Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Made For Each Other

by ATinNM Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 04:09:35 AM EST

A friend brought this to my attention:  Made For Each Other: The Conservative Love Affair with Communism and How It Is Destroying Us by a Canadian blogger Phil Paine.

Usually a LQD includes a 'teaser-quote' to induce people, like a movie trailer, to go read it.  I'm not going to add one.  The constituent parts of the article need to be read in context and with the flow of thought.

front-paged by afew


Display:
And off to work.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 10:55:57 AM EST
I agree that a large part of the new right, or neo-cons, are quite sympathetic to communist type social organization - provided that their patrons are in charge of the society. This follows directly from Leo Strauss who would have happily been a Nazi had the Nazis not have, unfortunately, chosen to demonize his ethnicity. He greatly admired the ability of such totalitarian organizations to effectively impose their will on the rest of society. And 'globalization' allows the neo-cons to make their oppressive, exploitative system, at least potentially, universal, as was the original vision of Soviet Communism under Lenin.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 12:56:29 PM EST
Phil does something that's perfectly fine and is Logically correct; he uses empirical definitions of for the categories "Communism" and "Conservatives" and then shows the intersection of the two.  From a purely Logical stance, that is the best procedure.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 01:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Strauss was a run-of-the-mill Right Wing Hegelian, something that really didn't exist in the US before 1940.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 01:58:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree about Right Wing Hegelian, but from Wiki:

Originally trained in the Neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss later focused his research on the Greek texts of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraged application of their ideas to contemporary political theory.

He believed that it was necessary and 'good' for leaders to lie to the public and, while not personally religious, he believed religion was essential as a means of control for the elite over the commoners. Another natural fit for neo-cons with the religious right. Suggest a few other of the 'run of the mill' right wing Hegelians. Are any of them comparably pernicious?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 03:35:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mircea Eliade (can not remember whether in Myth and Reality or in The Sacred and the Profane) compares the organization "Communist" (Leninism-Stalinism) with the organization of the Catholic Church.
by PerCLupi on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 01:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are similarities, but the uniting commonality it the use of or push towards totalitarianism. Phil Paine is 'framing' the discussion in terms of communism for rhetorical purposes, as there is a lot of similarities and as the right wing looters have invested enormous energy in making even the concept of communism phobic to the general public. I find this framing potentially powerful and amusing at the same time. Social jujitsu at its best.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 02:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the term "totalitarianism" is an ideological construct with a very specific ideological content.

It's a loaded word. We'd best get beyond it. And, in any event, "totalitarianism" as Hannah Arendt, among others, meant it, hasn't existed on earth outside of marginal pockets like North Korea for decades (at least four, and over a half century even for the Soviet Union).

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 02:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"totalitarianism" as Hannah Arendt, among others, meant it, hasn't existed on earth outside of marginal pockets like North Korea for decades...

The Chinese Communist Party retains all of the apparatus and legal structure necessary to exercise classical totalitarianism. They have chosen not to exercise those powers in the most obvious and brutal manner on a regular basis since Deng Xiaoping, and they might be a bit rusty, but they retain the capability and still use the surveillance capabilities. When they need they can still use the more brutal aspects, right down to the practice of sending a bill to the family of one executed for the cost of the bullet.

More ominously for myself and other US citizens, laws passed under Bush after 911 have put similar capabilities on the books for the US Government. Obama, who taught constitutional law, has made no effort to repeal those laws. That they have not been broadly applied to the average citizen is small comfort.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 10:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think there's a useful distinction to be made between a tyranny that tells you what you can't do and then leaves you alone as long as you don't do it (think Singapore, or most historical monarchs), and a tyranny that tells you what you must do and then never leaves you alone again (think North Korea or the British Empire).

Of course, the line is blurred because if the latter is sufficiently incompetent or rules a sufficiently technologically backwards jurisdiction, it will look a lot like the latter. I'm sure the counter-reformation would have liked to impose a totalitarian rule on their lands. But that just wasn't gonna happen given technological capabilities at the time.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 05:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And I would not want to emphaisise the commonalities with the Catholic Church because that would immediately turn off many who might otherwise be part of the audience. In the USA and in Canada there really is no significant Communist Party, so emphaiszing the avidity with which those fronting for the looters display for doing business and transferring manufacturing to China, and the miserable conditions under which that labor is provided, along with noting the hostility which the interests of US workers are viewed only harms those which we want to harm.

Another pillar which could buttress a portrait of these looter elites as wannabe totalitarians is the avidity with which many of the older families among them, such as the Bushes, the Fords, the Rockefellers, etc. embraced and did business with the Third Reich and the extent to which they admired Hitler for how effectively he dealt with labor protests. Totalitarianism is about operational methods and mores. It can espouse left or right ideology with equal fervor and vacuity. Hannah Arendt's work comes to mind.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 02:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a very, very good and timely screed.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 01:30:54 PM EST
If a discussion gets going I'm thinking of inviting him over here to participate.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 01:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Over the past five years I've come to the conclusion that the world, people, and ideology he describes are an inevitable outcome of civilization. The 20th century was a nice blip that let some of us imagine otherwise. Civilization is of, by, and for the benefit of empires, and not the people that live in it. The emotional world civilization exists in fosters sociopathy and hatred - the exact conditions needed for empires to operate.

