Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The neoliberal counter-revolution

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Nothing is "free". Someone, somehow will pay for it. If not now, then later due to national deficit and debt;
    https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html




    With regard to education, a lot depends on quality of content and focus. Main part missing here, and in most of the world, is the value of free enterprise and small business = self employment.

    We saw faulty education in traincar loads in Seattle with CHAZ/CHOP/CHAOS, as well as in other cities. The financial resources spent by the "protestors" to get there, set up, and riot/loot, etc. would have been far better spent and invested in trying to create more businesses and the jobs that come from them.

    Socialism/communism sees one pie of finite size and keeps trying to re-slice it "fairly". Capitalism/free enterprise sees a need to make more pie.

    Don't confuse a return to USA priorities first, over accommodating other nations as isolationism. USA is still on this planet and have an economy interwoven with others.



    Please, please, please peddle this message to the Dar al-Islam and the Islamic Jihadists whom are even more effective on the slavery and misery through religion gig.



    That "slaves and slaveholders' garbage actually applies more in other parts of the world and given the deficit and debt load among European nations versus the USA, would seem applies more over there.

    One area 'education" has fallen short on is basic economics and wealth creation, the need to encourage more free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Not just here in the USA, but especially more so in the rest of the world.
    I'm a fan of Thomas Jefferson. He was a flawed person but aren't we all. His political thinking was on the money though; he feared the consolidation of power and how it would undermine the democratic will of the people. He knew there was no point in replacing one set of elites with another.

    From here;
    "Jefferson might not have wanted a lot of government, but he wanted enough government to assert the sovereignty of citizens over corporations. To his view, nothing was more important to the health of the republic.

    In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations began to flex their political muscles, he announced that: “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”"


    On organised religion and the importance of science he was also clear;
    We know this to be true of Jefferson because, as July 4, 1826 approached, he was invited to appear in Washington for a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Age and infirmity prevented Jefferson from attending the event. But he sent a message — his last political statement — which read:

    May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be — to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all — the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form (of government) which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”


    So Judith is simply echoing one of the greatest of the founding fathers of the USA. I agree with both of them.
    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

    Comment


    • #32
      On a more general note, how is an aversion to being controlled by elites a marxist or communist ideology when they, by their nature,require a one party state which is the ultimate elite?

      I do not want to be controlled by kings or princes, oligarchs or tyrans, corporations or communists. To me they are all different shades of the same thing; an elite which is unaccountable to the people.
      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
        On a more general note, how is an aversion to being controlled by elites a marxist or communist ideology when they, by their nature,require a one party state which is the ultimate elite?

        I do not want to be controlled by kings or princes, oligarchs or tyrans, corporations or communists. To me they are all different shades of the same thing; an elite which is unaccountable to the people.
        Much of what you say here, is presented in more convincing detail in this ten and a half minute video;
        The American Form Of Government

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VogzExP3qhI
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Anthrax View Post

          Change has always comes with massive economic hardship.
          Try documenting this please.
          History shows that often Change has come about because of economic improvements, gains, surges, and flourishes ....
          ... Industrial and Mechanization Revolutions/Advances during past two centuries underscore this.

          Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
          Before President Obama took office we went through world economic meltdown.
          Anything in the world was partly due to the USA situation, brought on by loan(debt) defaults of the sub-prime mortgage market. Those sub-primes being the result of prior Democratic legislation compelling banks and other lenders to give loans to those whom normally wouldn't qualify due to insufficient income and/or poor credit history.

          Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
          The economic meltdown in conjunction with the first black president sent people into a frenzy giving rise to the tea party. Remember all their wild, racist demonstrations?
          First HALF Black POTUS, economy was in well set recovery mode by time BHO took office, any "frenzy" had more to do with another flaming socialist out to "fundamentally change America" with his quasi-communist agenda (read his first two books).
          I was involved in the TEA Party from the beginning and didn't see any "wild, racist demonstrations", just opposite since they often had mixed race and ethnic crowds. That claim is common and worn regressive socialist pseudo-liberal propaganda and lies, but if you can, please document your

          Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
          Now with the Pandemic we have another economic crisis and it's led to unrest and will lead to more change.
          With state governments playing petty dictators by classing people and businesses as "essential" or "nonessential" the unwarranted economic shutdowns that will result in business closures becoming bankruptcies and many people unemployed are the basis of the current economic crisis. The "unrest" that really matters is that of those unjustly subject to financial burden of having their businesses and jobs taken away for arbitrary and un-necessary reasons. The real change is the damage and destruction to about half of the economy that wasn't needed and isn't an effective solution, just the opposite.

          Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
          All it sometimes take is a single act during turmoil to spark a movement. Who knew the Arab Spring would be sparked by a man in Tunisia setting himself on fire.
          If by movement, you mean the crap we saw with circuses like CHAZ/CHOP, that's an old negative "movement" been going on for decades.

          As for the "Arab Spring", more like a winter since it wasn't a move for more personal liberties, freedoms of expression and expansion of civil rights, rather it was just the opposite in cause to riot and revolt, give Islamic Jihad an expanded base and surge, and turn back the clock of civil progress to more oppressive conditions and declined economics via application of outdated fundamentalist religious agendas.

          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
          Present Current Events are the Future's History

          Comment


          • #35
            Damn - link has a paywall!
            I got in just briefly to read full article, then blocked and required to register, buy a subscription to return.

            Anyway, won't be able to quote excerpts, but the piece was a blatant opinion item from a double speaking "Marxist" trying to peddle himself as not one and that what has happened isn't continuation of the same leftist crap of recent decades.

            The "American establishments" whom are "buying into it" are doing such in order not to alienate their future customer base. Basic greed seeing the writing on the wall, or so they think, and also, along with pandering to the future generation of customers, paying a bit of 'tribute'(Danegeld) to retain and curry the favor of their new forming customer base.

            As the author pointed out, this "counter-revolution" is in protest to shift of 2016 back towards a conservative focus at national level that resulted in the left being disenfranchised, slightly, after eight years of Obama-nation and pay-outs to the liberal elite 'establishment', now upset that their trough is drying up.

            Basically a 1968 redo, slightly different fashions and hairstyles now.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • #36
              What has happened in recent couple of months is better explained here;

              Making Citizens

              How American Universities Teach Civics
              ...
              Abstract

              A new movement in American higher education aims to transform the teaching of civics. This report is a study of what that movement is, where it came from, and why Americans should be concerned.

              What we call the “New Civics” redefines civics as progressive political activism. Rooted in the radical program of the 1960s’ New Left, the New Civics presents itself as an up-to-date version of volunteerism and good works. Though camouflaged with soft rhetoric, the New Civics, properly understood, is an effort to repurpose higher education.

              The New Civics seeks above all to make students into enthusiastic supporters of the New Left’s dream of “fundamentally transforming” America. The transformation includes de-carbonizing the economy, massively redistributing wealth, intensifying identity group grievance, curtailing the free market, expanding government bureaucracy, elevating international “norms” over American Constitutional law, and disparaging our common history and ideals. New Civics advocates argue among themselves which of these transformations should take precedence, but they agree that America must be transformed by “systemic change” from an unjust, oppressive society to a society that embodies social justice.

              The New Civics hopes to accomplish this by teaching students that a good citizen is a radical activist, and it puts political activism at the center of everything that students do in college, including academic study, extra-curricular pursuits, and off-campus ventures.

              New Civics builds on “service-learning,” which is an effort to divert students from the classroom to vocational training as community activists. By rebranding itself as “civic engagement,” service-learning succeeded in capturing nearly all the funding that formerly supported the old civics. In practice this means that instead of teaching college students the foundations of law, liberty, and self-government, colleges teach students how to organize protests, occupy buildings, and stage demonstrations. These are indeed forms of “civic engagement,” but they are far from being a genuine substitute for learning how to be a full participant in our republic.

