To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Noam Chomsky at Jul 23, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
It's been going on for some time, first in the South -- India, Brazil, South Africa,... -- and since Seattle primarily, the North has joined in. But all of this is some years back, in the South, decades (which is why the World Social Forum has been held in Brazil and India). The MST and Zapatistas are important components, but only components of much larger protests against the investor-rights version of international economic integration absurdly called "globalization." There's good literature on neoliberal globalization (the so-called "Washington consensus"). I've written about it too, for quite a few years. Profits over People to mention one of a number of books, and many articles, including talks at the WSF that have appeared here and there. The rules of the game were more or less formalized in the Uruguay round that set up the WTO, in NAFTA, and other such mislabelled "free trade agreements." They are a mixture of liberalization and protectionism, designed -- not surprisingly -- in the interests of the designers: mainly MNCs, financial institutions, the investor/lender class generally, the powerful states that cater to their interests, etc. The rights and interests of people are incidental. The extreme protectionism of the WTO and NAFTA goes far beyond earlier forms of protectionism. The outrageous patent principles, for example, designed to grant monopoly pricing privileges to immense private tyrannies, far in the future, and to stifle innovation and development, in their interests. Concentrated private power strongly resists exposure to market forces, unless it's confident it can win in the competition. That goes back centuries. There's a huge literature on this (I've written about it too) and can't summarize in a letter. Protectionist devices, such as those of NAFTA and the WTO, are only a fraction of the means by which the wealthy and powerful protect themselves from market forces. In fact, the core of the "new economy" is based on the principle that cost and risk should be socialized, and profit privatized (often after decades in the dynamic state sector). Just to take the obvious example, consider what you and I are now using: computers and the internet. Textbook examples of this process.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (122)

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 02, 2005 06:11 AM
Feminism can only exist under very artificial conditions. The first people to abandon feminism, in the streets, as it were would be feminists themselves. And those artificial conditions are largely the invention of men.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 29, 2005 03:23 AM
Bob, I realise that the prospect of having my balls in your face must be making your knees quake with excitement, but please don't let the homo-erotic excitement of the moment blind you to the reality of the fact that your "argument" died several posts ago.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 11, 2005 02:56 AM
Asshole, you don't get it do you? I have put forth an argument, the premises of which you tried vainly to refute- that means I'm winning, your insults notwithstanding. Thus, there is a basis for my insults, which is something you lack, not to mention the balls to say them to my face

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 11, 2005 00:59 AM
There's a bubble in the water. I think the tadpole farted again.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 10, 2005 21:54 PM
"Bob, you are an intellectual tadpole. Go and find yourself a shallower pool and stop embarrassing your friends." C Can't you get your tongue out of George W. Bush's asshole long enough to meet my argument?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Aug 10, 2005 18:45 PM
"Mcorbin, strawman?" Yes, strawman. You keep arguing against a statements I never made, you have accused me of racism for something I never said and claim that I have passed judgment, which I have not, so you can then try to pin that on me too. You have diffused this debate to generalities to avoid my point. Your comment I pasted below, while valid in of itself, is not relevant to this debate. "I am attempting to highlight to you that a behavioral norm cannot logically be posited as an explanation for exceptional achievement." And therefor missed my point and avoided my question. This is another straw man because I never claimed slavery was THE explanation for US wealth. That is an absurd argument and I never made it. I think we can agree on one thing: there are many reasons why the US has such wealth, more than we can consider here. Let's to put to rest the fantasy that it was aquired fair and square, not as a condemnation, but as a historical fact.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 10, 2005 13:39 PM
Mcorbin, strawman? I am attempting to highlight to you that a behavioural norm cannot logically be posited as an explanation for exceptional achievement. If two athletes follow the same training programme, but one consistently out-performs the other, logic demands that we dismiss their training as a possible source of performance differential. Investigation might, for example, reveal that one athelete had exceptional lung capacity and a more powerful heart. You seem to be in some confusion over formal cause and efficient cause? Which is why you are left clutching at a straw man! Bob, you are an intellectual tadpole. Go and find yourself a shallower pool and stop embarrassing your friends.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 10, 2005 06:19 AM
"MCorbin just a quick reply while I figure out 'how philosophy is done'." Calvin the cutup The fact is you don't know how to do philosophy, boy. That's one reason why I'm beating the intellectual shit out of you- the other being that you are trying to defend the indefensible. Sure you can make snide comments; but, unlike me, you have no ARGUMENT