Other outcomes are possible, but not while energy and food production require anything beyond neighborhood levels of organization to produce - not to mention the amount of time it would take to deprogram 10,000 years of internalized belief systems regarding social hierarchy.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 02:23:31 PM EST
I generally agree but cannot agree with 'inevitable'. Even the sun rising in the East is not inevitable. A hit by a large enough exo-solar planet traveling at a sufficiently large velocity could so re-arrange the matter composing the Earth as to render the meaning of East irrelevant.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 10:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that depends on whether you are talking magnetic east or geographic east. The sun will always rise in geographic east, inasmuch as it rises at all, because geographic east is commonly defined, on a rotating body, as "in the direction of rotation."

</physicist>

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 04:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant that, were there not a single solid piece remaining that was much larger than a fraction of the Moon, East would be irrelevant to the species that once inhabited earth.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 08:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
retrograde: Of or relating to the orbital revolution or axial rotation of a planetary or other celestial body that moves clockwise from east to west,, in the direction opposite to most celestial bodies.

As in the axial rotations of Venus,Uranus and Pluto.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, true. You can define North in relation to the angular momentum of the solar system (or the galaxy, though that gets slightly impractical), rather than the local body.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 04:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, so ``the Sun rises in the East'' means ``the angular momentum vectors of the earth about the sun and about itself are roughly parallel'', where ``roughly parallel'' means their inner product is positive.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 04:32:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can define...

In the scenario I outlined there would be no me or 'you' left to define anything, but, doubtless, the laws of physics would still prevail.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 09:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the scenario I outlined there would be no me or 'you' left to define anything...

Yes, I found the statement regarding "east" always being defined by direction of rotation humorous and a little presumptuous. In the event of a collision strong enough to reverse Earth's rotation it is unlikely living beings would be left to worry about which direction is geographical East, or West. Of course, I assume the discussion, being in the present but about the future, is hypothetical anyway.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that references to the retrograde rotation of those planets, that may have, in fact, had their axis of rotation reversed by collisions with other bodies, are described as currently having East to West rotation, not West to East as Jake's definition would imply. Rather confusing, I'd say (not to mention off subject).

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 12:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was getting at the old "If a tree falls..." question. It would seem to me, who has never even taken a course in astronomy or astrophysics but has followed the field through Scientific American, etc., that a general direction of spin was established early in the evolution of our galaxy and, probably, most solar systems share that spin orientation. It appears that our present galaxy has absorbed numerous other galaxies over time and I would not be surprised if they all had a similar spin, all appearing to come from the same big bang and all. So a counter rotating exo-solar planet would be a very long shot. But a hit by something with the same or greater mass, even with the same spin, which is traveling with comperable velocity as our planet through the solar system, possibly significantly out of the ecliptic, could disperse enough of the Earth's mass into other orbits that there might not be a planet in the earth's position post impact. Naturally, there would be no humans.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 09:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutes are hard to defend. In this case I don't think inevitable means permanent, though. I didn't go beyond the doom component.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 02:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am optimistic by nature, perhaps, but certainly as a conscious choice.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 04:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good rant. Dubious economics that does nothing to advance the point.
The difference between debt and tribute is the ability to enforce your claims with overwhelming violence. No one has the ability to enforce claims against the US so yes, debt doesn't matter. Neither will Canada become a purely extractive economy because the government isn't running surpluses anymore. In fact the motivation of the elite devastating the western economies is perfectly captured earlier in the text: To keep the peasants down. No need to bring out the smelly corpse of fiscal conservatism. Or to talk about free markets as if that wasn't an oxymoron.
by generic on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 03:03:09 PM EST
The power to enforce claims against the US is also a moot point when the claims are in US dollars, which the US government may simply create from nothing if it wishes.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 02:16:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Didn't much care for it.  In part because it ignores our own history - what it was like for workers in the US and other industrialized countries until somewhat recently.  Not so different from those in China today.  Psywar - The real battlefield is your mind reminds us of some of that.

What I'm seeing is a population with eyes anxiously glued to i-phones, i-pads, etc. and either oblivious or indifferent to the economic and environmental future of themselves and the world.  These little technological wonders appear to have a power over people that was once speculated about TV and only realized to a very limited extent -- that remote control just isn't interactive enough.  

by Marie2 on Wed Jun 20th, 2012 at 11:19:56 PM EST
Psywar, like this Wizzard of Oz and Zeitgeist movies, make an articulated impression that a solid Matrix was in place already before we were born (whether in Communist or Western country) and it only got upgraded since then. Are bounds in sight of how much of  news, wars, sports, technology, charity, entertainment is cued particularly for our perception?
by das monde on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 08:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Propaganda has a really long history. Once upon a time church attendance was mandatory so that the priest could tell you what to think - part of the attraction of the reformation was to take over this proganda system by the princes. And of course there was the threath of eternal punishment or reward to keep your mind anxiously glued to the pie in the sky.

In this light the tradition (at least up here) to get as drunk as you possibly could the day before a holy day and spend the sermon in a tired hungover state looks practically subversive.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 04:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yet, how do you discover the boundaries of propaganda? Is the global population treated like a cattle to be managed and fed by narratives and just enough bread? More fully or less so than before? It is quite fun to notice that the scientific method was applied to this matter more comprehensively than you imagined.
by das monde on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 04:55:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde:
More fully or less so than before?

If before is pre-industrial, there sure is more propaganda now, but that could just as well be because it is less effective. In 1542 if you were a peasant in Dalarna and the priest told you that the rebels in Småland were heretics, that was hard to check.

das monde:

It is quite fun to notice that the scientific method was applied to this matter more comprehensively than you imagined.