              New Civics has still further ambitions. Its proponents want to build it into every college class regardless of subject. The effort continues without so far drawing much critical attention from the public. This report aims to change that.

              In addition to our history of the New Civics movement and its breakthrough moment when it was endorsed by President Obama, we provide case studies of four universities: the University of Colorado, Boulder (CU-Boulder), Colorado State University in Fort Collins (CSU), the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley (UNC), and the University of Wyoming in Laramie (UW).

              We make four recommendations to state legislators across the country:
              1. Mandate a course in traditional American civics as a graduation requirement at all colleges and universities that receive public funding. If the institution itself is unwilling or unable to offer such a course, students must be permitted without penalty to meet the requirement by taking a qualified civics course at another institution.
              2. Establish a public body to set the guidelines for the required civics course, which should at a minimum teach the history, nature, and functions of our institutions of self-government, and which should aim to foster commitment to our form of self-government. The public body should also be charged with reviewing and approving civics textbooks to be used in these courses.
              3. Require that the traditional civics requirement be met only through classroom instruction. Service learning, civic engagement, or analogous extra-curricular activities will not be accepted as a substitute, supplement, or alternative.
              4. End funding for service-learning and civic engagement programs and bureaucracies.


              https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
              Present Current Events are the Future's History

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                Try documenting this please.
                History shows that often Change has come about because of economic improvements, gains, surges, and flourishes ....
                ... Industrial and Mechanization Revolutions/Advances during past two centuries underscore this.

                I think he talks about the change of deeply rooted ideas. Technological change does bring change but the core ideas of the culture that produces this technological change do not alter much. Technological change did not uprooted the belief of the people in the political or economic system that produced that change. On the contrary, such change validated the system.

                By contrast, during hardship people blame the system and are more prone to accept a fundamental change of deeply rooted beliefs. Perhaps, we are already in this path. One example comes by comparing how in the last thirty years we went from an ideology ((by BOTH Democrats and Republicans) that cheered the freedom of global corporations to do business as they please and open or relocate factories in any country they want to a situation today where such corporate freedom is not valued anymore where people demand restrictions and politicians are forced to take such concerns seriously.


                Notice by the way, that now Americans do not have a problem to ask the state to intervene and pressure corporations to allocate their investments and production facilities in a way that protects the public interest. So, we went from the American-style corporate freedom of giving corporations much leeway in how to conduct business to a much more democratic-socialist view of how corporations are supposed to make decisions.

                Other forms of "American freedom" can be challenged and restricted in a similar way. As Judith said, the idea itself of what it means to be free in America can change. It always does...Ask the slaveowners
                Last edited by pamak; 13 Jul 20, 13:18.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  Anything in the world was partly due to the USA situation, brought on by loan(debt) defaults of the sub-prime mortgage market. Those sub-primes being the result of prior Democratic legislation compelling banks and other lenders to give loans to those whom normally wouldn't qualify due to insufficient income and/or poor credit history.
                  Sub-prime mortgages were bad, but they also fit in with the American view that you should be free to do stupid things.

                  The killer in the 2008 crash was the removal of banking restrictions under Glass-Steagall that separated investment banking and retail banking. The investment bankers took a good idea, the mortgage backed security, and then weaponized it by cramming them full of crappy mortgages and selling them like they were AAA rated.

                  And when it blew up, the corporations reverted to their tried and true: "Socialism for us, capitalism for the rest of you".

                  But if it makes you feel any better, Glass-Steagall was repealed under a Democratic president. Although the instigators of the legislation to repeal were all Republicans (Gramm-Leach-Bliley).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    I think he talks about the change of deeply rooted ideas. Technological change does bring change but the core ideas of the culture that produces this technological change do not alter much.
                    The example of the change in mores concerning homosexuality would seem to contradict your thesis. A mere three-and-a-half decades ago public assault of gay people barely registered a blip on most people's radars. Fast-forward to the present and 'most anything that can be construed as offensive to gays is viewed as blasphemy. Thirty-five years: that's a pretty quick and radical reversal of a bias that had held rather fast for the previous two millennia.