Reply this comment

Person

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Aug 10, 2005 02:47 AM
Calvin, Leave the straw man alone. I repeat: I never condemed anything or anyone. I won't repeat my original comment anymore. If you don't understand it by now what use is there in reiteration? Either you agree that genocide and slavery constitiute fair play or you do not. In my opinion they do not no matter who the perpetrators are. Note: This is still not a condemnation of anyone. See?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 10, 2005 00:34 AM
MCorbin just a quick reply while I figure out "how philosophy is done". If YOU are going to talk about virtue as it pertains to socio-economic systems, you are in no position to isolate capitalism for special condemnation. A particular human economic culture cannot be validly critiqued on the basis of behaviour which is a more or less universal human constant. If you really opposed genocide and slavery you would engage in a comprehensive investigation of these phenomena. Your orientation on slavery and genocide is agenda driven and dishonest.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Aug 09, 2005 18:28 PM
"MCorbin, I didn't say that the universal nature of genocide etc., made it ok. It makes it normal human behaviour." Calvin, cut the BS, and let's get back to the point. If you are going to talk about the virtues of capitalism you are engaging in a debate involving questions of ethics. So when I bring up genocide and slavery as being critical components to US prosperity you are in no position to throw ethics out of the argument. It's hypocritical.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 09, 2005 17:06 PM
Ah, but you do not deserve an apology, but only further condemnation, you stupid, arrogant motherfucker. You obviously do not realize how philosophy is done: by setting forth one's views in valid arguments with true premises. You tried to refute the premises of my argument and failed miserably. The philosophical thing to do at this point is to come up with other reasons for thinking they are false or accept my conclusion- I insult only those people around here who fail to play by this rule- assholes such as yourself and Roger.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 09, 2005 12:06 PM
The posts get longer as the arguments get more tenuous. MCorbin, I didn't say that the universal nature of genocide etc., made it ok. It makes it normal human behaviour. Bong, Its not "racist for Whites to enslave Blacks" if they also enslave Whites. The native Americans practiced, slavery, cannabalism and genocide. Most native American tribe's names can be translated as meaning human beings. Non-tribal members were catagorized as sub-human or non-human. Clinton's apology was for the Tuskegee "experiment". At the time of this "experiment" treatments for syphilis were horrific, harmful (mainly involving arsenic) and worse than useless. With the painful and damaging nature of the "cures" then avaliable, a dedcision was made to leave older, non-contagious syphilis victims untreated, but to keep the patients under observation. This was a humane and compassionate decision, which has been engineered into a racisr event by the chief clowns of the race agitation circus. BTW, Is that the Robert Allen who was going to, "kick the intellectual shit out of me" with his child like syllogisms?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 09, 2005 07:05 AM
"Robert Allen, nice sycophancy. Few men slobber and grovel that well. Now roll over and beg, Attaboy Robert!" Calvin Because I apologized to someone who deserved an apology? You're warped.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Aug 09, 2005 03:25 AM
The fact that you tried to discredit me by passing judgements and falsely attributing them to me relveals your desperation in trying to justify murder and enslavement. What's most telling is that I wasn't even asking for justification and you still felt the need to offer it, and boy was it lame: everyone does it.(???) It's also ridiculous to call someone racist for pointing out specific crimes. I can't point out that Saddam Hussain is a murderer without adding that Iraqis are not the only ethnic group that has producer muderers? Are you kidding? "If you are looking for factor x, there might be a slight clue hidden somewhere in the hundreds of years of continuous Western scientific and technological progress." Here we are back at square A. You are repeating your fist argument that smartness, ingenuity and fair play is what brought about western wealth. Try again.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Aug 09, 2005 03:00 AM
Calvin, you still don't get it! "a. It is racist to isolate and condemn white people for doing something which everyone does/has done." I did not condemn anyone. I simply put forth a logical argument. The reader is left to make his or her judgement on their own. "b. If genocide and enslavement are universal, and economic success variable, then genocide and enslavement cannot be counted as the proximate cause of economic superiority." I wasn't commenting on the human race in general, I was talking about a specific case. You generalized on the whole human race which changes the question and therefor the answer. Straw man, straw man, straw man.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 09, 2005 01:50 AM
"b. If genocide and enslavement are universal, and economic success variable, then genocide and enslavement cannot be counted as the proximate cause of economic superiority." Nice strawman argument. You must have a house full of scarcrows. Where did anyone say that genocide and slavery alone are the succifient condition for economical success? Nor did anyone suggest that these practices were motivated by the same universal reasons everywhere they are practised and led to the same outcome in all context. Their relavancy to economics has to be examined in a case by case basis. In the case of the United States, slavery and the mass plunder of native land, combined with other incidental factors(such as geography) laid the fundation of its wealth. It is a fact. Your technique is too talk about abstract catagories in isolation to history and context. Nice try but it doesn't work here You can talk all you want about "culture", which is nabulous and open to intepretations. Max Weber and scholars in his time argued Confucianism was the reason why Asia was economically backward. Those were convincing arguments because the facts were on their side, right? Today's culturalists attribute Asian economical success to none other than Confucianism. Their case is just as convincing because contemporary facts back them too! Cultural "explanations" are ad hoc and circular. They are after the fact justifications rather than explanatory paradigms.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 09, 2005 01:29 AM
"a. It is racist to isolate and condemn white people for doing something which everyone does/has done." It is not racist for whites to enslave blacks but it is racist to point that out. What shameless doublespeak. The institution of slavery was abolished but racism did not end with it. Eugenics was fashionable until after WWII when its association with Hitler became too embrassingly. Until the civil right movment barely 40 years ago the U.S was like Apartheid South Africa. Recently, Clinton finally apologized to the black community acknowledging that African Americans were deliberatedly withheld treatments for syphillis after WWII. This was an experiment because the scientists wanted to study how the disease spread. This happened after WWII. Sergregation exists even now in some places in the South. Slavery has a contemporary context in the U.S. despite the efforts of your ilks to spin it as some ancient history like slavery in the Aztec Empire.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 08, 2005 23:37 PM
My "point" being my dear MCorbin, that every culture has engaged in genocide and that every culture has depended upon the de facto enslavement of most of its own group members and, whenever it could, the enslavement of outgroup members. Meaning that; a. It is racist to isolate and condemn white people for doing something which everyone does/has done. b. If genocide and enslavement are universal, and economic success variable, then genocide and enslavement cannot be counted as the proximate cause of economic superiority. If you are looking for factor x, there might be a slight clue hidden somewhere in the hundreds of years of continuous Western scientific and technological progress. Robert Allen, nice sycophancy. Few men slobber and grovel that well. Now roll over and beg, Attaboy Robert!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 23:19 PM
Naw, forgive me. It's a free speech forum, and you can swear and strut as much as you want. I didn't mean to come off as a snarling elitist. I was just trying to put myself in Calvin or Roger's shoes, and if I were them I wouldn't put up with somebody talking to me that way for one second, even if they were telling me the true meaning of life. But hell, there's no reason to take ourselves all that seriously - this is an open blog, not some polite discussion at Buckingham Palace.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 08, 2005 22:50 PM
bobbo, Well done. (Good work on the recent posts too.) I'm truly sorry for calling you names. And you are not a "homourless piece of shit." Please forgive me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Aug 08, 2005 21:27 PM
Calvin: "Selective condemnation on the basis of ethnicity makes you racist of the week." Hardly. I have made the case that US economic prosperity could not have occurred without the removal of the previous inhabitants and the help of free labor. If you want to assume that I think white Europeans are the only racial group guilty of genocide and slavery that's your business, but I haven't given you any reason to make that assumption. Your point seems to be that everyone's guilty of genocide and slavery therefore it IS fair play?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 20:14 PM
Of course, people like Calvin give credit for the results of these battles to the kleptocrats themselves, as if everything we've ever gotten, from the possiblility of individual freedom, to womens rights, was bestowed upon us without a fight. Moreover, I believe he thinks these things we have are in their purest form only in the "West", and that they can only be transmitted imperfectly to other cultures through the extension of Western power. But I doubt calling him names is going to change his mind. Your point is well taken though; I am a humourless peice of shit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 19:48 PM
Okay, I can do this... Alright buddy! Let's settle this once and for all! Your medical bills alone will be... more than you can pay (unless you live in Canada or Europe)! You'll have trouble walking... for... awhile, because of damage I'll do to your metaphorical legs! You'll be writhing on the ground whining for your mama! Your point about capitalism being essentially organized theft is not wrong. It is the method de jour of establishing and maintaining kleptocracy. I wouldn't exactly call it "evil", because in many ways it is a retreat from other forms of oppression and slavery. I would argue that capitalism is what it is because of a steady stream of anti-authoritarian, anti-slavery sentiment that has been rolling kleptocracy back for millenia. For instance, it used to be, that 30 years ago, freedom of speech in the U.S. was bound by the Sedition Act, and 40 years ago civil rights had yet to be won. Women's rights have been fought for again and again and again in waves since the eighteenth century. Ditto with slavery. Slave movements in antiquity forced feudalism to take the shape it took, etc. etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 08, 2005 05:54 AM
You may recover somewhere else, you little fool; but around here you will be getting a regular ass kicking. C'mon boy let's see what you got in the way of real knowledge, not smart alecky rejoinders.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 04:09 AM
Well, at least now I know what to write on my gravestone: "Bobbo - blew his chance to impress Robert Allen, and never recovered."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 08, 2005 03:32 AM
"Puffed up fools they may be - or they may not be. Can't say you proven much one way or the other. I have to say that I'm not a big fan of the name-calling, bravado and bullying that happens on these boards, including from you. ... Message boards are cool because it's like a conversation, except that you have the luxury of time and can choose very carefully what you say. I think that because of the anonymity of an alias, however, most people just assume that they can say all kinds of crap - crap they would never dream of saying if they were face to face with someone." Believe me, you humorless piece of shit, I'd say it to their faces too. And, since my argument, which you seem to have missed, stands unrefuted, I have proven its conclusion that capitalism is evil. You had a chance to impress me, boy, with your wit and moral acumen and blew it. Too bad.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 07, 2005 21:51 PM
>bobbo, Am I one of those highly qualified clowns you were referring to? I hope so, because there's almost nothing I enjoy more than getting a few laughs at the expense of puffed up fools like Calvin and Roger. Puffed up fools they may be - or they may not be. Can't say you proven much one way or the other. I have to say that I'm not a big fan of the name-calling, bravado and bullying that happens on these boards, including from you. I don't agree with what these guys have to say, but portraying your violent triumph over their worldview amid a stream of profanity doesn't impress me. Maybe it impresses you, maybe it impresses others on this board - I don't know, and haven't asked. Message boards are cool because it's like a conversation, except that you have the luxury of time and can choose very carefully what you say. I think that because of the anonymity of an alias, however, most people just assume that they can say all kinds of crap - crap they would never dream of saying if they were face to face with someone. The end result is that all the benefits of online blogging - the long-distance information exchange, the communal construction and testing of persuasive arguments, etc. - all of this is submerged under what amounts to a glorified dick-measuring contest. I'm glad you enjoy it, that makes one of us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 07, 2005 20:41 PM
Some forms of slavery had been practised throughout history, but there are differences in practise and context. The American variety still represented a particularly brutal and evil form of enslavement. Even though the institution of slavery is abolished but its many racist assumption and justification is still alive and well. Slavery was a circumstance in many cultures but in the U.S it had an entire racist ideology to justify it. In many cultures slavery was a by product of war. It was considered an improvement over the previous practice of simply slaugthering all captives. This was very different from American (and Arab) slave traders going all the way to Africa specifically to buy/kidnap humans as slaves. Also, in many cultures(such as the Natives) slaves lacked autonomy because of their status. But that was circumstantial rather than intrinsic. Unlike the African slaves, these slaves were not considered subhumans and a different kind of humans than their masters. There were incidents that these slaves eventually won their freedom by performing gallent acts. Some become adopted by their captives as become full members of the tribes. That was not the case with black slavery. Serfdom was practised in many fedual societies including Europe. But again it was a legal status, the serfs were not considered subhumans like in the U.S. Comparing ton serfdom the treatment of slaves in the U.S was much more brutal.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 07, 2005 20:06 PM
"the "native Americans" practiced genocide upon each other long before the rediscovery of America by Europeans" How is this supposed to refute McCorbin's observation that slavary and genocide are the pre conditions for the U.S's prosperity,--along with luck and other enviromental factors,--rather than just its alledged superior culture? Nice try to change the subject. You keep bringing up the points that natives practised genocides and Africans had slavery before the European arrived. Are you saying that somehow Africans and Natives are fair game as a result? This is a point frequently made by neo Nazis and white supremacists in their literature, which you're no doubt familiar with and taken to heart. But by the same logic, all Americans are fair game to terrorists as well because of the terrorism the U.S carries out worldwide. The 9/11 bombers and bin laden would appreciate yourr insight.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 07, 2005 08:57 AM
Calvin, you motherfucking piece of shit, A penniless parent who takes a loaf of bread for a starving child is not stealing (or it's permissible to steal to save your life and the lives of those you are obliged to feed, but not otherwise; take your pick) and the labor that is exchanged is worth a lot more than the compensation, entailing theft as the worker under capitalism has no way of obtaining its full value, since all employers get a lot more from their workers than they give out in compensation. I just kicked you in the balls and you are writhing on the ground in pain- want some more boy? bobbo, Am I one of those highly qualified clowns you were referring to? I hope so, because there's almost nothing I enjoy more than getting a few laughs at the expense of puffed up fools like Calvin and Roger.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 06, 2005 22:55 PM
McCorbin, the "native Americans" practiced genocide upon each other long before the rediscovery of America by Europeans. The Amerindians commited a genocide off the original Caucasian inhabitants of the Eastern seaboard and a genocide off the Viking colony. The Zulu commited genocide in their quest to build a Soth African empire. What do you think the Tutsi and the Hutu have just been engaged in if it wasn't attempted genocide? Selective condemnation on the basis of ethnicity makes you racist of the week. Congratulations dude!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 06, 2005 22:13 PM
>The present elite is based on a bourgoise false morality, a reduction of everything to "niceness" and mediocre inoffensiveness. Recognize your world losers? And then, predictably, the mediocrity of the horde. Don't get me wrong Calvin, I love the image ("caramelskinnydecaffmoccalattechino" - I laughed until I peed), but the cream that rises to the top is only as good as the bevarage it sits in. The race of gold can only shine thanks to their dependance on baser peoples. Can it be said that the elite run anything? To be the elite means to sit back and accept the privledges gained through other people's work. Why should the dreaded hoi polloi be obedient to some smug free-loader, no matter how talented? And it's far easier to be bold when your position shields you from risk. Anyone can gamble away other peoples lives and other peoples money. The position of an elite nullifies any quality that might justify it. Roger - seeing as you are vigilant against vanguardism, pay attention to this notion of the "natural elite". And lets not reduce ourselves to undignified "power begging", Calvin. >Restributing it from an anglo-American working-class who have fought to establish labour rights to a trans-continental reservoir of cut price tractable peasants Maybe the problem is that anglo-american labour rights have been rolled back for decades, and we never bothered fighting for anybody else's. Can it be that you've turned into a global labour rights activist?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 06, 2005 22:11 PM
Bob, the problem with categorical syllogism as an argumentive method is that it requires categorical substantiation. Since your collection of categorical assumptions are some of the weakest I have ever seen fielded, I had a good laugh at your rebuttal. All thieves are evil? Even a parent stealing bread for a starving child, Bob? "Capitalists "steal" workers time" Really? I thought they exchanged money for labour. "Hence" your argument doesn't even get off the starting blocks. The next time you "kick my intellectual ass" try taking off your big clown shoes.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 06, 2005 21:33 PM
>There is a natural elite. This elite consists of the most talented, the most intelligent and the boldest. Ah yes, the natural elite. One must always include the speaker in this select group. The standards of judging the natural aristocracy are chosen by God, or Reason, or Common Sense or some other self-evident base, but it is amazing how well those who moan about the natural elite measure up to their own yardstick. The most talented shall lead, yes, but the most talented WHAT? The most talented roofer? The most talented comedien (I know of some candidates on this board)? The greatest marathon runner? And in any case, how can that be accurately tested if the elite marathon runners are given a limo to drive to the finish line?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 06, 2005 17:22 PM
Thank you MCorbin for your acute analysis of the debate here, such as it is. And how 'bout that Calvin; he's a real piece of work, aint he? It's not bad enough that these folks are willing to countenance the terrible suffering capitalists inflict on people all over the world- they must add insult to injury by blaming the latter for their plight.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Aug 06, 2005 09:48 AM
The difficulty in debating capitalism is the popular belief that capitalism is the reason for the US's economic prosperity, that through smartness, ingenuity and fair play, the US has risen to the top. The truth is that without genocide (native Americans) and slavery this "rise to the top" would not have happened. Not fair play by civilized standards. The problem will be that those on the pro side of the capitalism debate that do not deny these factors will argue that they are overstated. Roger doesn't count because he has still not addressed the problems of capitalism that have been pointed out on this blog and therefore is not even in the debate. He does however give us a steady supply of condemnations, opinions, and lectures. All seemingly to distract from the point that he is trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 06, 2005 07:18 AM
Calvin the Loser, You are equivocating on 'taking' so your argument is fallacious and, thus, not analogous to mine- not to mention that you yourself are a piece of shit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 05, 2005 22:50 PM
Using that logic: 1. Stealing time is evil. 2. Taking a dump takes time. 3. Hence, all turds are evil.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 05, 2005 20:29 PM
Here it is again, punk: 1. All thieves are evil. 2. All capitalists are thieves- they steal their workers' time. 3. Hence, all capitalists are evil.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 05, 2005 19:43 PM
"Whence cometh this strange new variety of moron?" Capitalist Lackey Calvin Boy, I'll kick the goddamn living intellectual shit out of you. Neither you nor Roger the Reject (more on this later), nor rdwhatever has managed to rebut my argument against capitalism (posted under 'An End to Capitalism')

