The way I see it, capitalism is an environment. A ‘place’. A ‘way’ for people to do ‘economy’. What people do in that place depends on the place itself but also on how they choose to do things. This being the reason for which the American capitalism is different from the European one. And both completely different from the Chinese version. In this sense, capitalism doesn’t actually work. Not by itself! If those dwelling in this ‘place’ act freely – as in ‘free market’ – then the whole ‘thing’ remains ‘sustainable’. Not ‘good for everybody’, not always ‘nice’ but nevertheless ‘fair’. As in ‘you have a fair chance of reaching the other end’. Not to get necessarily rich but to make the ends meet!
The alternative to capitalism… if you take your ideological blinders off, you notice that there’s none! Socialist/communist countries are/were also capitalist. The difference being that their economies are/were centrally planned. Their markets are/were anything but free! This being the reason for which communism had crumbled under its own weight. And for which in all places where the market is not free enough the ‘thing’ is not sustainable!
‘After a trip abroad, the Thinker from Cernavoda and the Sitting Woman will be available for the locals.’
What makes us think that the Thinker is thinking while the Woman is just sitting?!?
Is there any meaning in this?
Newton had only described gravity, he didn’t invent anything. Noticed it – like many others before him, thought about it – more (better?) than all those before him, and came up with a deeper meaning for the whole ‘falling thing’. Nobody cared to contradict him. Because everything, once exposed, was so obvious!
I’ll make a break here and wonder… what does the Flat Earth Society think about gravity?
Had your laugh? OK, let’s move on.
Darwin had also noticed things. Thought about them. Really hard. And put together a theory. Which continues to be considered a theory because not everybody is yet convinced… OK, things are a little harder to swallow. Specially the part with us being relatives, no matter how distanced, with Judy…
Furthermore, the evolution thing is not as obvious as the gravity thing… most of us would have to take Darwin’s word for it… something we don’t do that easily, specially if/when we dislike – for what ever reason, the outcome.
Then why do we ‘swallow’ – line, hook and sinker, however implicitly, the names affixed on those two prehistoric figurines?!? Because they are obvious? Just as obvious as gravity?
The guy must be thinking and it’s obvious that the woman is just sitting?!?
Or is it that we believe what we want to believe? We attribute meaning according to our own standards. Then stick to our opinion. Almost no matter what…
How about He nursing a hangover and She guarding him against predators?
7 years after the accord had been signed, and never implemented, Putin had ordered his army to invade, again, Ukraine. Using Lukashenko’s Belarus as a springboard.
As of now, all five people who had signed the accord had failed. In more ways than one. None of their stated goals have been achieved. The three democratically elected leaders had failed in the sense that they had not been able to prevent the escalation of the conflict. The two dictators have not, as of yet, been able to fulfill their ‘promises’.
For almost a year now, Ukraine had been able to defend itself against the Russian aggression. In the first days of the ‘special operation’, Ukraine had managed to do this alone! Only after the initial surprise had given birth to hope, the ‘west’ had started to send in meaningful assistance. Which strongly suggests that a people which is in control of its own fate – as in ‘democratically decides its own future’ – has a greater ability to fight than a people sent to the battle field at the whims of a dictator.
One by one, the democratically elected signatories of the Minsk agreement had been replaced. One way or another, all of them peaceful. Not necessarily as a consequence of this particular failure but, nevertheless, they are no longer able to make any other hugely significant mistake. The two dictators continue to dictate. To make mistakes and to defend their previous mistakes. To cause misery.
Looking at the whole thing from a distance, the situation is simple.
Unfortunately, things are even worse. Not only that power is magnetic to the corruptible but also most ‘ordinary’ people tend to have a hard time acknowledging mistake. Once committed, even by the most incorruptible person, a mistake gets a life of its own. And works hard at convincing the perpetrator to ‘hide’ it. Hence to commit even worse mistakes.
Now, why is power magnetic for the corruptible? Because power makes it possible for the ‘agent’ to ‘hide’ a lot of mistakes!
The way I see it, people have a knack for learning on the run. The shape of the learning curve and the duration of the process depends on the particulars of each situation but all people eventually get there. Those who survive to that point, of course…
What’s to be learned from all this?
The obvious, my dear Watson!
All those five powerful agents in the picture above have failed. Yet the French and the Germans fare a lot better than the Russians and the Belorussians while the Ukrainians fight better than the Russians.
What’s the main difference between those two ‘sides’?
Those who fare better change their leaders more easily and more often? Before their mistakes pile up? And become ‘too big to fail’?
