Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Didn’t knew that thing with Off-Guardian. Strange that it has never been covered in the news over here. Basically, you guys in the UK can be happy to chose from a more balanced, more diverse selection of media titles than we can here. But then, the vast amount of left-activistic propaganda preserves me from getting trapped into the confirmation bias.
Quote:given human nature, unfettered capitalism doesn't go as well as the rosy picture you paint.Unfettered capitalism – sounds like paradise, doesn’t it? Just joking
There is no, there has never been an unregulated capitalism. Nowhere. Or do you have an example? Here in the EU, the situation is clearly the opposite. With a public expenditure quota approaching 50%, we live in a half-socialism.Quote:Obviously, it's a tricky balance to strikeLike life in itself, it's always imperfect. But that's something many people on the left can't stand. They demand purity. Even after all the failed attempts, they dream of perfect utopias, which are beautiful and sexy, but also dangerous seductresses. As Karl Popper says:
«Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.»
Quote:Even with regulation, you have the problem of the revolving door between the regulators and those being regulated, and you have lobbying, cronyism and myriad other problems.More than the problem of the revolving door, but the primary problem of a democracy: Who watches the minder, the controller? And in terms of lobbying: It's not exclusive to big business. We have dozens of NGO's covering reams of aspects, a forceful social industry*, the churches, a raising green-tech industry… all persistently lobbying. It's not that a huge problem if you look at the whole picture.
*In 2016, the German tax pa… sorry, the state, spent EUR 42’000’000’000.- for social welfare. Of that amount, only EUR 26’000’000’000.- have been paid-off to the ones in need.
Quote:You say that socialism and 'state capitalism' lead to poverty, oppression and hunger. It's a bit of a stretch, isn' t, to try and make out that plain old capitalism doesn't do that?I hope you agree that it would be highly disrespectful to compare our ratio / share / level of "poverty", "oppression", "hunger" with the one in such glorious socialistic paradises like Bolivia, Venezuela, countries in Central America, the DDR (Deutsch Demokratische Republik – neither deutsch nor democratic nor a republic), Ukraine, Lithuania, Pakistan, Kirgistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korean Peninsula, Indo-China – this list of failed socialistic experiments is incomplete.
I would like to refer again to part of Churchill's great quote: In Capitalism, the whole society gets wealthy. So wealthy, that a welfare state can be founded. Even more, we face a vulgar trend that the welfare state gets used by people who would not be dependent on it. This is a primitive, egoistic, deeply antisocial behaviour that needs to be battled against.
Quote:I believe we are all capable of doing bad things – up to a point – but, actually, most people aren't that bad; they have lines they won't cross. However, I put it to you that there is a minority who are quite different from the rest of us. They are born without the ability to empathise.Power always leads to corruption. And the dishonest, most hypocritical, egoistic and eventually immoral individuals I had met in my life were all people clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. Meanwhile I know that this is not a coincidence.
Quote:Furthermore, I think it makes sense for the state to own and operate utilities and infrastructure. We'll probably agree to differ on that!I'm not a Libertarian. So I basically agree. But also in this aspect, the state needs to be strictly contained.
The German state operates 21 TV- and 74 Radio channels, plus around 300 Instagram accounts; at the costs of EUR 8'000'000'000.- per year. Our largest TV stations (ARD and ZDF) are holdings with paricipation on 146 companies (production, service, advertising, merchandising, trading of rights, ticketing…). This is all absurdly beyond "key state assets". Not to mention the sharp left bias: Political magazines appear as manifestos for the Green party, book reviews to follow the motto: Left stuff from left authors for left readers. It's laughable and unbalanced beyond belief! Oh, and the salaries for the happy few: WDR's chairman gets EUR 395'000.-, while the average income in Germany is EUR 47'928.-
Quote:What I see coming is something closer to Communist China – but worldwide. However, you might just as well invoke the term, fascism. It's not, I fear, a dystopian fantasy, but rather, an actual emerging dystopia. Such a state of affairs always comes on gradually (you probably know the boiling frog analogy). The only way it stops is if we stop it.This could well become reality and the boiling frog analogy fits perfect. But the last sentence is the key here. In many countries, grass roots movements raise the pressure on the established political players – UKIP as a great and successful example. In Europe alone we can see this trend in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden…
Quote:I'm not sure that it's that she's 'not left enough'. While you can talk about what is and what is not capitalism, I'm not sure that the terms 'right' and 'left' are serving us so well any more. Better to talk about pro- or anti-freedom.It’s what you mention in the last sentence, which in spite of everything is the fundamental difference between left and right (shortened): Left stands for collectivism, a powerful and intrusive state (more and more in conjunction with big business) that dictates how you have to live your life down to the tiniest details of your personality. And you got to live by the rules! Right stands for a traditional sense of Liberalism, freedom, where the mature individual also has a maximum of self responsibility. In a more liberal society, Wolf would not have been banned from Twitter.
