Is Totalitarianism or Economic Collapse Coming?
I am writing this thread on the basis of feeling so stressed out by news of regimes planned in England. I have seen plans of extreme measures being introduced in England. This includes all kinds of information on apps, in order to go to many social places, ranging from pubs to non essential shops. The plans are very unclear, but it does seem that all kinds of measures are being planned, but not finalised. Also, it seems that people are going to be expected to take tests twice weekly, and I am not sure how this will be required as mandatory evidence.
I realise that I am speaking of England and other parts of the world may be different. I am certainly not wishing to undermine the importance of Covid_19, but I am just wary that measures which are going to be introduced are going to be way beyond the virus itself. I am deeply worried about what is coming next, and feel fearful of what is going to happen. In some ways, I would like reassurance because I fear moving into a world of extreme surveillance and control, but I do not know what to expect in England.
I am aware that that most people on this site are not in England, and I don't know how the future will differ, but I am wondering about life in the post Covid world will be. My biggest worry is that the pandemic will be used as a way of ushering in changes of a totalitarian nature Will it be a pathway to a life of endless restrictions and control?
Edit: I have updated the title because the thread discussion seems to have gone more in the direction of potential economic collapse.
I realise that I am speaking of England and other parts of the world may be different. I am certainly not wishing to undermine the importance of Covid_19, but I am just wary that measures which are going to be introduced are going to be way beyond the virus itself. I am deeply worried about what is coming next, and feel fearful of what is going to happen. In some ways, I would like reassurance because I fear moving into a world of extreme surveillance and control, but I do not know what to expect in England.
I am aware that that most people on this site are not in England, and I don't know how the future will differ, but I am wondering about life in the post Covid world will be. My biggest worry is that the pandemic will be used as a way of ushering in changes of a totalitarian nature Will it be a pathway to a life of endless restrictions and control?
Edit: I have updated the title because the thread discussion seems to have gone more in the direction of potential economic collapse.
Comments (143)
England's still - relatively speaking - an abode to free thought, movement and expression.
As far as the entirety of the world is concerned, we're in an unstoppable regress.
Just this very morning, Janet Yellen called for a global minimum tax rate. The globalists are ascendent and feeling their oats.
https://www.axios.com/janet-yellen-global-minimum-tax-rate-51c7395b-e46a-4a5c-b18b-bdcf5d8bd352.html
Do you think so? I am really not sure of this at all. Even before the pandemic I felt that the system was becoming more oppressive, and apart from sitting in a room, writing on this site, I am not aware of having much freedom at all. Of course, I am aware of pandemic restrictions, but wish to see beyond that. I am worried that we are going to be put into restrictions under the guise of the pandemic, which go way beyond it.
I do think that we may be going into a form of totalitarianism, but not a complete one. I am interested to know what form you think that this would take.
Pandemic constraints have contributed, but the world has been degenerating into a freedom-less state for a few years, now. Freedoms in movement are one facet, but totalitarian governments detract from many more (I think you'd agree). Personally, I'm hard-pressed to find multiple (if any) overseeing governments (in the East or the West) that consecrate free speech, free movement and a freedom of religion simultaneously - without indictment or persecution.
Again, the assertion I imparted with regards to the UK, was based on (perceived) comparisons with other countries. I'm not a UK citizen, so I can't actually remark on the exact state of the society. You'd be far more equipped, in that respect.
Quoting god must be atheist
Paradigm-shattering.
We will know it has arrived in full force when what's around the corner is called by another name, disguised as benevolence.
Your comment is interesting, but I do think that if my question is seen as worth discussing, the implications on an international level will need to be explored by people in different countries. I am not really sure if my fears are related to the picture which I am seeing in England or on a wider scale. So, it will be interesting to see what people in America think.
I'm in America. San Diego to be precise. I don't follow your point.
Yes, it is hard to know if totalitarianism is a threat or a fear, and to what extent it could translate into a living reality.
Another footnote, if you'd be interested:
Since totalitarianism unearths itself in a multiplicity of ways, one might consider categorizing its manifestations under three, distinctive themes (they might entail others);
A) Direct/Indirect Subversions of Democracy
B) Direct/Indirect Subversions of Secularism
C) Direct/Indirect Encroachments on Personal Liberties
When two (or more) of these exist in complementarity - under the purview of an institution, with a hegemony over its underlying state - a re-democratization is bound to be arduous.
Your reply is useful, but one problem which I see is the theoretical one and the practical one. Most of us have read George Orwell. However, to what extent would it all be so different if it were to become an actual reality?
Huxley's Brave New World is the more appropriate model. A population enslaved but distracted by mindless pleasures.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That's a tough counter-argument. I can lay forth an example, of where one might differentiate between the three:
By Democracy, I'm referring to a state with a representative government. If one political enterprise usurps another and precludes an electoral mechanism, that constitutes a subversion of democracy. One will no longer be able to determine the fate of their governance, or even partake in the determination.
One might, however, witness a subversion of Secularism without one of Democracy; ie. an electoral mechanism remains (in a slightly corrupt fashion), but a predominant political enterprise compels an adherence to faith-derived doctrines. Admittedly, the two will oftentimes facilitate one another.
Encroachments on personal liberties, however, don't have be foreshadowed by either of the above; they can be minuscule, mild and only tentative; nonetheless, since a state enforces them - they can be apprehended, on occasion, as being totalitarian.
Of course, if either one of these rears its head - it's likely the others will too. It's only that their resolutions might necessitate distinctive approaches.
It is interesting to think about the role of mindless pleasures, such as the internet, and to what extent they would blind us. Of course, we all seek pleasures but it does seem worrying if this could stand in the way of critical awareness.
It is so hard to disentangle what appears to be totalitarianism from what really is. Democracy is questionable, as to what extent we feel represented, truly. As for encroachments upon personal liberty, what I fear is that in the last year we have been so used to the need for such curbs. I am not wishing to undermine the pandemic, but what I see is that the need for encroachments becoming a basis for introducing subtle forms of control under the guise of protective health measures.
That's true. If you're habituated to necessary encroachments, you're far likelier to remain passive or be incapacitated, when unnecessary ones are introduced.
When it comes to dystopia, The Q in me had me thinking the whole damn thing was a ruse put in place for this end game of control. After all, I don't personally know anyone who's been sick or died. But I can do the rules standing on my head (Social distancing? Cake. Mask? A piece of cloth, so what? Wash my hands? I take a shower once a year whether I need it or not) so it never really bothered me. I was more worried about what you are worried about.
But alas, long before Covid came along, I was using England, and your biometrics, and a camera up every ass, and a lack of guns, as an example of a barn door that had been left open too long. To mix metaphors, how are you people going to put that genie back in the bottle? It's already way too late for us here in the U.S. so what hope could there be for you guys?
It reminds me of a piece I read a few months ago. The upshot was this: In the not too distant future we are all going to have to pick sides: Either we are with the Plutocracy, or the Cartels'. Both the Plutocracy and the Cartels would have a vested interest in keeping government alive (on life support) so the "people" would have a punching bag every time they felt the pain from this system. It would be government's fault. Meanwhile, the get fleeced by the owners. Who do you want to be your owner? And by the way, the Plutocracy and the Cartels would have a gentlemen's truce, with government serving as the wall between them.
In the end, though, I guess when you sign up for civilization, and forfeit your ability to shoot Nazis, the best you have left is to kick them in the nuts before they push you on the train. And that will just get you a butt stroke from a rifle for your troubles. You're still getting on the train.
I am very wary of biometrics. It seems that it may give people, with so little understanding of sensitive information, the potential for abuse of power.
:100: Not to mention those who have a huge understanding of sensitive information.
To what extent do you think that many people do have an understanding of sensitive information. I am thinking of details about health and mental health, and I have seen so much insensitive use of personal information. I think that so much education is needed and if data was just available to people arbitrarily, it could lead to prejudice and discrimination.
I agree that many don't have an understanding. But I think many do, and with mercenary intent.
I used to not want my medical information shared, not because I was afraid of what those who don't understand what they had might do with it, but, rather, I was worried about what those who knew what they had would do with it: i.e. Deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
Once Obama Care came along, and I could not be denied based upon preexisting conditions, I wanted a data base created on my carcass so that every time I pulled in for a tune up, or to whine about this or that, the Dr. could pull up my history and see all that shit in one spot. Treatment would get better. (Not to mention, I wouldn't have to fill out six forms asking for the same shit every time I went in.)
But yeah, people who don't know what they have are dangerous. But those who do know what they have can be even worse.
I am not wishing to come to any firm conclusions, but just have so many questions about where we are going with information and the whole issue of social control. As far as I see, there are many different possibilities, but I am just wary of what may happen.
Some of the scary shit it is in China. There's a name for it, but I don't recall. But when you play ball, you get consideration. When you don't play ball, things don't go well. So, facial rec will pic you up at the cross-walk. If you wait until the light clears you to go, you are a good little sheep and your internet will be faster and your flight to Shanghai or wherever will be authorized with less hiccups. But if you jay walk, or go before the light says you can go, then your internet slows down, or you're the last to board the plane, etc. No jail, no beatings. Just a better life. F that. That's government social engineering. Compare with cancel culture; that's freedom of choice.
Either way, though, we live at the mercy of the Plutocracy and the reason they don't F with us more has nothing to do with their empathy. It's just we are not that important to them, individually. The guy in Back-Water, U.S.A. who thinks the Deep State is after him has an inflated opinion of his import.
