this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2011
250 points (80% like it)
333 up votes 83 down votes

worldpolitics

unsubscribe44,241 readers

Reddit's international political community.

  1. read the latest comments
  2. vote and comment on new submissions
  3. submit a link or a self post

Neither the spam filter nor the moderators will remove your submissions or comments here.


Please consider /r/politics for domestic US politics.

You're supporting Reddit if you see an ad below.
a community for
all 63 comments

[–]PeacenikRick 11 points12 points ago

let me be the first to welcome our new pluralist egalitarian leaders

[–]Law_Student 3 points4 points ago

*overlords. ;)

[–]cartooncorpse 4 points5 points ago

We need a "bonfire" of Clintons, Gores, Bushes, Obamas, and their counterparts and constituents across the globe. The world just doesn't need pompous miscreants sucking up the cream, while utterly FAILING with their immensely stupid plans of "salvation" that completely abandons PRINCIPLES in favor of fairy tales and other whims and FRAUDS. I mean you'd have to be either stupid or crooked to do things they way they recommend.

[–]ihmc 5 points6 points ago

"...the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, so that the global market is unable to absorb world output and the system stagnates."

I've always suspected that the extreme accumulation of wealth at the top .01% was sort of self-limiting. At some point the rest of us don't have the money to keep spending, which causes the system to stagnate or collapse, which halts the accumulation of wealth. Perhaps we're reaching that point now.

I wonder what strategies the super-wealthy/super-powerful will come up with, to continue their reign. So does the author: "We have arrived at the society of panoptical surveillance and Orwellian thought control" and "...one danger is a neo-fascist response to contain the crisis."

This is a very dense article that requires a careful reading, a pondering of the meaning of every word and why the author used it.

[–]thekingoflapland 15 points16 points ago

As nice as this would be, it probably isn't going to happen. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 8 points9 points ago

I'm pretty sure they said that about the French Revolution, American Revolution, Renaissance, and all the other important paradigm shifts in history. The world has always been absurd, but the absurdity is just increasingly sophisticated.

It might not happen, but there's definitely momentum building up for it to happen. It's a very complex system, and it's impossible to predict or estimate what will happen. Advanced technology is also something to consider... my guess is that it's going to be a massive clusterfuck and eventually we're all going to die anyway.

[–]raouldukeesq 2 points3 points ago

There will be change. just not in the way described. Global warming will pretty much take care of the issue.

[–]Hansaman 2 points3 points ago

Global warming could be just what we need.

A common 'enemy' that threatens us all, potentially uniting us all...

National, cultural or religious differences seem so small when our collective livelihood is threatened.

[–]Law_Student 2 points3 points ago

The difficulty is that by the time action is obvious to the people who actually control the capital needed to take action, it will be far too late to prevent all the damage. It's already too late to prevent a significant amount of it. We needed to act ten years ago.

I suppose desperately building levies to keep up with the ever increasing storm surges will be good for construction employment, anyway.

[–]Hansaman 1 point2 points ago

I am not optimistic about humans acting before the damage. The damage will be the thing that forces our hands... sadly

Humans value their quarterly earnings report or the election cycle over longterm planning. This needs to change.

[–]LePeuple 0 points1 point ago

And you think we should willingly allow hundreds or thousands to die to force change. How are you any better?

[–]Hansaman 0 points1 point ago

I think you misunderstand.

I am warning for years already. But people don't listen.

There was a dangerous road near my school. They put traffic lights in place only after a few kids died. Not before. Same thing with climate change...

[–]bastardsword 0 points1 point ago

I get your point but that is a bad example. Unfortunately it is rational to hold out implementing change. We could be put traffic lights at every intersection but it wouldn't be economical.

We are a part of the problem as much as the elites. We allowed it to happen because it worked for most of us.

[–]Hansaman 0 points1 point ago

We could be put traffic lights at every intersection

That is not really what I was suggesting. ... but never mind.

