-
-
He's right inasfar as he goes, but it requires more imv.
The feeling of powerlessness they're all now talking of is built on a prior feeling of imagined empowerment, based in the idea of individual choice encrypted in consumerism, the "latest" manifestation of a ruling class self-entitled system of competitive profit making basis for accumulating and then distributing the goods and necessities in itself deeply rooted in the religion-born model of the individualised defective skin-encapsulated ego (Watts & others) perpetually driven towards atavism short of salvation. We don't trust others because we've been led since childhood not to trust ourselves (forgetting that we have no choice but to); but this externalised "other" has (of course) to be specified, in order that the deficiencies of capitalism (which our rulers will hang onto by every means from daily propaganda to state force and even war), when exposed in its inbuilt periodic downturns and the dashing of hopes inspired thereby, can be blamed on what is nearest to hand, the projected consequence of a false model of human nature upheld to keep themselves in power and living off the backs of the rest of us.
Capitalism is wasteful of earth's resources and its means of wealth generating destroys the ecosystems that protect lifef's network of which we are a part (not apart!), which is why it has to go, the sooner the better.
But you really knew all that, didn't you?: -
Chomsky is always interesting to listen to, but what’s apparent here is that he fails to see that he’s part of the manifestation that he himself gives for the Trump phenomenon. His dismissive hand gestures at 1’.15’ when he identifies white males "and their wives and traditional families" is indicative of this, and is most unfortunate. Credit to him, he waited 3 minutes and seventeen seconds before linking-in Germany (sic), Hitler et al!!!
I can’t help feel that the man who I so avidly read in the late 70s at uni has lost the edge that he had. Perhaps the inability to drop the now universally discredited Marxist inspired syntax that governs, (according to his brilliant early doctorate) his way of thinking? He’s still chomping on the same biscuit!
Ultimately this four minutes or so of the great man is a let-down - mainly subjective description, confused as analysis.
Maybe it’s all simpler than this. Perhaps inclusion is about, well, including everybody and not leaving out or behind the people who you don’t like, whether you like it or not!Comment
-
There have been three queries as to whether it's 'all right' to post, or is it 'politics'. As I've now had several hours to consider it
as long as it remains on the level of 'Ideas & Theory' I feel discussion is the reason this board was set up. It's not a question of 'not being about politics' - it clearly is. It's about how forum members discuss with each other. There was an interesting article in Huffington Post about how these events are cyclical, also quite interesting.
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Link?Originally posted by french frank View PostThere have been three queries as to whether it's 'all right' to post, or is it 'politics'. As I've now had several hours to consider it as long as it remains on the level of 'Ideas & Theory' I feel discussion is the reason this board was set up. It's not a question of 'not being about politics' - it clearly is. It's about how forum members discuss with each other. There was an interesting article in Huffington Post about how these events are cyclical, also quite interesting.Comment
-
An opinion piece!Originally posted by Beef Oven! View Post
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
-
It would be helpful to add an explanation as to what is most unfortunate.Originally posted by Beef Oven! View Post
In undefined terms whatever anybody says in the way of opinion about anything would seem to be subjective; in what way is it confused?I can’t help feel that the man who I so avidly read in the late 70s at uni has lost the edge that he had. Perhaps the inability to drop the now universally discredited Marxist inspired syntax that governs, (according to his brilliant early doctorate) his way of thinking? He’s still chomping on the same biscuit!
Ultimately this four minutes or so of the great man is a let-down - mainly subjective description, confused as analysis.
Maybe indeed. It all would seem to depend on what or who is being excluded or left behind, by what or whom, for what reason or reasons, and what maybe could or should be done about this.Maybe it’s all simpler than this. Perhaps inclusion is about, well, including everybody and not leaving out or behind the people who you don’t like, whether you like it or not!Comment
-
The promotion of the artificial concept of a "binary choice" leads to outcomes of the kind that have been seen during 2016. It is only when the results have been declared that it becomes clear there is usually a third, fourth, fifth and sixth way. For those of us who don't believe in "a binary choice", it is like witnessing a scale of debate that might as well be taking place on another planet. However, it is we who are now unreal, at least when it comes to approaches towards voting and elections, if not wholly in terms of their aftermath.