Remember all the dystopian novels and movies? We are the people who go about their daily lives. We are not the underground righteous rebels fighting the good fight. We might support them them morally, but to actually risk anything, like our T.V. and our internet? Hell no.
I know that it may seem all a bit abstract, but I have no idea where you are living in the world.
I am living in a part of the world where extreme restrictions have been in force mostly for a year . The way I see it from where I am living is that possible measures, such as only being allowed into cafes, pubs, social venues and non essential shops may put some people into a state of permanent exclusion from the whole fabric of social life. I have a smartphone, but not everyone does. The ideas I am talking about are not definite, and they only apply to one country, but it really does make me wonder what is in our midst. I do worry about a whole culture of control, coercion and inequality. I am hoping that it is only my fear, and not something which is going to turn into a daily reality of oppression for many people.
People have been festering about this question for decades. It's only been the last years with our beloved technologies that surveillance has become so easy for corporations and govt. How you feel about this depends on your political affiliations and on how paranoid you are. I am not all that concerned about COVID restrictions.
Through the legitimacy of a crisis, be it biological, political or economic, the justifications for an advance of stratification, and therefore, of "totalitarianism" are transformed into agendas that claim to promote "progress", "evolution" and even the "restructuring of society".
Nothing more than a new civilizing cycle concluding again.
And again I say, we should look to the past and look for answers in the Roman civilization so that the same situation that afflicted them, does not completely conquer us.
[i]"One of the most profound and lasting effects of the Crisis of the Third Century was the disruption of Rome's extensive internal trade network:
Along these roads passed an ever-increasing traffic, not only of troops and officials but of traders, merchandise and even tourists. An interchange of goods between the various provinces rapidly developed, which soon reached a scale unprecedented in the previous history and not repeated until a few centuries ago. Metals mined in the uplands of Western Europe, hides, fleeces, and livestock from the pastoral districts of Britain, Spain, and the shores of the Black Sea, wine and oil from Provence and Aquitaine, timber, pitch and wax from South Russia and northern Anatolia, dried fruits from Syria, marble from the Aegean coasts, and - most important of all - grain from the wheat-growing districts of North Africa, Egypt, and the Danube Valley for the needs of the great cities; all these commodities, under the influence of a highly organized system of transport and marketing, moved freely from one corner of the Empire to the other.
With the onset of the Crisis of the Third Century, however, this vast internal trade network broke down. The widespread civil unrest made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult with the debased currency. This produced profound changes that, in many ways, foreshadowed the very decentralized economic character of the coming Middle Ages.
Large landowners, no longer able to successfully export their crops over long distances, began producing food for subsistence and local barter. Rather than import manufactured goods from the empire's great urban areas, they began to manufacture many goods locally, often on their own estates, thus beginning the self-sufficient "house economy" that would become commonplace in later centuries, reaching its final form in the manorialism of the Middle Ages. The common, free people of the Roman cities, meanwhile, began to move out into the countryside in search of food and better protection. Meanwhile, the emperor's court was in Mediolanum writting about the great peace and prosperity of the Roman State:
The history of the empire before the tetrarchy was a time of civil war, savage despotism, and imperial collapse! Diocletian and his companions, the "restorers of the whole world", men who succeeded in "defeating the nations of the barbarians, and confirming the tranquility of their world". "[/i]
Fake news, paranoia, collapse of the economic system, decay of the republican principles, polarization, plague, stratification, etc...
The biological crises is already happening, the political crisis is the norm, and the economic crisis in under its way. How long until we find ourselves in the new "Dark Ages"?
I think that Covid restrictions are part of it but not the whole picture. I am not in favour of being paranoid, but just wonder about people being able to live in a way which is bearable rather than under coercive and oppressive regimes.
I do agree with what you are saying, but I think that most people are blind to the collapse that is taking place. Most people I know are just swept along with the news and public opinion, with little critical awareness.
What I think we have is more self censorship and people believing that the society is far more totalitarian than it is. And of course, few know what actual totalitarianism feels like as they are few totalitarian societies out there now. What they fear they will get messages like this or something similar:
Labour, under Corbyn - might have been a different story had he won in 2019, I think your fears would have been more credible. But I don't see a threat to essential freedoms even from Starmer, less yet from Boris.
Significant opposition from within the Conservatives, to draconian lockdown measures adopted in the short term, suggest a strong desire to get back to normal ASAP.
The biological crisis is total BS, the political crisis is business as usual, and the economic crisis has been simmering in the cauldron for decades.
Jack, this humanity playing-out our necessity to do stupid shit all the time. Try to relax and go with it.
Unfortunately, this is the mentality of those who will be the first to despair when the collapse really arrives.
I do not believe that we are on the verge of collapse, but very close - equivalent to Honorius's government - 393 AD to 423 AD - close, but not to the point that ordinary people can perceive it - -.
Quoting synthesis
Don't go with it.
Hey Gus, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the collapse already happened. THIS is the reaction to the collapse.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
The result of going 'against it' are not wonderful.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
https://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/022652583X
Not at all. "I don't feel like things are different" is a terrible way to evaluate your society's loss of freedom. I'm old enough to remember when the left fought for free speech. Now the left is against free speech. The left used to be for equal opportunity, now they're for racial preferences. The left used to be for integration, now they're for neo-segregation, as in racially separate graduation ceremonies and racially segregated corporate trainings. Yet it doesn't "feel" any different to people. The point that I made is valid, even if seemingly extreme.
And remember: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you.
ps -- A striking illustration of my point is Silicon Valley. When the Internet came into public awareness in the mid-1990's, tech workers and cyberlibertarians thought it would usher in a world of great individuality and human freedom. Fast forward 25 years and it's a tool of massive conformity and leftists censorship. But you only notice it if you've lived through it; and a new generation of Instagram and Facebook users don't even know what cyberlibertarian means, let alone that it was once the great hope of many technologists.
The example I used was extreme, yes. But the point I made is perfectly valid and you should think about it. Maybe things are different in Australia. In the US there is dramatically less freedom than there was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact 9/11 was a turning point in freedom in the US, and not in a good way.
You are probably right to say it 9/11 may have been the start of a whole change in culture in the USA and possibly other countries. But, what I am thinking is so strange is that terrorism seems to not be mentioned at all as a threat to be dealt with. Perhaps, it still seen as a potential problem behind the surface, but it seems to have become hidden.
If you(Synthesis)think that the collapse already happened, what was it? As it is, we have experienced a horrible year, with both the pandemic itself and the lockdowns. I am not sure that would be actual collapse, but it difficult to predict what is going to happen next.
I think that I had noticed a lot of changes prior to that, with people being expected to perform and behave almost like robots. I think that we are gradually becoming dehumanised and even changing as individuals. I am wary of changes which may come, especially biometrics, but I am thinking that potential collapse would be something resembling almost the end of civilisation as we know it. Totalitarianism may be the start of this.
One thing that I fear may happen is a gradual spread into widespread poverty, in the aftermath of the pandemic, alongside a general move towards totalitarianism. The two could almost exist alongside one another. But, it is hard to know what is going to happen, because life is so unpredictable and we don't want what other events are going to take place in the world. We can fear one thing, and something else entirely happens.
This year it's the virus. It's always something. And the restrictions on human freedom are always seen as necessary; and those questioning those restrictions are terrorist sympathizers one year, covid deniers the next. Not that someone didn't knock down a couple of ugly buildings in New York City, killing the equivalent of one month's carnage on the US highways; and not that there's not a nasty new virus around with a 99% recovery rate. But the associated restrictions on freedom never seem to get rolled back. And if you point that out ...
Quoting Tom Storm
Like I said.
I think it all went to shit when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and shut down the press, arrested editors and banned journalists during the Civil War.
I am aware of having the freedom of speech to even create a thread of this kind on an online site.
I do agree that there have been major moments in history when there have been dramatic curbs on freedom before. I just see the present time as being one of such a sweeping kind. Of course, as you pointed out, we have been in a period of global medical emergency. Everyone, including the politicians, are shaken up. I think my concern is that changes made in the aftermath will be on a long term basis. Certainly, from my point of view of watching news yesterday in England I felt that life after lockdown may be far worse than during lockdown.
However, my concern about totalitarianism does come in the context of being worried about what way history will go. But, that does include ecological issues and nuclear weapon developments.
I hope that you are right that I am worrying unnecessary over totalitarianism coming. I may be reading too much news on my phone. However, when I was at King's Cross station and it was patrolled by police, carrying machine guns, it did feel like some kind of post apocalyptic dystopian world.I do believe that life is becoming increasingly virtual and apps to do most things seems to be happening, as well as cashless transactions as the new norm.
But, I do certainly worry about where history is going. This probably goes back to anxiety about 'The Book of Revelation' in The Bible. However, even though I stopped reading that on a literal level, climate change and energy resources do seem to point to possible disaster scenarios for the human race.
When most people reference "collapse," they are referring to economics. Of course, social dis-integration is often on its coattails, but let's chat about the economics.
What has happened over the past fifty years is the greatest transfer of wealth in history. It has gone from the many to the few, and it has mostly been legal, although there has been a great deal of fraud and stealing, as well (as is always the case).