Is this referencing something specific? Cause if so, I don't get the reference.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 02:56:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
References: Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, corporate history.
by das monde on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 10:33:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Full text of Bernay's Propaganda is available on line.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 09:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Other than acceptance that hierarchies are natural, god-given, desirable, etc. in human societies and wealth is therefore properly distributed in accordance with the accepted social/class hierarchy, no solid or permanent matrix is needed.  Those at the top will always use whatever technology, culture, religion, etc. is available to minimize what the masses must receive im compensation for their labors and maximize the social/economic passivity of the masses.  

The Wizard of Oz is a wonderful pastiche of late 19th progressive political thoughts, notions, imagery, etc.  Not well integrated enough to be politically coherent.  I tend to think that Baum was mostly interested in writing a children's fantasy story with a moral than a political treatise.  He likely picked up some of the latter from his mother-in-law and it's my understanding that his illustrator added some heavy doses.  

by Marie2 on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I'm seeing is a population with eyes anxiously glued to i-phones, i-pads, etc. and either oblivious or indifferent to the economic and environmental future of themselves and the world.

I see more people anxiously glued to real estate. People do care about their economic future. They always vote for that party that promises highest price rises of their property. That is why democracy cannot ever function economically nor bring equality.

by kjr63 on Tue Jun 26th, 2012 at 12:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First, the screed has taken as central point of analysis of Communism the Communism practised in the PRC since Deng...I'm not saying this is wrong, but I would say two things. One, this is but one variant, a highly successful one no doubt in terms of economic and social development (let's not ignore that the PRC has developed quite a lot socially over the past generation) but all the same, only one version of the story. Not all Communists look at the PRC as a model (far from it) and not all "actually-existing-socialism" operated (or indeed operates) under this model. Two, in the PRC's case this "actually-existing-socialism" really needs to be analysed within a much larger context, the context ultimately of the direction of where the Party sees Chinese society developing (and in this I personally, while taking issue with some of the Party's rule in the PRC, would take to be very much one of progress). This is not at all the case for US conservatives - progress is not at all an animating feature of US Conservatism; though they will use technological advances to facilitate further wealth transfer to their own class, the overarching ideological framework is ultimately reactionary, which is why Dubya was reading about the McKinley administration when he was first elected.  So, while you can clearly see how there is an intersection of interests between the Party and US Conservatives (in the former, using the latter to further develop the economy, for the latter, using the PRC to enrich themselves further) the ideological basis underpinning the interests of each is quite different.

Another comment is that one criticism of Communism which fall flat for me (and please note, many do not...) is one where party cadres "are rich" or "enjoy priviledges mere workers can only dream of," and that somehow this is problematic. The goal is egalitarian society, but we also have to consider Principal-Agent issues; incentives need to be in place to reward hard work, ingenuity and so forth, or you will not get hard work or ingenuity. The point is to ensure that no one is overly rewarded (as in Western oligarchies) all the while ensuring the basic needs and dignity of all. Think moving towards ever lower gini, coupled with decent growth, over the long term. That's not what the US conservatives are seeking, but it is what the regime in Beijing is seeking. After that, we can talk about corruption, and in the PRC's case this is a big issue. But, that is a side (if indeed major) issue which does not address the actual ideological position of the regime itself (and indeed the party takes corruption quite seriously to which much high-profile criminal cases can attest). It is quite a different thing to be wealthy in the PRC than it is to be wealthy in the USA, and this should be considered.

But the PRC is only one model. There are others, and in particular there is much recent literature here in Europe on those others, which may or may not be of interest to the screed-writer. I personally think, given his theme here, that he'd enjoy the chapter on Stalin in Slavoj Zizek's "In Defence of Lost Causes".

 

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 05:45:31 AM EST
It must be remembered that the author is writing for an American audience. Deprogramming such an audience of the reds-under-the-beds view of socialism is probably a much less productive effort than demonstrating how the current imperial oligarchy conforms so very closely to the reds-under-the-beds view of socialism.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 06:17:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But it doesn't make communication between Anglo Americans and the rest of the world easier. I know that they tend to say "liberalism" where they mean political capitalism, and "communism" for authoritarian state capitalism, but it's tedious to always have to think if a word means what it means or what they use it for in the USA.

My first reaction to this text was laughter about the commie under the bed stuff. I found the author's views on communism ridiculous. I really had to re-read the text before I got that he wasn't writing about communism at all, and I wouldn't have re-read it normally.

by Katrin on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 06:48:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I generally find it easier to assume that anything written in English by someone of whom I know nothing else is going to conform to the somewhat idiosyncratic American political terminology.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 09:46:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the article is not strange by terminology, but by the "dialectic" (ideas and way of thinking?).
by PerCLupi on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 10:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right: it's not only the terminology. It's the attitudes the author takes for granted.
by Katrin on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 10:35:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i think he's trying to meet the people 'at their level' prior to dragging them up a notch wrt class consciousness, aka social perception.

if that's his goal, i think he probably succeeded.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 07:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but reaffirming the red scare myths means that these people will continue  to hide under their beds whenever they hear words like "trade unions", "wealth distribution", and all that. So, he will perhaps have changed some attitudes, but he will have discouraged his readers from doing something.
by Katrin on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 02:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The message should be: "Remember all of that scary talk about the Communist Conspiracy? Well, guess who admires the last remaining major Communist state, has that state as their preferred business partner, and is working hard to obtain exactly the same kind of total power over the citizens as that power holds?