I agree that my analogy isn't perfect. But I'm sure you noticed what happened with certain staff in the «NYT» over the last two years.
Quote:In China, they are now expanding their operations, moving on to Christians. Developments in Hong Kong are more visible. Does the West do anything? No. So, why not?I'm also worried about these and other developments in China. But the quote you mentioned by Rockefeller dates back to a time when in the West most believed that China's development will inevitably lead into a democracy. Still in the late 90's and after, many took this as a 'make-believe' to do business over there, to accept China to become a member of the WTO. As we know now, they were wrong. With the exception of The Donald, none of the western leaders so far had been brave enough to confront China.
Closing this post with one of my favourite quote by Ronald Reagan:
«The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I’m from the Government and I'm here to help."»
suntripper, I was not responsive yet regarding vaccines and the passports associated with. Rest assured that I'm as concerned as you are. But it's "only" one area of many to be alert.
I have never been vaccinated for the risk of the yearly flu. My wife did regularly though, one of my daughters sometimes. But it was always carried out by our family doctor, or in the company where my daughter works. There was certainly never a registration. Big brother never knew about it, and it's none of the governments business! We can only react on this next time at the ballot box.
Regarding Naomi Wolf: Twitter doesn't trust that users are able to make their own decisions about what other people express. These big tech companies are keen to protect you from a possible wrong perception. Like a nanny state, they know better what is appropriate for you than yourself.
Yes, Wolf is left. But she must disappear now as she is not left enough anymore. The good old Soviet Union had re-education camps for people like her.
Hey suntripper, thanks for this great article! The Guardian is always a challenge for me. In short: I disagree with most of the thirst part («The old normal»), and discreetly agree with most of the second part («The new normal»). But first and in general, let me do some clarities over the terms used:
1) Capitalism is an economical- and social order that is based on private property of resource, and the regulation of production and consumption through the market. Participants cooperate together, bringing ideas, capital and labour together. You got to act fair and encounter each other on an equal basis, as in a competitive and open market economy, the participants have alternatives.
An important point to consider: Unlike Socialism (a system constructed on the drawing board) Capitalism spontaneously happens – always happened naturally, with no guidance nor advice – when the above mentioned circumstances are given. It equates the human’s nature best.
Just like everything outside the land of milk and honey, sadly it’s not perfect. But Capitalism works. Regimes like Socialism or State Capitalism do not. They lead, in variable mix ratio, to poverty, oppression, hunger.
2) Besides Liberalism, no term is so absurdly misunderstood and misused like Neoliberalism. Initiated after the Great Depression in 1938 at the Colloque Walter Lippmann in Paris, the liberal intellectuals were concerned that free markets are not that self-regulating as they always thought. They suggested that the state should regulate more, set boundaries, intervene when there is absolute monopoly in certain sectors. So, totally the opposite of what the term stands for today! It came in discredit in conjunction with the coup in Chile in 1973. After the regime of leftist Salvador Allende, the country was on its economic all time low, bankruptcy and destitute. Dictator Augusto Pinochet asked for counsel from the so called Chicago-Boys, who recommended to open the markets, make possible and promote entrepreneurship, and reduce customs duties – all under strict control of the government. It's this questionable collaboration that brought Neoliberalism in discredit.
