Top Diaries

The majority of popular uprisings, against the uprisers own government, fail. The people typically don't have the military technology, training, and logistics to overcome the elites using the centralized institutions of domination.

Since 1945 the majority of popular uprisings against external domination have succeeded. Mostly they succeeded in tossing out a external dominating elite and creating an internal dominating elite. How things go after that depends on how the new elite govern.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 12:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The new boss, same as the old boss (none / 0)

To me, the enabling speed of mobile and online peer-to-peer communication - which is faster than any security services can react - will be increasingly effective in removing internal or external dominating elites.

What these innovations don't do is provide any means for democratic 'government' - by the people for the people. And 'the people' is problematic here. Mobile and online are fundamentally middle-class, though this is changing.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 01:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The new boss, same as the old boss (none / 0)

Modern communications can inform you a wind power plant, say, needs to be built. Still takes a couple hundred million and a year (or whatever) to build it.

I think the Internet's ability to increase global frustration by informing people what is available, and what they do not have, is underrated.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 02:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The new boss, same as the old boss (4.00 / 2)

OTOH a million people might invest 100 'units' each if it assured them of 100 units + of stable electricity prices.

Frustration can be another word for problem-solving.

Meanwhile we have a W*stern society that is founded on marketing that is intentionally frustrating: "you are unhappy, but if you buy our product, all will be well." I really don't see the difference in frustration level.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 03:33:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration levels (none / 0)

Frustration and anxiety have been used to sell consumer products for so long that it's been missed that they're additive, so when economic anxiety is added, you're not starting from happy people.

Consumers are anxious, or they wouldn't consume so much.

Fear is a dangerous tool, with sharp edges on the handle.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 08:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The new boss, same as the old boss (none / 0)

One form of frustration is channelled (Chaneled?) and herded, the other is direct and authentic. So they're very different in practice, because the latter sort can result in direct political action, while the former is limited to browsing, shopping and mooing.

I'll agree with AT that the Internet is underrated as a catalyst.

But I think it's also underrated as a medium of spontaneous collaborative action. Herr Guttenblag would never have been rumbled in the days of print, because there would have been no way for a group of people to:

Find copies of the PhD
Self-organise
Collaborate to find and summarise evidence
Share, publish and control the story

Effectively the Internet became Guttenbad's supervisor and peer review of last resort - and it not only failed him, it humiliated him. (Even if it turns out there was a political conspiracy against him, this still remains true; the conspiracy needed evidence, and it found it.)

This isn't something completely new. King Leopold of Belgium's criminal operation was toppled by a couple of dedicated journos. But they had to collect evidence, give talks, and write for print. They weren't hobbyists. And it took them years.

Now a group of enthusiasts can apply similar leverage within days - see also Wikileaks, Anonymous, etc.

So it's becoming easier to create and control a story without owning the media. That's not a small change - it's literally a revolutionary one.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 10:38:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the figures historically from 1500 to 2000 was 1/3 revolutions are successful, however Military coups it's 2/3

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apres le deluge... (4.00 / 3)

The major underpinning factors of global unrest:

Global economy hitting hard boundaries of global natural resources
Overpopulation when compared to global natural resources (at present day technology)
Global Climate Change

There's no Magic Pixie Fairy Dust© of the Right OR Left that can quickly address (solve) the global structural situation as long as the "solution" (sic) is predicated on establishing or re-establishing "First World life-styles." That era is over, done, finished, kaput, Gone With the Wind.

Those of us who warned, decades ago, this was looming were mocked for saying "austerity" - meaning limiting economic growth, limiting resource depletion, limiting population increase, halting mindless consumerism - was necessary if the world wasn't going to get into a mess ... like the one we're having.

Now the mockers are imposing austerity at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way, to prop-up a dying system.

The three factors I mentioned are not 'solvable' by local uprising, coup de etat, revolution, etc. If a country can only employ 80% of its population then only 80% of its population can BE employed. Even China, whose leaders are doing all they can to create as much employment as they can, have only moved (about) 100,000,000 of their population (out of ~1.1 billion) into "First World" jobs and living conditions; and it has taken them 20 years to be able to do that; and their success is predicated on selling massive amounts of junk to US consumers ... who can no longer afford to buy massive amounts of junk.

Worse, if a country - with the best will in the world - can only feed 80% of its population then only 80% of its population can BE fed. Global and local population, if unchecked, increases in relation to the available food supply, not the other way 'round. In this regard I'll note one of the triumphant shouts at Tahrir Square was, "Now I can get married!"

Just what Egypt needs: another Baby Boom.

(sigh)

A series of popular revolts against RW authoritarian governments - who can't employ/feed the population - and instituting LW popular governments - who can't employ/feed the population - is de minimus. What is being initiated is a series of revolts, coups, putsches, etc. that will continue until, by good management, judgment, or luck, a government comes into power that can employ/feed the population.

IMO that will only happen when the population decreases.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 01:59:35 PM EST

Are we having a doom and gloom-themed party over there?

As you know, from the lastest news, pessimism reduces the efficacy of drugs ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 03:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought peyote jokes on AT were out since Bill Richardson failed to get on Obama's ticket...

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 03:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Buttons (none / 0)

Oh, AT is still shovelling down the buttons - I know because I've got the emails. I've had to increase my intake just to keep up with where he at (sic).