The Faux-Libertarians and their minions in the financial sector!

Here is how and why. Through the corrupt political campaign funding process they have more influence that all other groups combined. Both US major parties are sufficiently captured by financial interests that they will not enact any legislation that harms that sector and have repealed rules and regulations that protected the average citizen but constrained the financial sector.  

No matter how risky and ill-advised are the bets that financial organizations make in 'the markets' the big corporations will be bailed out at taxpayer expense when things go wrong. Does that mean taxpayers get control of those corporations when they are bailed out? Don't be foolish. The politicians are so captured that they cannot conceive of operating without these financial entities, so the Too Big To Fails will be set back on their feet with public funds so they can continue to make the contributions the politicians count on.

Think that this is insane? It is, but it is the insane reality. If the entire US political class, all partners at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and all top executives, vice presidents and directors at Citi, BOA and Wells Fargo were put in jail it would be no great loss to the country. Quite to the contrary, it would be the beginning of an opportunity to reclaim the rights we though we had and to run the country in the interests of the bottom 98%.

The only question is if the rest of the country, together, could come up with leaders who had the courage and vision to attempt to create a better world. The danger is that we would be like liberated lab rats and run back to our cages looking for food and water. It is your choice.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 05:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Much better than the original!
by Katrin on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 05:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the ideological basis underpinning the interests of each is quite different.

The ideological basis underpinning the interests of each is irrelevant. All that matters are actions.

A critical failure of both the left and the right is that it's so painfully easy to seduce people with promises and rhetoric.

The only useful basis for judging true interests is action. If actions are authoritarian (and let's not pretend that Mao and Stalin were anything other than dull-witted king wannabes, no matter what their rhetoric said) then the ideology is also authoritarian.

The goal is egalitarian society, but we also have to consider Principal-Agent issues; incentives need to be in place to reward hard work, ingenuity and so forth, or you will not get hard work or ingenuity.

Fer sure. But sometimes it seems very hard to tell the difference between rewards and the gratuitous enjoyment of unearned privilege.

The key takeway for me is that there is a single reliable process by which societies fail and destroy themselves. The process is identical no matter what rhetorical clothes it dresses itself in, or what enemies it claims to hate.

Concentration of power and resources reliably poisons every culture it happens to. The only possible result is oligarchy, and a subsequent failure of resilience and the ability to deal with real-world challenges successfully.

I think we need to get past the old descriptions - left, right, communist, conservative, etc - and make the common problem the issue it is.

We could also do with getting this narrative into politics and law, so that unlawful concentration and appropriation of more than a reasonable share of anything - money, power, media ownership, land - is explicitly forbidden.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 08:24:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ibn Khaldun wrote something about nomads conquering the throne because the rulers grew fat and demanded ever higher tributes. Then the nomads became rulers and at first demanded low tributes because they were not used to luxuries anyway, but as timed passed so grew their appetite until it was time for new nomads to conquer the throne.

Fits with Curtis latest btw:

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: HOW TO KILL A RATIONAL PEASANT

Galula was the star guest and he got up to speak first. To begin with he put forward his fundamental theory.

"Revolutionary warfare requires a revolutionary approach on both sides in the struggle. Whereas in ordinary war the objective is to destroy the enemy and occupy his territory, the guerrilla's aim is to control the population.

This, therefore, must be the aim of the counter-guerrilla as well"

But then Galula put the boot in to the aspiring counter-insurgents. Whether it was due to his disenchantment with what had happened in Algeria is not clear - but Galula laid out the central problem for the counterinsurgents when they tried to mirror the communist revolutionaries - they didn't have a cause:

"One basic difference between insurgency and counterinsurgency is that the insurgent starts out with nothing but a cause and grows to strength, while counterinsurgent often starts with everything but a cause and gradually declines in strength to the point of weakness"

So the RAND corporation decided to find something equivalent to a cause, powerful enough to bring the villagers in SE Asia over to the American side.

But somehow the ideas of the rulers had problems gaining traction, perhaps because they underpinned a system designed to control the very same persons they tried to sell the ideas to.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 08:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fascinating. But he implies that the colonial administrations needed Mao to teach them torture. And that the horror started when the people involved in the torture and murder program started to torture and murder the slightly wrong people.
by generic on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 09:32:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Assuming via Toynbee?

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by r------ on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 10:51:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No I have Ibn Khaldun in my bookshelf, and have yet to read Toynbee. :)

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 04:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is said that most of the Spartacus army wanted just to take positions of their masters rather than to live independently from them. That is why they did not escape to the North but turned deep to the peninsula. Rome was offering much more goods and entertainment than boring provinces and - gods forbid - outside lands. Ask Ovidius.
by das monde on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 05:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 interplay that you are missing when you posit that only actions count. And, the motive (or ideology, if you will) of the action is often calculated with reaction in mind. In short, one does not engage in one acts neccesarily with only a mechanistic view towards the results of those actions, but it can happen, when with an ideological impetus and with a proper institutional apparatus, that those actions be calculated to bring about not only economic progress but also social and environmental change.