Introduction of the article
With reference to what I wrote regarding Capitalism above here, I skip the very first sentence of the article. It shows that the basic perception of the author is heavily biased; he is locked in his antipathy against the, for him, apparently fundamentally evil Capitalism.
«The prevailing economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption»
Completely wrong already due to the always ongoing increase in efficiency (with all its consequences).
«The old normal»
«Thatcher’s policies destroyed a fifth of Britain’s industrial base in just two years alone.»
«Long gone are many of the relatively well-paid manufacturing jobs that helped build and sustain the economy.»
This happened after privatization of then state-owned sectors that were unprofitable beyond hope. Who pays the debt? Correct: tax payers. Privatization was then a painful, but badly needed process. Because so called zombie-sectors are not sustainable and highly unfair for all others, especially for competitors who don't have tax payer's money to cover any debt.
As the author also writes, «Thatcher wasted little time in crushing the power of the trade unions and privatising key state assets.» Her greatest achievement! British Steel, British Airways, British Petroleum, British Telecom… key state assets? How can someone seriously keep believing in 2021 that the state (who at the state? which staff there? under which guidance?) is the better businessman? Without the pressure of competition, which leads to the possibility of alternatives for us consumers, there will be no effort to offer goods and services on adequate conditions (quality, usability, price, eco friendliness, variety).
The author also shows a discomfort with the fact that in Capitalism one can get rich. To make it short: This is the opposite of a problem, as Winston Churchill perfectly stated:
«The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.»
«The new normal»
«Many people waste no time in referring to this as some kind of ‘Marxist’ or ‘communist’ takeover of the planet because a tiny elite will be dictating policies. This has nothing to do with Marxism. An authoritarian capitalist elite – supported by their political technocrats – aims to secure even greater control of the global economy.»
Well, this has something to do with Crony capitalism which is much closer to the ideas of Marxism than to the liberal character of free market Capitalism. For example, the former president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, labeled himself as a Maoist. This perfectly suits.
The power of the «bunch of billionaires» is not based on free market Capitalism, least on Neoliberalism, but on their collaboration with big government and the agents of the rules based order (we already talked about in previous posts).
So the author's attempt to frame Schwab's great reset as a new super radical form of Capitalism is wrong. And neither Thatcher / Reagen set the foundation for the possibility of this.
«Rhetoric about ‘liberty’ and ‘individual responsibility’ worked a treat in the 1980s to help bring about a massive heist of wealth.»
A malignant imputation. Heavily influenced by Friedrich August von Hayek, Thatcher's attempt was ‘liberty’ from the power of an intrusive state, and the ‘individual responsibility’ not to live a live at the expense of the community (concise).
The end gets a bit too dystopian, fantasy for me. Too much of a scare- and horror-scenario.
What's your thought on this, and on the article in general?
Users stated that I acted too hard against Johnny. That's wrong, and here is why.
His dismissive behavior against people who campaigned and voted for Brexit shows an alarming issue on the culture of today's debate. There's a certain attitude, a specific canon of values, certain believs and opinions that not only became "common sense" / "mainstream" but the only one acceptable. I could write for hours about who sets up and defines these values. But everyone with a functioning brain notices that there's an accentual left-bias in the media*, in schools, universities, in public administration, diplomacy, in churches, NGO's and the cultural sector. This tendency is there since the mid-70’s. With the raise of the «woke»-culture, it became even more fanatic and totalitarian.
*A recent survey on trainees in large media houses in Germany resulted that 92,2% vote for Grüne, Die Linke (the former communistic SED), and SPD. And as any media consumer knows: they don't hold back with their opinion. Quite the contrary. This bias is deeply unhealthy for a democracy.
It's mainly the left-biased media that puts the narrative in place, sets the tone, ultimately commands what is acceptable, and what needs to be cancelled. When people who campaigned and voted for Brexit get vilified as «populist and sometimes fascist, xenophobic political mob», then this deeply unfounded hatred is the logical result of an ideological activism against every opinion, any value that does not comply with the ideological homogeneity dictated by that radical left. When people with an other opinion even getting insulted as «scum and worse», then they get dehumanized in the most ugly way. They've lost their right to exist. Like with vermin, scum needs to be wiped away, the environment needs to be cleaned – cleansed.