[–]Moarbrains 2 points3 points ago

The pendulum swings too.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 7 points8 points ago

brb; sharpening guillotine

[–]Law_Student 3 points4 points ago

Dull one is more fun. The unwashed masses can take bets on how many drops it'll take for each CEO and Senator.

[–]skokage 0 points1 point ago

It's frightening when I find myself caught in contradictions. I think very negatively of places like Saudi Arabia that do public executions in chop-chop square for stupid shit like adultery or homosexuality, but at the same time I would make a special trip to DC if I got to watch a bunch of politicians and CEOs fall to the same fate.

[–]Law_Student 1 point2 points ago

It wouldn't actually help, in that executions don't appear to discourage conduct any more than an effective criminal system does.

What would help is retooling our economic distribution to prevent runaway wealth concentration from ever happening again and to prepare ourselves for a zero or near zero growth economic climate, with things like shorter work weeks and job sharing.

[–]skokage 0 points1 point ago

I don't think the execution would discourage such behavior or make it less common place, it's honestly just the side of me that doesn't believe there is a hell where they will pay for their crimes, so watching in this life is the second best option.

[–]xNaquada 13 points14 points ago* 

Because peaceful protesting isn't solving anything when elected officials are flat out ignoring them and media doesn't report without extreme bias to the current establishment.

Remember linking arms is violent. If you are going to be treated as a violent protest you might as well get violent and actually start a revolution (where I kid you not, violence WILL be required at some point to get that ball rolling in earnest). You might disagree but if you reflect a bit you know it's the most likely outcome. This isn't the mid/mid to late 1900's. The world isn't the same. Take a look around.

This makes me sad. Of course there's always hope....

[–]what-s_in_a_username 9 points10 points ago

Historically, revolutions have always been violent (as far as I know), so you may be right. However paradigm shifts have NOT always been violent (e.g. the Renaissance?).

It used to be that propaganda wasn't necessary because you could just kill the people who didn't agree with you. Nowadays, propaganda (or the manufacturing of consent) is crucial, since you can't even pepper spray people without a huge backlash (a good thing). Does that mean we could have a non-violent revolution?

And that's just America. In the Middle-East and Europe, it's already violent, and the worst regimes get away with murder.

But I don't see how violence could be used constructively. I haven't spent that long thinking about it, but if your goal is to take down the banking system, it's not that hard: just think of another system and get enough people on board. Crashing an economy isn't that difficult, we do it partially every few decades without really trying. Or would you fight back against the police forces? They are well trained, well armed, and getting violent will give them the excuse to use even more force. You will never be as strong as them.

You could also try to go and kill all the ultra-rich people, French Revolution or Scarface style, but in the end you will only have destroyed the problem without having bothered to build an alternative. And without a solid plan to replace the current system, you're left with a lot of people declaring victory, then scratching their heads wondering 'what to do now'? Right now most people are talking about 'what not to do' but not 'what to do'.

Personally, I think you should act according to the system or paradigm you want to establish. "Be the change you wish to see in the world". Want a pacifist, equal society? Be peaceful, and treat everyone equally. It sucks that change takes this long, but again, I can't think of another alternative beside nicely asking all human beings on Earth to stop being kids, stop killing each other, and hoarding material possessions like greedy psychopaths.

EDIT: I should also add that I find it incredibly stupid to petition an incompetent government to solve the problems they purposely created. OWS should concentrate more on developing an alternative government rather than whine about the current one.

[–]Stickittome 4 points5 points ago

Can violence be used constructively?

Not through the popular notion of a pitchfork revolution. If, however, you can "be the change you wish to see" and create a fair and equal community, realise that your mere existence will be a threat to the status quo.

Exactly such a society was created during the spanish revolution. Worker collectives thrived for a few years untill both the communists AND the fascist decided that they might as well work together to defeat this huge threat to both of them. Together they crushed the social movement through military force.

The question thus arises whether the Spanish anarchists could have defended their revolution through violence. Most scholars answer that though the social movement wouldn't have remained intact, guerilla warfare in rural Spain would probably have delayed or maybe even prevented the terrible dictatorship that followed.