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 05, 2005 12:36 PM
Whence cometh this strange new variety of moron?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 05, 2005 07:55 AM
"There is a natural elite. This elite consists of the most talented, the most intelligent and the boldest." Our man Roger To which he definitely does not belong. "The present elite is based on a bourgoise false morality, a reduction of everything to 'niceness' and mediocre inoffensiveness." Our man once again displaying his erudition Now there's his speed; he'd lick shit off a sidewalk if the capitalists told him to. Be a good boy Roger and there will be a nice fat paycheck waiting for you at the end of the week.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Espinosa_baca, Tenoch at Aug 05, 2005 03:00 AM
Wow. Chomsky, a linguistics professor, is a millionaire? This manner of trying to dismiss Chomsky's writing is already questionable from the start. But if you're going down that road, at least provide concrete evidence of Chomsky's wealth. Let's see some millionaire figures.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 04, 2005 23:23 PM
The foremost authority on elites is Wilfredo Pareto, who I supose that the "enlightened" left are as ignorant of as they are of anything outwith their sacred dogma? There is a natural elite. This elite consists of the most talented, the most intelligent and the boldest. The present elite is based on a bourgoise false morality, a reduction of everything to "niceness" and mediocre inoffensiveness. Recognize your world losers? No? Never mind, go slurp another caramelskinnydecaffmoccalattechino from a giantsized polestyrene baby feeding cup while you think about it. Redistributing wealth! Yes! Restributing it from an anglo-American working-class who have fought to establish labour rights to a trans-continental reservoir of cut price tractable peasants, who just coincedently provide the intelligentsia with the motive power for their leisure activities.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 04, 2005 23:18 PM
nemo, Thanks for kicking Roger the Ugly Fool's ass. Not that it will do him any good; he only reads what his masters approve of. But, yeah, capitalists savagely exploit people in places like China, creating the desire in 3rd worlders to come to America where exploitation has not yet reached the sweatshop level.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Protocol4, Nemo at Aug 04, 2005 23:05 PM
dude roger, you need to read some chinese history before you shoot. do you know what happened to china between the 1830s and 1945? have you heard of the opium wars, forced treaties,forced concessions? are you familiar with the term "cutting of the chinese melon"? do you know about woodrow wilson's "open door policy" (in other words let us all rape china together rather than letting just the british and the germans do it) toward china? rest assured if the situation had been reversed plenty of europeans would have been stereaming to china (as indeed they did at some point). dude read some history...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By The, Roger at Aug 04, 2005 19:36 PM
"It is rightwing economical policies lik those you champion that render the poor voiceless and maginalized.." Big bad "right wing economic policies" at it again eh? You know what bwong? You know the greatest evidence I have to support the validity of right wing economic policies?? You! The very fact that you are here and your Chinese ancestors chose to leave China, a huge country, with plenty of natural resources, an ancient culture, all behind to travel halfway around the world to profit and make a very nice living in the bad bad Western world confirms its greatness. Again I ask, where do you see in all of history the kind of mass immigration from a western to a non-western country that we see everyday when the situation is reversed? Where are the "Americatowns" in Beijing or the "Little New Yorks" in Bombay? Why did your parents (or grandparents or whomever) choose to come here? Why the big bad West? And why did millions more of your fellow countrymen, (and undoubtedly millions more you want to) choose to enjoy the profitability of right wing capitalist policies? And while you're answering that, compare and contrast the net worth of your family with that of the average Chinese living in China. The West may have many faults no doubt, but its openness, dynamism, adaptibility and willingness to change while other cultures remain stagnant is what sets it apart.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By The, Roger at Aug 04, 2005 19:05 PM
"There is a strong tradition of anti-elitist, anti-vanguardist elements within the left. Lenin and Trotsky crushed them within the first year of the Bolshevik revolution, Stalin, Franco and Hitler managed to get them out during the Spanish Civil War." But they BECAME elitists themselves when they eventually took power. Nice to know you agree with me that Hitler was left wing. "[Chomsky says he is] extremely privileged in this society. he also believes that privileged people have certain responsibilities..." How about the responsibility of NOT being extremely privileged? Why does Chomsky, Moore, Nader et al have to be millionaires? Can't they make it as just being well-off without being super rich? "at LEAST our "elites" support things like... redistributing the wealth..." Redistributing the wealth!??! PLEASE! Open your eyes man! If Chomsky and other millionaire Lefties really believed in "redistributing the wealth they wouldn't BE millionaires TO BEGIN WITH! Are you really that native? Wake up! There are plenty of organizations in the world and plenty of poor people out there that could use some extra money. If Chomsky has trouble getting rid of this burden, please by all means, let me know! I'd be happy to show him a few places were he could spent it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Matrix4, Appleman at Aug 04, 2005 18:38 PM
Prokerkus, Roger the Anti-Saying Anything Remotely Intelligent: You can whine about Left "elitists" all you want but at LEAST our "elites" support things like increasing the minimum wage, giving power to the workers, taxing the rich, redistributing the wealth and raising our consciousness about the less fortunate. For you two to confuse the Noam Chomskys' of the world with Bill Gates and Donald Trump is idiotic and even disgusting. Calvin: I hope you stay drunk. For a long, long time. We probably won't be able to tell the difference when you are sober anyway. Cheers! Appleman