For all their shortcomings and authoritarianism, I cannot help but not that the Party in the PRC has also overssen vast social change which has moved China from a country where women had their feet stunted on purpose in order to walk in a certain way (and certainly not ever be able to run) to a world where Chinese women are nearing equality with men on par with many if not most of the western oligarchies (and I have no doubt strides will continue to be made in this regard). I note a China whose attitudes towards homosexuality were as backwards as any in the world and see that equality in this regard is equally seeing great strides. I note a China which is far more open to tourism both of its own citizens and of peoples of other countries to the PRC, something we did not see in proper measure in other coutries with "actually-existing-socialism". And, I note that the Party is allocating resources (capital, if you will) to Green energies in a way the banks of the western oligarchies are incapable of doing, especially in Solar.

So, I'm with you on actions, I just interpret the actions a bit differently than you seem to.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 11:57:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is not progressing, it is receding if anything, from the high water mark in the maoist era. that it remains much better than before the northern expedition in the 20s (a joint venture between the communists and nationalists, before their falling out in '27) is less of a statement on the progress of the current CCP on gender, and more of a legacy of the huge changes in the 20th century before deng.

before deng's reforms, you couldn't just fire women because you felt like it. these days, the radical equality of the maoist era is disparaged as "unnatural," and employers can discriminate however they want.

there are significant progresses being made on sexuality, however, although there as well it is despite the CCP and not because of it.

by wu ming on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 03:21:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
wu ming:
chinese progress on sexual equality (none / 1) is not progressing, it is receding if anything, from the high water mark in the maoist era

I suspect gini coefficient follows a similar pattern.

My guess is sometime down the line - when it no longer matters that much - historians will mark an arbitrary but neat-looking point in time when communism in China was replaced by fascism (exact point depending on what you consider the dominant feature of communism and fascism).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 04:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After living in Vietnam quite a long time then crossing China, what struck me was that the little bit of countryside I saw in China seemed much poorer and dreary (despite being near the tourist hotspot of YangShuo) than the equivalent countryside across the border in Viet Nam.

Also, the fields in southernmost China were devoted to industrial sugar cane monoculture - a kind of large scale cultivation that implies proletarisation of the workers - whereas Vietnam still has, and seems to keep, small scale ( but extremely productive) rice cultivation.

China is very strongly redistributing wealth from the countryside to the big cities (Shanghai is already as modern and well-kept as your average western city ; a smaller city like Nanning, much less so...)

Also, comparing the systems of China and Vietnam (legally pretty much identically based on party rule), it seemed clear the "rule of the state" is not as strong-handed in Vietnam where the party must in some ways compose with civil society ; when the governement  tried to ban facebook it was unable to do so properly so that Vietnamese still use it ; many expropriations are refused by the occupiers of the land who are able to prevent them...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jun 26th, 2012 at 04:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As others have pointed out, I think you're confusing tokenism on certain issues (specifically those mentioned in the Official Left Curriculum) for progress in general.

The fact that you couldn't fire a woman is surely overshadowed by the fact that most women still had very limited freedoms. And I think anyone who believes there was no casting couch or droit de cadre oppression of women in Maoist China may not have been looking at what was really going on.

We don't know what a non-Communist China would have looked like. But is China really any more progressive now than Taiwan or Japan, which seem like reasonable reference points?

It's certainly true that China is working towards Green energy. But China is also producing vast clouds of lethal pollution. Which is the true China?

The basic Marxist problem is that Marx took industrialistion as a given and simply wanted to give the keys to the factories and mines to the workers.

So far as I know he never questioned industrialisation as a goal. And he didn't lay down any specifics for dealing with predatory or sociopathic personalities.

Therefore, Stalin and Mao.

Now, it's acknowledged often enough that while capitalist societies have some diversity of power, even when they become oligarchies, socialist and communist societies always seem to revert to kingdoms. The king may appear to wear factory fatigues - sometimes. But the essential dynamic is even more feudal than that of Western cultures. (Although usefully, the West exports its feudalisms elsewhere while giving its citizens some extra benefits - rather like Rome.)

The point of the article remains - in the limit, feudal and industrial societies converge, and citizens in both labour for their masters rather than for themselves.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, it's acknowledged often enough that while capitalist societies have some diversity of power, even when they become oligarchies, socialist and communist societies always seem to revert to kingdoms.

Is this a coincidence? I don't know much about Marx, but he has obvious dislike to urban bourgeoisie, that was so common among landed aristocracy. Engels opposed land taxes as an "utopist" idea. The only goal of socialism was to be the nationalisation of industrial capital, without any idea how housing and resources would be allocated afterwards in "the dream society." When asked, he said "socialism is not supposed to be fair, it is supposed to be effective."

by kjr63 on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 08:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It must also be understood that the PRC took power about thirty years after the Soviets and that the development of semi-hereditary status, membership and privilege in the Chinese Communist Party, and, especially, the negative effects of such status has taken comparable time to develop. But I think that the tact of formally worshiping the forms of Republican Democracy, as in the USA, all the while undermining the substance, especially by capturing first academia and then the government through offers of wealth and status, is a much more effective strategy, and, perhaps, the only possible long term strategy to pursue, when the intent is to loot and despoil for private profit the wealth and assets of a country such as the USA or Canada.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 09:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
party cadres "are rich" or "enjoy priviledges mere workers can only dream of,"

Many of the "new rich" in Russia and the ex-Soviet states are former Party cadres (especially in legal enforcement and services, military), so we could ask them, how the privileges and riches compare. Some would guess that they are among the biggest beneficiaries of  the regime change.

