2008 is over. For many global citizens this year may one day be described as the year of revelation. A full century of environmental and economic abuse along with political intrigue and deceit may have finally come into full view. It seems unlikely that we will continue much longer to accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals and overexploit our natural resources or take senseless and frightening risks with the employment of new technologies. In the world of politics another range of possibilities is apparent. False pretensions and embedded assumptions of national sovereignty and liberal democracy are unlikely to be accepted without serious questioning in western industrialized nations. With the obvious no longer hidden we may not be as easily fooled ever again. This breakdown of assumed ‘norms’ truly represents the end of an era and it’s happening just at the time a positive feedback loop of Arctic warming kicks in to alter the planetary air conditioner of the Northern Hemisphere [1]. Dramatic and unprecedented social and political change portends in the year that Prince Charles warned the world that we had 18 months to stop climate change. [2]
On 10th September last year the Maidstone Crown Court in the UK decided that “the threat of global warming is so great that [environmental] campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station.” Six Greenpeace activists were cleared of charges of criminal damage [3]. Just as three of these British protesters responded to systemic collapse in the ecosphere (by painting Gordon Brown's name on the British coal plant's chimney as a metaphor for political accountability) Ben Bernanke of the US Federal Reserve responded to another global crisis with a slightly more concrete metaphor of his own. Helicopter drops of money were used to bail the rich out with increasingly worthless fiat money and on an absolutely extraordinary scale. The surviving handful of Wall Street banks hoarded cash and refused to lend to each other as their four-decades-long global ponzi scheme of money and credit manipulation fell apart [4]. In turn this banking collapse was prompted by the oligopoly dynamics of concentrated economic power in a small number of corporate networks and conglomerates generally[5]. Fictitious capital [6] grew at an ever-increasing rate and fomented unbelievable distortions in what we are told is ‘economic development’ across the globe but is actually a well-managed path designed to generate dependency on the global corporations along with the stronger states that sponsor them.
In 2008 it became clear to many more people that ‘globalisation’ was not a spontaneous result of ‘free market’ dynamics as we had been repeatedly told. Rather it was revealed to be “the deeply political result of political choices made by successive governments of one state: The United States” [8]. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have used overt and covert means to topple democratically-elected governments around the world [7] and to tilt the balance of political and economic advantage unfairly towards North America in other ways [9].
2008 was the year when conventional wisdom became obsolete. It did not allow us to perceive the essential nature of things nor adequately anticipate the consequences of our actions. In 2008 everything became open to question. The ‘pluralism’ of the two-party system was found to be a delusion. There were no safeguards in place to protect against one group gaining too much power over the whole of society nor even the whole of the planet. How obvious it was that the private sector was not balanced by the public one as we saw ‘leaders’ in one national government after another working to a corporate narrow interest agenda. There are bad men on the Earth, after all.”...if nothing happens even though we're entering an ecological crisis of historic gravity, it's because those who have power in the world want it to be this way." [10]
The gift of 2008 is the revelation of important and critical truths. Its legacy is to come to terms with everything.
[1] Changes 'amplify Arctic warming'
By Jonathan Amos, Science reporter, BBC News. 16th December 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786910.stm
[2] Prince Charles: Eighteen months to stop climate change disaster. By Andrew Pierce
Last updated: 1:08 PM BST 18/05/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/1961719/Prince-Charles-Eighteen-months-to-
stop-climate-change-disaster.html?service=print
[3] Under the defence of "lawful excuse", a legal principle that “allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage” as quoted in the article:
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor. Thursday, 11 September 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
[4] A point had been reached where a huge volume of capital was held in such a small number of private hands that were largely outside any regulatory structure. This was accompanied by an even smaller number of trading and banking networks that resulted in a ‘common tilt’ in multinational corporations’ decisions and processes. See: ‘The World’s Money – International banking from Bretton Woods to the brink of insolvency’ by Michael Moffitt. Touchstone Book, Simon and Schuster New York. 1983. ISBN: 0-671-50596-3 Pbk.