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gutter_trash79, Schrick at Aug 04, 2005 00:39 AM
I wouldn't be suprised calvin or anti-chomsky read Steve Sailer or any one else in the conservative Libertian circle that's a strong presence today. They didn't just think all of this on their own. Also, rather hilliarious they hark of 'leftist' elitism and snobbery, but choose reply in a very patronizing, bulling tone. Projection I think.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 03, 2005 22:37 PM
>MY point is that no matter who takes power - the Left OR the Right- that it is just a matter of an exchange of elites. Both claim to be working for the 'greater good' but often enough that turns into just an ego-trip for the leader whenever one extreme takes power. It is absolutely true that there are vanguardist, elitist, authoritarian elements of both the left and right. Leninism and Stalinsim are the most infamous examples on the left, though I'm sure there are countless others. Myself, I can't see much difference between these elements. But "the left", like any broad category, is not a unified or monolithic entity. There are the vanguardist left, there are the left who supposedly control the American media (so-called "liberals"), there are Communists, traditional marxists, Leninists, Maoists, the "cruise missle" left, social democrats, anarchists, etc. All have different ideas, and all have differences even between members of their own camp. There is a strong tradition of anti-elitist, anti-vanguardist elements within the left. Lenin and Trotsky crushed them within the first year of the Bolshevik revolution, Stalin, Franco and Hitler managed to get them out during the Spanish Civil War. The right is also a complex picture. You can't dismiss everyone the same way. Not all people who entertain political or social ideas, or even organize themselves based on those ideas, are hungry to dominate others.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 03, 2005 22:15 PM
"Power is like money. Its value lies in its quantity. It is as nonsensical for you to talk about power in qualatative (sic) terms as it would be to talk about money in qualatative (sic) terms." Calvin Coolidge If he had only done it once, I'd say it was a typo. But twice means the arrogant motherfucker can't even spell. Typical pseudointellectual.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 03, 2005 21:21 PM
To summarize Robert's position, it is perilous , both in a moral sense and in terms of self interest, to automatically accord legitimacy to power. And if one chooses to legitimize power only under certain conditions, these conditions should be applied universally, not selectively. For instance, saying "it is legitimate to kill civilians as long as they are culturally different or inferior," is obviously a deficient condition for legitimating violence. Now, you can argue that the mere fact of power deserves a certain respect and recognition. When I deal with people or institutions that have a great deal of power over me, I recognize and respect (or fear) that power, and do whatever I can to avoid being harmed by it. But that's a separate issue from liking it or actively supporting it. I wouldn't ask an Iraqi citizen to accept the RIGHT of Americans to invade their country any more than I would accept a terrorist's RIGHT to bomb me in a subway. They can do it if they want, but I'll resist or stop them if I can. Their power over me is simply not legitimate.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Allen, Robert at Aug 03, 2005 20:39 PM
"The fact that 'accounting for the rise of civilizations is fraught with difficulties', does not change the empirical fact of Western dominance ... The dominace of the West is attributable to the fact that the West has kept on traveling when other cultures have come to a dead end." Calvin, Let's suppose that you and I were debating capitalism and I kneed you in the balls and proceeded to slap you senseless (you heartless bastard). Would you then agree with me that capitalism is evil? No, of course not: might does not make right. Likewise, that the West is on top now does not entail the "superiority" of its institutions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Protocol4, Nemo at Aug 03, 2005 19:56 PM
to add to what bwong said above, chomsky has pointed out umpteen times that he and people like him are extremely privileged in this society. he also believes that privileged people have certain responsibilities...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 03, 2005 08:04 AM
"I think it's very naive for left wing people to really believe that wealthy people such as Chomsky aren't thinking about fattening their pockets and increasing their power.." Perhaps you're right based on a right winger's way of thinking. But some people, obviously rare amonging your peers, do think there is more to life than wealth and power. Right wingers often accuse leftists of naivity for not sharing their cynicsm. The common put down is anyone who remains a socialist after 30(or is it 40 now in view of increase longivity?)has no brain. Put down aside, it indicates there are indeed such "no brainers" around. If Chomsky were after wealth and power he could do much better by justifying power than challenging it. Chomsky's admirers may be well off enough to buy a few books but they are no movers and shakers. If Chomsly's goal were to get rich by selling books he woudl have gone into the self help or diet genre. I don't always agree with Chomsky's analysis. But his integrity, passion and decency as a human being always shine through in his writing and speeches.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Espinosa_baca, Tenoch at Aug 03, 2005 05:46 AM
Prokerkus, I get your point about corrupt elite political leaders, regardless of political party. But how does this deny Chomsky, a mere academic, a platform to argue from? Tenured professors in the humanities and social sciences do not hold the power of the Pentagon or the White House or even the Fox News Network. You seem critical of Chomsky and left-intellectuals, but don't you think you're giving them too much credit and power?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 03, 2005 05:09 AM
>We have a superior socio-political operating system which bestows greater wealth. Wealth which can when required be ploughed into military initiatives. So, if we in the West have great power because of our great socio-political operating system, why are rejecting actions that might make it better? Why is the status quo considered the optimal configuration? By your definition, slave societies had a superior socio-political operating system than their backward competitors. So too did feudal tyrannies. We still marvel at Egypt's pyramids. Yet today, we find their treatment of their labourers and masses detestable. Why? There is something we prize more than merely the productivity, wealth and power of a society; we are interested in how it's distributed and how it's used. We are interested in the dignity, freedom and happiness of people's lives. Perhaps it is because these things are the very source of our wealth - as you say "right makes might". But then why would you begrudge the continuation of this project? If respect for women's rights are a corallary of our wealth and power (though you might want to look at Saudi Arabia's per-capita GDP...), why not also human rights? Why are we not working around the clock to critique and push forward the status-quo, thereby acquiring still more wealth and power through our ever-more superior social operating system? If virtue is the wellspring of power, why would we ever need to seek power at the expense of virtue?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Aug 02, 2005 20:38 PM
I *think* Roger's point is that no matter how much the Left tries to make themselves out to be champions of the poor, the people who are the leaders and make the decisions are often elites and wealthy men themselves. I think Roger's mistake was limiting his *analysis* to only those that write books where he should have expanded to those that assume leadership positions in the Left, who are usually white male university-intellectual types. Not exactly the working class. I think it's very naive for left wing people to really believe that wealthy people such as Chomsky aren't thinking about fattening their pockets and increasing their power. It's isn't about selfless reasons anymore than Bush only cares about democracy. It's important to see through 2 lies, not just 1. MY point is that no matter who takes power - the Left OR the Right- that it is just a matter of an exchange of elites. Both claim to be working for the 'greater good' but often enough that turns into just an ego-trip for the leader whenever one extreme takes power. BOTH sides are after the same things: money and power. The Right is just a little more honest about it while the Left pretends they are these great idealists working for the less fortunate. In reality, though it's just really trading one set of elites for another; one self-righteous know it all for another. I just think the Left should be more honest about it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 02, 2005 19:48 PM
"I thought this was the Progressive LEFT after all! The vanguard!.." Unfortunately you do have to be literate to write books, Einstein. In many places just knowing how to read is a priviledge let alone how to write. Is it the fault of the left that a lot of people are denied education because they can't afford it or they have to make a living? Even a moron knows to write a book requires time. Is it the fault of the left that the majority of working people have to spend the bulk of their waking moments to make ends meet? Is it the fault of the left that a lot people in the third world survive on less than $1 a day and can afford neither the time nor money to be educated and to write? Please show us where did Chomsky appointed himslef a vanguard and explain how intellectuals advocating for the poor and disenfranchised prevents them from speaking out themselves? It is rightwing economical policies lik those you champion that render the poor voiceless and maginalized, not the left. What is your point anyway? Are you saying he relatively privileged like Chomsky should not betray their classs interest by speaking out for the voiceless? Apparantly you would only approve if intellectuals all sound like Ayn Rant. I am touched by your concern about authentic voice of the working people. Thanks for the crocodile tears.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 02, 2005 19:23 PM
"But you don't have to know English to know who Chomsky is. Chomsky goes all over the world with his books and his message." So you admit he has a large readship outside the circle of a few "anti West Westerners".So Chomsky readers around the world are not "anti-West" by your definition? I know a few Chinese books with "anti-Western" themes(not all are well written, granted) But usually only Chinese writers who write against "communism" recieve a lot of attentions here, geeze I wonder why. There are even celebrated Chinese dissidents who criticze the Chinese government, Western policies and capitalism with equal fervor. But all that filter through is that these people are all "anti-communists". Not very surprising knowing who owns the media here.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By The, Roger at Aug 02, 2005 09:35 AM
"And what a real great discovery that only educated people write books and usually they don't have to spend 8 hrs a day driving cabs or selling hotdogs. " Nice to know you accept that "educated" means "university degree." But wait bwong! I thought this was the proletariat Left! You know, "power to the people" and all that jazz! What's this "educated" bourgeois nonsense! Don't you know they're just indoctrinating your kids up there in the universities with capitalist propaganda! We all know that the poor know better than the rich do right? That's a leftist truism as old as anything! So why not have the proletariat, the working class speak for themselves? We need RICH WHITE MEN to speak for the poor and the (disproportionately female and non-white) working class? We need Noam Chomsky whose worked at one of the most elite universities in the US for the past 50 years telling us about "sacrifice" and being a "rebel." I mean, I thought this was the Progressive LEFT after all! The vanguard! The place that would ENCOURAGE working class people to speak for themselves; not have massa Chomsky-types speak for them! Seriously though, it is of the most extreme elitist arrogance that the Left can honestly look you in the eye and tell you that these rich white men speak for the poor and oppressed. If you believe that, better come to Brooklyn with me, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you. Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, Bong.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By The, Roger at Aug 02, 2005 09:11 AM
"An interesting opinion but you forgot to list *evidence* that this is in fact the case." I just listed plenty of examples of wealthy white Westerners that are the "usual suspects" when it comes to critisizing the West. Noam Chomsky is a good one. As is Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Gore Vidal...and well, just about any other prominent Leftist that you could name. Look at most leftist revolutions, who is running the show? Cuba is a great example as Fidel Castro, Raul Castro and Che were all upper/middle class white men. You want evidence? Look up a history book. Look at this site for crying out loud and count how many middle/upper class white men you see. "Would your perception that only "White Westerners" write "anti-Western books" have something to do with the fact that you don't read Arabic, Hindi or Chinese and know only books published in the U.S?" But you don't have to know English to know who Chomsky is. Chomsky goes all over the world with his books and his message. Books by high profile leftists are translated into dozens of languages. It would be very easy to find a Chinese equivalent to Noam Chomsky if one existed available in English. In fact, it is likely that any prominent author would be more than happy to have his books translated in English as that is where the money is. It just so happens that the the high profile leftists are almost all white, wealthy men. Not even women or minorities.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 02, 2005 08:04 AM
"It is no coincidence that most of the anti-Western books are written by (often wealthy) white Westerners! You don't see poor Arabs or Chinese or Indians writing these books;" RAC This is the most stupid observation even by your standard. Would your perception that only "White Westerners" write "anti-Western books" have something to do with the fact that you don't read Arabic, Hindi or Chinese and know only books published in the U.S? And what a real great discovery that only educated people write books and usually they don't have to spend 8 hrs a day driving cabs or selling hotdogs. Nice job, Einstein.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Espinosa_baca, Tenoch at Aug 02, 2005 06:05 AM
"It is no coincidence that most of the anti-Western books are written by (wealthy) white Westerners!" Really? An interesting opinion but you forgot to list *evidence* that this is in fact the case. Providing evidence would then enable you to make a convincing *argument* against folks like Chomsky.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Aug 02, 2005 03:35 AM
Roger wrote: "Even in "revolutionary" countries such as Cuba, who leads? Poor campesinos? Oppressed black men? No, it's Rich white men like Fidel Castro." When EITHER extreme takes power, whether it be the right or the left, it's really just a matter of exchanging the elites that run the show. Sure, they have different propaganda but the result is the same whether hard left or hard right: trading one set of elites for another. "As for Noam Chomsky, he sits in his bourgeois, lily-white, suburbs of Massachusetts making a 6 figure salary and enjoying the fruits of capitalism being a NYT bestselling author while being that eternal "rebel against the system!" It sure is easy to be a rebel when you're sitting on millions! Just ask Michael Moore!" Yes that is a major hypocrisy on the part of the Left. No doubt about it. Noam Chomsky et al are very well-off men. If you took a poll on Znet, I'm sure you would find most of its writers and readers are middle to upper class white men. This is all true. However, there are also many hypocrisies with regards to the Right as well: family values conservatives such as Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and Henry Hyde have all had their run-ins with affairs, divorces, and drug taking. Hypocrisy runs very deep on both sides. That's why it's good to be a moderate and have the ability to see the lies and hypocrisy on BOTH sides, not just one. Neither extreme is the answer.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By The, Roger at Aug 02, 2005 03:00 AM
Another telling aspect of Western culture is that even when the West is not at its peak in terms of power, you don't see the type of mass-immigration to non-western countries as you do when the situation is reversed. Thanks Calvin for bringing up the gender equality issue; I've tried to bring up the issue myself with leftists here to no avail. I again ask you leftists, what do you say to the gender equality, acceptance of homosexuality (all nations that have recognized gay marriage are Western nations incidentally), and other freedoms and liberties that you will find virtually no where else in the non-western world. Try going to Asia or the Middle East and bring up your hardcore feminist rhetoric there; try bringing up gay marriage to the average Nigerian, Guatemalan, or Vietnamese. Also in the West is where you will find that young people have the most freedom, the most freedom to enjoy themselves, to feel liberated, and where they enjoy the most equality vis a vis their parents. This is in direct contrast with most non-western societies where the standard is to OBEY your parents and obedience and submission to your elders are heavily ingrained in the culture. A comparative study of gender equality, homosexual equality, and youth equality of western vs. non-western societies will not get talked about much here on Znet; for its results will be show that the West is FAR more progressive than nearly all these third world countries.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 23:23 PM
Power is like money. Its value lies in its quantity. It is as nonsensical for you to talk about power in qualatative terms as it would be to talk about money in qualatative terms. One thousand high quality dollars isn't worth more than ten thousand low quality dollars, because there is no such thing as a high or a low quality dollar. So I disagree with you because you are wrong. The West has more power for the same reason that that Westerners have on average more leisure time, more disposable income, more gender equality, more food and better housing than humans who live under the aegis of non-European cultures. We have a superior socio-political operating system which bestows greater wealth. Wealth which can when required be ploughed into military initiatives. That's the example of logic. Two questions; 1. What's the next definition you want me to duck? 2. From one former punk to another, how do you know I'm White? PS. I now intend to get too drunk to post with even my usual low level of politeness so bye for now. Regards Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 22:01 PM
Calvin, I'm sorry if you find my "order" for you to define the basic concepts in your argument disingenuous or onerous. It was a suggestion - I thought I was being helpful. I have only a foggy idea, probably because of my terrible ideology, of the boundaries of your definitions, and I believe they are debatable , and debatable in a fashion relevant to the argument. You don't seem to think so, and we will leave it at that. That still leaves my 3rd and 4th suggestions, which cut to the heart of your argument, and which have in my opinion been dealt with insufficiently. I believe that Western values and Western power are relatively distinct. And I also believe that Western power, insofar as it is violent, coercive, and exploitative, is not qualitatively different than the power of other civilizations. You do not agree. Why don't you tell me why? Would I be a little too demanding if I were to ask you for some examples? Think of it as a favour, from one rich white man to another.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By The, Roger at Aug 01, 2005 20:45 PM
It is no coincidence that most of the anti-Western books are written by (often wealthy) white Westerners! You don't see poor Arabs or Chinese or Indians writing these books; it's Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, and other rich white men. Even in "revolutionary" countries such as Cuba, who leads? Poor campesinos? Oppressed black men? No, it's Rich white men like Fidel Castro. Now you would think that people would ask: what on earth do these rich white men know about being poor and oppressed?? What gives them the right to prescribe how the poor should take power when they represent the most privileged elements of society? Natural, logical questions to be sure, but ones that will not be asked here; since it is truly verboten.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 20:30 PM
That's a fine demonstration of the reality of liberal-leftism. Far from being egalitarian it is, perhaps the worlds most snobbish and elitist belief system. Before you even deign to debate your opinions you order me to pass a test. You reject a dialogue based on heuristic definitions, not because you don't believe that these definitions are valid, but because you find it easier to debate definitions than arguments. That's not debate, that's evasion. BTW, "calls to question power" are usually never calls to question the power of the questioner. They are in fact appeals for a redistribution of power in favour of the questioner. The complaints of left wing social philosophers are, far from being non-power inspired, in fact exercises in "power begging". Of course you can dismiss that point by your usual methodology of asserting that the statement is not 100% right 100% of the time, or by demanding a definition of power. If you are faced, after much torturous dialogue, with a suitable definition you will simply demand a definition of an aspect of the definition. That's what is known as the infinite liberal regress.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By The, Roger at Aug 01, 2005 20:25 PM
"http://www.contracafe.com " Great site, thanks! "Have a look at a biographical dictionary bwong. 80% of everyone who is outstanding in any field of human endevour is European." Uh oh! You can't say that here Calvin! It's not PC! It doesn't work well with the "Hate the West/We feel so guilty for being Westerners but don't want to change our lifestyle-one-bit-crowd! War is peace remember! You know it's very telling that often enough, persons of color that emigrate over to the West often are much more "pro Western" than Western leftists are! I've been told more times that the "West is superior" by NON-Western immigrants than I have been told by Westerners themselves! So many Asian immigrants tell me how restrictive their country is, how the culture limits freedom and creativity and enforces rigid structures of dominance and obedience, structures that have not changed for hundreds of years and how happy they are to live in a free and open society. It seems that guilt ridden lefties with their crocodile tears are more critical of Western civilization than most non-Westerners are! As for Noam Chomsky, he sits in his bourgeois, lily-white, suburbs of Massachusetts making a 6 figure salary and enjoying the fruits of capitalism being a NYT bestselling author while being that eternal "rebel against the system!" It sure is easy to be a rebel when you're sitting on millions! Just ask Michael Moore!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 18:28 PM
>I'll tell you what, let's look at your analysis. Cultural values are either non-existent or indefinable. We are left with the mere fact of Western power. Your explanation for Western hegemonic power is the greater ruthlessness of the West. That's not exactly my point. One of the problems I have with your argument is that cultural values, wherever they can be identified, are not really convincing explanations for a nation's, or collection of nation's relative power in the world. This is because the causal link can never really be established, and because the exercise of power often poorly corresponds to values of any kind, besides those of expediency. I believe in all kinds of values, many of them values that appear in a variety of forms all over the world. But these values are poor justifications for power; if anything, they are potent calls to question power. My suggestion to you is this: 1) Get a fairly cogent, workable definition of culture. 2) Come up with a workable definition of "The West". 3) Find a way to link cultural values of the West to Western power. 4) Explain why these values can justify Western power as preferable to the power of some other culture. Then you have an argument.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By K, Mr at Aug 01, 2005 17:40 PM
Well Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization is something that people cannot easily do. 'Our way of life' is bent of freedom from terrorists and the pursuit of 'free' market democracies existing throughout this planet. However, Neo-liberal doublespeak is a dubious counter-productive system which gears inequal distributation of resources to the minority few. Based upon meritocracy they have morphed the 'welfare' state economy into the one that it is today. By eliminating state 'life chances' the government has reduced it's most precious few to homelessness and abandonment due to 'market forces' and 'budget restraints'. capital is worth more than life. Get a job and join the program or start your own revolution. Dukabor the system and watch the buildings burn. The nazi's burned the reichstag maybe the american public needs to burn down the whitehouse. I think Canada did it in 1812.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Laing, Scott at Aug 01, 2005 16:25 PM
No. I said that to distill the essence of a civilization is terribly complex; any attempt to do so on a blog site is ridiculous, no offense. But, (feel free to find this contradictory) if you wish to grab at a word like 'adaptibility' as if it meant something, I would, were I to grab a word, grab 'ruthlessness'. Among the things the West is known for - capitalism, scientific method, technology, "democracy" - it is how these things are used that to me is most relevent And consistantly, in all these areas, the rush for hegemony required the application of ruthless methods, and the West rose to the occassion every time. How do you conquer a world and extract its resources and appropriate its labour? Answer -- whatever it takes. You misunderstood my argument, taking the opportunity to put words in my mouth and then make an accusation: debate terminated.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 12:26 PM
Guys, I'll tell you what, let's look at your analysis. Cultural values are either non-existent or indefinable. We are left with the mere fact of Western power. Your explanation for Western hegemonic power is the greater ruthlessness of the West. Being a student of history,I can't accept your "ruthlessness" theory. Your positing of this theory indicates that you, nevertheless, agree with me that the fact of power presupposes a chain of causality. Ruthlesssness being a value, we also agree that values are a causal agent. Your "ruthlessness hypothesis" is just a way of saying that the West is powerful because Caucasians are evil. That's about the most unashamedly racist argument I've heard.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Laing, Scott at Aug 01, 2005 06:48 AM
Calvin, you can get anecdotal thereby hopelessly muddying the waters. It is a terribly complicated thing to try to distill the essence of a civilization, obviously far beyond the bounds of these humble postings. When you asserted 'adaptibility' was the reason for Western dominance I assumed you were trying for a specific trait, either peculiar to or highly refined in Western society. I assumed this was joined to an argument for Western superiority as a civilization - thus, a civilizational standard ideology. Historians steeped in classical Western ideology tended to insert Western values into non-Western events/societies. This has been done in the study of native cultures. Revised studies have drawn different conclusions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 04:03 AM
On Pol Pot, I admit, I used an inflammatory example. You can replace his name with more durable despots like Stalin, Hitler, Suharto... in fact any "great man". It doesn't change the substance of my argument, which is that power needs to be justified - and power itself cannot be it's own justification. Which brings us back to values. I never objected to it. I merely asked you to give me a convincing values-based argument for American dominance. Instead, all you've been giving me is a power-based argument for American dominance. If the value is free markets, why does the U.S. engage in protectionism? If the value is freedom, why does the U.S. support despotism? If the value is justice, why does the U.S. undermine international law? Again, I have to apologize about the length of these posts. Brevity is not my strong suit. I'll try to work on it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 03:39 AM
>You are now playing the old leftist game of questioning the validity of definitions. Is that just a leftist game? It should be everybodies game. Define your terms, and leave them open to challenges. You'll find that you can make much better arguments. Note also, that while I am questioning the validity of the terms of the debate, I'm still using them to make my arguments. If I wrote my posts in my own terms, I wouldn't actually be having a debate with you, I'd be having a debate with myself. >If you want to reject the concept of culture that's fine. We can start to repatriate all of Europe's non-European immigrants who have come here under the auspices of multiculturalism, which is, since you reject culture as a valid taxanomic construct, obviously an equally fradulent concept. I don't see how one follows the other. A rejection of culture would invalidate the need for multiculturalism to justify accepting foreign immigrants in the first place. And besides, lets not be coy. The reason that countries accept immigrants is usually so they can change the structure of their labour force. "Multiculturalism" is just an electoral-friendly word for it. True multiculturalism would be a lot more meaningful if it included respecting other cultures by, say, not bombing them for their oil. Right now, in Canada at least, all it seems to mean is that cab drivers and cafe workers are virtually guaranteed to be better educated than their patrons.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 03:16 AM
bobbo, when you cite examples such as Pol Pot, I think that you are confusing "power" with aggressive violence. The Khmer Rouge deployed a tsunami of violent brutality over a short period of time and then collapsed. Rome fell at a time of great decadence. Rome had become weakened from within through turning away from its basic martial and republican values and turning to despotism and mercenaries. Why should you care more if you hear about the death of your father than someone else's father? Why should you care if you live under Sharia law or American law? I'm the one who believes in values, remember? I used an alternative descriptor because you seemed to be objecting to "values" at a conceptual level.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 02:54 AM
bobbo, You are now playing the old leftist game of questioning the validity of definitions. In this case culture, which you are presenting as a "mystical" concept. If you want to reject the concept of culture that's fine. We can start to repatriate all of Europe's non-European immigrants who have come here under the auspices of multiculturalism, which is, since you reject culture as a valid taxanomic construct, obviously an equally fradulent concept. Adaptability just means an abiity to recognize and exploit opportunities. If Westerners created their superiority on the basis of favourable local environmental potential, so what? The lessons learned in this environmental crucible have proven to be transferable lessons which bestow general advantages, leading to cultural hegemony. Don't you think that your argument is getting a bit attenuated?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 02:40 AM
Yeah, we do appear outta sync. No problem. We'll just try our best to catch up :) If you want to say that Rome's institutions and infrastructure were responsible for it's dominance, fine. But that isn't a question of right. Right doesn't come into it - that would make Rome "right" until the point that it collapsed under the weight of its own infrastructure and fell prey to incursions by Eurasian raiders. Then, it becomes "wrong". We're still basically equating power with legitimacy. If we do that, why should we care who's in power, it might as well be Pol Pot. We wouldn't need to care about what the powerful do - only that they have the capacity to do it. That's an attitude fit for slaves and masters, but not for people who have other notions about human nature. >[The] West has something other than coercive power which is attractive to peoples of non-Western cultures. Yes, it has the benefits of coercive power - concentrations of capital and higher living costs/standards. I have never said that the West was particularly "ruthless" or more or less inclined than other societies to employ the power they attained. As the Tears for Fears song goes "everybody wants to rule the world". The Chinese, the Russians, the EU, Isreal, Japan, Venezuala, all run their little hegemonies. Again, the question remains: If values are not a question any more, why should I care about the states any more than I care about Saudi Arabia?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 02:17 AM
>you seem to be saying that it is impossible to divine any salient reason why any given culture comes to dominate any other culture. Is that what we're examining? I thought we were looking for a reason why one given culture SHOULD come to dominate another. We can do all kinds of historical analyses of why Western Europe rose as the principle dominator of the world. You say "adaptability," a trait held by a mystical category called a "culture" or "civilization". To me, that seems to be an explanation that confers some legitimacy to the domination. I, on the other hand, gravitate towards other explanations - like say, the availability of water resources which allowed for the devopment of extensive automated industrial systems in Medieval Europe, or the development of maratime mercantile states, say. I doubt that any of this paints a particularly convincing picture, mind you. But at least they are actual material developments - things you can point to and say, "hey, look at this. This is real, it happened." Cultural traits aren't like that. For instance, what is this "adaptability"? Was it always with "the West"? If not, when did it come to "the West"? From where? Under what context - for what reasons? Are non-Western cultures ever adaptable, and are Western cultures ever inflexible? In other words, is this a fruitful category of analysis, or is it too subjective?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 01:46 AM
bobbo, sorry we seem to be out of sync. Your posts seem to be taking a turn for the semantic. Lets forgett "values" and just say that the West does some things more successfuly than other cultures. You claim that this "thing" is the deployment of ruthless coercive "power". I say where did the power we are being ruthless and coercive with come from in the first place? Immigration patterns and cultural emmulation indicate that the West has something other than coercive power which is attractive to peoples of non-Western cultures. Lastly, any unbiased historical investigation completely refutes any notion of the West being especially ruthless or coercive. The idea that America keps countries poor by the covert threat of military attack is bunk. Chinese public health and standards of living are the creation of their own political system. Mugabi is making his own people homeless. The Sudanese are butchering themselves, etc., etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 01:26 AM
bobbo, you seem to be saying that it is impossible to divine any salient reason why any given culture comes to dominate any other culture. This rejection of deductive logic seems a bit luddite to me. If we were to take that argument seriously we would simply have to abandon historical, social and political studies. Power stems from a superior ability to exploit resources. Rome defeated Carthage, because the military defeats at the hands of Hannibal failed to pressage a general Roman collapse. The reason for that was that the basic state structure of Rome was strong and remained intact for long enough to develope new military tactics. The regime with the best political, social and logistical infrastructure will also tend to have the highest potential military capabilities. In this sense, it is not a case of "might is right", but rather a case of right produces might.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 01:16 AM
What we tend to call "western" values, for instance, are simply not in evidence if one examines our governments or our religious fanatics (to harken back to an earlier post.) When we talk about respect for freedom and democracy, it contradicts many of our actions; at the very least, you must concede that the conduct of nation states among one another is in tension, if not direct conflict with our social "value system". Power is a much more accurate analytical framework when studying politics. That's why this site exists; people believe in the value system, not the conduct. Hence Scott's point about ruthlessness being the proper explanation for Western superiority. Ruthlessness is a description of violent, coercive power in action. His observation was tantamount to my earlier point; namely, that violent, coercive power is essentially values-neutral. Anybody can do it. If I walk into a room full of people, and one person there is carrying a gun shooting people who disagree with him, i don't really care what he says - he could be saying beautiful things. Instead I'll be wondering why he has that gun, what he plans to do with it, and whether I'm next. It's time to find some reason besides the fact of Western dominance to justify that dominance. And as with all questions of dominance, that reason better be good, because lots of people besides us have to live with it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 01:04 AM
Scott, Your first paragraph is self contradicting. First you deny that the West is especially ruthless. Then you say that the west did not rise due to any special trait. Then you say that the West produced governments with were unsurpased in unscroupulousness. Which, as well as being an assertion of posession of a special trait, is just another way of saying that the West is/was more ruthless. You are twisting on the line, but the hook is still embedded. The claim that the West was more wiling to resort to extreme measures to subjugate people than other cultures is demonstrably untrue. Two examples; Tamerlanes pyramids of heads; the Islamic subjugation of Eastern Europe. Amerindians did not "recognize a balance in nature" they simply failed to produce technology capable of allowing them to exploit nature. These indians used to stampede hundreds of Buffalo over cliffs, remove the tongues which were a delicacy, and leave the carcasses to rot. Amerindian wars were unashamedly genocidal in nature (Lawrence Keeley, "War Before Civilisation").