The majority of it has taken place through financial engineering. You could define it's starting point as 1971 when Nixon completely abolished the gold standard for international trade (when much of the creative financial BS initiated).
The result has been thesubstitution of debt for equity on a global scale which has created a super-class of wealthy folks. This caused a severe breakdown in the 'checks and balances' political system of Western democracy which led to the creation of all kinds of additional financial laws that have made everything much worse.
The response to this corruption of the economic system has been the left's rise to power based on a completely false narrative that capitalism is at fault when it was (instead) the political corruption. Of course, the left really doesn't seem to care much about this, only that have something to complain about and somebody to blame. A mirror might be a good start for these mis-informed and mis-directed people.
Just the same, and although it could go the way of Hollywood and all of the dystopian fantasies of the left, the world is much bigger than that and already many countries are beginning to call-out the U.S. for all of this woke non-sense and are suggesting that the adults take charge once again. Seems like prudent advice.
The great lesson of the 20th century was that totalitarianism doesn't work, so I wouldn't worry too much about that part of it. "They" want people to work and buy stuff, and that's happens much more efficiently when people are free to pursue their [whatever].
All this total bullshit from both political extremes is going away once the Elite figure it's time to cleanup their mess and get back to a system that actually works for the majority, one based on relative fairness, freedom and merit.
It has been legal because those with the gold make the rules.
Quoting synthesis
Political corruption: see response above.
Quoting synthesis
I thought they were the dystopian fantasies of the right? I don't see the left prepping, stocking up, arming up, training for the melt down.
Quoting synthesis
That sounds good, except your statement that it is the Elite that must take these steps confirms my first two contentions. Yes, it would be nice if the Elite, sui sponte, reinserted the "enlightened" back into "enlightened self-interest." But they aren't famous for doing so. Sometimes we have to pull out lady razor and bring them to heal.
I agree that capitalism is not at fault. Rather, it is those who self-identify as capitalist who, through the making of rules and corrupting or politics, actually socialize all their costs while internalizing all their profits. And they do this while benefiting directly from society.
People like Elizabeth Warren are capitalists, and they understand this. While AOC and Bernie are an understandable, natural human reaction to the failure of these self-identified capitalist to actually be capitalists. In fact, I have become what I call a "Push-Back Socialist." That is a true capitalist who's sick and tired of the self-identified capitalists running around thinking they defied the laws of physics and pulled themselves up by their own boot-straps, that they "made this" on their own, that they are risk-taking, swashbuckling captains of daring do, all whilst hiding behind the skirts of Big Government (i.e. the corporate veil).
The first step on the road to recovery for these delusional assholes is for them to at least refrain from whining about being taxed to pay a small fraction of the costs they externalize onto the backs of everyone else.
Where we, society, agree that it is better for the whole to let the few do X, because we all benefit from it, we, as society can also agree that if we let the few do X in their own self-interest, then we can tax a portion of their profits to help allay the costs. But trickle down is not part of the "better for the whole" that was contemplated. It's fun to watch the beautiful, wild stallion storm free across the plains, but when he comes down and rampages through the crops planted and tended by people and the work-horses that pull the plow, then he's gonna get shot. And eaten. We will take care of the plow horse, and feed him well. Better even than the dog who must scrounge for scraps around the table. But that doesn't mean the work horse runs the show. If he gets too uppity, he can join the wild stallion and get shot. Maybe go to Somalia or some place that lacks all that big government shit.
Finally, on that point about financial regulation: It has been my experience in life that every single policy, regulation and law came about in response to the failure of someone to mind their manners. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'll not leave the self-interested capitalist unregulated in the exercise of privilege (as distinguished from right) any more than I would leave a pack of adolescents and teens alone, unsupervised in a mall. That there is dystopia.
Of course, this is why you read the book to the final chapter (to see how it ends).
One might think that because there is such a tremendous amount of wealth out there (in general), that they (the Elite) might believe it is better to share. I think this is where some of the corporate woke-ness is coming from, i.e., better to go woke than go broke (if they come to insert their heads on pitchforks).
Regardless. the left is doing itself no favors by introducing all kinds of ideology that is truly bizarre (critical race theory and the like). Alienating most people is a pretty ineffective method of winning the day. And It well demonstrates their ignorance on many issues and that will be their undoing (just like supporting the riots over last summer was about social justice and not wanton property and life destruction).
The right seems to mostly be concerned with cultural issues, although they have been pretty quiet over the past fifty years when the country has drastically changed demographically. Fringe elements never end well (for anybody).
Socialism (for me) is bad news in all kinds of ways. I go for whomever supports the most freedom and the push for personal responsibility. I would just assume reduce government by 90% and revoke all corporate charters.
I am wondering what impact the whole cost of the pandemic and all of its aftermath will have economically. I fear a far deeper division between the rich and the poor, with many being plunged into extreme poverty. It is far too early to predict fully because we don't know to what extent life will resume after lockdown. Further businesses may collapse and government funds are going to become exhausted at some point. Of course, it will be different in various parts of the world, but it is on that level that I could see the beginning of a big collapse.
Consumer materialist culture has been crumbling before that, but it could be that the infrastructure will shatter really. I am not saying that I think that consumer materialism is wonderful, but we are so reliant on and most of lack the resources and skills to live in a completely different way. Personally, I am very open to alternative forms of economics, such as that proposed by Schumacher in 'Small is Beautiful,' but it is hard to know how they would work in practice. I would love to live in smaller communities but we are so accustomed to shops, Wifi and other aspects of Western life that I am not sure how we could all become new age hippies overnight.
You never know and bizarre things can happen, but why worry about that sort of thing? Enjoy your life...it's the only one you've got!
True. It's the pendulum swing. The middle gets to say (quite rightly) that each extreme brought upon itself the subsequent slippery slope the extreme tied to warn about in their justification of their own haul of the pendulum to their side. I'm guilty in my stance as a push-back socialist. AOC is, simultaneously, a 1. response to the opposition's extreme, and 2. part of the slippery slope her opposition said would come. I want to grab my pitch fork and follow because I'm so sick and tired of the myths we tell ourselves. In my defense, I am not jealous and I don't want what the 1% has. I just don't like their trying to tell me they somehow earned it. Show a little humbleness, a little gratitude, a little grace.
The right is just as guilty, in recently proving your point: "Alienating most people is a pretty ineffective method of winning the day." That is why they are largely losers.
Quoting synthesis
And yet their hitch their wagon to a star like Trump. They keep talking Jesus and then they slap Jesus and then they get to say that's okay, because they are forgiven. Okay. :roll:
Quoting synthesis
It's those last two words that are the rub. I've got a whole rant about that, but lunch is on. LOL!
I think that you do not realise the full impact that the pandemic has had on people. Obviously, it is variable according to location and personal circumstances. I had to move twice but I see myself as lucky because when I am walking around the streets in London I see countless numbers of people lying in sleeping bags in corners. There was a homelessness problem before but it has worsened dramatically. I am also aware of families living in a bedsit units because they cannot afford more than one room.
It is hard to know what is going to happen long term, but I think that all the events of the last year are going to be very far from a 'blip', and, potentially the pandemic could go on for a very long time with many waves and countless new variants.
Individuals will vary in how they are affected, in daily life and in mental health. Of course, I do think that with any changes which come economically, or otherwise, we do have some choices in what we make of it. It is a bit like your thread about whether the worst things in life ever happened. My own take on that is that I am inclined to look to the future and dwell on the worst possible scenarios. That can be destructive, but it does allow for a certain amount of planning to try to prevent them. However, thinking about all these possibilities does stop enjoyment.
Nevertheless, in spite of everything, I have to admit that I would probably not have ever used this site as much as I have done, if had not been forced to stay at home, and I do feel that I have learned a lot from the interaction. But, I am looking forward to some easing of lockdown, and will have to avoid the temptation not to go overboard and stay out until midnight every night.
“I don’t know what’s gonna happen, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames, man.” ~JDM
Assume that the collapse has already happened or is well under way, then plan and live accordingly like late Roman era kynics, stoics & epicureans had to.
Okay, I will try reading a bit of that philosophy. The one advantage we have over the Romans though is that they did not have all the wonderful music we have to collapse with. The Doors may definitely help.
I am afraid that even though I love classical literature I can't relate to classical music at all. The closest I get to classical is prog rock. But on the subject of collapse, I do think that the remaining record shops are likely to collapse, which will be a great shame. It is not just a matter of being able to buy records though, as record shops are also a whole cultural or countercultural experience.
I can't relate to pop music and never listened to the music of my youth (mid 1970's and 1980's). I generally find rock to be aesthetically unpleasant (but I do know the Doors and Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave) I prefer Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, Little Walter. Mainly I listen to classical - Mahler, Bruckner, Beethoven, Schoenberg, Bach, Shostakovich.
I do have some Nick Cave and Leonard Cohen, and they are extremely dark. I listen to jazz, but more alternative jazz and acid jazz. I think that music has to be chosen carefully according to mood. That can be complicated because in darker moods, sometimes somber music can help and other times make it worse. I know that some people think Leonard Cohen is music to commit suicide to. I think that in some ways, it can work in the opposite, and be a way of transmuting despair, but it is so subjective.
I have never understood that. I can't think of an artist more life affirming than him. I don't generally accept a dark versus light view of music. It either is enjoyable or it is not. If I had to listen to U2 or Elton John, say, self-harm might be an option...