                    Another example: forty years ago the suicide terrorist bomber was anathema to Muslims, not because they condemned terrorism, but because Muslim held, as do Jews and Christians, that suicide is a sin against God. Before the close of the 1980s a great number of Sunni clerics were openly blessing suicide terrorism. What changed, God's view of suicide, or the apparently political effectiveness of suicide terrorism? Bear in mind that the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were the first to strap on semtex vests and blow up bus stops and the like. I submit that Sunni clerics (Shi'ia clerics still condemn suicide whatever its motive) saw the Tamil Tigers' success and chose to emulate them. Technology -- in both cases television and VHS mostly -- dramatically altered popular views, within the span of a single generation, of social and religious mores that had stood unquestionably for centuries.

                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    By contrast, during hardship people blame the system and are more prone to accept a fundamental change of deeply rooted beliefs. Perhaps, we are already in this path. One example comes by comparing how in the last thirty years we went from an ideology ((by BOTH Democrats and Republicans) that cheered the freedom of global corporations to do business as they please and open or relocate factories in any country they want to a situation today where such corporate freedom is not valued anymore where people demand restrictions and politicians are forced to take such concerns seriously.
                    I would submit that the current anti-capitalist blather is the result of people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions. A guy who takes home less than $40k a year has no business buying a new car and a new home in the same year -- yet many hundreds of thousands did exactly that. It finally took the '08 meltdown to put the kaibash on the once burgeoning casinos of Atlantic City. The fact that a fare share of Access-a-Ride trips are to the casinos at Yonkers and Aqueduct race tracks should attest sufficiently to how the masses treat public monies when they fall into their hands. Change usually coincides with perceived self-interest, not any kind of esoteric morality. The British called it "I'm alright Jack." Tool called it something else.

                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                      The example of the change in mores concerning homosexuality would seem to contradict your thesis. A mere three-and-a-half decades ago public assault of gay people barely registered a blip on most people's radars. Fast-forward to the present and 'most anything that can be construed as offensive to gays is viewed as blasphemy. Thirty-five years: that's a pretty quick and radical reversal of a bias that had held rather fast for the previous two millennia.

                      Another example: forty years ago the suicide terrorist bomber was anathema to Muslims, not because they condemned terrorism, but because Muslim held, as do Jews and Christians, that suicide is a sin against God. Before the close of the 1980s a great number of Sunni clerics were openly blessing suicide terrorism. What changed, God's view of suicide, or the apparently political effectiveness of suicide terrorism? Bear in mind that the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were the first to strap on semtex vests and blow up bus stops and the like. I submit that Sunni clerics (Shi'ia clerics still condemn suicide whatever its motive) saw the Tamil Tigers' success and chose to emulate them. Technology -- in both cases television and VHS mostly -- dramatically altered popular views, within the span of a single generation, of social and religious mores that had stood unquestionably for centuries.



                      I would submit that the current anti-capitalist blather is the result of people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions. A guy who takes home less than $40k a year has no business buying a new car and a new home in the same year -- yet many hundreds of thousands did exactly that. It finally took the '08 meltdown to put the kaibash on the once burgeoning casinos of Atlantic City. The fact that a fare share of Access-a-Ride trips are to the casinos at Yonkers and Aqueduct race tracks should attest sufficiently to how the masses treat public monies when they fall into their hands. Change usually coincides with perceived self-interest, not any kind of esoteric morality. The British called it "I'm alright Jack." Tool called it something else.

                      My thesis is not meant to be an absolute. I am not saying that some form of hardship is always required for a change. I am saying that hardship makes more likely the acceptance of new ideas that challenge the established political and economic system. This does not mean that morality does not change even within the same political and economic system. But such moral change still does not challenge the political and economic system. So the new LGBT employee or CEO may not lose his job just because he is gay, but will still work (and often strongly believe) in the corporate and capitalist system.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X