It's an evidence of incapacity that there was no reaction on Johnny's disgusting post from you guys!
When I get attacked by this certain kind of rabble, I hit back until there's dead silence. For years, I stayed calm, confident with my arguments and opinions. But I learned that «woke» guys like Johnny, mostly safe in their bubble of like-minded, totally ignore that. As they are convinced of their moral-, intellectual- and spiritual superiority, the one with the other opinion is wrong – scum – anyway. You all are hopefully aware of where this attitude leads to, when, as a mass-phenomenon, a decreed Gleichdenk and Gleichsprech becomes inescapable.
First and foremost, it divides society. The ones who initiate and support that intolerant attitude, to degrade and eliminate others from the discourse, from the public, the society – it is a slaughter in a Jacobinic manner, – they need to get addressed and rebuked.
Freedom of opinion and expression is the prerequisite for an open debate in a democratic society. The totalitarian, fanatic neo-marxistic movement is on war with that. When Rock 'n' Roll is supposed to be counterculture, then some of you – including one Bent – immediately should re-think your attitude on these topics.
Johnny_Heartfield:
Quote:I have called a party movement scum because that's exactly what people are who attack others – not just verbally – because of their culture, colour of skin, language, national background and so on.Perfect. Now you have to ultimately deliver such citations and events from UKIP's representatives during the Brexit campaign to document your accusations.
It's not only your condescension against Brexiteers. Remember a similar discussion about three years ago* where I stayed stoically polite and calm from the beginning to the end, although one guy kept on insulting me over and over again. That guy was – you, Johnny. So you prove what a hypocrite you are. Before you advise others to «stop spreading your poison», you have to start by the one that is nearest to yourself.
*(Krist and Kid: Where were you back then? When I remember right, you were part of that discussion.)
Why suddenly so punchy, you may ask? Well, meanwhile I've learned from a great guy that against individuals that are both stupid and arrogant / dogmatic / holier-than-thou, there is only one possible approach to apply:
«The just argument against a stupid forehead is a clenched fist.» (Friedrich Nietzsche)
@suntripper, yes. It all started in the 90's, when after the fall of the iron curtain and the raise of the internet, globalization took off.
Anthony Giddens, a British sociologist, published the blue prints of the idea bringing together the political left (who idealized a multi-cultural, non-nation, centrally governed world) with the agents of big business who also forced globalization to 1) produce goods where it's cheapest, and 2) to have unlimited access of labour due to open borders.
Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, Bill Clinton. These nominal* left-wing politicians began to work hand in glove with multinational companies. It peaked in December 2001, when China became a member of the WTO. It became cracked in 2016 with Brexit and Trump. A few interesting quotes:
«My dream is a herispheric common market with open trade and open borders.» (Hillary Clinton)
«We’ll take the peoples of Europe towards a political union, using economic arguments.» (Jean Monnet)
«These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries!» (Jean-Claude Juncker)
«The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.» (Michail Gorbatschow)
*Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten! – once again.
Krist and Kid, you tend to be blind on one eye. My attack against Johnny is a reaction for his absolutely unacceptable dismissive manner against, in this case, Brexiteers.
– People like Johnny feel enlighted, as supreme individuals;
«sadly only a small number of people understood» (it's certain that he is one of these…)
– evidentially talk absurd bullshit, parroting the laughable, dishonest activism of the biased, ideological Media;
«an effort by a rich minority to free themselves from EU regulations – a class struggle against the poor that deluded the nostalgic, the old, the jobless and the economically depraved»
– just to raise to the top of a stuck-up snob by educate all, that these idiots were so dumb;
«to vote against their interest»
– Then with his final, most primitive insults;
«led by a populist and sometimes fascist, xenophobic political mob – UKIP scum and worse.»
he not just shows that he understood nothing, but also smashes people with other opinions in their face with the most ugly defamation. A truly disgusting behaviour.
This kind of patronizing comes by as a matter of course. A raising number of people have enough of that.
