followed tags: 1
followed domains: 0
badges given: 8 of 16
member for: 2106 days
> The piranhas were starting to eat each other in the toilet.
Fishes mean dreams. Piranhas, bad dream. Toilet, bowel movement. Fighting fishies, conflicted anxieties.
So what did you eat that night? (Let me guess? Tacos? ;-)
- It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is exactly what is not supposed to happen.
The "mystery" is why this anthropologist is making an unsupported claim that globalism equals to, or is the inevitable result of, "capitalism".
He then goes on to say:
- Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union [...] the system made up as many jobs as [politically necessary]. But, of course, this is the very sort of problem market competition is supposed to fix.
Which is basically what we have these days, at the global level.
The American industrial base, for example, was "outsourced" and "offshored" due to geopolitical necessities. The two showcase countries in this context are India and China.
The integration of the Chinese Communist regime into the AngloEuropean financial system required the wholesale transfer of technology and production means ("capital") to China. This was the bargain that was reached in the 70s.
The goal of seperating India from the Non-Aligned movement also necessitated the quid pro quo of artificially jump starting the Indian software servies sector.
So the current state of the economic order is not a natural end-state of "Capitalism" but rather the result of top-down manipulation of national economies in service of the desired goal of a unified global order in control of the ruling elites.
- The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s).
Do tell. Is that what happened in the 60s? [& p.s. is the professor aware of state of affairs in prosperous leave it to Beaver 50s or is his forgetfulness necessary to support his bogus narrative?]
The unrest of the 60s was due to structural flaws in society (racism), ideologically driven wars (militarism), and a healthy dose of agitation from academia and even national intelligence services (turn-on-tune-in-drop-out-ism).
Apparently the London (surprise surprise..) School of Economics is prone to grant professorships to anthropologists who have not read in history, for any reasonably well read student of history would be able to point out that hunger, tyranny, and gross societal imbalances are the factual causes of "mortal danger" to ruling classes.
Why not try creating a responsible advertising model? Like DDG [querying Google on your behalf], you could proxy between members and advertisers. Sell ads based on forum demographics & topic, while maintaining the virtuous model of non-tracking and anonymous readership.
"Because all sides are convinced that all other sides will happily annihilate the world rather than allow their opponents to triumph. This is high school social studies shit."
I agree, that is high school level analysis. High school level social studies also would have it that men facing off in battle armed with gun would not hesitate to kill, but actual facts show otherwise. A small fraction are willing to kill, even to defend themselves. Current neocons, for example, are betting that the Russians, like Soviets in '62 will blink. Russians, this time, are going out of their way to dispel that perception.
"Because of containment both the US and USSR could only know what they stole. It wasn't a cold spat or a cold disagreement it was a cold war."
Not sure what this non-sequitor of yours is supposed to mean. First of all, that only applies to technology. Russians and Americans had intelligence, diplomatic, press, and cultural assets in the other side. Second, the paragraph you are attempting to address says this:
"Although they did not want war, these same Soviet leaders assumed that the U.S. government was in the hands of a clique of greedy capitalists who were bent on not just destroying the Soviet Union but establishing a world capitalist hegemony. Therefore, nuclear arms were essential for the survival of their way of life."
In other words, they had the perception that they were faced with cold blooded "greedy capitalist bent on destroying [them]" and took that threat seriously.
"That's an opinion, not a fact. The likelihood of nuclear exchange has decreased every day since December 25, 1991. In fact, up until a couple weeks ago we were helping the Russians dispose of weapons-grade plutonium."
An informed opinion. Is your opinion that until "couple of weeks ago" likelihoo of nuclear was decreasing every day a "fact"?
"Of course they are. Same reason they invaded Crimea. "
Let's hear this. (Please spare me the CNN level talking points.)
"By the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis we had 2100 of them in the field. Yet we lived."
Because the Soviet Union was not projecting ultimate defeat after backing down in Cuba. And anyway, are you really taking 60s mininuke tech and delivery platforms out of its context and assuming equivalence to today's nuclear powers' strategic context and posture? More high school stuff?
Russia has no strategic depth to speak of. They have a shoot your wad once army, a rather embarrassing navy, fairly excellent area denial S2A and A2A, and lots and lots of ICBMs. They are going out of their way to communicate that they are worried and that this time, unlike '62, they will not be backing down. They have pretty much spelled it out, and this time unlike the old "containment" days, can read published papers by the Pentagon and those crazy neocons that spells out their worst fears.
I think it is appropriate to consider that the stand off today is a "bit" more unstable.
Apparently random samples of the latest batches of emails can't be verified with the expected keys either.
He is addictive. Forewarned! :) Read the watergate paper.
The author of this take down of Elon Musk has some far out readings of history and historical events, and I haven't bothered to follow up to "fact check" :) but it's definitely an amusing read.
More seriously, Wendy Brown's penetrating critique in Undoing the Demos of neo-liberalism is a must read:
My argument is not merely that markets and money are corrupting
or degrading democracy, that political institutions and outcomes
are increasingly dominated by finance and corporate capital, or
that democracy is being replaced by plutocracy -- rule by and for
the rich. Rather, neoliberal reason, ubiquitous today in statecraft
and the workplace, in jurisprudence, education, culture, and a vast
range of quotidian activity, is converting the distinctly political
character, meaning, and operation of democracy's constituent elements
into economic ones. Liberal democratic institutions, practices,
and habits may not survive this conversion. Radical democratic dreams
may not either.
| NO ONE who isn't a Ecuadorian citizen follows Ecuadorian politics like he does.
It's weird though. At some point I was convinced this guy is an intelligence asset. Note for example no leaks ever about Israel or 9/11. It's like the debate last night. Surveillance society, Patriot Act, gross over reach of government, etc., not mentioned, not discussed.
If the goal was to confuse the F out of everyone, they have succeeded.
The best summary I've seen so far, but there is more. You should read that pastebin as it digs deeper in regards to the "dating" company.
Podesta is apparently linked from both the UN related outfit end and the fact that the creep company shares some address with bunch of other Machine related (not just HRC as it involves Summers as well, so the neolib Machine). Grain of salt here is that some of these connections may be due to use of same agent to setup companies, etc. So TBD, I think is fair.
But that fucking letter detailing Kennedy's house and the children with the Oct. 31 "deadline" looks like an authentic 'offer you shouldn't refuse' deal.
What a fucked up world we live in, eh?