I don't particularly know about the Communist special shops and dachas. But the Commies did spend a lot on public education, transportation, not just military and cosmic races. Social segregation was pretty small - your kids could be playing with big boss's kids at school or on a summer camp. Now Eastern European media brags about 3 floor apartments with chic design and saunas for record rent in capital centers; thereby former library, book shop, movie theater buildings are occupied by banks most frequently.

by das monde on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 09:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would like to participate in the discussion. But I have to reread the article several times. I think it's very important that   things raised here are debated. But my reaction to the article was a bit like the reaction of Katrin. The article I was disappointed to me and has me perplexed.

I think that many levels are confused and mixed:  ideology / political realization, philosophy / praxis, in short, I dunno, I think that one thing is to discuss the article and another thing is to discuss important and necessary points that the article does not present or it presents very curiously in my opinion.

 

by PerCLupi on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 10:05:09 AM EST
No, no, no! I'm sorry, but I can not comment on the article: when I reach the third paragraph, I am outraged intellectually.

What is described in the first two paragraphs can't be defined as follows:
This, of course, is the Conservative Utopia, the kind of society that every Conservative intellectual yearns for, and contemplates with saliva dripping from their lips. It's called "Communism."

That is not called communism, nor it is the form of society, by which every conservative intellectual sighs. From there, I can not keep commenting. I do not deny that it actually occurs. I do not deny that Western companies take advantage of the "offshoring". But that is called differently.

Sorry. Excuse me.

by PerCLupi on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 12:25:20 PM EST
Much of the first paragraphs is modeled on the Foxxom factory for (among others) Apple products. Some parts like
You are an employee in a factory. You have no union... you have no notion of how workers could challenge or influence anything... your work shifts occupy most of your time awake. If you are injured on the job, or exposure to pollutants renders you incapable of working, you are simply thrown out without compensation. You earn a pittance... you could not afford to buy [products you produce]. Not that you care. All you are concerned with is keeping this "good" job, which is actually one of the coveted ones... The corporation incurred very low costs, and constructed it in record time. There were no environmental inquiries, no tedious legal barriers, and no annoying regulations to worry about... Whatever the Corporation needs to thrive is provided by an omnipotent State... It controls all communications, chooses who will be educated and who will not... A small "middle class" of technical professionals, managers [has] access to a much more pleasant lifestyle, shops in shopping malls, goes to amusement parks... You have no access to any of these privileges and you don't expect to ever have, though you main­tain a dim hope that your "good" job will enable you to keep your family from sinking back into the squalor of your native village. Anyway, you have little to compare with...

increasingly apply to Western corporate practices anywhere, even in the US - especially if convict labour is taken into account.

A few bits look like ignorant lies:

Your employer monitors and controls every aspect of your personal life... You are unmarried, and will remain so...

... The events of the previous generation were so horrible, that your parents won't even talk about them.

And then we have this:
Communism is an ultra-conservative ideology promoting exploitation, slavery, and genocide. 

If any thinking of how to reduce exploitation leads to more exploitation, what hope is there? The described problems with Brahmins and other conservative aristocrats were considered by Marxists and such long time ago - with quite similar conclusions.

It is more interesting when Chomsky calls Lenin a conservative or a reactionary, in this video.

The author is more onto something with this:

What really does damage is the solid core of wealthy and powerful people who drive the Conservative agenda in our society. These are not "true believers," but cynical, cold, calculating experts, who know where their interests lie. They create an atmosphere of ideological fait accompli in the major institutions of our society, whether business, industry, education, civil service, or government. They have built an enormous stock of glib assertions and formulae, with which they can move any institution in the direction they want... 

... When protesters take aristocratic claims at face value, and imagine that they are fighting against "free market capitalism," or some such nonsense, instead of against ordinary, historically tried-and-true aristocracy, they profoundly misunderstand the nature of power...

...the Communist Party is seen as just another corporation, a constituent part of the Market ... All you have to do is add "Inc." to the end of "Communist Party"...

...The industrialists of the early Industrial revolution claimed to be new, as well, rising through work and intelligence to challenge the old landed gentry. But the first thing they did when they got rich was to marry into that landed gentry, and their children inherited palaces and champagne frolics ... The same is true of the current global aristocracy, which can point to a handful of genuine industrial or business creators among their number, but largely consists of mere thugs, financial swindlers, and titled parasites...


What is apparently happening is that the elites are able to play with any ideology (libertarian, communist, "liberal", whatever) to secure their privileges and cash flows. Maybe the aristocratic class had lost some control in the 20th century (thanks to the Marx manifesto, most likely), but now the traditions of rich dominance are back with vengeance.
by das monde on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 05:45:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is apparently happening is that the elites are able to play with any ideology (libertarian, communist, "liberal", whatever) to secure their privileges and cash flows.

Yes, of course. This is the point of the article.

Both right and left are too easily manipulated with tokenism and dog whistles.

The only useful measure of progress is to look carefully at the relationships between all parties. If the relationships are authoritarian or oppressive and the social structure is rigid and layered, there is no progress.

The label on the tin is irrelevant.

As is the fact that 'communism' has often been associated with authoritarianism in practice. There have been too many psychotic despots in too many communist states to pretend otherwise. (This is irrespective of the West's own love of despotism in its vassal states.)