That's my view. I often have a hard time hearing what is being said in the lyrics. Sometimes when I find the lyrics to read, I'm disappointed. Sometimes I'm pleased. But either way, if I enjoy the music, that's enough for me. Also, I don't care if the person who wrote it likes it or not. And I don't care if what I take from it is what they meant. If I find meaning they did not have, that's the meaning it has for me. If I find it enjoyable, that enough for me. I think that is what art is all about.
If I were god looking down on this mess and asking myself what humans have to contribute that is worth a shit, I'd shrug and say:
"Well, there is always art. What was in the heart of the artist as the art was created? And what was in the heart of the person who appreciated it? That's all that matters. And that's really all these turds have to contribute to my legacy. Everything else I can get from a dog. Nothing against dogs, mind you. Just saying."
Tens of millions of people had their jobs outsourced over the past decades and nobody cared...until Trump came along. Trump is a complete dufus in many, many ways, but you have to be able to see why he appealed to so many people. If you cannot understand this, you are not seeing the entire picture.
And keep in mind that the number one reason the establishment hated him so much is that they could not blackmail him liked they could all the career pols whose hands are so dirty at this point that they can do nothing but join in on the feast that is the dissolution of this democracy.
Let's compare COVID to several events of the 20th century. WWI, the Spanish flu, WWII, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. Each of these events makes COVID look like not much of anything.
Each of those events caused 10's of millions of deaths. And also keep in mind that the vast majority of people who died from COVID were over 80 and had concomitant health issues and were going to die relatively soon anyway (statistically).
The biggest problem with this entire episode was the lockdowns and the incredible economic damage sustained by individuals and small businesses. Jack, life goes on. We live in an age where some pretty amazing things are possible, but the most important thing to deal with is global debt and how the elite have completely screwed-up the economic and monetary systems, but this too will pass.
We got through the craziness of the 20th century, we'll get through this too. If you want to feel better about things, volunteer your time for some worthy cause and you'll see that (relatively speaking) things could be a hell of a lot worse. After all, look at all the amazing things we take for granted in our lives. Just taking a shower every day is reason enough to celebrate! :)
I pretty much agree with all of that. I know someone who is way left, and they were against the south-east Asia trade deal that Hillary and Obama were backing. Trump trashed the deal and this person would not even throw Trump a bone. I'm "left" and could not bring myself to vote for Hillary because, well, Goldman Sachs. I wanted to read the transcripts. No Joy. (I also hate the two party system, so there's that, too). But yeah, I get what you are saying.
The establishment may not have been able to blackmail Trump but I have a strong suspicion that Putin could. And I think it was more than pee tapes. After all, Trumptettes would over look a consenting adult's peccadilloes. I would. I think it has something to do with development projects, money, and/or kids. But I have no evidence.
In the end, though, if you want to tip over the apple cart, surely you can find someone better than Trump. Bernie would have tipped it but he doesn't appeal to the testosterone sense of the Trumpettes. Couldn't the "right" find someone who actually had some convictions whereupon he could demonstrate the courage of?
I think that is a critical point. I'm not sure Trump cared either but he said he did. No one had heard that before.
I think many did care. This isn't a thing that is new as globalization, which outsourcing is part of, and technological advancement are phenomena that are quite old. Have started in earnest in the 19th Century.
Globalization creates winners and also losers. The majority of people have been winners and that's why globalization has endured. Trump or populism in general is a logical outcome when far too little emphasis is given to those who have not prospered from globalization.
The unfortunate truth is that putting up trade barriers doesn't make us better, it makes things worse in the long run. Post-colonial Africa is an example of that.
The winners were the (corporate) elite and the politicians, the losers, regular folks. Seems pretty interesting that Germany and Japan still kept robust high quality manufacturing in their countries.
Because of the way that capitalism works, you have to manage labor flows so you don't completely screw-over your own citizens. The Democrats certainly showed how much they cared for the working class and especially for the working poor over the past decades (so much so that they voted for Trump by the tens of millions).
I think of all the polite debates where that phrase is inevitably trotted out (on NPR and everywhere). It's usually followed by some quick platitude about money for jobs training and whatnot; you know, for all the losers. And then it's swept under the rug while conversation moves on to the winners and the upside.
But I find it interesting the debate is occurring at all. It seems to me that an idea has to be sold to the losers (or their champions) in order for the idea to come to fruition. So, those "buyers" have some negotiating power. Rather than settling for jobs training and some other bone, they should demand a cut of the profits to be made by the winners. But they don't get it. And I suspect the reason they don't get it is because their champions get bought off. But the losers don't get bought off.
A rising tide may lift all boats, but why should I lift someone's boat in China? Humans are a resource (human resources) and they are labor and labor is subject to supply and demand and China got a shit ton of supply and it's cheap. Well, we dam sure lifted their boat all right. They are part of the majority you talk about when you say the majority have been winners. And who bore the externalized costs? What did they get for it? A cheap piece of plastic crap from Walmart? Gee, thanks.
No, the real winners are the top 1% who rake it in without paying taxes and laughing all the way to some off shore bank. Their boat that got lifted is a giant ass yacht.
I will stipulate to globalization being good when the losers get to take their boat out now and again.
The guy is a billionaire. The fact that he took the time and went through the Hell that he did to do the whole presidency thing is telling. Who would bring such a thing on themselves if they didn't care?
Globalization is about two things and two things only, access to cheap(er) labor and new markets. If your neighbor across is having to eat cockroach stew for dinner because if it, so be it.
You know, this morning I remembered that Australia is a member of the Five Eyes. From Wiki:
As an Australian, your every online activity, your phone calls, and your physical movements (if you carry a smartphone) are tracked by the intelligence agencies of five countries, including the US's NSA and CIA. In light of this, I wonder if you would care to revise your claim that you don't feel any restrictions on your freedoms. Of course you look out your window and see no Roman centurions or Star Wars storm troopers, so you "think you're free." Which is exactly the point I made, and which you dismissed by calling me a paranoid nutball or whatever phrase you used.
Perhaps I'm not paranoid, but rather someone who follows the news that they don't blare in the MSM.
I wonder if you would care to reiterate or retract your remark. Did you know that everything you do is tracked illegally by your government? Now that you do know, do you stand by or reject your earlier claim?
In other news, this morning I ran across an article on the US's no fly list entitled, "The No-Fly List is a Civil Liberties Nightmare."
The point being that one need not see storm troopers out the window to wake up one morning living in a police state. The process is invisible to the eye. You have to read the news and apply critical thinking skills. It's a subtle process.
In the US, the Patriot act was passed in the panic after 9/11. But the original draft legislation of the Patriot act was written by none other than Joe Biden following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building in the US.
Sure, you can still jump in your car and go to the grocery store. But much has been lost in the way of freedom. To deny it is to be in denial.
It ain't hell for one who craves center stage. It's the limelight, and heaven, and he loved it. He is in hell now, where no one is listening except losers and suckers.
Quoting synthesis
Trump.
Quoting synthesis
:100:
Contemporary - Western - society has reached a point, through the use of mass freedom, of wealth, that this same prosperity is hurt by the freedom of the individuals.
As I said and continue to say:
"Contemporary Western society does not need a thriving and growing economy with a pluralistic and individualistic population; it needs a stratified and economically stable society for the Status Quo to remain indefinitely."
The mistake of most "intellectuals" is to believe that the "collapse" will be characterized by "darkness", "explicit totalitarianism", and "perpetual wars".
Remember: - People living during the collapse of Roman society characterized it as being "democratic", "evolved" and "civilized". The "Rex" - King - was the head of the "Res publica" - Republic - even if it contradicts itself. Perpetual war was called "Restoratio" - Restorarion - and even though Rome had fallen from a metropolis with almost 2 million people in 117 AD to a mere village of 50.000 in 600 AD, and although its urban landscape was 80% destroyed, its population miserable, public rape was normal, barbarians walked in its streets fully armed, etc..., it was still called "Civitatis et Cultura" - The City of Culture -.
"Bad times" are made worse because those who create it believe - doublethink - that they are making the world better.
How great does the arrogance of a current individual have to be, to believe that his society, which has been the same system for more than 4,000 years, will not collapse in the same way that it had previously fallen?
I am aware of this. I'm not overly concerned.
For the power, connections, fame. It's the ultimate prize. I doubt he knew what he was getting into for starters. But I don't want to debate DT.
Hence the salience of my point. "They thought they were free." You're the classic example. You brag of your freedom but it turns out you don't care about it all that much.
It's even worse that you do understand your loss of freedom but pretended not to. Why exactly did you do that? After all you could have just as easily said, "I live in a Five Eyes country so my every electronic communication and physical movement is monitored by intelligence agencies of five countries, but I'm fine with it because such information is never abused by the authorities, and I haven't done anything wrong so I have nothing to fear." But you didn't say that. Why?
If I can get in the winter a fresh banana here in Finland, that basically makes us here "winners" thanks to globalization. I even have the option to buy a fair trade banana, actually. Without globalization, that wouldn't simply be a possibility. Sure, I could eat canned food as my grandparents when they were young in the winter, it's not such a big difference, yet it still is a difference.
Hence I object to the populism that the only winners are the (corporate) elite and the politicians and the (only?) losers are the regular folks. Sorry, but anybody talking about the benign "regular folks", the "common people" as these people who are the suffering losers uses populist rhetoric. You and I know that in the West the majority of the people have it OK. They are not starving. They have it reasonably well. It is a minority, the underclass, who really are poor. In the US or in Western Europe, they don't make up a majority.
