yard. And i now use this house and this land of tomatoes. I now own this house and this land and these tomatoes. Its mine. I can do what i please with it unless i cause harm to other peoples property(including their bodies and their material property).
My energy is around this house, and these tomatoes. So even if i travel on a vacation for lets say 1month, the energy will still linger.. However, if i walk away from the house for lets say 3years, my energy will vanish from this place.. And i therefore no longer own it.. Can someone else now claim ownership of this house and this yard? Of course. But the individual needs to use it.. Same principle applies to us all.. We are all equal the law(natural law)
You can only own what you work/use etc.
So if i plant tomatoes 3miles long.. I will not own this land since i cant use this land. If i plant tomatoes 3miles long, and only use 5meters of this plantation. I now own all tomatoes within this 5meters, the rest of the tomatoes become public, anyone can take it.
What we have just gone through are natural laws, all natural laws are objective.
Socialism, communism, democracy are all based in violence and coercion. Manmade law; Based on dogmatic beliefs (constructs of the mind) Complied with due to fear of punishment. Differs in location due to whims of legislators (moral relativism) Changes over time due to whims of legislators (moral relativism)
Natural law:
Based upon Principles and Truth (inherent to Creation) Harmonized with, due to Knowledge and Understanding. Universal; applies anywhere in the universe regardless of location. Eternal and immutable: exists and applies as long as the universe exists, and cannot be changed.
The self ownership principle, makes it our right, the individual right to damage one self if one so choose. Meaning, using drugs, alcohol and other substances are all a natural right.
Government removes that right, and if you dont obey you get thrown into a cage(prison). Government also tax "property" and claim ownership of land like it see fits. It also steals money from the individuals each month(usually.. called taxes..)
What is theft?
the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
On December 03 2019 07:52 KwarK wrote: We have American farmers killing themselves because the food supply is so over saturated that their labour now has negative value and their produce is less than worthless while we also have people starving. It’s a weird world we’ve created.
I live in a huge Ag area and here most of the farmers are rich, that is because they have purchased all the small farms and while grain took a hit recently food prices have been rising as well as land (land crazy here) for last 2 decades or so. Also most of the farms are irrigated so they get constant crops. And post BSE the feedlots have been like a license to print money.
Is it a logistics issue where they can't get the food to market or is it that their farms are small and equipment is so expensive (a combine can be half a million and so on.)?
We also have programs like farm credit and so on that give our farmers access to even cheaper money and various tax breaks that made sense for family farms. Which now that it has changed from family farms to basically farm corporations, people are starting to get mad about.
Canada has state paid floor prices. The US doesn’t.
Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics and between politicians and supportive organizations.
Capitalism is freedom. The individual owning the means of production and the fruit of ones labor. Which would and is freetrading.
It goes by the selfownership principle. Meaning, the individual owns ones own body, energy, emotions, actions etc. In context, I own my self, I do not own you. If you attack me you do wrong since you dont own me. If I attack you I do wrong since i dont own you. I can decide what to do with my own property, i dont have the right to decide what to do with other peoples property. All individuals are equal to the law(natural law)
Goes hand in hand with consent and volyntarism.
There is no third party involved here, today a third party is involved all the time (Government.. The elephant in the room). If I go to a boss of a corporation, and i want him to hire me. I can come up with a good or bad deal deponding on the circumstances and so forth.
If i am forced to make a deal. Is this the corporations fault? Its not. Its not the corporation that makes life miserable for you, its the GOVERNMENT. Instead of blaming the corporation, blame the real deal, GOVERNMENT!
This 8min video explains it better, good tempo with a lot of visuals about SELF-OWNERSHIP, the videos title is: Philosophy of Liberty = Liberty in etymology; "free choice, freedom to do as one chooses," https://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7I
The self-ownership principle goes hand in hand with the homestead-principle. To put it simple:
Think about it, i cant point my finger at unoccupied/unseen land and say "i now own this land" and then get money if someone steps on there.. I need to buy it first, right? With real cash, real paper money. Correct? From whom??? Who to buy it from? If I do not have the right to point my finger to this land and claim ownership of it, then that means I cant buy the land from someone else since.. No one can claim ownership of it that way.
An example of homesteady principle:
If i see unoccopied land. I create my own house at one spot, and I plant tomatoes in a small yard. And i now use this house and this land of tomatoes. I now own this house and this land and these tomatoes. Its mine. I can do what i please with it unless i cause harm to other peoples property(including their bodies and their material property).
My energy is around this house, and these tomatoes. So even if i travel on a vacation for lets say 1month, the energy will still linger.. However, if i walk away from the house for lets say 3years, my energy will vanish from this place.. And i therefore no longer own it.. Can someone else now claim ownership of this house and this yard? Of course. But the individual needs to use it.. Same principle applies to us all.. We are all equal the law(natural law)
You can only own what you work/use etc.
So if i plant tomatoes 3miles long.. I will not own this land since i cant use this land. If i plant tomatoes 3miles long, and only use 5meters of this plantation. I now own all tomatoes within this 5meters, the rest of the tomatoes become public, anyone can take it.
What we have just gone through are natural laws, all natural laws are objective.
Socialism, communism, democracy are all based in violence and coercion. Manmade law; Based on dogmatic beliefs (constructs of the mind) Complied with due to fear of punishment. Differs in location due to whims of legislators (moral relativism) Changes over time due to whims of legislators (moral relativism)
Natural law:
Based upon Principles and Truth (inherent to Creation) Harmonized with, due to Knowledge and Understanding. Universal; applies anywhere in the universe regardless of location. Eternal and immutable: exists and applies as long as the universe exists, and cannot be changed.
The self ownership principle, makes it our right, the individual right to damage one self if one so choose. Meaning, using drugs, alcohol and other substances are all a natural right.
Government removes that right, and if you dont obey you get thrown into a cage(prison). Government also tax "property" and claim ownership of land like it see fits. It also steals money from the individuals each month(usually.. called taxes..)
the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Taxation=Theft.
You’ve got them mixed up. Socialism is the one where the worker owns his own labour and benefits from it. Capitalism is the one where some other guy gets the value created by the labour and the labourer gets a pittance based on market forces completely unrelated to how much value is created from his labour. For example a farm owner working hard and creating an exceptionally large harvest would reap the profits of owning the means of production, labour and ownership go hand in hand. That’s socialism. A farm labourer working hard and creating an extra big harvest may actually find his pay cut, despite the farm creating more wealth than ever, if additional farm labour becomes available and there is a glut in the labour market. That’s capitalism because the owner and the labourer are different people.
EPT