So, to use violence of not? The problem is that if you create a pacifist anti-athoritarian society you will be crushed by violence. If you use violence to defend your pacifist society you have obviously forgone your reason to exist in the first place. Either way you're fucked. I say we go down fighting.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 0 points1 point ago

We'd need to train the masses in self-defense so that no one dares to mess with them. American samurai. Somehow I can't see that happening.

[–]Alacritous 2 points3 points ago

The people on top now will fight to hold their position.. It'll be a "from my cold dead hand" kind of situation.. And considering that they're the ones in charge of making the rules, asking them politely to change the rules to their own extreme detriment will not ever work.

The only way to fix the system is to burn it down, and hopefully build something better on its ashes.. it could go either way. But, hey. That's what happens when you roll the dice.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 0 points1 point ago

So let's work under the assumption that we need to take down the current government entirely, scrap the Constitution and build something new, using violence. How would you proceed? Would you systematically assassinate all the top leaders until they give up, or fight the cops until they're on your side? Or institute a very rigid system of civil disobedience? What do you do with the half of the population who's brain dead or doesn't even feel like talking about politics?

[–]Alacritous 1 point2 points ago

Hypothetically, if I were to engage the current system with the goal being to destroy it it would go something like this.

The current trend is the removal of individual rights in all sectors of life. Can we agree on that? Whatever their motivation to do it, that's the way things are going. In baby steps a little bit at a time. A right restricted there, a right restricted there, a little bit at a time, until it's just not there anymore. Laws that favor corporations over individuals are being proposed virtually every day. We can see where it's going and thanks to the creative minds of Huxley and Orwell we can see where we might end up. Good so far?

The trick to derailing their plans is to force them to move before they're ready. I know it's a flawed analogy, but the boiling frog tale is what I'm talking about. The water temperature is slowly rising. Soon it'll kill us, unless we can make it spike fast enough for the people to see what's happening to them. Force their hand to move faster than they want it to. and we might have a chance. If we just sit around then the laws will get stricter slowly bit by bit, until we're all just corporate slaves.

So in this hypothetical situation I would start causing problems. Nothing that would seriously hurt anyone, I'm not that kind of guy, but things that will make them crack down more and faster than they are now. Put the pressure on. Sabotaging power stations, breaking pipelines, etc. High profile actions that would force them to respond with harsher and more draconian tactics. See how much the people like living with a boot on their throat.

If things progress as they are people's complacency will be the best accomplice that the powers that be will have. We need to shake things up a bit. Get peoples attention in the right places before it's too late. Hypothetically speaking.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 0 points1 point ago

I definitely agree with you, though if you ask me things are moving fast enough already. But it's true that for the general public who doesn't pay attention to current events, nothing's changing unless someone blows up something.

There are already a lot of general strikes popping-up everywhere in the world, from Oakland to China, though they are not violent. People are also starting to squat abandoned buildings, but you can still go in and arrest them without too much violence.

I'm not sure what would cause the powers that be to increase the pressure considerably... occupations and squatting is not that worrying, it can be controlled. The only danger is if the masses do smarten up, and honestly, I don't see that happening any time soon. The 'best' we can hope for is that some protester gets shot and killed (you know what I mean by 'best'), and that may possibly wake people up, but then again they could just think (or be told what to think) that the whole idea of civil disobedience is simply stupid and will only get you killed.

People don't care about others getting beaten up until they themselves are being affected, but by that time it might be too late. You'd need everyone's 401K to be wiped-out of existence for people to care, or something as widespread and common as that.

Personally, whenever I talk about this to people I know, they are either the small minority who already cares, or they just don't think there's any reason to care about it. It's fucking depressing that they won't think about it until someone's threatening them with a gun. "Yeah ok, but what does politics and the global elite has to do with ME? I have a car and a house, I'm just fine, stop worrying about it!"

[–]Moarbrains 1 point2 points ago

Well heres to a paradigm shift!