[5] Instability in the global economy became inevitable, as global corporations played a zero sum game by combining high-productivity technologies with large, low-wage labour supplies in ‘under-developed’ nations. As economic power concentrated trade became dominated by non-market intra-corporate transactions where multinational corporations arbitrarily set unrealistic prices in exchanges between parent and affiliates in order to reduce taxes and tariffs, avoid currency exchange controls and optimize profits.
[6] paper claims on wealth (in the form of profit, interest and ground rent) in excess of the total available surplus value, plus available loot from primitive accumulation.
[7] The US was involved in coups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Iran (Operation Ajax in 1953) , in Ecuador (Jaime Roldos), Brazil (1964) in Vietnam, in Indonesia (1967), Panama, Guatemala (Operation PBSUCCESS in 1954), Chile (1973) Australia (1975), Somalia. It attempted coups in Cuba in the early 1960s. there were covert CIA operations in Laos. The JFK assassination has all the qualities of a coup.
There's a longer (but incomplete) list at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions
[8] The Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Dominance by Peter Gowan.
[9] American US dollar hegemony, for instance, that entails other nations having to earn US dollars first in order to purchase critical commodities such as oil or have syndicated loans lent to the third world denominated in US dollars and be subject to unilateral interest rate decisions by the US Federal Reserve. (In 1979 US Fed Chairman Volker’s decision to limit money supply led to catastrophic rises in global interests rates that resulted in third world debt becoming permanently unpayable.)
[10] From Hervé Kempf's "How the Rich Are Destroying the Planet."
END.
14 comments:
You had me in almost complete agreement until you threw in "fiat money".
Perhaps this year would be a good time to start discussing the theory of "value" now that we have mostly finished off the dogmas of the free market, invisible hand, and the wisdom of corporate managers.
As for the ecological implications of capitalism we should all give thanks to the most consistent critic, Herman Daly.
Here's sample for those who have never read him before:
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
http://www.earthrights.net/docs/daly.html
http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/daly.htm
Is this a call for the "council of lords" to accept the righteous leadership of those who are educated and intelligent enough to agree that the United States has done a lot of bad stuff? The flaw in this sort of presentation is that most people who are intelligent enough to understand that the US has done a lot of slimy things do not wish to be reminded of it. And among the "intelligent" crowd there are those who do not wish to give up power. There are also those who do not wish to give up freedom, liberty, and justice by submitting to a council of overeducated masters. I proclaim to be among the latter.
Tis true that the United States has done a lot of bad stuff. But trotting this group of ugly ponies around the ring over and over is not going to get anything fixed. I would think that the true proponents of intelligent reform would concentrate on the future and talk about the cure(s) for this outright stupidity as opposed to hand wringing over the past and present. I never seem to see any proposed solution to the problems on this board (Sandwichman may be an exception). An overdose of complaining and no clear recommendations. It is worse than the engineers claiming that they have no responsibility for where the rockets come down.
The political left seems to think that enlightenment of all of this wrongness is the cure; that if we "wake up" the people and then things will magically get fixed. Unfortunately, we simply have a changing of actors. The scripts are rewritten to lambaste those exiting stage left while the new crew continues the policies that created the problems. So at the heart of the real malady we have a political problem that is exacerbated by a lying economics profession; a system of one politically powerful group with two operating divisions. Governments simply do not act against the good of the people if the people are informed and the governments are truly republican in nature. We get to where we are only if those who we should be able to trust are lying to us. And the current economics "profession" is prime example of this lying.
A republican form of government cannot continually mis-serve the people unless the people are intentionally mislead by the supposed authorities. When information is controlled by those in power so as to maintain and enhance their power then we will get what we have. So far as the economics profession is concerned we have neoclassical economics as a very successful program to hide the proper source for public revenue. I am currently reading "The Corruption of Economics" from Mason Gaffney, but it is not actually a necessity for me. I feel that I already understand the reason behind the lies. It is always and forever the human desire for power; the ego.