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 00:54 AM
>The fact that "accounting for the rise of civilizations is fraught with difficulties", does not change the empirical fact of Western dominance, and should not dissuade us from seeking to construct at least a plausable explicatory hypothesis. Sure. However, I'm not dissuaded from constructing a plausible hypothesis, I'm merely saying that that is pretty much all it can be - a hypothesis. We can't really run controlled experiments, and if we did, as I explained in my previous post, I don't think we would get very clear answers. The problem is our category of analysis. It cannot be presicely defined, and as such, it's definition will change at our convenience. I believe that culture, in the way that you're using it, is really just a rhetorical device to lend legitimacy to political relationships that are chiefly sustained by power. Power does not imply legitimacy - on the contrary, I believe it is only legitimate to the degree that it is questioned, challenged and made labile. If Western dominance stems from something else besides temporal power, for instance, some intrinsic quality that existed before that power came to fruition, how can this be proven? If Western civilization is superior for some other reason besides its ability to project force, then why all the force? And if force and dominion are the only measures of superiority, then why are we talking about "values" in the first place?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Laing, Scott at Jul 31, 2005 23:58 PM
I have been misunderstood re the ruthlessness of the West. I am not trying to play the civilizational standard game. I didnt say the West had sole possession of ruthlessness among humanity. I am countering the classical liberal ideology espoused by Calvin. The West has not grown to dominate the world through any special trait, even 'adaptibility'. The West has grown to dominate largely because there was/is no limit to what certain governments at certain times were willing to do to subjugate peoples. Comparing Native North American battle ethics with Western battle ethics is wrong. The tribal wars mentioned earlier were not fought on the same terms Westerners fight their wars. Native societies recognized a balance in nature, even recognizing the intrinsic value of the other. Wars were always fought with this balance in mind.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 31, 2005 21:41 PM
bobbo, once again you present a strong and rational counter argument. Here are some of the reasons why I disagree. The fact that "accounting for the rise of civilizations is fraught with difficulties", does not change the empirical fact of Western dominance, and should not dissuade us from seeking to construct at least a plausable explicatory hypothesis. I don't find it unreasonable to assume that a quantifiably different culture must be the result of a quantifiably different value system. Geopolitical influences tend to be influenced by modalities of culture, so IMO that is a circular argument. The "geographical" explanation or environmental explanation for Western dominance whose most famous expositor is Jared Diamond is flawed for a number of reasons. Environmental factors alone are no longer seriously considerd to offer a complete explanation for social and intellectual inequalities. In this respect culture is the last bastion of environmental absolutism. It is my feeling that environment will in the final analysis become considered an incomplete explanation for the present Western cultural hegemony.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 31, 2005 20:14 PM
I agree with you Calvin that ruthlessness is a universal human capacity rather than something that can be found more in a putative west for any reason besides its material circumstances. I think that accounting for the rise of civilizations and such things is fraught with all kinds of difficulties - I can't see it ever being more than fancy supposition. You have one account for the rise of Western Europe in human affairs: their inherent adaptability. I reject this account for the same reason I reject the "ruthlessness" account; I just don't see the West as any more adaptable in a meaningful sense than someone from the "East". As far as I can see, you put two people in a room (one from the West and one from the East) and give them both something to figure out that neither of them have ever seen before, I don't see anything that you could attribute to culture contributing to their ability to adapt, particularly in terms of technology. There is no homo sapiens occidentalis and homo sapiens orientalis; you give a human being something that is useful to them in their given context, and they will learn how to use it. Hence the adage, necessity is the mother of invention. I see nothing in history to suggest that there is any inborn or transmitted human trait that is responsible for the rise of the West over some other "civilization". One could just as easily see it as a series of geographical and geopolitical accidents.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 31, 2005 11:04 AM
The period of Western dominance is not relevant. Its not important that the West was not always ahead of the pack. The dominace of the West is attributable to the fact that the West has kept on traveling when other cultures have come to a dead end. I would say that cultures do not expire because they become enslaved by their technology. They expire because they are unable to continue to develop their technology. That's stagnation not enslavement. Western civilisation is not more "ruthless" than other civilisations. Ruthlessness, the impulse to conquer, greed and coveteousnes, are human characteristics, which will, of course, be in greater evidence, as will any other quality, in more successful civilisations. Tamerlane was more ruthless than any Western general. The American indians were utterly ruthless in their internecine wars.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Laing, Scott at Jul 31, 2005 06:31 AM
Calvin, We, as Westerners, assume technology will save us. However, what if the answer to our dilemmas (which are very real) is not an advancement of technology, but rather a change in values (as it was for technologically innovative societies in the past)? And what is the adaptability of the West? It is most reknown for an economic system that is probably the most ineffecient in human history (re quality of life alone, societies as recent as the medieval would never have thought of making the market the dominant social institution, to be served rather than serve; such an idea to them would have been absurd). It is also known for technological genius that, though some wonderous things have been accomplished, is, in the brief timespan of a hundred years or so, has turned the modern, developed world into a junkie, always in need to score its next resource (oil, gas, mineral) fix, laying to waste the biosphere (including us) in the process. Rather than "adaptibility" (an odd notion considering the brief time span involved) what comes to my mind when I consider reasons for Western domination is: ruthlessness. Utter ruthlessness. Ruthlessness is the legacy of colonialism; of capitalism; of technology; of the (re)organizing of society. Any familiarity with the history of these four areas mentioned would make that clear.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Laing, Scott at Jul 31, 2005 05:56 AM
Calvin, many good points have been raised to question your viewpoint; one I would like to add is simply this: the West has been dominant for a very short period of time; its progressive, technological and scientific feats only a little longer. Granted, time is relative and social change, brought about largely through technological change and barbarous ruthlessness, has occured more rapidly in the West compared to the ancient civilizations. An interesting read is Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress. Wright traces several societies that excelled for a period of time only to be destroyed by the unforseeable affects of the very innovations that allowed them to excel. The very technologies and methods and social structures they depended on to thrive also worked to destroy them. When it was recognized what was happening these societies lacked the means or the will to make the necessary changes; they died. We are of course aware of growing crisis in numerous areas facing our modern society, suggesting that unless we get smart quick we too will be undone by our own cleverness.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 31, 2005 04:49 AM
bobbo, I can't agree with your post because I don't accept your premis that the West has a history of "tolereance". In my opinion what you call tolerance can be more correctly described as adaptability. Adaptability is not tolerance. Adaptability is an ability to take advantage of the vagiaries of circumstance. In the West this has mainly taken the form of social adaptions to technological advances. To use a sporting analogy, the West is like an athelete who is willing to consider and experiment with new training methods and who will incorporate new training methods if they bring performance enhancements. A tolerant West would be like an athelete who followed a training regime which consisted of a random selection of diverse an sometimes contradictory training methods which were not held up to pragmatic scrutiny.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Organum, Baby at Jul 30, 2005 22:26 PM
A term much in vogue in the niteties was creolization. A term to define the mixing of cultures and peoples. It can well be that this is neccesary for world peace. To this extent Calvin makes a good point. There are differences in race paralell to those in culture. But no matter how much we blend we will still have diversity and the need to understand difference. The Roman culture and the German tribes influenced each other. Just like arab and other semitic cultures have been instrumental in shaping the Occident, we give back to the Orient. I am proud of western achievements, but would like that pride to rest in the knowledge of what we owe other cultures for their contribution. As a european i see similarities between arab and american culture and this goes beyond the love of cofee. If racism is the issue, and cultural achievements are meassured against others in a contest to score points and find defence for own worth, then Africa comes up. This continent is by all means a underachiever. A case of Divide and conquer? Or just lazy people? Both should be considered and the stress of western living as well as the pace of global ruination could frame lazyness in another light. The better part of invention is inspiration and she is of course, the black virgin. RocknRoll is here to stay !