Brexit – For those interested in a very few facts (so Johnny, you can skip and head over to your favored antidemocrats and EU-centralism supporters like Böhmermann, ARD/ZDF, Süddeutsche, taz, Spiegel et al.):
1) The voters of Great Britain, one of the oldest functioning democracies in the world, decided get back their sovereignty, to govern themselves again. Full stop.
2) Big multinational companies were all explicitly against Brexit. The centralized rule-making and protectionism of the EU are in their most interest. This proved to be a burden for small- and medium business and, consequently, also for the working class people.
3) Shortly before the referendum on March 2016, HM Treasury (Britains bursary) predicted an immediate, deep economic shock in case of a "Yes" vote. A significant decrease of the GDP, a plus of 500'000 unemployed, lowered actual earnings. Horrible! CBI (the Confederation of British Industry, a player of «Project Fear») even warned about the loss of 1'000'000 jobs, leaving the EU would cost the average household GBP 3'700.- a year. But actually, the British economy grew 2016 and 2017 stronger than the Euro-zone. Unemployment decreased by 280'000, and wages raised.
It's the class of the decent, normal working people who benefits most from Brexit, while the agents of big business, big banks, in a creepy conjunction with left-wing intellectuals and neo-marxists – both mostly urban, snobbish and upper class – plus the patronizing Media are still moaning and freaking out.
It's your decision on who's side you are.
suntripper:
Quote:Safeguards that the EU provided – at least for the time being – have been lost, and that concerns me.Mind about the desire of living a totally safe live: If you trade your liberty for safety, you will finally lose both.
A state has the duty both to protect their citizens, and to respect their freedom as individuals. It's a constant balancing out between those two poles. But sensible decisions can only been made by governments that are democratically legit by the people that are affected by their decisions. Although I absolutely don't share your view of UK's current government (which is a rather cheap narrative of the leftwing Media), there's surely a problem in the UK when the city of London stands like an satellite within one country. But that situation was even much more worse when the advices came from the unelected bureaucrats in Bruxelles.
suntripper:
Quote:Would anyone else like to try and answer my question – particularly those who have made this connection? Why is a concern with 'vaccines' and 'vaccine' passports associated, by some, with what they would see as a Trump/alt-right/Brexit mindset?Gladly. In short: Brexit and Trump was a rebellion from the working class against an elite who lost contact, no, who deliberately distanced themselves from ordinary people. Yes, there are different sorts of elites. When we talk of the topic you mention, it's (amongst others) the class of the "Anywheres", as described in David Goodhart's book «The Road To Somewhere»: Highly educated, polyglot, cosmopolitans, urban, internationalists, mostly from an academical background. They never worked in private economy. They never added something to the GDP, to the wealth, to the functioning of the society – the society that enables them to live their lifestyle.*
This class only functions with and from a powerful, non-federalistic state, an anti-democratic confederation like the EU, and the so called rules based international order, represented for example by the WHO, WTO, UN and central banks who aggressively forced globalization beyond the pain barrier. Brexit and Trump was the challenge, directed against these bad habits and institutions. It was also against the toxic tendencies to withdraw step-by-step the possibility of democratic self-determination from the people, the communities, the countries.
Now, in short: If you are critical against government's advice, regarding the topics you mentioned, you get defamed by being so stupid that you must have been misleaded by these bad populists. You also get insulted by the majority of the Media who totally quitted being critically distanced to the ones in power.
*Do you live in Germany? I recommend Sahra Wagenknecht's «Die Selbstgerechten» for an insight view of this milieu. Or if you want to get deeper into the thinking of these individuals, get Thierry Baudet's «Oikophobie – Der Hass auf das Eigene und seine zerstörerischen Folgen» (also available in other languages) to understand why leftists hate so much their own culture, their countries, their provenance and heritage.
Hey Johnny, poor honey – what are you moaning? If you insult people (like the majority of the British voters), or even get so low and primitive to describe the people of UKIP as "scum", then you have to consider an adequate reaction. Glaskinn, do you get that at least?