The Constitution of the United States describes a government that cannot actually mislead in the way our current government does. Unfortunately, we do not have the form of government described in our Constitution. I suggest that every one of you take a look at GreaterVoice.org and consider what it has to say about this. But that site as well as Thirty-Thousand.org also fail to have a plan of action; there is also a wailing over the problems with no clear mechanism to create the proposed solution. There is, however, a difference in that these sites are attempting to propose a cure even if they have no means to the proffered end. The Sandwichman does something similar in that he proposes a solution as opposed to just complaining about the problems. There is no reason nor profit in pointing out past transgressions. That simply creates enemies and fixes nothing. Perhaps I am creating enemies in the neoclassical "school", but I welcome that adversarial relationship.
The left fails because they are perceived as seeking a priestly government of enlightened, caring, nurturing, feminists suffering from an estrogen overdose; a council of druids appointed from the educated moonbat clergy. That truly is akin to the Soviet concept of government and it will never be accepted by the people of testosterone. Competing with that overlord concept we have my favorite quote from Jefferson:
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson
This statement is context free. There are no boundaries. And it tells us that we only need fear our neighbors if we have lied to them or allowed others to lie to them. Whenever we set ourselves as the "guru" and maintain the illusion that others are to stupid to understand reality then we have violated the very soul of what most of us would see as the common good. And this is why political economy cannot currently have a supposed rigorous mathematical basis. The calculus does not reflect the reality even if it was intelligible to the masses. As a matter of fact, economics, as currently presented in the universities seems to argue against any government whatsoever.
Classical economics needs to be taught in the high schools. If that were the case then many students might be able to withstand the assault on reason and reality that is perpetrated by the neoclassical handmaidens of aristocracy. And those who are not subjected to such lobotomy would prevent the continuing despotism.
Chicken and egg. Do we first try to enlighten using _FREE_ education (knowing that this will be resisted by all vested interests), or do we empower the populous and let them wreck the current system thus bringing about the Renaissance. I must confess that I care not. I just want to see some action. Enough pussy-footing around.
@ The Trucker: the attack is interesting, but the choice of target puzzling.
Places in the blogosphere like Docudharma, ProgressiveBlue and The Economic Populist, each according to their own lights, might be considered as pursuing a progressive change agenda as such. However, it strikes me that EconoSpeak is more focused on the critique of the traditional mainstream marginalisms that have informed the Washington Consensus and the positive consideration of how we should seek to understand the economy to avoid the same failings.
So "the left", suitably stereotyped and pigeon-holed, may be subject to a wide range of failings in terms of effective pursuit of political power to achieve its ends, variously conceived ... but shouldn't that attack should be taken up where they are engaged in doing that?
We in any event need to pool resources in order to better understand the economy, since the traditional mainstream marginalisms that are adequate for providing legitimizing cover stories for the accumulation of corporate power are by no means adequate as a guide to grappling with the material and techno-social challenges that lie ahead of us.
At the risk of seeming defensive and reactionary I intend,to highlight my true attempt at contribution:
It will do little good for US to
"pool resources in order to better understand the economy, since the traditional mainstream marginalisms that are adequate for providing legitimizing cover stories for the accumulation of corporate power are by no means adequate as a guide to grappling with the material and techno-social challenges that lie ahead of us."
All of this screeching from the left and the considered analysis from the middle (the non-marginalist and the post autistic folks) are of no avail if the message is not carried to the voters and the potential voters. And still no good will be accomplished if these voters are not empowered.
This is what I see as sorely missing. The political side of the "political economy". It will do no good for "us" to understand unless we are able to educate the electorate.
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." -- Keynes.
Why do the left and the learned put so much focus on the universities? The high schools are the place for real economics that can be understood and discussed without any math prerequisites at all. It may well be that many warriors of reality can defeat the charlatans of autistic marginalism.
And it seems to me that trotting out past failures does no good. It merely exacerbates the war between left and right. Just for grins:
We believe in science where the word of God agrees.
We believe in science that destroys our enemies.
We know the end is coming and it's coming with great haste.
And everything we don't (ab)use will surely go to waste.
(taken from a song in the ownership/marginalist hymnal.)
Robert D Feinman said: "You had me in almost complete agreement until you threw in "fiat money".
