Is this where the West is heading? - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15192002
boomerintown wrote:@Noumenon



If you have time, what do you think about this concept? Its could perhaps be a master-signifier?

(And Zizek is mentioned :)).


Very interesting! This is definitely a lot like what I was trying to express. I'll have to read up on this guy.

I think Atheos could correspond with an empty signifier - it is the void or lack of a deity that itself becomes deified. Whereas Syntheos could correspond with the self-conscious creation of a new orienting signifier. I'm not sure if it should be designated a "master" signifier because I think there is implied unquestioning obedience in that. But something like it, which does not have that connotation.
#15192014
Noumenon wrote:Very interesting! This is definitely a lot like what I was trying to express. I'll have to read up on this guy.

I think Atheos could correspond with an empty signifier - it is the void or lack of a deity that itself becomes deified. Whereas Syntheos could correspond with the self-conscious creation of a new orienting signifier. I'm not sure if it should be designated a "master" signifier because I think there is implied unquestioning obedience in that. But something like it, which does not have that connotation.


Yeah, I think he brings a lot of very interesting thoughts to the table in this small talk. I am thinking that this pyramid, and the eye I suppose, together could be a Master Signifier in the sense that it sort of structures the void.

I am a little bit under the weather right now (but at least I am vaccinated if it turns out to be covid :)), so my train of thought is pretty limited.
#15192081
Noumenon wrote:
That's pretty awesome. I think everyone should be making $70k minimum. That's fair compensation just for dragging your ass to work every day.

Once everyone is making that, then we can talk about how the capitalist work arrangement inherently sucks, no matter how well compensated you are.



Can we talk about how capitalism sucks *while* we make $70k minimum -- ? (grin)
#15192095
Noumenon wrote:That's pretty awesome. I think everyone should be making $70k minimum. That's fair compensation just for dragging your ass to work every day.

Once everyone is making that....

Once everyone is making that, commercial airlines will need to double their fleets, luxury SUVs will clog all our streets, and anyone making under 70,000$ will feel poor and miserable.

I'm not sure if The Price is Right can help us at this moment in our history as "a people" (mercenaries).
#15192101
QatzelOk wrote:
Once everyone is making that, commercial airlines will need to double their fleets, luxury SUVs will clog all our streets, and anyone making under 70,000$ will feel poor and miserable.

I'm not sure if The Price is Right can help us at this moment in our history as "a people" (mercenaries).



I don't appreciate the implicit 'consumer-shaming' aspect of your line, Qatzel, because ultimately any given standard of living / lifestyle is *arbitrary*. What *can* be argued against is any societal *impact* that someone's particular chosen lifestyle may have, such as with pollution, etc. -- 'politics'.

But you do indicate that the indulging in personal lifestyles is probably to the detriment of the body-politic, while the U.S. continues its 'War on Terrorism' paradigm abroad, and its 'War on Drugs' paradigm domestically.

Also I'm reminded of this quote of mine from another thread:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Regarding the Gulf War, why did the U.S. become a mercenary for Kuwait?




Most of the coalition's military forces were from the US, with Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Egypt as leading contributors, in that order. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid around US$32 billion of the US$60 billion cost.[28]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War




viewtopic.php?p=15186802#p15186802
#15192112
ckaihatsu wrote:I don't appreciate the implicit 'consumer-shaming' aspect of your line, Qatzel, because ultimately any given standard of living / lifestyle is *arbitrary*. What *can* be argued against is any societal *impact* that someone's particular chosen lifestyle may have, such as with pollution, etc. -- 'politics'.

Oh, I agree with you that my "consumer shaming" was silly.

But so was the "Oh, to have $70,000 would make everyone's lives so much better" line that someone else wrote, that provoked my evocation of how silly this could be. That a numerical amount of cash or diamonds... isn't a solution, so much as a sign of what the central problem might be ( (luxury-worshipping by narcissists).

But you do indicate that the indulging in personal lifestyles is probably to the detriment of the body-politic, while the U.S. continues its 'War on Terrorism' paradigm abroad, and its 'War on Drugs' paradigm domestically.

Not "personal lifestyles" but "enclosed bubbles of consumption"... are detrimental to any kind of *human social capital* - and social capital is the primary determinant of the health of the body-politic.
#15192118
QatzelOk wrote:
Oh, I agree with you that my "consumer shaming" was silly.



You can't just say, after-the-fact, 'oh sorry' / 'just kidding' / 'it was silly'.

You *often* slight the consumer, even though none of us *chose* to be born into capitalism, and to have innate biological and social needs for material *consumption*, as for food and housing, etc.


QatzelOk wrote:
But so was the "Oh, to have $70,000 would make everyone's lives so much better" line that someone else wrote, that provoked my evocation of how silly this could be. That a numerical amount of cash or diamonds... isn't a solution, so much as a sign of what the central problem might be ( (luxury-worshipping by narcissists).



Again you're being moralistic over consumption -- what if, crazy idea here, someone decided to pay rent on *multiple* locations simultaneously, endlessly -- ? That could *easily* chew through $70k a year, and could readily go upwards from there.

Are they doing something "wrong", in your book -- ?


QatzelOk wrote:
Not "personal lifestyles" but "enclosed bubbles of consumption"... are detrimental to any kind of *human social capital* - and social capital is the primary determinant of the health of the body-politic.