‘Join them’ as in: ‘What you were doing was worthless. That being the reason for which you were not able to beat them. Hence you must turn coats and join them. In what they were doing’? Or ‘join them’ as in: ‘Regardless of who’s right or wrong, they are more powerful than you. In order to preserve yourself, you must cave in. And join them. In what they were doing and in how they were doing it!’?
There’s a third manner of putting it. ‘This is the democratic thing to do. If there are more of them than you, you must join them. There is wisdom in numbers, you know!’
I’m afraid all three ‘as in-s’ are wrong!
If you live in a democracy, you had already joined them. The very essence of a democratic arrangement is that you may keep your convictions even if the majority has made up its mind to proceed in another direction. You sometimes must follow – because you have already joined them, but you always may bring along your ‘luggage’. Provided that your luggage doesn’t endanger the community, of course. What if the community considers your luggage to be dangerous and you disagree? Then maybe the bond between you and the rest of the community isn’t that strong after all… In this case, you may have to weigh the pros and cons… Also, you must seriously consider the possibility that the relation between you and the community may not be based on ‘true love’ … it more likely belongs to the ‘friends with benefits’ category…
Do you tend to side with the powerful? Are you comfortable with delegating your ‘feel good’ to an outside agent? Are you aware that no matter what those outside agents promise, what they have in mind is their own interests? Not yours, theirs! Are you aware that ‘they’ are not your ‘servants’? That unless you live in a democracy, there’s no way to keep them accountable? ‘Stockholm syndrome’ means anything for you? How about ‘postponing the inevitable’? ‘Sweeping under the rug’?
Are you that afraid to change your mind? Under your own steam? Why ask for other incentives but those provided by mere reason? What else do you need besides arguments in order to make up your mind??
And where did this notion of ‘beating’ came from?
What are we fighting for?!?
One last thing. ‘Why me?’ is a very good question. Because there’s no one else!
No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own Or of thine friend’s were. Each man’s death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.
Destination first. If you know where you’re going, getting there will be a lot simpler.
According to Daniel Moynihan – “you are not entitled to your own facts”, facts are obvious. So obvious that doubting their existence, their factuality, would push us beyond the realm of the reasonable. Appropriating facts – transforming them into ‘private property’, banishes the perpetrator from the community….
Hm…
Let me put it differently. Moynihan had said something. What was it? A fact? Or an opinion?
Currently, we – well, most of us – believe that freedom of opinion is the cornerstone of our Weltanschauung. When it comes to facts… We’re OK with the definition – we do use the word/concept, quite extensively – but we seem to have some problems when dealing with the actual reality. Remember the still famous ‘alternative facts’?
Let me add something personal to all this. My opinion about ‘facts’.
The current definition is somewhat incomplete. We take something for granted. To the tune of no longer mentioning it. We assume all of us see the elephant in the room and no longer talk about it.
For something to become a ‘fact’ we have to notice it. First. And then we have to agree among ourselves about its meaning!
Things used to fall down since …. We’ve been discussing the matter since… we’ve learned how to speak! But gravity had become a fact only after Newton had noticed the famous apple, wrote about it and we agreed. Gravity had become a fact, and continues to be one, only because his contemporaries had agreed with Newton on this matter. And we continue to believe Newton was right!
In this sense, alternative facts have been with us since day one. Well, something like that… God had told something to Adam and Eve, the serpent had said something else… and the rest is history! For some…
Newton had said something to us. And most of us had chosen to believe him. Or ignore his words… Darwin had said something to us. Many of us have chosen to believe him. To accept his arguments about the matter. While some others have chosen to dispute Darwin’s findings. To actively negate Darwin’s explanations about how we’ve got here.
Gravity is a fact while Evolution is still a theory. Statistically speaking, of course.
In this sense, Moynihan was wrong. For his words to ‘hold water’, we must to agree on how to separate facts from opinions. Until we agree among ourselves about how to determine ‘factualness’, we’ll keep having to deal with ‘alternative facts’.
I actually cannot wrap this up before ‘unveiling’ my litmus test for factualness. Consequences.
Does it have consequences?
Yes? It’s a fact! No? Then it’s not – not yet, at least – a ‘fact’. It did happen – otherwise we wouldn’t be speaking about it. It even does have consequences – we do speak about it, but that occurrence doesn’t yet have meaningful consequences. It is not a ‘factual’ fact.
The answer, like always, is to be found inside the question which generates it.
“If socialism is so bad, how did the Soviet Union produce so many scientists.”
The key word here is ‘produce’. First of all, Russia did have an important cultural and scientific tradition to start with. Secondly, the communist leaders – mostly Lenin but more or less all of them, had a clear understanding of the literacy gap which separated Russia from the rest of the world. Filling that gap was the first step towards Russia/the Soviet Union becoming a First Tier country. Hence the ‘free, standard, universally available education’.