Well, I'm surprised that my article went that far. I was expecting worse flak than that ;-)
On 'fiat money', I'm not a gold-standard follower. However any monetary economy that is premised on a value system that omits an assessment of the value of the natural world (to say the least) is not 'grounded'. Money will lose its value when the environment becomes so damaged that adequate sustenance can't be obtained, no matter how much money is printed.
it is important to know what it is right to maintain for ourselves and for future generations: not "the Earth," but "the possibilities of human life on the planet," as philosopher Hans Jonas calls them; that is, humanism, the values of mutual respect and tolerance, a restrained and rich relationship with nature, and cooperation among human beings."
Preface: "How the Rich Are Destroying the Planet"
By Hervé Kempf t r u t h o u t Translation
Thursday 15 March 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031507E.shtml
Trucker said: "I would think that the true proponents of intelligent reform would concentrate on the future and talk about the cure(s) for this outright stupidity as opposed to hand wringing over the past and present....
You must have missed my Christmas Card on this page. "Please don't buy paper made from woodchips...Stop logging the world.
The key to the power of the global corporate conglomerate is people buying their products. Don't.
If a consumer boycott occurred and people started to produce goods locally (and sustainably) on any significant scale this would literally entail a revolution.
Trucker: "There are also those who do not wish to give up freedom, liberty, and justice by submitting to a council of overeducated masters. I proclaim to be among the latter.....Why do the left and the learned put so much focus on the universities?"
Are you referring to me, Trucker?
Brenda:
Never one to be modest, I've taken up my own challenge to discuss "money".
Here's my first stab at it:
What is Money?
Trucker:"This is what I see as sorely missing. The political side of the "political economy". It will do no good for "us" to understand unless we are able to educate the electorate."
And at the same time, that effort will bear far less fruit than it should if it consists of "educating" the electorate into the existing conventional wisdom.
"The high schools are the place for real economics that can be understood and discussed without any math prerequisites at all."
And without academic standing, high school teachers will never have access to real economics and all the available texts will be indoctrinations into the wonderful capabilities of "the market", if only government does not interfere.
Trucker's opinion is not without straightforward logic, in the sense that Brenda's criticism here might look as a “non-constructive” one, but as Brenda tries to explain it in her response, the truth is deeper. The real difference between her and Trucker's attitudes and preferred kind of problem solution (representing well the corresponding social attitudes) is the degree of radicalism: what Brenda actually wants to say by her “strong” criticism is that there may be no genuine, constructive solution at the level of (any) “improvement” of the dominating system, including “government” and all the rest, while you, Trucker (and one should acknowledge, the majority of even quite discontent citizens), you still prefer a much milder option of possible “better government” as a solution. What Brenda wants to say is that it's time for you, Trucker, to put aside your “better government” illusions, take your things and come living in a forest near Brenda's place :) or in other “natural environment” that you would directly protect and amplify yourself by intrinsically sustainable, absolutely non-industrial (but not necessarily “primitive”) practices and life style. In other words, it's a choice in favour of a much more different, really different solution, which would finally imply another form of governance, but its “hard core” is closer to “internal (human) dimensions”, maybe in certain practical extension of previous (practically failed) ideas of some “anarchist” communes and later “hippies”, among others. But those previous cases were somewhat premature and still largely “politically” motivated, while today we are much closer to essential evolution of “human (mental) dimensions” as the practical, serious basis for everything else.
It's a sequence of progressive increase of radicalism to be generally expected: first one tries to find a solution within the existing system, with relatively little change and little losses (what looks like losses), but if then this doesn't help, one is forced to advance to a more radical, qualitatively stronger (but progressive) change or else follow a catastrophic, heavy-degradation scenario. There are proper elements of “optimism” within each stage, but there is no symmetry between them, and the “time arrow” of development seems to point, the more and more clearly, to Brenda's kind of solution, i.e. much deeper and stronger change. Looking deeper into your “feeling” of the state we have today (in all its aspects), can you really believe that those best, “classical” republican ways and values can be recovered (as they are evidently lost now) and lead society towards a really sustainable way of life and organisation? Sounds too illusive, one should acknowledge, even with respect to any possible difficulties of “radical” development ways. Deep in our consciousness we know the truth, don't we: they'll try again various “measures” of “change without change”, this and that, various false hopes, but this time nothing will really get better (there will be only growing but sad “personal adaptation” to a worse life quality) and there will be new problems, on the background of already existing ones. As a result, within this attitude there will be ever more of all those “gated communities” (already flourishing) for a “happy few”, but which are rather a sentence than a solution, to the whole embedding society... Fortunately, various solutions can peacefully coexists, but the current and growing impression is that the evolution will favour properly specified but certainly more radical solutions, far from any “improvement” of the existing system (the “idiot year” might be its inherent year!). It's finished, exhausted, too ill to survive and hard-limited from above to have any long-term perspective. Creative New Year to everybody!