Socialism - especially Scandinavian Socialism - has a much better empirical record.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:24:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To my reading, the point of the article goes like this

Communism is, as we know, an absolute evil. The current dreadful developments (in economy, politics), is nothing but Communism, even if it is presented as Conservatism.

I do not think that the message of the article is particularly useful. It closes understandings that are often cheaply dismissed as communism/socialism.

Generally speaking, I would not say the political spectrum is easy to manipulate. But the current elites became very good in manipulating political labels, and having all politicians in their pockets. They just dominate and own all politics. Their power is that overwhelming though not blatantly, I guess.

Communism, as demonstrated in the 20th century, deserves most of the stereotypical contempt. But increasingly, my suspicion is... the whole project (starting with Lenin, Stalin, Mao) was to demonstrate how terrible the communist ideas are. Yes, the intellectual implication of conspiracy is very unattractive. But when even Chomsky says that Lenin was an anti-labour reactionary even within Russia, those theories that the Russian 1917 revolution (and then the rise of Hitler, World War II - the basic history of the 20th century) was a well financed sham loose quite a bit of ridiculity. So you had those terrible revolutions in Russia (that was not capitalist yet) then China (still backward and stagnating) and some other insignificant countries - but the West Europe and the North America were effectively scared of that. After the WWII, there were a few decades of rather egalitarian social settings, and the Scandinavian models looked exemplary. But then possibly synthetic consequential events started again: stagflation of the 70s, "successes" of the Chicago economic model in Latin America, break down of the Soviet Union. My working look of the last USSR decades became this: the Party was actually working for material hunger and nihilism of the population, demonstration of central planning inefficiencies, all for the benefit of Western (and then later global) intellectual scorn. Excuse me for this shameless paranoia - I just have most fun with it.

My recommendation would be: We know little how key socialist ideas may work. The scientific method (based on Popper's falsifiability) is problematic to apply - especially if large scale efforts were made to counterfeit and obscure empirical evidence, particularly in economics. I wish Important People were more relaxed about allowing variation in social-economic policies - but they know their own drill.

by das monde on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 12:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. We need a new social contract.
  2. The classification left / right is invalid: it must be replaced by another one.
  3. The role the human being in society must be the basic point.
  4. Und so weiter.
by PerCLupi on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 12:46:51 PM EST
My view on this is that the "natural" method for organizing human societies is the feudal monarchy. The rich and powerful run things by a combination of force, tradition, and formal agreements. Leadership is determined nominally by inheritance with some legal structure. The economy is controlled to the advantage of the rich, with only enough power delegated to the poor to squelch the worst of the riots and revolutions.

To expect the world to "evolve" into some other utopian system is a very optimistic position, given that this is how things have been for several thousand years, with a few minor exceptions. There are plenty of current and historical examples to draw from.

My take on it is that we have been living, for the past 100 years or so in the U.S. and the past 60 or so in Europe, in a bubble situation where representative democracy worked pretty well. If the bubble doesn't burst it will be pretty surprising.

by asdf on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 02:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thermodynamically, any empire, corporation, society,  utopian system is a machine that requires resources, has some beneficial effects to someone, and leaves waste. It is probably symptomatic, that social contracts and societies are disintegrating when energy supplies are not growing and about to decline. Beneficial effects are restricted, waste increases - that is how any sputtering machine operates.
by das monde on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 09:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We must protect the virgin motherland from those greedy, penny-pinching, stateless, international elitists, secretly orchestrating world domination!!! (why, that sounds vaguely familiar)
by Jace on Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 12:56:27 PM EST
The difference between a criminal conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is evidence.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 04:50:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Proof? Who needs proof? No, history says the way to go is guilt by association. The more clearly defined the group, the more effective the purge.
by Jace on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 08:31:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The sec­ond prin­ci­ple is what is called the "level play­ing field", by which is meant that trade in a free mar­ket requires all par­tic­i­pants to be sub­ject to the same rules.

"Level playing field" means most of all equal access to resources. This, like all similar writings, never mention this fact. That's why i love georgists.

by kjr63 on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 07:20:53 AM EST
I cannot believe that this post has been put on the front page. Is this really what this site advocates? An intellectualized preparation for war?  I see nothing but a toxic mix of paranoia, envy and xenophobia that in its attempt to warn about suppression and genocide is actually doing a very good job in promoting both. Surely the elephant is visible to others in this room.
by Jace on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 08:57:10 AM EST
What ET uniquely offers is Socratic discussion and analysis of various subjects, in which the whole of the discussion can provide insight, rather than reiterate the simplified talking points of different sides.

Many diaries are presented as triggers for such discussion.  Some here are prepared to marshal their arguments and present a real debate. This diary is a case in point.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 10:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the editorial team's tasks:

The default, or front, page of a community blog is what visitors will see first, thus the content there determines image.

I am not questioning open posting. I am questioning what's on the front page.

by Jace on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
'Image', or more generally referred to as profile, is not built on a single slice through the timeline, nor, to switch metaphors, is the profile determined by a single set of 4 letters in the DNA chemical code.

It is true that many first time visitors to any website make up their minds  about the site in only a few moments <gone> - unless they already have a deeper motivation or interest in finding out what the site is about.

The 'Image', even during one such 'slice', is also accompanied on the ET splash page by recommended and recent diary titles. These are also taken in by the eye during those few moments of visitor indecision.