Quote:sadly only a small number of people understood…Quote:I always think I'm so clever and can explain anythingSure you may consider yourself as an avantgarde-intellectual. Which can be perfectly conjuncted with your utterly dumb, dismissive rant against 51,9% – 17,4 million of British voters who decided to leave the toxic EU. You even act so arrogant to label them as so stupid that they "voted against their interest". Who the hell you think you are?
In your locked insular bubble, everyone with an other opinion gets defamed as scum, idiot, nazi, xenophobe, misleaded by populists and conspiracy theories; dumb puppets who serve for that oh so horrible capitalism and neoliberalism.
Maybe you just forgot to take your medication. But I fear that something else is terribly wrong with you.
Johnny_Heartfield:
Quote:As for Brexit: sadly only a small number of people understood that the whole Brexit campaign was an effort by a rich minority to free themselves from EU regulations – a class struggle against the poor that deluded the nostalgic, the old, the jobless and the economically depraved to vote against their interest, led by a populist and sometimes fascist, xenophobic political mob – UKIP scum and worse.Yeah. Bad people lying to stupid people, right? The usual patronizing, primitive, left-minded idiotism from cretins like you.
I could calmly smash you against the wall with dry facts on how it came to this glorious result of Brexit. But reading your posts makes it clear that you consider yourself as an enlighted one. As one of the very few who is able to recognize the truth behind the chaos. As someone who is intellectually and morally supreme. But tragically you just prove time and again that you are way not intelligent enough, even to realize how stupid you are.
Not a coincidence:
Cowards and opportunists with no principles are always where the majority – the power – is.
I’m writing these lines here with the one single motivation to say THANK YOU! to suntripper for his time, effort and passion writing his recent post. Yes, this is also due to the fact that I’m glad there’s someone here sharing some of my views.
Quote:@suntripper: You sound like someone with whom I could enjoy having a few beers.Quote:@Great King Rat: I appreciate your comments in response to Norman_Gold, and I think you should join @suntripper and myself for some beers.Quote:@Johnny_Heartfield: I am in harmony with your thinking, and I believe I have addressed much of what you are talking about in my rant above. You are also invited to join us for beers.Interesting. You only like to have company with like-minded people. An idiosyncrasy for people on the left; keen to stay insular in their bubble, unwilling to deal with any opposite view. Why should they? Most of them see themselves as intellectually and morally supreme anyway – a cozy self-righteousness without any justification required. Bashing from the left comes likely in common buzzwords, with a total lack of substance and background knowledge. Typically 1:1 the oversimplified and hollow phrases from the paternalistic, holier-than-thou class of the mass media, intellectuals and artists.
Without the will to hold out – and learn from – oppositional views, you'll miss the chance to get the moments where you realize that the world is far too complex and manifold to beat it down in bitter, anger-driven phrases like you do it partly here.
Quote:It is helpful to understand that the American 'government' is making this work by demonizing the undeserving and obfuscating the truth, brainwashing hard-working Americans into thinking the government cares about them.Thanks god there is someone like you (and maybe abandoned supernaut too?) who is enlightened, gifted with omniscient. Too sad that so many people are totally stupid, right?
And no, it's not in the task area of a government to "care about" the people. A nanny state? Please not! Let me mention a sad consequence going on in more and more countries here in Europe. An increasing number of people feel totally lonely. In the midst of a city, a village, they have no close relative, no friends, no contact to neighbors, no loved ones, no person of trust. This distressing phenomenon is distinctive everywhere you have a fully developed social state. Keep that in mind.
Quote:Internationalism is not (neccesarily) a "left-ideological agenda". Firstly the extreme right today is cooperating intensively on an international levelQuote:That does not mean at the same time that the old and new tribal-orientated nationalists are right. Their politics are mostly backward-orientated and sometimes even purely antisocial.I agree that internationalism is not solely a "left-ideological agenda". But when we talk of the participants on the "right" here, we talk of the multinational companies who force globalism for two reasons:
1) To relocate production to the region where it can be done at the lowest cost; away from the company's and its personnel's original location
2) To have unlimited access of personnel everywhere through limitless immigration; to compress the wages of the workers
Which leads to specify the modern right, the populists, more accurately. Trump, Johnson, Bannon, Orban, Salvini, Brexit, AfD are insofar on the right as they believe in the nation state as the reliable form to a) protect the inhabitants of the country from the above two points, b) independently govern the country, and c) being rooted and associated in their homeland. Cooperation, trade, exchange on all levels with other countries – all necessary and fine. But the interference of multinational organisations or central governments like the EU (or think of the brezhnev doctrine in the late 1960's), that is wrong. The ordinary people in the countries don't want that.