The real problem is that far too many things that globalization has given us we take for granted, while we are too eager to focus on the downsides. Perhaps it's just a matter of rhetoric: we simply don't want make an argument like this and that is good, but here we have problem. Far better to say only that here we have a problem.
Quoting synthesisThey have been far more better export oriented countries than many. And here we get onto thin ice, if we really want to look at why some countries have been more successful than others. Some can argue about a worse starting point, poverty or war or having been colonies, but sometimes, as in the case of Argentina, the real reason why they have been failures is quite puzzling, when they have had all the cards stacked for them.
We do know that the public health measures instituted in many countries to control C19 are effective IF the public cooperates. If the public doesn't, then the measures are ineffective.
500,000+ people dead in the US from Covid-19 is a significant loss, and without suppression measures, it would be much worse.
On the plus-side of control measures... a lot of operations tend to become sloppy. Without regular intrusive surveillance, public transportation companies would cut safety corners. Without syphilis investigators asking you for a list of who you had sex with, syphilis would be a lot more common -- ditto other sexually transmitted diseases.
During WWII there were many restrictions on activity -- some of them draconian. New and different restrictions were put into place during the Cold War.
Look, tyranny is always a possibility: one of the slogans of the American Revolution: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. One has to keep an eye on what the government and corporations are up to, and resist if they are brewing tyranny.
So true. I agree with all you said (and would add the Patriot Act and the subsequent NDAAs). Your last paragraph is exactly what the insurrectionists of January 6th thought they were up to. They thought they were resisting tyranny. Somehow I think they were over-reacting. Liberals and more government services and taxes does not equate to Pol Pot or even China, but everything is a slippery slope to some folks. Hell, the days they pine for (1950s) were way more taxy and government-programmy than we are today. Somebody has been drinking Kool Aid. Vigilance is good. But vigilance without education is paranoia (Q).
Absolutely.
I would have thought that if they were resisting actual tyranny they would have been trying to throw Trump out of office. Goes to show that terrible cliché is true. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
:up:
What is surprising is that most have accepted it, even applauding it.
Let's look at three periods, post WWII (say, 1950), the beginning of globalization and financialization (1980), and forty years later (2021). And let's just take the U.S. as an example.
The great thing about economic self-sufficiency is that a country can create a relative balance between production and consumption. This is very important for all kinds of reasons. Economic dependency can lead to all kinds of problems (as witnessed over the past year).
One of the great benefits of self-sufficiency is sound money, and if you had to lay blame at one issue that has un-nerved all kinds of markets, it is has been the proliferation of funny money. Just the same, it is key that your country manufacture most of it's necessities.
With the final disengagement of the USD to gold in 1971 and the onset of the financialization in and around 1980, you see the first results of globalization, the outsourcing of much of the West's manufacturing base to Asia. This had a profound effect on Western middle classes as well as on the value of currency (which was dropping precipitously and the money-printing party was on).
Other than losing tens of millions of good manufacturing jobs (so you can enjoy your banana in January in the North Pole :), inflation is what has economically destroyed most people in the U.S. No longer could regular folks afford to buy a house (without be quite house-poor), they couldn't afford to send their kids to college (so the next generation was plunged into debt), they couldn't afford health care, or anything else that could not benefit from cheap labor-added in Asia. Quality commodities and services based in the U.S. became very expensive.
The lasting legacy of globalization has been monetary inflation which has gutted the American middle class. This is a product of monetary policy and (by far) the winners are those who profited by the corporate bonanza in cheap manufacturing in Asia, the ramp-up in stock prices, ,and the political class (and it's employees who in 1950 made 50% of what the average private-sector worker made, and now makes double what the average makes in this country!).
Despite access to your yellow tropical fruit, this past 50 years has been a disaster the average American worker and a bonanza for the average corporate exex. and all federal employees. It's the exact opposite of what you want in a healthy economy and another example of how socialism destroys everything it touches.
Quoting ssu
You might have difficultly having doctors (getting out of school hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt) buying into that idea.
Quoting ssu
I think it called making to the commitment to manufacturing high quality products that people want to buy. Ever drive a Porsche?
I disagree. Witness 500k dead, invasion of the capital, spring break parties, etc. I go to town and see the maskless, and Trump flags flying, and open carry all the time. I hear of people (on both the left and right) invading government buildings with relative impunity (especially if white), and marching in the streets destroying shit. Granted, it's just the U.S., and granted, my perceptions are based on what the "news" tells me, so I could be duped.
And it might be possible that the Totalitarian State wants people to die. You know, cull the herd. But I don't think so. From what I've heard from those who have lived in states that are more totalitarian than ours, we are a very long way from it.
Whenever I see some hot young lawyer chick take off her high heels in the airport line, I can't help but think of Mohamed Atta smiling in his grave thinking "I did it!" In reality, as you said, we did it to ourselves. It is our reaction to stuff that enslaves us, if we are enslaved at all. But I don't think we are.
There are also cultural distinctions, where some societies are more inclined to be socially conscious and play ball. Hell, I remember 40 years ago, when I was young and eons before Covid, I'd see news from the far east (especially Japan), in pieces entirely unrelated to disease, and I'd see folks walking around with masks on. I thought "WTF? I'd never do that! Why are they doing that? They must be doing it because they are trying to protect themselves from something." Then I heard those folks have a cold, or some other disease and they are, out of common curtesy, wearing a mask to help protect others. That won't fly in the U.S. If there is anything we hate more than foreigners, it's each other.
Anyway, who's to say that in foreign lands it's the heavy hand of the state, or just people being considerate of others?
Totalitarian State? No. Not yet. Our state checks itself because, to a large extent, it fears us, as well it should. We are supposed to be it, the state. And like I said, we hate each other, especially the left (cats). Where conservatives love a strong leader, our American traditions and culture and heritage is killing strong leaders (unless we can buy them).
I can see your perspective on how collapses take place, especially the Roman empire. However, what I wonder about is whether Western civilisation would collapse in a similar way or not. That is because the various parts of it are probably extremely different, mainly in of the technology level of sophisticated we have reached. That is why I see economic growth as a possible starting point because it may mean that many people would lose access and may be excluded gradually.
I am not really sure to what extent I think that totalitarianism is coming. That would be more of an organised attempt at control and it does appear that we are in a position where governments are really confused. The worst scenario which I would imagine is one in which there was a strategic attempt to ensure that the ruling class and their lineage were protected, while life became worse and worse gradually for the less wealthy.
Sounds like you live in a freer area than most. In others there are curfews, stay at home orders, rule by decree, state seizure of the economy, line-ups at the grocery store. Had we not had an internet to supplement our social lives, our employment, our entertainment, I wager we would not be so unresponsive to our reality. Totalitarianism crept into our lives through the decree of establishment politicians and public health bureaucrats, and not through the dictator we were once promised.
I certainly hope that totalitarianism is not coming. The point at which I wrote this thread was when I saw news of possible Covid_19 passports in Britain. However, it does appear that so many members of parliament are strongly against it, so it may not happen. The possible implications were as extreme as suggesting that all kinds of checks would have to be done to enter most places, including non essential shops.
Just imagine just wishing to go for a cup of coffee and having to have all these checks. It would also be so much of a nightmare for staff and I think that many people would just prefer to stay at home. Also, I am really not convinced that if people had all this data available that it would have any bearing on preventing the virus. However, I do think that everything is in such a state of confusion in Britain that it may result in draconian measures being introduced eventually.
However, in Britain what might also be going on is confusion over the exit from the EU. It has gone through officially, but when the vote for this took place it was in a pre Covid world, and as it is taking place at this particular point, it may be a big mess.
Plus, I feel our fears of totalitarianism is unfounded especially since whatever emergency measures that were enforced for COVID-19 seem just to prevent the spread of the disease and once we either manage to rein it in or find a cure, things will normalize and we can go back to the life we had before 2019. In other words, we need to ensure the powers that be are fully aware that emergency powers are temporary and last only as long as a national crisis does.
Yeah, I must live in a free zone. All of the curfews, stay at home orders, etc. were more or less strongly recommended, based on an appeal to citizenship and science. If you didn't feel like you wanted to comply, you were not rounded up, no one slowed your internet access or delayed your flights, etc. And the lines, if any, were due to individual stupidity, like runs on butt-wipe and whatnot. You know; panic.
A digression here, for my own trip down memory lane: When the pandemic first became "a thing", I remember a trip to town to buy some air-tights and whatnot. I remember the streets were nearly empty. I was still served by essential workers at a fast food place, and all the stuff I wanted was in the store, except paper products. Luckily, we have a huge supply of such, due to our former business which we had just retired from. But everything else had been delivered to the grocery store by the essential-worker truckers who got it from people who were apparently still working, producing the essential stuff I needed. Mind you, most of those essential people were getting paid shit, but they still showed up to serve me in my privilege. But the best thing, that I still look back on with fondness, is the empty streets.