But there’s a caveat here. When we’re speaking about education – in the West, we mean ‘everything already known to man’. Students are allowed to read everything in the library – except for certain places in the US, but those are exceptions. When we speak about the education in the Soviet Union we must remember that each of the ‘free, standard and universally available’ aspects had its own limitations. It was free in the sense that everybody – well, almost – had the right to apply for it. Actually getting it was something else. It was standard in the sense that it was standardized. Only what was deemed safe/useful was allowed to reach the students. It was universally available in the sense that everybody was subjected to some form of education. Much of which was nothing more than indoctrination…
Finally, let’s remember that the Soviet Union was able to produce scientists only for so long. Until it collapsed under it’s own weight…
Moral of the story?
Producing scientists is not enough. Science teaches you only how to do whatever you want to do. What to want… that’s something else!
People who have never experienced communism speak freely about it. Some are frightened by it – as they should be, while others are looking forward to it.
People who have no real idea about what fascism/nazism was about speak freely about it. Some are frightened by it – as they should be, while others are looking forward to it.
While there is a consensus about communism being a ‘far left position’, fascism is usually – but not unanimously, considered to be ‘far right’. Some even speak about a ‘third position‘, whatever that might mean.
The way I see it, what we have experienced as fascism is what Marx had in mind when he wrote the Communist Manifesto. According to Marx, at some point in what he hailed as ‘the future’, the middle class was going to become poorer and poorer. All the wealth generated by the capitalist economy and governed by the increasingly imperialist/monopolist states was going to be herded into fewer and fewer hands.
What Marx was prophesying had soon enough come to be. The post WWI German and Italian peoples had lost their hopes and allowed themselves to be led by those who pretended to put ‘the best interests of the people’ above everything else.
Same thing happens whenever a crises is deep enough to impoverish a significant number of people. Who loose their hopes and allow callous political operators to advance closer and closer to power.
What we have experienced as ‘communism’ was a Leninist short-cut. In Marx’s view, communism was going to happen after economically advanced societies had reached a certain pinnacle. Lenin – and Mao, had introduced ‘socialism’ and ‘popular democracy’ as intermediary stages between their underdeveloped societies and what Marx had in mind.
So no, there is no such thing as a ‘third position’. We have democracy – where left and right cooperate towards the common good, and authoritarianism. While democracy is clear and transparent, authoritarianism hides its true nature under a chameleonic cloak. Painted, by the spin doctors who run the show, in whatever hue happens to be more attractive to the masses which are about to be fooled.
Afterthought. I googled ‘third position’ and found out that:
“In the last few years of the 20th Century, according to an article by Chip Berlet, a new form of fascism emerged in a period of resurgent neo-fascism. Called the Third Position, it seeks to overthrow existing governments and replace them with monocultural nation states built around the idea of supremacist racial nationalism and/or supremacist religious nationalism.”
Who wrote the Bible? Who considers God to be both omnipotent and wholly good? Who had become human by learning ‘to tell good from evil’? Does evil even exist outside our minds? Is anything actually evil unless considered so by one of us?
And no, I’m not hair-splitting when speaking about the huge difference between bad and evil! An earthquake, for example, is bad for those affected. Yet no evil is involved here but for those who ‘question God’s actions’. An individual who tortures animals for fun is also bad. Arguably less so than a major earthquake… but for everybody in their right mind that person is undoubtedly evil!
‘What?!? “Ignorant of most things” yet still “knowing good and evil”?!?’
Yep!
A more relaxed reader of the Bible may notice that what’s written there recounts, symbolically, the becoming of Man. The foremost apes notice the difference between night and day. And name both. The difference between ocean and dry land. And name them both. Notice the stars above and the living things, plants and animals, with whom they share the place. And name them all. “Apes”, not ape, because nobody can learn to speak by oneself. Nor become self aware. As in ‘able to observe oneself while observing other things’. (Maturana, 2005)
That same relaxed reader may also notice that the very ‘fallen nature’ of Man stems from the ‘inconsistency’ noticed above.
We’re basically ignorant yet still able to call out evil!
Oops…
Humberto Maturana, “The origin and conservation of self consciousness…”, 2005, https://cepa.info/702
Isn’t it rather funny that something called “crypto” is run on a completely transparent platform? So transparent that all the tracks are apparent but many of the ‘access points’ remain cloaked?
“The thing is, once smart-contract code is live on a blockchain, you can’t update it. If you discover a bug, it’s too late: the whole point of blockchains is that you can’t alter stuff that’s been written to them. Worse, code that’s hosted on a blockchain is publicly visible—so black-hat hackers can study it at their leisure and look for mistakes to exploit.”
nicichiarasa 