OWS should concentrate more on developing an alternative government rather than whine about the current one.

You mean like a general assembly? I know it is kind of weak right now, but building governments is hard!

[–]what-s_in_a_username 1 point2 points ago

It has to go way beyond general assemblies, and it has to include the online community as well, people who support the movement, not just those in tents.

The problem is that most people believe they can get the changes they want through reform (by nicely asking the government to not be evil anymore), and others want a completely new system (or no system at all), but there's not yet any movement to reach a common agreement on what a new government could be like. People would figure it out if the current system falls apart, but no one wants to plan in advance, mostly because they're idiots.

We get the government we deserve, and although many Americans deserve a lot better, most of them don't deserve much at all (too busy watching celebrities or easy cheeseburgers to talk about politics, society, humanity or philosophy).

[–]Turtlepuppet 2 points3 points ago

I dont think that violence is inevitable. Police are subject to the same social control we are. If the police feel overwhelmed, even they will lay down their batons.

[–]PappogalloNero 5 points6 points ago

The police are only the first tier of defence for the ruling classes - when they fail, the ruling class will resort to defying their own constitutions and laws and unleash military force upon their citizens.

Oh, and they'll call it pacification.

[–]raouldukeesq 0 points1 point ago

Not enough protestors. Not yet anyway.

[–]Rosenstern 2 points3 points ago

Violence begets more violence. I whole heartedly believe a state of being, be it a person, town, province, state, country, or world, that is born from violence cannot remain in a peaceful state. A state of being that came from violence shall inevitably return to violence. Peace, then, is only the time between these two violent states.

A Non-Violent revolution is crucial if we are to truly create a world that will not fall into the same, terrible rut that we've been travelling since the first hunter decided to settle down and grow wheat.

[–]JohnnyBeagle 2 points3 points ago

Um, is it really a good idea to anger the job creators? (satire)

[–]Moarbrains 5 points6 points ago

This was really well thought out. The NWO will be a grass roots effort?

[–]Crypt0An0n23 -3 points-2 points ago

Wrong subreddit?

[–]Moarbrains 0 points1 point ago

Why would you say that?

[–]Stormy_Fairweather 5 points6 points ago

We have no chance at success unless people are willing to admit we NEED violence to defeat those that employ violence to enslave us.

[–]Hasbara_alert 2 points3 points ago

I hope you don't tell the demonstrators to riot and attack the cops. That would not lead to anywhere else than pain and jail-time as the Police Force are pros and trained to handle this. But of course, every thing has its time and place. Perhaps civil war and revolution is what America need now. I cant tell.

[–]Stormy_Fairweather 1 point2 points ago

I have been watching for a long time, carefully. I was very hesitant, but I slowly have come to conclude that it is, indeed, necessary. I am a humanist, friend, so I can assure that violence would be last answer I would ever offer, but at this point I am certain. The only question I have left is whether we will realize this necessity soon enough for it to be relatively few heads that need roll, or if the country will tear itself apart at the seams.

[–]NonZionist 1 point2 points ago

We can't defeat this system. Violence makes our position worse, not better, because we lose the moral high-ground.

All we can do is stay out of the way and let the system to defeat itself.

The system is dysfunctional. It doesn't work. It is defeated already. We need to devote ourselves to developing a working alternative -- something that will fill the vacuum created by the collapse of the current system.

[–]322955469 3 points4 points ago

Hear, hear

[–]TexDen 2 points3 points ago

It would be different if rich people didn't collude to rip everyone off. Their time is coming, fat cats' going to have a heart attack.

[–]frankster 0 points1 point ago

very very interesting analysis

[–]KevZero 0 points1 point ago

TLDR: "Danger! Danger!" - Will Robinson

[–]DJWhamo -3 points-2 points ago

So, you want to solve the problem of humanity waging war on each other...by pitting people against each other based on economic factors? This sounds more emotional than thought out. At what economic level do you stop redistribution? And what do you do if and when there are no more "rich" (which most middle class Westerners are compared to impoverished third world populations) people to take from? If we all have the same, and still things aren't better? Did it ever occur to you that some of those people might earn their money, or that more specifically, others haven't?