When I was young I could drive for hours and hours at night without having to flip between high beam and low beam. This was like that. When I was a little boy I would awake long before everyone else and walk my suburban/rural, dew-covered street before and at first light. Before the milk man came around to make his delivery, the whole neighborhood was dead of humanity. Only the birds would sing. Maybe a dog would bark. I would wonder if everyone had left. I would wonder if I was the last person on earth. I absolutely fucking loved it! My heart would always fall a little bit when some guy in his underwear stepped out on his stoop to grab a news paper that had been tossed to him before even I was out and about. The beginning of the pandemic flashed me back to that.
Then I think of the wisdom/meme circulating on social media saying something to the effect: "In your rush to get back to normal, think about what is worth rushing back to."
So I, living in privilege now, with my nearest neighbor about two Klicks away, on an inholding, surrounded by miles of river and mountain, dreading a trip to the city to get serviced by essential workers, think yeah, there ain't no totalitarianism here. I could be naïve. And even if not, I could be lucky while my fellow man suffers, but I do know for a fact that he who thinks he can go it alone is full of shit. Society, and the social contract exists for a reason. And when "freedom" permits each person to sling his semen all over hell and gone, then he has to be prepared to live with the consequences of his freedom. You put too many rats in a place, even free and uncaged, they will start eating each other. And they will have brought that, or the totalitarian system which prevents it, upon themselves.
Those who whine about totalitarianism have often brought it upon themselves through their exercise of unbridled freedom, a lack of enlightenment in their pursuit of self-interest, and their externalization of costs onto the backs of others, without supporting those others politically or in some other form.
Man, I loved the beginning of the pandemic! But the teaming masses have been out and about doing the same old shit as far as I can tell. Check that! I haven't been to a movie theater in over a year. And I love movie theaters. Woe is me.
With your choice 1 of keeping all our freedoms or 2 of not doing so, I am unsure to what extent loss of further freedoms would address the pandemic. Even if we have all our personal information and medical history on open display on our phones, I don't see how it would stop any potential pandemic because viruses are invisible and unpredictable.
One of the arguments against digital passports etc is that it would give rise to a loss of the need for social distancing. Part of the idea in Britain behind Covid_19 passports was to enable pubs to operate without need for any distancing measures. I am sure that would to lead to a definite third wave because even if people have the vaccine and tests they can still catch it, especially if new variants arise.
Also, even if the ideas of digital passports or biometrics were introduced as a temporary measure, is it really likely that this would ever end? I can see the idea of passports for international travel being useful but if they were required just to go and buy a pair of shoes or trousers in a shop that would seem absurd. One idea which I have come across in Britain is the possibility of sugar tax, with restrictions on what food people can buy. I am in favour of healthy eating but I don't know that official restrictions would be pleasant for many. The idea behind it is that people who got Covid_19 got more sick if they were obese. Could it get to the point where people had to declare their weight on phone apps when they shop? Of course, I am being extreme but I am wondering what could happen eventually.
Also, bearing in mind that we are a long way from totalitarianism now, if that was a direction in the futue, would we even have the freedom to express ourselves on sites like this? Already, it does appear that there is a lot of surveillance of search engines, so we might not be as free as we would like to think that we are.
Personally, I much rather the risk of freedom than the paternalism of statism. I do not believe a "social contract" exists in any case, and is little more than statist apologetics, so maybe our differences here lie in the general principles.
Either way, I disagree that any restrictions on freedom are the consequences of free citizens. Every restriction on freedom has been implemented by those in power who believe they know what's best for everyone else, and is therefor the consequence of their actions, not of the free man. Freedom can be bridled by choice and responsibility, and if we hand off these choices and responsibilities to some central authority we do so at our peril.
I know new variants can and will arise on their own, but it sure doesn't help when all the petulant folks won't follow advice.
Quoting Jack Cummins
No, it's not likely to end. The toothpaste rarely gets crammed back into the tube. It's unnatural to relinquish intelligence/power.
Quoting Jack Cummins
When individuals refuse to internalize the costs of their actions, then yeah, gov't can tax them. So, if I produce a widget that harms people, and people buy that widget and hurt themselves or others, and if I then look for tax reductions or bailouts, or my buyers look for medical services or subsidized insurance premiums which other people have to pay for, then I say make me pay for it.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yeah, anything could happen. I see a greater threat arising from the "slippery slope" argument, where that which is relatively innocuous or beneficial is avoided just because some paranoid person thinks it's the first step on an inevitable ride to the bottom.
My window on Britain's confusion is very small, but it does seem like public policy in the UK is disordered. I thought Brexit was always a colossal error, the consequences of which would unravel for a long time. As someone said, "Politicians are famous for screwing up big projects, but they can screw up small tasks too." At a distance, policy and politics in the UK look chaotic.
Draconian policy might be imposed only to freeze chaos in place.
The EU, composed of a population of something like 440 million, seems to have served people well with regulation, systems, organization, etc. Pulling out of the EU was so stupid... but what's done is done, at least for now.
As for Covid-19, the prudent policies of quarantine, mask wearing, and social distancing when public contact is necessary seem obvious. Now that vaccines are available, getting jabbed (as you say over there) is the obvious response. Somewhere around a 25% to 33% of the US population can be counted on to refuse vaccination. Who are they? Most often they are conservatives and evangelicals--always an unwholesome combination.
Because there is an epidemic of dithering, delay, and denial over prudent public policy, the length of the Covid-19 pandemic is being prolonged, maybe indefinitely. If it's any comfort, Britain isn't the only country having difficulties establishing sensible policy.
That's the thing about the social contract: it's a contract of adhesion and it exists whether anyone believes in it or not.
I always thought "limited sovereignty" was a joke. It's like limited infinity. While I will entertain it for philosophical discussion, the individual, the State, the Indian Tribe, will play ball. Either that or we are back fighting wars that were already fought and won. The individual is no different.
Quoting NOS4A2
Just out of curiosity, can you show me a policy or regulation or law that popped out of a vacuum? I'm not saying it's not out there, but the only people I see generating anticipatory limitations are the the slippery slope people. Everyone else implements limitations based upon a collective human experience with humans who are left to their own devices. Most of my limited experience comes from ten years of environmental/administration/litigation in the U.S. Federal Courts. Everything was always a response to some idiot who decided to shit in the river just because he thought it was his right to do so. After all, if the guy down river didn't want to drink this shit, then he could pay Uncle Sugar to get the damn river off his property.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, it can be. Human experience show that is a risk not worth taking.
Quoting NOS4A2
True. That should be kept in mind when deciding whether or not one wants to externalize the costs of his actions upon the backs of everyone else. But human experience shows most of those "muh freedom!" guys don't think that deep.
A slight digression, but here's something for you to think about: I would come across onerous environmental regulations that were actually dreamed up, and championed by industry. They knew their competition, and especially start ups, could not compete with them if they had to comply with X regulation. So, the industry got the benefit of both worlds: 1. They kept competition out of the market; 2. They got to parade their "green" all over the public; 3. They got to use the money they made to support tax laws that allowed them to write off all the foregoing as a business expense; and 4. They got to complain behind closed doors to guys like you about how they were put upon by big an evil government which interfered with job creation, kept your wages low, and stalled the economy. LOL! Genius, really. they could also use the profits to prime the well.
I discussed, in a another post or thread, the notion that someday we'd have to choose the Plutocracy or the Cartels as our "side." But both the Plutocracy and the Cartels would keep government (neutered, of course) extant as a punching bag for the minions. That's whole regulatory BS is part of it.
But when it comes to freedom, just remember what Aldo Leopold said: "Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" In other words, freedom ain't worth shit if you don't have a place to be free in. No one can tell me that some guy long in city pent, who ostensibly has all the freedoms I have out here in the sticks, on paper, is really as free as I am. A lot of that may have to do with a distinction between "freedom from" and freedom to" and what kind of freedom one wants. But any who wants libertarianism can move to Somalia or some place like that.
While I haven't yet familiarized myself with that proposal of a possible social-credit system that you allude to, as applied within parts of the Commonwealth, and as infringing upon the most basic of freedoms, it seems to me that a general decline of national prosperity within much of the United Kingdom and England in particular has given cause for an opening to both mislead and restrict the doings of the public at large; the purpose of which, I don't know even in prospect, but a grand-scale restructuring of English society is what one can expect, such as may be determined with the available information in hand. Perhaps, the desire among those in power, and with the exception of those in parliament whose overall influence in recent years has from what I understand been curtailed, and to the benefit of the executive branch, is to distract from the failure of Brexit to make manifest the promises of wealth and improved standard of living that were treated within media as the foremost selling-point of secession from the European bloc. The perception of ineffective leadership, and lack of confidence among members of the public which now reign, in the ability of the current administration to govern, and to deliver that which had been assured, is to be seen as indicating on the latter's part, the need for subtler forms of control over the public discussion. That the country is on the verge of economic collapse, even when overlooking the negative effect of a continued lockdown on economic productivity, and how very unappealing it has since become as a hub of cultural and financial exchange even in the case of London proper, means the discontent will continue to expand in its hold; so too, can a growing show of Totalitarianism, at least as a more subtle approach than its historical expression, be expected as political infighting occupies much of parliament, as public goods become ever scarcer in consequence of the logistic and economic hurdles imposed by the loss of EU membership, and especially, upon the coming death of the Queen; that last bastion of hope in a world gone bleak. Do keep in mind, even this assessment of mine is unduly charitable to your country's circumstances, for the reason that it provides no mention of one of the central difficulties thereof; the status of the Commonwealth as Britain retreats from its former position of prominence on the world-stage, and whether other members of this union such as Australia, as they themselves make a steady gain of clout, are therefore under the obligation still to defer to the whims of monarchical authority, even on paper. Another issue that deserves analysis, and which has up to this point been a cause of great tension, and taken on the form of legitimate violence in the course of the so-called Time Of Troubles, is the status of Northern Ireland, the possibility of later reunification with its other half, and its consequent departure from this union, also. Any one of these developments would strike a great blow to national prestige, but taken together, and if occuring within a relatively short period of each other, such as they just might, would be sure to result in utter despondency; and, despondency it should be noted, is the condition from which more extremist ideologies always emerge, as well as a requisite for their establishing a broader acceptance within society.