What is "academic standing" in regard to "Progress and Poverty" as an economics text? Perhaps you believe that this work is not an adequate reflection of economic reality. The abridged version is on line and there is an on line economics course surrounding it. The "GDP" is not mentioned.
I have some issues with P&P but I would sing and dance a jig if that were the text of a high school economics class. Your mileage may vary, but I am certainly open to discussion on the matter.
Using GDP is as a measure of economic progress is horsecrap. Proper econometrics measures the quality of life. These econometrics may require some minor algebra at most.
The conservative Republicans have been dumbing down the high schools for 30 years because they know that a vast voting block never attends any university. Attempting to get "Progress and Poverty" past the rentiers will be a major effort, but an abridged WON may make the cut.
There is also no "civics" class in the current curriculum. There is no real teaching of the United States Constitution and the importance of separation of powers. The teens today believe that the (P)redident is an elected emperor. This actually started when I was a kid. I remember a Saturday morning cartoon that went on an on about how a bill was just a bill until his excellency places his august signature on it. The reality is that the Congress can make laws whether his excellency likes it or not and that his failure to enforce the laws may be a basis for impeachment.
This sort of thing needs to be reversed and the actual separation and enumeration of powers needs to be understood.
I am pretty sure that environmental economics and quality of life are joined at the hip. Our problem is our focus on GDP. And university land is too late to do any good politically.
Brenda Rosser asked, regarding my comment of the left focus on universities, if that comment was directed at her. The answer is no. That comment is directed at greater moonbatia.
The superiority complex is probably a result of well educated people being convinced they should be in charge because they have academic credentials and are well read and well spoken. I have no real disagreement with this so long as the common people elect them to their stations. But this implies a basic liberal education of the masses. A _FREE_ public education. It also implies a House of Representatives of no less than 1740 members and a district size well below 300 thousand people. The key is being able to get rid of people that are not comporting themselves with due regard for the electorate.
I drove a truck for 5 years. Never a month went by when I did not here "If we were all to just park out trucks on the side of the road for one day we could get a better working environment or more pay". A boycott of wood chips will meet with the same success. We were unable to get enough signatures to impeach Bush. How can anyone believe that they can successfully boycott wood chips?
Andrei Kirilyuk:
It appears that you are a Marxist. That is not an economics issue. It is a revolution issue. But you will meet the same snuff out as did the Bolsheviks. Your utopia will be stolen by men of force and power. And if you are not speaking of the overthrow of democracy and representative government then I am failing to understand your rather long winded essay.
You said,
"can you really believe that those best, “classical” republican ways and values can be recovered (as they are evidently lost now) and lead society towards a really sustainable way of life and organisation?"
My answer is that I can believe this before believing in a return to tribalism. For instance: I actually believe that Single Payer National Health insurance would be a huge advance.
Social Democracy
Robert
Thanks for the link. You wrote: "There are no physical commodities which have a value independent of what people assign to them." and "Those who see the evil in "fractional banking" and "fiat money" have confused a specific mechanism for the creation of credit with the idea that money is based upon trust...
Yes. How interesting is it that the most essential elements of a truly functioning economy is 'value' and 'trust'. Both of which have been systematically destroyed by a western capitalist regime of economic exploitation in which nothing was held to be sacred and where that system's foundations depended on ubiquitous spin and advertising to sustain the unsustainable.
Money simply can't function in a society where trust and value are incessantly destroyed.