We give charity and foreign aid, and have been for decades. Some people and countries have worked their asses off, and gotten to a better place. Others haven't. There are a variety of reasons why that might be, but the global "haves" aren't always the cause.

[–]tripleg -1 points0 points ago

do you come from Liberia?

[–]MinoMinoMino -1 points0 points ago

Liberteria.

[–]Stormy_Fairweather 0 points1 point ago

... care to tell me how to get there?

[–]stumo 0 points1 point ago

by pitting people against each other based on economic factors?

I didn't see that proposed as a solution anywhere. If anything, it's an observation of what's occurring.

[–]DJWhamo 2 points3 points ago* 

Did you read the whole article? The last paragraph states:

In my view, the only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st-century democratic socialism in which humanity is no longer at war with itself...

The two parts are contradictory. Part of wealth redistribution is targeting a class of people to take the wealth from, seperating us by economic factors. And if they don't want to give as much as is asked willingly, then...

[–]stumo 3 points4 points ago

Did you read the whole article?

Yup.

Part of wealth redistribution is targeting a class to people to take the wealth from, seperating us by economic factors.

Whether you like it or not, whether it is compatible with your political ideology or not, the fact is that a big part of the current economic crisis is unprecedented wealth discrepancy. Or illiquidity if you prefer. The system was running before because there were mechanisms in place to redistribute enough wealth to keep the system going. Those mechanisms have deteriorated in the last three decades.

Advocating reintroduction of wealth redistribution systems is not at all the same thing as advocating class violence. If anything, it'll prevent class violence. If the ruling elite don't get their heads out of their asses soon and figure out what needs to get done to fix things, they may find their heads on sticks being paraded through the streets.

[–]DJWhamo -3 points-2 points ago

But is all wealth discrepancy automatically unjust? Is it unjust that someone who works harder than me should make more, or someone who doesn't less? Is all wealth discrepancy automatically corrupt in nature? Predatory?

Is it wealth distribution that is needed, or simply stronger regulations? Are people in poorer countries only the victims of global capitalism, or their own corrupt politicians and lack of legal protections?

Advocating reintroduction of wealth redistribution systems is not at all the same thing as advocating class violence

If the ruling elite don't get their heads out of their asses soon...they may find their heads on sticks being paraded through the streets.

...Huh. Look, maybe it will, maybe it won't. I was simply stating that, due to the aforementioned reason, his sollution sounded contradictory.

[–]stumo 4 points5 points ago

But is all wealth discrepancy automatically unjust?

Whether or not it's just is irrelevant; the system is breaking down because of it.

..or simply stronger regulations?

Huh?

I was simply stating that, due to the aforementioned reason, his sollution sounded contradictory.

It isn't.

[–]Moarbrains 0 points1 point ago

Take the morality out of it. The purpose of the economic system is not to reward morality.-not currently.

What is the function of the economy? What should it be?

[–]Non-prophet 0 points1 point ago

You've constructed that bizarrely. The first bolded part refers to a process, the second part to its eventual destination.

You complaining that they're incompatible would be like me rejecting instructions on how to visit London on the basis that they involve high speed air travel, an incompatible state with the fact that once I'm in London I'll want to sit still.

[–]Heilz -3 points-2 points ago

Bullshit. Underestimates the subtlety and sophistication of the social control mechanisms.

[–]ProSoviet -3 points-2 points ago

Says the Qatari based news channel that kept mum on the protests and unjust killings in Bahrain but is overly concerned about Syria?

[–]cleantoe 0 points1 point ago

Google this and stfu: "Shouting In The Dark"

[–]MinoMinoMino 1 point2 points ago

Poisoning the well doesn't change the fact that this is an excellent analysis of the current state affairs.

[–]raouldukeesq -2 points-1 points ago

Ha!

[–]ljacak -3 points-2 points ago

Was this written by an intern?