Quote:Nevertheless I'm convinced the Utopian view is part of the human condition and cannot be entirely neglected, how infantile or unrealistic it may sometimes appear. There is no evolution without our weaknesses and shortcomings!An utopian view is totally ok and also serves as a driving force for innovation. But it's wrong and unfair to confront it against the certainly not flawless, but nevertheless most successful system ever applied. It's cheap to play out fantasy against reality; glorify the one, bash the other.
Progressive thinking (and acting) isn't good or 'right' per se, whereas conservatism isn't bad or 'wrong' per se (to picture the current atmosphere of the debate here in the West). So called progress is always bound to the question where we are going to, and from what we are departing from.
Quote:So let's forget the equally unrealistic politics of ultra-strength and "survival of the fittest" – that is not how the world works best.Don't understand what you mean with that. I don't live in a world with "politics of ultra-strength and "survival of the fittest""
Quote:I would suggest that, for a section on the left, Chomsky is doing a similar deceptive disservice to that Trump is doing to a section on the right.Trump can not be identified as your usual enemy image on the right. His agenda is centered, specified to the working middle class and small- to medium business. He is hated by the aristocratic class of global big business, big banks and their affiliates in global politics.
Take corporatism: (Bill) Clinton, Blair, Schröder, Obama. These social democratic leaders made a pact with the devil: To promote their left-ideological agenda of internationalism (abolishment of the nation state to get it ultimately replaced by a one world central government, plus the total ethic mix of people), they dealt hand in glove with the mightiest multinational companies and the institutions who represent the rules-based international order. Both with the same goal: A multi-ethic, borderless world as undemocratic as the EU or China. One government, one policy, one currency, total control.
That’s the main reason why I’m such a hyped up cheerleader for The Donald. I was relieved in 2016 that there is a guy who addresses these issues, with Hillary as the rival who stated that she would drive centralization and globalism even further. I’m delighted about the results of Trumps policy so far.
@Great King Rat
Quote:Where's the "It has been proven…" from your last post gone?Implicitly check out the UN World Happiness Report! Indicators are GDP, Social support, Healthy life expectancy, Freedom to make life choices, Generosity, Perceptions of corruption. The detailed ranking is on Wikipedia.
Quote:All of the big industrialized European countries have exploited other countries during the age of imperialism in order to provide ressources for their growing industries. They have taken natural ressources and committed genocides. After the abolishment of colonialism, the exploitation has continued (and still is!) through means of the free market.This description is far too simple, one-sided, negative, mostly wrong. The usual accuse of the clumsy left. I could easily write a ton of arguments and facts against your hollow statement and certainly will be happy to do so if you are interested.
Quote:In the EU too much milk is produced for its inhabitants to consume. So the surplus is turned into milk powder which is then shipped to some poor African state and sold there cheaply. As a consequence, small farmers in that state who made a living on selling milk from their cows are driven out of business because they can't compete with the cheap substitute product from overseas.The failure is on the bad government of the states in Africa! No one is obligated to import milk powder from the EU. They could ban the import, put taxes on it to protect their domestic economy. It's totally mazy to accuse the local supplier for the misfeature in the recipient countries.
Quote:I strongly believe that especially we in the Western industrialized countries have to accept and admit that our wealth and progress were erected on the back of others who we've exploited and, again, keep exploiting.Totally wrong. Again, the oversimplified thinking of the embittered left who is always there to criticize ourselves. They hate their own countries and culture. They hate themselves.