Andrei,
I couldn't have put it better! "while today we are much closer to essential evolution of “human (mental) dimensions” as the practical, serious basis for everything else..... Lovely!
Trucker,
You said: "There is no real teaching of the United States Constitution and the importance of separation of powers. . .
Yes. Keeping in mind that the Consitution of the United States was never meant to be a fixed document but open to ongoing review. However, now matter how wise the words of the Constitution may ever evolve to be the essential challenges are unlikely to be encompassed or described simply by documentation and rules.
There are dynamic changes taking place all of the time in the ecosphere, in society, in politics. All three realms are now subject to imminent collapse virtually at the same time. The reason could be the same in each realm. Monoculture.
No ONE system, no ONE form of govenrment. No ONE culture could possibly encompass all of the solutions to what we now (or have ever) faced.
"...a House of Representatives of no less than 1740 members and a district size well below 300 thousand people.
A House of Representatives of 3 billion members and a district size well below 1,000 people?
"...Your utopia will be stolen by men of force and power.
Who is talking utopia? What society would not be vulnerable to attack and takeover by "men of force and power"?
Trucker said: “It appears that you are a Marxist. That is not an economics issue. It is a revolution issue. But you will meet the same snuff out as did the Bolsheviks. Your utopia will be stolen by men of force and power. And if you are not speaking of the overthrow of democracy and representative government then I am failing to understand your rather long winded essay.”
Can never get rid of your Big Brother arrogance, ah, Trucker? If there is any view sufficiently different from “great American values” (which can only be eternal, of course), then it can only be something as obviously bad as Marxism. We have the same kind of attitude from your equally inflated Russian friends here: when one dares to disagree with their (very special) national prejudice, they'd immediately treat you as a “fascist” (all supporters of “American values” are automatically included!) because for them, you see, Marxism, inevitably evoking their own stupidity, cannot be such a bad label... Maybe it's time to get rid of all those ugly ghosts of the past, especially within one's head? Ideologies are terminated forever, all of them, but just because of that, there are real-life choices and life-changing actions that become particularly important, in our epoch of evident, inevitably big change.
You've been always told, in a brainwashing fashion, that “our democracy is not ideal but is the best practically possible social organisation”, for all times. It's the last, tacitly added conclusion that is wrong: the epoch when unitary, centralised democracy could be the best practically possible social organisation is now finished (even within this epoch, democracy was not successful everywhere where it has been seriously tried). Therefore the true utopia - or rather dystopia - today is due to stubborn, artificial attempts to maintain the decadent, practically dead regime of industrial unitarity (in any version) totally transformed into a (self-) destructive hierarchy of manipulated puppets, from presidents to voters. Do you like destruction, Trucker? Because this is what you really obtain, in all spheres, despite many good intentions and past-oriented hopes of possible “improvement” without essential change. However good it may seem, the past can never be a good adviser for the future.
What they “forgot” to tell you in their brainwashing “democratic” propaganda is that a much better, qualitatively more advanced version of (much greater) personal freedom organisation in a technically developed (and now truly comfortable) human society becomes feasible today, far beyond the evident suppression of clever minority by the stupid majority in unitary democracy. In other words, it's a superior and realistic level of liberal society supporting free development of each personality in the first place (which is often confused with “democracy”, while the latter is quite compatible with anti-liberal social regime - ask your Russian friends for details - and in any case is based on a massive, always personality-suppressing choice, even in any best unitary “republic” of your preference). And contrary to an “impossible dream” of any classic Utopia, this next level of now truly liberal - but non-industrial - society is simply the unique possible choice of progressive development, the only alternative being a dystopian, catastrophically advancing degradation (can you see anything else in the news today?).