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 30, 2005 21:24 PM
MCorbin, I'm afraid you missed the point. Indeed Calvin is PROUD to be a racist. He is aware of what he writes. Like all cultures, the Western culture is not monolithic, it has it strength and weakness. It has dazzling acheivements as well as its filth and dirt. It sores to heaven in some ways and sinks to the gutter in some other ways Calvin is a living example of how low it can sink. IMO, one of the core strength of the contemporary Westren culture,--which wss not always the case,-- is precisely its dynamism and openess, its ability to incorporate different ideas and improvises, builds on them. This is the confidence of a young, vibrant civilization. Other civilizations also went through that stage. The closed minded chauvanism exhibited by Calvin and those like him is actually the hall mark of an old, declining civilization.He is exactly the mirror image of the conservative Muslims he denounces. Take his description of the conservative Islamic chuvanist and replace "Islam" with "Westren" or "European" and you get a perfect depiction of Calvin himself. It takes one insecure cultural chuvanist to know one. The irony has not lost on me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 30, 2005 19:53 PM
To continue, (sorry about the long-windedness): Tolerance does not preclude conflict and friction. In fact it virtually guarantees it. But a society without conflict is a sign of totalitarianism, not concord. Tolerance is the principle upon which the superiority of ones "culture" or politics or views can be seriously tested on an even playing field, without coercion and violence. "Superiority" of anything should never be taken as an automatic fact - it can be established only within a context that is meaningful. That's what discussion like this is all about. So if you believe in the superiority of the West, I am more than willing to discuss the basis of your argument. I will be tolerant of your views, if you are tolerant of my right to contest them. BTW, I'm not in the habit of just denouncing others as racist as a way of shutting down a discussion. I may think you are rascist, I may choose to spend my time discussing my views with someone else, but I recognize a responsibility to explain to you why I disagree. This way we can develop our views in an environment that forces us to be detailed and honest with our arguments.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 30, 2005 19:12 PM
Hey Calvin, I agree with you that the dominant discourse on multiculturalism is seriously flawed. Here in Canada at least, it comes across as a kind of facile exoticism, a bland bazaar of commodified cultural "differences" held up like pretty baubles to those of us who only thirty years ago looked upon dark skinned people as a curiosity. But the pre-requisite for even this superficial acceptance of other cultures is a belief in tolerance. In any society, but particularly in societies that are heterogenous (most societies), tolerance is a bedrock principle. It has been in the West since the eighteenth century, an achievement that should be celebrated and supported, lest we become "retrograde" as you so charmingly put it. I don't really believe in "multiculturalism" per se. Persecution can be based on differences between "cultures" (to the degree that they exist as distinct entities), or within cultures (based on party affiliation, church, etc.) It's bad no matter what the reason.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Jul 30, 2005 18:02 PM
After reading your posts here Calvin, I am left wondering if you are unaware of the obvious racist bias of your opinions. I suggest you take a really good look at everything you've posted here and ask yourself if you can see what I'm talking about. Either you are suffering from inherited, latent racism of which you are unaware (which could excuse your taking offense at the charge), or you think you are fooling someone here, which you are not.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 30, 2005 14:16 PM
bobbo, you're not an Arab and you seem to have substantial problems with the West so why are you even bothering to "put yourself into Arab shoes"? The main problem that Muslims have with Western culture is that it is the richest and most powerful world cultures and the Muslims would like their culture to be the richest and most powerful culture. The fact that Arab and Western culture are not, "static" and "unitary" doesn't mean that they are the same. The fact that there is often a conflation of cultural values doesn't mean that there are not also fundamental cultural differences. If there is no essential diference between world cultures why am I constantly being told to "celebrate diversity" and enjoy "MULTIculturism"? In order to force acceptance of the imposition of alien cultures upon Westerners we are told that a DIVERSITY of culture will enhance our societies. When anyone dares to point out any retrogade aspects of these cultures it is suggested (usualy by a demand to "define" Western values, or some other such pap) that there are no differences between cultures. Make your minds up. What a crock!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 30, 2005 01:38 AM
Actually Calvin, I've met all kinds of people from the middle east. Most Arabs I meet are every bit as likely to be open minded and "neophilic" as anybody else. For some reason, our conception of Middle Eastern people seems to be based on the behaviour of their governments or their religious fanatics. I would hate to think that's how we expect them to think about us. Our religious fanatics are scary, and our governments throw them in jail without charge at home, and drop bombs on their heads abroad. If I were Arab, I'd really have trouble with the "West" and it's activities around the globe, but I hope I would be open minded enough to be able to separate the populations of the Western countries from their governments. Perhaps the least we could do is to return the courtesy and refrain from judging their "culture" as an essential, static, unitary category where we can mindlessly hang our smug sense of superiority. Human beings, regardless of their putative cultural affiliation, deserve better.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 29, 2005 16:36 PM
bwong, or is it "bong"? The ability to assimilate and be influenced by ideas from other cultures is just an example of our cultural self confidence and tolerant neophilia. The Muslims, despite the ongoing myth, took their arithmetical knowledger from the Hindus. The Muslims used arithmetic to compute complex Islamic marriage laws. We used arithmetic to help us understand the world around us. It is true that all cultures go through progressive and regressive stages. A culture should be judged by the highs it reaches as well as the depths it sinks to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 29, 2005 15:25 PM
bobbo, I agree "free market" is a misnomer. The free market just means the collection of principles used by the people of the Angloshere in their economic interactions. Someone mentioned the Pacific Rim. If Europeans developed the free market as a means of economically subjugating non-Europeans how come the Pacific Rim nations have been allowed to rise to such heights of economic power? Isn't it more logical to say that the success or failure of the free market system is subject to limitations of the cultures which incorporate it. I don't think that Africa benefits from the free market system because of cultural incompatibility. Teaching an eight stone man the rules of Sumo wont make him a successful wrestler.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 29, 2005 05:41 AM
Heya Calvin, just some replies to some of your points throughout this thread. >A "fair price" is the lowest price a buyer can get. Paying an artifically high price is a political intervention through macro-economic manipulation. There seems to be a common misconception about free market economic systems, including the ones in operation in the West. Namely, there is a belief that they are indeed free-market; in fact there is plenty of "political intervention through macro economic manipulation." The U.S., to take a prime example, subsidizes many sectors of its economy with taxpayer dollars, principally through the pentagon system. Various high tech industries, computers, pharmacutecals, agriculture, aviation, steel, etc. are heavily propped up by the state, to the glee of investors. In the case of coffee, protectionism in developed countries is a big part of the depression in global prices. A perfect free market never really exists - usually the biggest players in the market wield the state to their advantage. As you said, it is natural that they should construct a house that best benefits them and theirs. I find it strange then, that you suddenly become indignant when some poor coffee farmers are asking for market manipulation in THEIR favour. It's not like theyre violating some bedrock moral principle or something, at least not any more than the "investors" whose rights you so sub-adequetly defended (investors rights - why not? Everyone else does!).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 04:19 AM
"As for being called a "racist", that last resort accusation doesn't bother me one little bit." Yes, I know it doesn't bother you since you have proven yourself to be quite a nasty piece of work. Your rant only showcases your ignorance. You sound as though the Europeans just emerged from the caves and created their marvelous civilization out of thin air. Written record of human history strecthed back 8000 years, civilizations rise and fall many times. You are quite myopic to think the last two hundred years or so represent anything more than a blip in our long journey as a species. As for inventions, argriculture, navigation, printing, the gun powder, astronomy, algebra are all appropiated by Europeans from other cultures. The word "algorithm" which is so important for the computer revolution, derived from Arabic. Human civilization is an ever changing, evolving tapestry of many threads and colours.We borrow, steal, rob and learn from each other and nothing is static. "Envy" may be the appropiate response for a racist, chuvanist like you who thinks cultures are static, copyrighted and tracable back to a small number of races or tribes. But intelligent people know better.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 29, 2005 04:13 AM
"Why don't we be a bit more honest and admit that the democratic, free market system ..is a product of Western European civilisation which is incapable of trans-cultural application" How easy was it to ignore South Korea, Japan, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and pretty much the rest of East Asia, while you were writing this? Did you forget about that third of the world, or were you just hoping that we would? Seriously - the free market thrives in the Pacific Rim, so you're argument is OBVIOUSLY false. Besides, culture is not static - it is adaptable and constantly changing. European Civilization was not always favorable to liberty or the free market. The Catholic church helped stifle any real economic system in Europe for almost a thousand years. Hell, real Banking was not evern POSSIBLE in Europe until the adoption of the Arabic Numerals - arthimetic with Latin Numerals is RIDICULOUSLY torturous and easy to screw up (I+I=II. II+II=IV. IV+I=V. V+V=X. Are we having fun yet?). No coincidence it was the Knights Templar who are credited with inventing Modern Banking practices, and that they did so in the cultural mixing bowl of the Middle East.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 29, 2005 03:29 AM
Hi Bwong! Yeah that's right Western Europeans didn't create the societies and technology which put them ahead of other cultures. Cultures just fell out of the sky and the lucky people just got the good ones. Yeah right! If Western Europe enjoys advantages over other cultural enclaves, it's because Western Europeans created institutions which were superior to non-European institutions, our scientific achievements were greater and went further than anyone elses. Have a look at a biographical dictionary bwong. 80% of everyone who is outstanding in any field of human endevour is European. The West developed economically whilst in a state of near constant internecine warfare, surrounded by powerful and predatory enemies like the Turks and Mongols, so I don't know what history you've been reading. Calling a belief in the uniqueness of European culture a, "mystical concept" is just a just a fig leaf. European culture is unique. Maybe you should substitute emulation for excoriation oh jealous one? As for being called a "racist", that last resort accusation doesn't bother me one little bit. Regards Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Organum, Baby at Jul 27, 2005 21:24 PM
hi calvin. inventions yes ! hybridengine-cars, energysaving lightbulbs, heatpumps and proper insulation/isolation. applied computertechnology to avoid unwanted commuting. propane-buses. ecological wastemanagement like metane for power and greywater-use. wavepower exists and can produce lots of clean energy. ps. driving a threeton-suv for fun is abominable. our planet is threatened man !

