Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The neoliberal counter-revolution

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

  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • E.D. Morel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • E.D. Morel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rojik
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    Don't care,
    Yeah Rutger. So ner!

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Rutger View Post

    The only thing I see is (1) an aversity against religion, and (2) a plea for education.
    Nowhere did he call for your claimed "ban on religion" and "doing away with private property", you simply made it up.
    The Stalin remark…..? Well, gee, that works.

    Don't care,

    Leave a comment:


  • Rutger
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    Well this is what was posted
    Religion on the other hand tought you to live in lies. The overblown moral expectations, make every human small. In this system all you can do is fail. Shame plays a huge role in this system of lies. So in order to free yourself from mental slavery, you need to get rid of all the religious crap that has been stuffed in your heads for centuries. The only way out of this misery is education.
    Stalin would be proud
    The only thing I see is (1) an aversity against religion, and (2) a plea for education.
    Nowhere did he call for your claimed "ban on religion" and "doing away with private property", you simply made it up.
    The Stalin remark…..? Well, gee, that works.


    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post



    There was a very famous athlete who was named after an abolitionist. He changed his name to have the names of not one but two slavers as his first and last name.

    He has several statues around the U.S.

    This athlete is one of the most famous in history.

    His name? muhammad ali. Since he named himself after two slavers should his statues be torn down?
    Good one. You made me look him up.

    Cassius Marcellus Clay (/ˈkęʃəs ˌmɑːrˈsɛləs/; October 19, 1810 – July 22, 1903), nicknamed the "Lion of White Hall", was a Kentucky planter, politician, and emancipationist who worked for the abolition of slavery. He freed the slaves that were handed down as his inheritance from his father. Those freed slaves were allowed to stay and were paid a wage. He was a founding member of the Republican Party in Kentucky, and was appointed by President Abraham Lincoln as the United States minister to Russia. Clay is credited with gaining Russian support for the Union during the American Civil War.

    Cassius Marcellus Clay

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    This excerpt you took out, no offense, is really a bunch of gobbylgook.

    The root of the right wing (alt right and "normal" conservatives) is really quite simple:

    They want good, masculine and traditional leadership, but are bamboozled by ideology and an army of selfish frauds/attention seekers/mentally ill people/con-artists just like the con artist in chief who rose up to take advantage of their gullibility and stupidity.

    There is no standardized narrative- the narrative is constantly changing, like a paranoid lunatic. It is also somewhat directionless, it's goal is only to demonize all those who do not think like they do.

    They are now a form of large scale, brain-dead hivemind, like some hard-core left wingers.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X