You've no idea how difficult but invigorating modal logic is until you have to explain it to your daughters.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 04:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Buttons (none / 1)

Stick with me kid and you'll being wearing horse turds as big as diamonds.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 07:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Buttons (none / 1)

I know, I know.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 02:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Trying to be as objective as possible. The Doom-and-Gloom® is in the situation.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Feb 18th, 2011 at 07:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've never found a Pollyana attitude helpful in solving real problems. Actually, I've haven't had success with any other attitude than a problem-solving one.

Good governance is really a technical problem, but the technology based on science. Cognitive science.

Mock as you will. Thinking will work, even if it's solely in picking good governors. There is nothing poisoning humanity worse than each person's desire to have the easy life.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 08:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ormondotvos:

There is nothing poisoning humanity worse than each person's desire to have the easy life.

life being hard all the time is not the answer either.

can a life of ease be coterminous with our state of resources, that's the question i ask, and i think the answer lies in balance.

the 'work ethic' mentality has driven several societies bananas, go figure.

to live on the backs of others, parasitically, is what i understood your meaning to be. in that sense, yes.

'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 Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 05:49:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're implicitly saying what I mean - that societies, like humans, are innately stable, until the ideologies infect them. Then they get feverish, sometimes convulsively so, and most times, the ideology kills the society, by splitting it into those who need, and those who want more than they need.

But like hate, and racism, greed must be taught, usually by example. Sharing is always there, but it's gentle and easily suppressed.

When I watched the second plane crash, live, into the Twin Towers, I turned to my wife and said "I guess now we'll have to share!" That is exactly what I said. Ask my wife.

I guess I was wrong.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 01:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no i think you were right actually!

'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 Mon Feb 28th, 2011 at 03:34:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ormondotvos:

You're implicitly saying what I mean - that societies, like humans, are innately stable, until the ideologies infect them.

This is dangerously unrealistic. The society is inseparable from its dominant ideology or ideology mix.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 28th, 2011 at 03:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Comment responses

The society is inseparable from its dominant ideology or ideology mix

that's a bit absolute, i think. the politics of the leaders, yes pretty much, but the people not necessarily...

nazism was an exception, it's rare to have such a high percentage in lockstep. it never lasts either.

even as one ideology conditions society, (like now with neoconnery), there are growing numbers of people who question, subvert, and sketch out alternatives to such.

maybe your use of the word 'mix' in the last sentence tempers your meaning.

what i find interesting is the bedfellowing between apparently conflictual ideologies, (vatican/fascism, con/libdems, greens/polluters), as these call the supposed intellectual integrity into question, and often reveal them as just another wrapping for expedience.

potemkin powers, sharing agendas.

'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 Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 08:16:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm referring to the social construction of reality. Do you think your own personal construction of reality is not based on axiomatic tenets that you filter your experience through?

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 08:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

'You' don't do any filtering. Your current experiences are filtered through axiomatic tenets that have self-constructed through previous experience. And the process of self-organized building is modified by the biochemical capabilities 'you' acquired genetically, which are themselves modified by experience ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 08:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Same thing.

My point is "if only society were free of ideology..." is naïve. Substitute "narratives", "myths", for "ideology". Might as well be asking for a society composed of lobotomised individuals.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 08:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree. i'd say we are mostly lobotomised, because while we fancy ourselves post-ideological, we have merely subbed in consumerism as our faith/identity, a shopper's selfhood.

of course our masters are infected by an idea, that of unbridled greed, so much so that they are taking away the option of many who were comfortable with being 'consumers', the new global 'citizens', and leaving them in the dust.

is it splitting hairs to think what we need to immunise ourselves, both from rogue ideologies and from the idiot vacuity of 'i shop, therefore i exist', may be ideal_ism_?

at which point does the distinction become a difference? if i keep silence about my ideals, can that protect me from being an ideologue?

is ideology when people take an idea, judge it as ideal, and then make it into a movement? or is it when the supposed ideal is revealed to be bogus, but some insist on continuing to believe, revealing themselves to be ideo_logues_?

-lists on the waxing phase, -ologues on the waning?

i still think your 'mix' is the best summation. provided a society is tranquil, one could say the philosophies are congruent, in that they may be in spats, such as the ordination of women in the church, or whether to ban foxhunting etc, but there is enough harmony that it's tempting to say all their differences are small enough that one can talk about an 'umbrella' ideology, but it doesn't really describe the reality on the ground. sure, europe's countries are all 'capitalist', but there are so many degrees of commitment to capitalism here as to make the term near-meaningless, imo.

is capitalism an ideology? it doesn't have much idealism left to it, unless you count the delusions of the ayn rand crowd.

perhaps ideologies are simply ideas we don't resonate with...

'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 Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 09:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Most of us are ideologues, i.e. we each use "a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions". The difference is that some people's ideology is 'consistent': meaning that it can be related to existing philosophical profiles.

Any way you shuffle a deck of cards, a shuffle that sorts the cards neatly into the four suits, or produces a 'random' sequence are both equally likely because the cards know nothing. But we recognize 'consistent' sequences and ignore apparent randomness.

From my POV, inconsistency often leads to innovative creativity.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 09:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"I'm in the reality-based community" is an ideological position.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 10:17:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 10:35:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ideologue!

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 10:37:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]