The answer is ALWAYS more freedom and transparency. Those advocating the opposite are attempting to protect their dirty system.
WHAT?? The EU is a complete joke...one destined to failure from the start. Why would any successful country want to be part of that dys-functional dys-union unless their political leaders were totally corrupt?
Isn't this the entire point of every social institution that ever was, that is, getting something for nothing (somebody else footing the bill).
I think that England has been a very pleasant country to live in but it is changing dramatically. We are lucky to have a welfare state. I don't think that people will cope if life becomes harsh as people are not used to it.
I have not been to Ireland, despite having a father who was born there. He spoke highly of the country although he never went back there. Northern Ireland is very different though and the only people I have ever known from there seem fairly wounded by so much unrest there.
Quoting synthesis
You perhaps think that any large system leads to corruption, opaqueness, tyranny, etc. A brief perusal of history, or group dynamics, will show that one can get the benefits of corrupt, opaque, arbitrary and capricious rule just as well in small groups as in large.
We are quite far apart in this.
Literally and figuratively wounded.
I remember getting to know a boy on a bus who came to England with his mother after his father was killed in the terrorism of Northern Ireland. Generally, the people I have known from Northern Ireland described it a bit like the way U2 do in the song, 'Where the Streets Have No Name.'
Globalization didn't start in 1980, it might be called an era of de-regulation.
Also here it's important to see also the reasons of American dominance before, because the US isn't an island when it comes to the global situation:
1950: All other major industrialized countries in ruins after WW2, China has communism, India and the Far-Eastern "Tigers" very poor, some still colonies. Hence US dominance in every field.
1980: China just starting to change it's economic system, West Europe and Japan back on track and can compete well with the US.
2021: China has enjoyed historical growth, India has too shed it's socialist system, many Far-Eastern Tigers like South Korea and Taiwan are wealthy countries.
Quoting synthesis
Indeed, I think this more because of monetary policy than because of globalization. Going off the gold standard and having a fiat system was the crucial thing. Other countries, like mine, would quite quickly face a current account crisis and a run on their foreign reserves, but not the US. When the Saudis were OK with just getting dollars for their oil, why not? (And then are things like that Americans simply want to pay the most for a mediocre health care system, I guess.)
The US has enjoyed the situation where it can print the global currency everybody uses, hence debt doesn't matter and the current account can be negative for over 40 years. And why not? Since the World is OK with an US Dollar system, then US politicians can print as much as they want. We all seem to believe now in modern monetary theory.
Who cares about things that more debt actually creates more problems...
Quoting synthesis
Well, some export oriented countries like Germany have done quite well and don't have such wealth inequality. Even if I'm not a leftist, I think one important issue is that Americans aren't in labor unions, hence the employers can do nearly whatever they want. I think this also more of a domestic issue than just globalization.
Yes and no. Yes, in that every social institution that ever was tends to want to get something for nothing from nature. But no, as between the members of society. The point of society has at times been to spread both the profit and cost among all the members. An example would be the corporation. Big Government (society) decides to protect the shareholder from having to take personal responsibility for his own actions (making a car that pumps poison into the air) in return for a social good of transportation, and a taxation on the profits to allay some of the costs of the poison. Otherwise, the investor would indeed pass on the costs to those who don't drive, or who would never agree to sell what they (and a court) might perceive to be their right to breathe. (Nature be damned).
The problem is when the shareholder and his peers make so much money they can buy off their obligation to pay taxes or provide good transportation. But that is not society's fault. That might be the fault of politicians and people that allow that to happen, and maybe society sits back a lets themselves get screwed, but that is not society's point. The point, and the individual reliance on and participation in the social contract, was to protect the individual; not make him pay for some jerk's adventure.
In other words, there is no doubt that people often get together and agree to look the other way while the Earth, or some other poor sap or people bear the brunt of their adventures. But that is not the point of society.....
My understanding is that just a decade prior your country remained quite prosperous, and indeed, held a higher standard of purchasing-power than even Germany did at the time. This changed however, with the onset of the Great Recession, which caused your government's representatives to naively institute a number of austerity measures aimed at minimizing the federal deficit, and notwithstanding the fact that in the face of recession along economic lines, this is precisely the response opposite that which should be implemented; a finely executed stimulus that has as its purpose to increase margins of public-spending, and provides direct subsidization to affected industries, is the only response of benefit in these circumstances. Reducing either factor instead, not only leads toward a delay in the rate of recovery, but induces a downward spiral of ever less ability to cope, leading toward the usage of austerity measures in an even further degree so as to thereby perpetuate the cycle. The reductions in funding then made to that most venerated National Health Service of yours, were particularly detrimental both to research, and quality of care; all of which, as gleaned from what I have read on this point.
I disagree. Transparency does not translate into an ability to do anything about an asshole who is exercising freedom to shit in the river. Unless, of your course, you are granting me the freedom to shoot him through his brain housing group. Lots of misuse of freedom are out in the open. We try to regulate those misuses, but the offender then whines about regulation. At least that regulation works in favor of the integrity of his skull.
So do you think that it will be a downward spiral for England? I am definitely aware of austerity measures being introduced in the last few years. I hope that England is not really collapsing..
England is already confronted with the downstream consequences of this earlier decision, such as contraction or loss of economic growth, and these patterns I am sure, will only be rendered all the more apparent in the years ahead even to those who had previously been in complete ignorance to which, as the transition out of the European bloc is finalized. Eventually, your country will be consigned to a peripheral role in most matters of diplomatic exchange; politically isolated, faced with increasing rates of internal as well as economic strife, the loss of a monarch that members of the public can either adore or otherwise respect, the collapse of the Commonwealth as a united front, and the secession of Northern Ireland as a member thereof; just to name a few.
To cite another example; the levels of Anti-Union sentiment among those who fall within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, since the referendum first passed, have surged by a margin of more than three-fold as compared to what they were before, according to the most recent polls. And do remember, that this example of mine accounts for just one facet of the geopolitical difficulties, and the broader question of national relevance, that England now confronts. Moreover, lacking an effective basis of leadership, I am confident the state will only stumble through in disorientation, rather than seek to resolve with the urgency that is due, these same difficulties.
Demonstration of empty rhetoric without any additional evidence to predicate it, is a far easier thing to achieve than good-governance; and to some, such as the issue of Brexit illustrates so well, more palatable also.
For me, the ideal group size is one. :)
And I do believe you will find that the degree of insanity (demonstrated by group activity) is directly proportional to the size of the group. [Nietzsche's First Law of Group Dynamics]
Just look at what all the larger countries and corporations do as their size and power accumulate.
And keep in mind that main priority of every group is self-perpetuation.
Whereas I will agree that early hominoid groups were beneficial in keeping Sabre tooth tigers and the like at bay, it was all down hill from there.
I doubt we are very far apart at all...
Quoting ssu
I should have stated, "this foray into serious globalization," which will end just like other attempts...in a trillion tears.
Quoting ssu
It was the creation of full FIAT reserve currency, of course, which allowed this to happen on the scale it did (so what should that tell you?). Globalization is a fraud, plain and simple, as it is exploitation at some of its worst, and MMT is simply a polite term for counterfeiting, nothing more.
The U.S. health care system is another example of massive fraud, believe me, as I have been part of it for many decades.
Quoting ssu
Japan and Germany are both homogeneous societies and lack the social, educational, and cultural differences found in the U.S. The labor unions that still do exist (such as unions for federal employees) are about as corrupt as it gets, and, as well, have pretty much bankrupted many cities and municipalities. Here is California, it seems as if most of the public employees make over 100KUSD, and a fair percentage quite a bit more than that. It's crazy. Let them eat bananas! :)
Quoting ssu
You have to approach any government situation ASSUMING that bad things are going to happen (because they almost always do). And remember, the Social Contract was written by the powerful group's attorneys!
Quoting ssu
What is the point of society?
Quoting ssu
At least with transparency, you have a chance. Without it, you're totally f*******.
I'll take my chances and ALWAYS err on the side of too much freedom.
Well, a historical collapse of globalization is when antiquity and the Roman globalization collapses into the Dark Ages. A trillion tears for that one.
Quoting synthesis
This is what I've felt for a long time. However, until at least now, even if we have a huge asset bubble everywhere, the whole system has been very persistent. The doomsayers have had their same line for decades now. Hence I'm really puzzled about MMT and have wanted to have a serious debate about it, yet it seems to be too difficult. Even the believers of MMT do state that too much debt will cause a inflationary crisis, yet they argue that for the US this doesn't matter. At least now. How much is too much?
Quoting synthesis
It actually an interesting question why has it become so failed. I think that the simple reason is that every part of the system has to make a profit, the corporations themselves have made the policies to favor themselves and in the end people without any long term health care have to be then in ER. Why Americans accept this is beyond me.