To me, ET represents no party or political grouping, other than its members. Everything can be doubted and questioned - which I think is very healthy. I have learned a great deal from all these discussions, but it took a while to get used to the unexpected format.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have made clear, I think, that I do not like this article. But it can be very representative of something very pernicious and that exists in our societies: the mystifying discourse (even without being aware of it). It can be useful and generate interesting discussion.

If I can, I'll make a "text comment" of the article, a bit like me asking my students to do.

by PerCLupi on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 10:50:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jace:
Is this really what this site advocates?

No. The content of the front page is not advocacy, and there is no official "line".

ET is however about discussion, which the poster hoped to encourage. Your own point of view is of course welcome.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 12:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You should probably substantiate those accusations. With quotes from the article, preferably.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 12:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Paranoia: pretty much all of it, but you can start with the very first line:

Con­tem­plate the fol­low­ing details very closely, because they are what is planned for you.

Envy: anywhere details are provided showing just what the rich are able to do (Kozlowski, the international elite sending their young to Switzerland).

Xenophobia: the details of the Chinese factory, the emergence of China as a power or this little bit from the end:

Any­way, not to worry, our prin­ci­pal cred­i­tors are nice, respectable peo­ple, much admired by Con­ser­v­a­tives: the Com­mu­nist Party of the Peo­ples Repub­lic of China, who mur­dered, in their younger, impul­sive days, roughly sev­enty mil­lion people.

For laughs, let's try replacing some of the terminology on key sections describing the new masters of the world, secret leaders of the coming yellow horde:

For us to under­stand how this ide­o­log­i­cal imper­a­tive has been fol­lowed, I will have to make clear who most ben­e­fits from the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion. It is not the peo­ple of the United States and Canada, nor is it the peo­ple of China. It is a small group of indi­vid­u­als and fam­i­lies who con­sti­tute the global aris­toc­racy. The present global aris­toc­racy, who pos­sess wealth unimag­in­able to any ordi­nary per­son, include a hand­ful of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tors who built indus­tries, but the over­whelm­ing major­ity of them are mem­bers of ancient Euro­pean aris­to­cratic fam­i­lies, old Com­mu­nist Party gang­sters, scions of the third world mon­archs who were installed by the colo­nial pow­ers (such as the Saudis), drug lords, arms deal­ers, stock mar­ket and real estate manip­u­la­tors, or mil­i­tary thugs sit­ting on valu­able chunks of nat­ural resources Jews. The cor­ner­stone of the global econ­omy, the oil indus­try, which directly or indi­rectly deter­mines the nature of every trans­ac­tion on earth, is owned over­whelm­ingly by hered­i­tary nobil­ity, mil­i­tary dic­ta­tors, or ex-KGB goons Jews.

With their chil­dren attend­ing Swiss schools, their houses in France or the Caribbean, and their emo­tional loy­al­ties with an inter­na­tional sub­cul­ture of wealth and pres­tige, the (tech­ni­cally) Amer­i­can and Cana­dian rich Jews don't much worry about most domes­tic issues. But they do care about tax­a­tion. No mat­ter how lit­tle they pay after the appro­pri­ate off-shoring, kick­backs, exemp­tions and spe­cial priv­i­leges, it is a point of Aris­to­cratic Jewish Hon­our to resist even the impli­ca­tion that they should pay.

As I've alluded to in another comment, all that's missing from this diatribe is an easily recognizable bogeyman. The story would become so much simpler to understand. I think the exercise above illustrates this well.

by Jace on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 04:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Those kind of laughs aren't funny. They can cause huge shitstorms on discussion sites. Try giving your point of view better backing than that.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 04:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Paranoia: pretty much all of it, but you can start with the very first line:
Contemplate the following details very closely, because they are what is planned for you.

That's not paranoia. That's extrapolation from publicly available records. There is no evidence - none - that the right will stop their repeal of the 20th century before we're back to sweatshops and company towns. And plenty of evidence in both their writings and their actions that they will not.

Envy: anywhere details are provided showing just what the rich are able to do (Kozlowski, the international elite sending their young to Switzerland).

You call it envy, I call it exposing the hypocrisy of those who call for everyone who is not them to "tighten our belts."

Xenophobia: the details of the Chinese factory, the emergence of China as a power or this little bit from the end:

Weak tea. The fact is that the right wing is selling European and American industrial capacity to the highest bidder. It is also a fact that the highest bidder is China. It is also a fact that the Chinese government has almost as many of its citizens incarcerated as the US, and murders an order of magnitude or so more.

For laughs, let's try replacing some of the terminology on key sections describing the new masters of the world, secret leaders of the coming yellow horde:

Once more, for the slow learners: The difference between a criminal conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is evidence.

That hereditary nobility, ex-communist apparatchicks, tin-pot dictators, warlords and drug runners are the principal beneficiaries of the gamut of policies commonly aggregated under the label "globalization" is what is known as "a fact." Because it is, you know, provably true. That the primary beneficiaries of globalization are Jews is what is known as "a lie." Because it is, you know, provably not true.

This sort of matters. In the same way the difference between the statement "industrial agriculture is the main contributor to fertilizer runoff" and the statement "churches are the main contributors to fertilizer runoff" is sort of important. Namely in that the former is true, and the latter is libel.

And the difference between objecting to a conspiracy theory and objecting to a description of a criminal conspiracy is also important. Because it's the difference between debunking and tone trolling.

You may want to look up that difference, because right now you're doing it wrong.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 06:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ed Meese gave an early heads up when he told reporters "Don't watch what we say, watch what we do."

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 10:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]