Quote:I see very little reason why capitalism should be the preferable choice, at least in such an unregulated way as it has always been.Then please tell us about your more "preferable choice", come up with a better solution! Unregulated? Capitalism? How old are you? Sorry, but you don't have the absolutely leastest clue of our legislation! Our economic system is tied to numerous regulations. In the EU, it's totally overregulated. I'm long enough in business to know that in detail, particularly with regard to the comparison with other regions in the world.
Quote:Idealistically, capitalism is dead. It doesn't live up to its (theoretic) promises, or if it does, only few people benefit. Let's face it, constant growth is an illusion.The opposite. Idealistically? What you mean with that? Again here: Have you got a better alternative to offer?
Quote:But apart from the basics, I argue that people would only measure their well-being or luck with money because they think they need a stupid € 500,-phone or stupid €300,- sneakers or a TV as big as their living room wall.Ok. Then we take the, as you name it, "stupid € 500,-phone" for an example:
Besides a telephone, you got a music player with access to all the songs in the world, a video recorder and -player, a photo camera, access to all the newspapers in the world, the largest library imaginable, you got a TV, a watch, a pocket lamp, a calculator, a road map, a notebook, an audio recorder, a computer, a navigation system, an alarm clock, detailed maps from every place in the world, internet, a compass, a language translator, a social network (if you don’t have one IRL), a dictaphone, a weather forecast, you can do an emergency call when you’re out and alone in the wild, you got apps to check your health to prevent issues, plus dozens of useful, essential and unnecessary things – most of on a quality level unimaginable before, and with the unthinkable possibilities of AI yet to come. Now think of:
The money you save for not having to buy all of these devices separately anymore
The resources saved for it’s not necessary to produce all of these devices anymore
The environment saved for it’s not necessary to produce and dispose all of these devices anymore
The easement and benefit of efficiency in your everyday life due to this innovation
Fantastic, isn’t it? The smartphone could only have been invented and developed within the environment of free market capitalism. Basic terms: No cartel. No monopoly. The more competition, the better. The less regulation, the better (certainly not "zero-regulation"). You have to let companies and their staff constantly urge for better solutions, so that they come up with goods and services that suit the needs and demands of the (potential) consumer better than the product of the competitor. Upon that in response, that competitor will strive to make it even better…
People are only willing to make an extraordinary effort if they get rewarded adequately. If a company acts stingy, they won’t get good personnel. Then if the government taxes, say, 50% or more of the profit or salary off, then the fire for innovation, effort, diligence extinguishes. We are not talking about Marxism yet, the wet dream of about half of the left-wing politicians here in Europe. In this model, the state owns or controls the companies in a non-competition environment, because the central government certainly knows better what’s best for all the people than themselves.
Quote:In some small areas around the globe there are still some indiginous tribes who live the way they've lived for centuries, without electricity or money. In our eyes, they're poor, yet the level of contentment is high among those people.What a lovely, romantic imagination! So you have plans to emigrate? What is your favored destination?
Quote:Correct me if I am wrong, it seems that you do not count people of excessive wealth in this class. Let's face it, nobody ever 'earned' a billion dollars.I point to the vulgar exaggerations of the social state, funded by the taxes of the hard working middle class. I do not accuse the smart ones to utilize it as it's human nature to grab what you can (although they act deeply anti-social). The failure is on the ones that set up the system in a way that certain can benefit from it without being in need.
Quote:I do believe it is possible. I do not believe any of those three conditions you state exist in America today.Relax, friend. I can herewith fully reassure to you that in today's America, these institutions do exist. I will answer later on your newest post. Get prepared!
Two things @ most of you guys:
We don't need reason and we don't need logic
'Cause we've got feeling and we're dang proud of it (Daniel Johnston)
It's inexpensive, platitudinous, cheap, lazy-thinking just to criticize, but then not coming up with a (potentially better) solution, an alternative. One of which certainly is feasible.
Imagine all the people, living life in peace
Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man (John Lennon)
Stop comparing our living standards, welfare, sense of justice, economic- and governmental system etc. against an unreal, perfect utopian vision of a world as a paradisiac garden Eden, where every human being, every animal, every plant is in perfect harmony with each other. It doesn't help any on the path to make the world a better place – if you really intend to do so.