(Yes, it's extremely expensive...)
(Has been so since the 1980's...)
(And takes a huge share of the costs...)
(...with mediocre or dismal results, when measured by life expectancy or by any other health indicator.)
So you are right, it is a huge scam. And why people opt for it? Think that anything else would be even worse?
Quoting synthesis
Japan is a homogeneous society while Germany is quite multicultural now days. I think the real problem is that in the US the class divide (which you can find in every country) has gone through racial lines and this has created a toxic environment. And of course that many Americans deny the existence of class and think of a class system as a caste system (which it isn't). Also that the labor unions have been corrupt and been infiltrated by organized crime at some stage has had very negative consequences.
That cities or municipalities have been bankrupted by labor unions is one way to put it. Another way to look at it is that cities, municipalities (and companies too) have opted for the easiest solution of promising beneficial retirement plans (that will be paid later) instead of salary increases as a way to push the problems forward.
Quoting synthesis
Sorry, this what you refer to and answer later isn't my quote (or the other's), but I think replies of and/or others.
Perhaps correct the references so that people can follow the correct interesting debate, Synth? :wink:
Keep in mind that there are tremendous dis-inflationary forces happening coincidentally which are balancing out the ledger sheet somewhat. Mining cheap labor and technology's exponential growth have kept productivity high and inflation low. And (of course), most of the dollar printing is in the form of bank reserves having yet to see circulation.
I am still in the deflation camp and believe the forces of technology and cheaper labor (Africa, India, East Asia, to some extent) will hold inflation in check unless the politicians go ape shit and do a Zimbabwe or something like that, but you are correct, who would have thought this could still be going on 50 years after they abandoned the final link to sound money?
Quoting ssu
Americans have wanted a national health care system since 1950. Unfortunately, the corporations didn't. It always comes down to one thing, corruption, and there is plenty of blame to go around. It's a complete failure...the health care professions, the health care corporations, the government, and the citizens themselves for not taking care of themselves.
Man makes his own hell in this world.
I am inclined to think that it is hard to predict what is going to happen in Britain, as indeed other parts of the world. We still have a welfare system and the NHS, and I think that it would be if these were to collapse that Britain would collapse truly because people are reliant on them. I think that maintaining the NHS has been central to the whole process of restrictions, as a central focus being the NHS being not being overwhelmed. However, what has happened is that so much money has been spent through furloughs and many people being on benefits.
So, I think that a lot will depend on whether people are able to work again. If mass unemployment continues I fear that the welfare state would collapse altogether, bringing devastation and misery for multitudes. So, survival of the economy is central, because at the moment it is extremely difficult to find work. I suppose that we have been lucky to have a whole welfare state but if this were to collapse, I really don't know how countless people would survive at all.
You say that, 'Man makes his own hell in the world'. I do agree that many of the atrocities in history seem to reflect that. The question which I see is how can we act differently collectively, to try to climb out of the hells we create, and to stop creating them?
Whatever John Maynard Keynes was thinking of, what he said, "In the long run we are all dead" it is certainly true. That's just life, like it or not.
We (the very large collective) should not be indifferent to current developments, of course. Long-term, medium-range, and short-term proactive planning have importance that is often honored in the breach, but we should do what we (collectively) can do.
Granted, to be young, aware, and worried makes life difficult. Being old, aware, and much, much closer to the end of one's life is much easier (something one doesn't feel until one gets here). When I was a young man I worried a lot. What will the next 50 or 60 years be like? How bad will it get? So many things could and seemed to be going wrong. Now I know, and while a lot of what happened sucked, it was endurable. Of course, I didn't live in Rwanda, Cambodia, China, etc. You don't either. You won't have to endure Mao's Cultural Revolution, for instance.
Yes, I will try not to worry too much about totalitarianism, but I do fairly frequently, because that is my disposition. But what strikes me when I have made remarks to people in conversations recently about totalitarianism, is that many people don't seem to be perturbed by it. I think that we may be moving towards a culture of indifference.
As for moving toward a culture of indifference, nah! It's a perennial condition. People, including educated, aware, sensible people, must, in the end, focus on tending their own gardens, as Voltaire says in the conclusion of Candide.
I always like it when philosophical messages are packaged up in Broadway Musicals: Here's the finale of Candide, the musical, by Leonard Bernstein performed at the 1915 Proms:\
There's too much to say about that, that it's hard not to sound like a crazy person. Trying to be brief, I think we should keep in mind that there are different types of totalitarianism. There is the common one of totalitarian government, as can be seen in North Korea. But there are also totalitarian strains in movements, from far right movements to some aspects of the left, not that I think that both are equal in terms of actual menace in today's world.
We should also recognize that there is corporate totalitarianism, in that, corporations have this tendency too, of imposing there will, of subjecting all aspects of life to market society, that which can and cannot be purchased. This type of aspect in society is surely gaining ground, as welfare measures shrink in the name of "competition" and "having a vibrant economy". Of course, governments are the actors who are most visible, so if they take measures, prompted by concentrated economic powers, that are contrary to the public interests, it's the government that gets the blame, not concentrated wealth. So if a country reduces health benefits, clearly it's the governments fault which by implication leads to further privatization, and it becomes a self fulfilling cycle.
This aspect of society need to be made as visible as possible. Governments have plenty of faults and have committed horrible atrocities. They just so happen to also be the vehicle in which democratic will can be exercised for the good of the many. So yes, plenty of totalitarian threats from all areas, and economic crisis can't be too far away. Not the brightest of times, by any means.
They may not have a very vivid idea of what it is you are talking about. Reading a few books about totalitarian states (Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, etc.) puts flesh on an otherwise abstract idea. Watching films and reading about how the holocaust unfolded, or how Stalin wiped out a few million Ukrainians makes totalitarianism something one can not be indifferent to. Back in the early 1970s when I was working at St. Thomas College, one day we asked a batch of students what the holocaust was. Most did not know. It isn't that the students were too stupid to know about it--most of them were bright middle class people--they just didn't read much history.
I didn't either. I've been shocked and appalled by a lot of the things I've learned as an adult.
I'm not excusing their indifference or ignorance. As the saying goes, "if you are not worried you are not paying attention." A lot of people aren't very up on global warming either, even though it is already affecting them. Their bandwidth just isn't very wide.
I think really that I would rather worry rather than become indifferent. It's also about balancing the personal worries and the wider collective ones. It is sometimes easier to see our own little world under the microscope and probably the turbulence of our time is a wake up for most of us. Rather than just hearing of historical atrocities and ones in far away countries, so many throughout the world have been shaken up by life being so dramatically. I realise that the leaders must be struggling and are probably just trying to think of all options.
Your detailed discussion of the many potential facets of totalitarianism is useful because it is a complex area and not just one idea. While it is possible to see potential threats, let's just hope that the threats are only that. Let's just hope that the good of many is protected and that systems which emerge do not bring too much suffering.
Given the immanent catastrophe of climate change, I think many of these aspects of totalitarianism are going to become quite real.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. As Gramsci said.
I understand history, somewhat. And I understand, somewhat, human nature. But I'm no expert. So what I do on such occasions is defer to the experts. I think there is a substantial "never again" crowd out there; primarily Jews. I kind of look around and see how worried, or not worried they appear to be. I'm prepared to go all Lt. Aldo Raine on some fascist ass, but I don't want to jump the gun, either. We want to stay out in front of evil so we can head it off long before the trains start pulling up. We really don't want to get to that point. But we don't want our own government treating us like vigilantes and coming down on us either. The line is not one I'm schooled in discerning. Hopefully there will be a "heads up" from someone. Otherwise, we are left to trusting government, or our own devices.
I hadn't come across that quote from Gramsci and I wrote a thread on pessimism vs optimism. So thanks for the great insight offered by Gramsci:
'Pessimism of the intellect. Optimism of the will.'
Yes, I sometimes wonder what could happen and it is hard to see through the political cracks in the pavement. It is sometimes just hard to know what is going on beneath the surface of news headlines, because as the sociologists have stressed, news is manufactured. We may not know what is going on behind the scenes exactly. It seems that there is a lot of confusion, but there may be aspects which are not revealed too.
I am also wary of the collective, especially the destructive capacity of the herd. The only reason why I chose the word collective is because we are talking about global and national issues. Perhaps we need some truly inspiring individuals to arise in the midst. I am probably talking about prophets or visionaries, who are able to go deeper and beyond the surface of political agendas.
When my niece started getting concerned I told to watch this: Access to food, medicine and electricity. If those all go and it's not explicable due to some regional BS, then things are not good. Until then, don't get all spun up about the shit going down. In addition to watching those indicators, I'll be a bit worried if I see rich folks taking off for New Zealand or some similar place. While Israel may not seem safe or isolated, you know they will muscle up and nobody will F with them so that's another place to watch people bailing too. Personally, I hope I have to balls to help instead of hide. But for right now, I look to the future with optimism. I'm liking what I see with a lot of the kids these days.
George Clooney in "Tomorrow Land". Yes.
I do agree that access to food, medicine and electricity are essential. I would add housing because we are talking about Maslow's basics on the hierarchy of needs. Once those go, for so many people, we are talking about a very dire situation.
I am not sure that such animosity is particularly helpful. However, I do believe that people do need to speak out against social evils rather than just accept them as the norm.