I have found Peter Hitchens's commentary on the American election more agreeable than most. I don't agree with everything he says but I agree with a lot of it. Just as he has for years been questioning the direction of political consensus from a right-wing perspective, I have been doing the same from a social democratic one. We shall not see our like again!
Incidentally, for those who have issues with Putin, it is always worthwhile considering what could be waiting in the shadows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgdBIXO8aq4
Last edited by Lat-Literal; 14-11-16, 20:59.Comment
-
I trust no animals were harmed in the making of that hat!Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostThe promotion of the artificial concept of a "binary choice" leads to outcomes of the kind that have been seen during 2016. It is only when the results have been declared that it becomes clear there is usually a third, fourth, fifth and sixth way. For those of us who don't believe in "a binary choice", it is like witnessing a scale of debate that might as well be taking place on another planet. However, it is we who are now unreal, at least when it comes to approaches towards voting and elections, if not wholly in terms of their aftermath.
I have found Peter Hitchens's commentary on the American election more agreeable than most. I don't agree with everything he says but I agree with a lot of it. Just as he has for years been questioning the direction of political consensus from a right-wing perspective, I have been doing the same from a social democratic one. We shall not see our like again!
Incidentally, for those who have issues with Putin, it is always worthwhile considering what could be waiting in the shadows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgdBIXO8aq4Comment
-
No animals - but a few of Jim Henson's puppets went missing.Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostComment
-
That is indeed a most interesting article and echoes, to some degree, what I've been saying privately for some time, though not, in all honesty, as I'm neither a journalist or an academic, as coherently as is done here. We'd all better hope he's wrong.Originally posted by french frank View Post"The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard HaitinkComment
-
I am not sure whether I agree that mass destruction is cyclical. It implies that the phenomenon is dictated by mathematics or it's an astrological impact from a supermoon. Events are to some extent haphazard. In contrast, it is possible to speak reasonably about patterns - or lines - of progress. Part of the latter is simply narrative but for the most part it is - and needs to be - believable. In any case, the nuclear dimension is such that any substantial beliefs in a long term cycle of mass destruction have had to be made obsolete since WW2. The fragility has always been in the fact the shield is also the sword. That isn't a choice. And the emphasis on non-proliferation, while wise, has always insisted on an ongoing inequality of power. Reliance of smaller countries on nuclear powers for their protection has been required of them as well as being the best they could hope for economically.
At times, similarities and differences in ideologies may be overstated. All one needs to do is recall the number of times the main objective has been to remove individuals from positions of power to know that they are principally the reason why military might needs to be in the hands of the few. For all of the grand democratic principles on which modern politics may appear to have been based, leadership is a magnet to messianic mavericks even in the west - see Blair and Juncker and Trump and Farage. Arguably, many of them are subconsciously motivated by a denial of their own mortality and consequently have an other worldly way with humanity in general. One of the more distinctive aspects of the past one hundred years is the manner in which those traits have been apparent not only in leaders but the commonweal. Democracy, wealth and - especially since the sixties - popular culture suggested to the masses that they had far greater power as individuals than was possible. Those who wished to change the world were often of good intention but - and I say this sadly - it is impossible to overlook that there is an undercurrent even there of megalomania. What strikes me is the lack of gratitude from all those who want more.
The biggest problem with neoliberalism isn't located in economic or social inequality. Rather it is in the aggressive nature of competition which would ultimately places too much strain on collaborative approaches. In isolation, it might have - or have had - greater longevity but it is required to work with democracy. Some of us who favoured the latter - and a European Economic Community of nine or twelve countries as rather quaintly now I still do - have been deeply troubled by the minimal accountability of EU institutions at a time when they have been in cahoots with American big business. There has also been alarm at the sabre rattling against Russia. I did vote for ongoing EU membership and I would also have voted for Clinton but my heart wasn't genuinely in either of those stances. Given that the majority of people are to the right of me politically, the outcomes were inevitable.Last edited by Lat-Literal; 15-11-16, 00:32.Comment
-
Hugh, Pugh, Barley, McGrew, Chomsky, Brexit and Trump. (Sorry.)Comment
-
Snork!!Comment
Comment