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 27, 2005 21:00 PM
(continued) The West itself did not develope following the "free market" doctrine which now forces upon others.In fact it did exactly the opposite. The prescriptions of "free trade", elimination of subsidies and unregulated privatization are exactly what the successful economies rejected in their developing stage(and still) It was recognized as disasterious not only for the people, but for the "economy" as well(the two are not the same, the "economy" can do well while the people still suffer). One should note that the West developed in an economically far friendlier world with few competitors and no predator, unlike what the developing countries face today. But "we" force feed developing countries this poison(which we won't take) and insist it is tough medicine. You don't need mystical concepts like the uniqueness of "European civilization" to explain why many "non European" economies are fucked up. At best "cultural explanation" is an obfiscation; at worst outright racism.Your numerous posts suggest you're on the worst side. "Democrtatic capitalism" wears a jackboot abroad. And all that for what? "To get the lowest price a buyer can get",as you put it so concisely.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 27, 2005 20:37 PM
"Why don't we be a bit more honest and admit that the democratic, free market system ..is a product of Western European civilisation which is incapable of trans-cultural application" Yeh, why don't you be a bit more outfront and say it "the non Europeans are just too dumb to get it". Nevermind we are not yet at the end of history; the "Western civilization" dominates only for a few centries, which is a blip in human history. Nevermind the fact that European civilization appropiated all its technology from other places until very recently. Civilizations are not static, they evolve, cross pollinat, build on, enrich and transform each other. Racists are not only hateful, they are ignorant and stupid to mistaken a frozen snapshot of world as its perminant state. The 'democratic, free market system"(=welfare state)in the West is not the result of the market mechanism. It is a compromise resulting from the fierce resistance against the coercion of capitalism,--an aliean, anti-human system imposed on the people. These struggles occur everywhere in the third world today. Instead of helping them along ("trans-cultral application") the Western governments,--most notably the U.S.A,-- take an active role in supressing them with instruments like IMF, the world bank and WTO, CIA trained death squads, coups and war.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 27, 2005 19:55 PM
"The fact is that child labour is the difference between survival and starvation in some cultures. The last thing these people need is the abolition of child labour." By that logic child prosititution should be encouraged. Instead of being hauled off to jail sex tourist/child molester should be given medals for performing a great humanitarian service. You make operating sweat shops sound like a great charity. The idea that we should eliminate the conditions that compel children (and adults too) to labour under exploitative conditions apparantly never occurs to you. Instead we should take advantage of their vulnerable condition to extract the lowest price possible and it is "fair". What a great humanitarian you are. To top it off, the West is at least partially responsible for creating the situation where some locals find themselves "worse off" without "jobs" under slave like terms. The situations of working people in these countries was not bad through out recorded history. While not denying local factors, their (often forced)integration into the world capitalist system has caused great miseries. People are displaced, local sustainable development terminated,megre resources are diverted for export and compete with much bigger economies, leading to price collapse etc.These are the structual conditions for poverty.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 27, 2005 13:36 PM
I can't disagree with your differentiation between a free labour force and a controled labour force. What do you suggest? Should we point blank refuse to trade with countries which will not impose minimum wage legislation and basic healthcare systems? Or would you suggest direct military intervention? In either case there would be accusations of imperialism. In either case the situation of working-class people in the nations in question would be made far worse. Why don't we be a bit more honest and admit that the democratic, free market system which dominates the west is a product of Western European civilisation which is incapable of trans-cultural application. At least not with a 100% success rate anyway.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 27, 2005 05:55 AM
"A "fair price" is the lowest price a buyer can get" Calvin, This goes beyond child labor. Judging by your latest comments I believe you understand that your statement presupposes a VOLUNTARY transaction without artificial (extra-market) pressure on any party. Furthermore, it presupposes an uncorrupt political system that will enforce contracts fairly. In many parts of the world, however, this is NOT the case. Latin America, for example, has a serious history regarding the use of violence and extortion against the peasants/workers to extract a low price - would you consider it fair if your family's safety depended on you selling low? I believe in the market, but I also believe that responsible supporters of the market should not turn their eye to these things. We shouldn't make the same mistake that others do and confuse a voluntary market with one relying on intimidation and murder.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Benmcaulay, Benjamin at Jul 27, 2005 03:27 AM
I don't think the vast majority of Americans know the term neo-liberalism. Nor do they realize that former President Bill Clinton espoused and put into practice these anti-democratic and elitist and CONSERVATIVE economic principles. (And Americans have never had a democratic vote on whether or not they want neo-liberalism.) And Noam Chomsky is right: the cost and risk are socialized and then the profits are privatized. Loot at radio in the 1920s. The cost was public. And then handed over to the private sector. Reagan and Thatcher started these policies. But now these anti-democratic policies are carried out by traditional leftist parties in Britain, Canada and the United States. So we can see, with neo-liberal policies, a massive increase in economic inequality, a marked increase in severe deprivation for the poorest... etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 26, 2005 18:20 PM
Baby, I don't like child labour much either, but let's be honest,is it just a coincidence that child labour is prevelant in countries where the dominant belief systems have remained unchanged for hundreds of years? Maybe some of the diffusion of innovation you propose should be directed there? The fact is that child labour is the difference between survival and starvation in some cultures. The last thing these people need is the abolition of child labour. These people need to enter the mental paradigm of the twenty first century before they can expect to enjoy its benefits. You haven't given me any examples of the mythical suppressed inventions have you? The inventions you have mentioned have been around for a long time. I can't argue with that. Steam power was around for a long time too. Does that mean that throughout the age of steam there was a conspiracy to suppress the internal combustion engine? Is Chomsky too lofty and grand to be addressed by first name? Isn't that elitism? Below the belt? Why not?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Organum, Baby at Jul 26, 2005 16:37 PM
Dear Calvin a fair price is the lowest price a buyer can get, you say. are you then excluding childlabour ? some people believe that basic medicare should be possible to get on a normal wage. even if the daddy in question works at a coffeplantation. in the last years of the (real) cold war, more 100 000 was killed because they wanted the right to organise in unions and use their vote. An example of stifled inovation. the steamturbine, explosive engine and telephone are all more than a hundred years old. certain groups dont like inovation in this field. new sources of energy and new engines ( clean ? ) threaten their monopoly on said wares. thus they stifle small companies buy them an fold it all down for as long as possible. meanwhile people are dying and our planet is dying. in the end, dear calvin, there are actually people who want a change for the better and that do something about it. not all of them are popstars. many people have given up their careers to free people from injustice, torture, etc, or just to get the focus on it. its not about other people, its about all of us and the planet god gave us to live on. ps look at contracafes example of left inventing and rite taking profiting. !lets be honest noam! is base rethoric. establishing familiarity by firts name use, then speaking for your adversary and pretending to know his motives. rite enuff beloww the belt