I don't want to specify all the details of the new level here (they can be and are specified elsewhere), but it's opposite to anything “tribal” or “primitive”, and the transition to the new level has nothing to do with any destructive “revolution”: it's rather a personally realised “revolution of consciousness”. Is e.g. living much closer (and friendlier) with nature implies necessarily being more “primitive”? Yet ancient Romans, after having created the original (and thus more genuine!) version of your modern civilisation, have finally concluded that only rural life can provide the true, versatile quality and sustainable comfort. But it was too late for them to restart: they also tried to “repair the republic” (ending up with autocracy, of course!). And while we are talking about it, aren't omnipresent, advancing patterns of dominating behaviour in today's decadent unitary “republic” resemble the more and more very primitive instinct-driven, practically tribal behaviour, from crowd-driven “democratic choices” to promiscuous and disruptive “personal life” (what can be so “personal” there?!), totally devoid of any true comfort, hope, humanity... Wake up, Trucker, open your eyes, deflate and think it over once again: maybe a better choice than the obviously advancing current degradation (which nobody can “repair”, even numerous Nobel laureates in economics!) may exist, beyond all their previous and current “isms”?
But there should certainly be no “intellectual pressure” here: true novelty understanding can only come naturally and personally, no more “crowd thinking” with it! Take your time when looking for a stable parking place for your life truck... Health cannot really be “ensured”, especially within your superficial industrial medicine treating you as a truck; we can only progress towards ever greater natural health, in harmony with equally healthy natural environment.
Andrei Kirilyuk said...
Exactly what I would expect a self aggrandizing pseudo intellectual bigot to say. He quotes me then proceeds to essentially lie about what I wrote. I used the word "Marxist" as opposed to "Marxian" to mark out the difference of Marxist revolution form Marxian economics, gradualism, and representative government. I even said as much in what he quotes. But Andrei will abuse all of that and march off on his little self absorbed "worldview" as he attempts to feign intellectual superiority over someone who simply has a different perspective. His primary job is to attack the messenger. A left wing Limbaugh. Oh well. I am used to it.
He also seems to think that any local view, such as from within a sovereignty, is somehow unworkable. But then he goes completely nuts and insists on tribes or world domination by Andrei. It is hard to tell where he thinks he is. I might be so bold as to point out that the lack of ideology is, in itself, an ideology. Anarchism is wonderful because it has as many definitions as necessary to be run and hide from the fact that it is an ideology. It is tribalism on downers.
"Can you ever get rid of your big brother arrogance, Trucker?" The answer is that in dealing with pseudo intellectual hoaxes I will probably never be able to escape from what I know to be reality. The history is not for me to fabricate as is the lunacy of your erstwhile fantasies. Yours really is the conception of the intelligentsia that tells the rest what is best.
"Therefore the true utopia - or rather dystopia - today is due to stubborn, artificial attempts to maintain the decadent, practically dead regime of industrial unitarity (in any version) totally transformed into a (self-) destructive hierarchy of manipulated puppets, from presidents to voters."
You can tell when the pseudo intellectual runs out of facts. The sentences get very long so as to gather enough booger mans all in one breath. One long WHIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNEEEEEEEE about "industrial unitarity?" Being transformed into "hierarchy of manipulated puppets". BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! What a bunch of pig prancing crap.
An expanded House of Representatives more in keeping with the design accepted and ratified by the American people would eliminate that described "dystopia" quite quickly. No need to turn the world over to you and your pseudo intellectual pals. It is quite telling that I am not the one here that is proposing any form of authoritarianism. If you are afraid of your neighbors then perhaps you'd better make sure that they are educated.
And as they are all educated then they will never become so educated that they believe that they know better then everyone else. That only happens with folks like you, Andrei. I have my ideas but they do not put me in a position of authority or superior knowledge about what is best.
That is the point about representative government. You keep using the word democracy because you know that there are adverse connotations. I do not use it and for the same reasons. We are not talking past one another, it is just that you choose to lie.
"What they “forgot” to tell you in their brainwashing “democratic” propaganda is that a much better, qualitatively more advanced version of (much greater) personal freedom organisation in a technically developed (and now truly comfortable) human society becomes feasible today, far beyond the evident suppression of clever minority by the stupid majority in unitary democracy"
I wonder if we can find all the lies and distortions in this quote? I gave up after a while. I simply lost count. Let us just look at the last one: "unitary democracy". This has got to be one of the biggest oxygen morons the universe has ever witnessed. But let us expand backwards to the wailing over how the "stupid majority" are suppressing the "clever minority".
I think that does it for me. I will not waste any more of my time.
Post a Comment