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 26, 2005 13:31 PM
A "fair price" is the lowest price a buyer can get. Paying an artifically high price is a political intervention through macro-economic manipulation. Chomsky's post is little more than semantic hogwash. "Investor rights"; Why shouldn't an investor have rights? Are we taliking about trade or charity? "designed in the interest of the designer"; No shit! If I was designing a house for myself and my family I wouldn't incorporate features which would benefit other peoples families would I? "Monopoly price privilige stifles innovation and development"; Any chance of some examples of the type of "innovation and development" we are talking about? The only concrete innovation I can see is in persuading guilt ridden Caucasians to pay more for a tiny fraction of a percent of their dispensable consumer produce, otherwise "innovation" seems to consist of a regression to peasant society and subsistance farming. Cool! If you don't haver to live there that is. Let's be honest Noam. You have no more intention of changing your priviliged lifestyle to benefit South American peasants than Bono has of sacking his tax dodging accountants to increase his tax donations or Geldof has of allowing an African agent and African financial team to handle his afairs. Its always about how other people should behave isn't it?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 25, 2005 03:02 AM
Wow, that's really interesting. Farmers who fought a democratically elected government that advocated land redistribution. I wonder whether they were members of wealthy landholders before the Sandanistas came to power. The site is unclear. Well, it's a tough break anyway. Even if they were part of an illegal U.S. funded terrorist army, everybody deserves a fair price for their produce. Check out the stuff on the "Origins of Contra cafe" page: "Millions of conservative Americans would love to buy a gourmet coffee from men and women who fought with President Reagan for freedom against communism. It was just a question of marketing the coffee to the right people. Thus was born the idea for Contra Café." Somehow I don't think I was "the right people".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 25, 2005 01:49 AM
One can start by buying directly from South and Central American Cooperatives instead of large import companies. www.contracafe.com

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Resistance to Neo-Liberal Globalization

By Organum, Baby at Jul 23, 2005 20:29 PM
the private states of international commerce have, i think, won the world for most purposes. recognizing this should be central to any attempt at reform. the dilemma then, is the needs of people and the lack of resources available. to affect help in a said area, enginepower is needed. on another level this increase in enginepower will be detrimental to future crisismanagement. likewise, improving livingstandard of the underprivileged along conservative lines w petroleum and steel will be a great big threat. the giants of states as well as corporations are positioning themselves and free competition in this respect is a danger comparable to that of empowering the poor. to stay safe an economy must grow, to grow it expends energy and emits poison. ouw owners do not like critique and hide from the truth in luxury while preparing to survive the crisis to come. resistance is futile. the only option is an alternative way of life but no model ( parecon , marxism , social ecology ) has proven viable yet. 1 we must admit their victory and appeal to their humanity while documenting violence and releasing this to the public ( the deaths of the martyrs in circus ). 2 we must experiment with models of sustainability. telecom means we do not need to go to work anymore ( stay cloistered ) 3 pray that the fool will reach the muddled mind of the mad king

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (122)

Loading_border