Arguable, though I'd certainly tend to side with your position here on it. (I'll include the sidenote that people are entirely free to be *apolitical* in their lives, and others will gladly let them be such.)

Also, for the first part:


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll remind that every dollar (or whatever currency) from revenues in the private sector, and every dollar received as taxes by government, can only either go to *labor*, or else that dollar will be controlled by *capitalists* / owners / employers / bosses.



viewtopic.php?p=15191272#p15191272



The following documentary -- along with 'Planet of the Humans' -- notes that it was *corporations* that rammed 'biomass', or 'plastics' down everyone's throats, regarding economic-material 'supply'. Corporations blame the *consumer* -- oh, look, and so do *you*.


The Story of Plastic (Full Documentary)

#15192482
ckaihatsu wrote:You can't just say, after-the-fact, 'oh sorry' / 'just kidding' / 'it was silly'.

Yes I can, if the line in question was supposed to be silly, but wasn't received as such. I was calling attention to how silly "$70,000 will make everyone happy" was.

You *often* slight the consumer, even though none of us *chose* to be born into capitalism, and to have innate biological and social needs for material *consumption*, as for food and housing, etc.

Not the consumer - consumption. That's what I sometimes slight. Big difference between these two. The sinner, versus the sin. The driver, versus the car. The smoker versus the burning cigarette. I am calling attention to the sin, the car, the cigarette and the consumption. Not the person who has been tricked or cajoled into the consumption.

Again you're being moralistic over consumption -

That's correct. I am being moralistic over consumption, because certain types of consumption are destructive and pollute both the planet and the human soul.

I'd certainly tend to side with your position here on it.

I like how you put yourself into the third person here in order to analyze yourself as if you were your own case study. :lol:
#15192525
Noumenon wrote:
That's pretty awesome. I think everyone should be making $70k minimum. That's fair compensation just for dragging your ass to work every day.

Once everyone is making that, then we can talk about how the capitalist work arrangement inherently sucks, no matter how well compensated you are.



QatzelOk wrote:
Once everyone is making that, commercial airlines will need to double their fleets, luxury SUVs will clog all our streets, and anyone making under 70,000$ will feel poor and miserable.

I'm not sure if The Price is Right can help us at this moment in our history as "a people" (mercenaries).



ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't appreciate the implicit 'consumer-shaming' aspect of your line, Qatzel, because ultimately any given standard of living / lifestyle is *arbitrary*. What *can* be argued against is any societal *impact* that someone's particular chosen lifestyle may have, such as with pollution, etc. -- 'politics'.



QatzelOk wrote:
Oh, I agree with you that my "consumer shaming" was silly.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You can't just say, after-the-fact, 'oh sorry' / 'just kidding' / 'it was silly'.



QatzelOk wrote:
Yes I can, if the line in question was supposed to be silly, but wasn't received as such. I was calling attention to how silly "$70,000 will make everyone happy" was.



Now you're *fetishizing* the $70k, when it wasn't *introduced* that way.

Noumenon was talking about $70k in terms of *compensation*, for *work*, and not as being some kind of promised automatic 'happiness'. (You're *imputing* that part.)


QatzelOk wrote:
Not the consumer - consumption. That's what I sometimes slight. Big difference between these two. The sinner, versus the sin. The driver, versus the car. The smoker versus the burning cigarette. I am calling attention to the sin, the car, the cigarette and the consumption. Not the person who has been tricked or cajoled into the consumption.



Okay, well, what's wrong with *consumption* -- ?

Is it "wrong" if someone enjoys a plane ride? Are they a "sinner" then -- ?


QatzelOk wrote:
That's correct. I am being moralistic over consumption, because certain types of consumption are destructive and pollute both the planet and the human soul.



True, and some kinds of consumption are *empowering* and *enlightening* for the consumer, in ways that didn't even exist just a few years ago, and in past human history. It's for this reason that the dynamic of capitalism is so controversial and offensive, because the 'haves' get to access and own certain kinds of consumption for themselves, through their wealth, while the 'have-nots' can't and don't.


QatzelOk wrote:
I like how you put yourself into the third person here in order to analyze yourself as if you were your own case study. :lol:



Nope -- I'm not referring to myself as 'him', or 'Chris', which would be third-person.


QatzelOk wrote:
Not "personal lifestyles" but "enclosed bubbles of consumption"... are detrimental to any kind of *human social capital* - and social capital is the primary determinant of the health of the body-politic.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Arguable, though I'd certainly tend to side with your position here on it. (I'll include the sidenote that people are entirely free to be *apolitical* in their lives, and others will gladly let them be such.)
#15192533
QatzelOk wrote:Once everyone is making that, commercial airlines will need to double their fleets, luxury SUVs will clog all our streets, and anyone making under 70,000$ will feel poor and miserable.

I'm not sure if The Price is Right can help us at this moment in our history as "a people" (mercenaries).


I'm saying everyone ought to have the lifestyle afforded by $70k compensation as a matter of principle. How we achieve it and whatever environmental obstacles there may be to that, is the problem to be solved. Didn't say anything about it being easy.

Personally I think that reversing the human population down to no more than 1 billion is the answer. There is no good reason to have more human beings than that, and it just adds to the stress and difficulty of creating a fair and liveable planet.
#15192535
Noumenon wrote:
I'm saying everyone ought to have the lifestyle afforded by $70k compensation as a matter of principle. How we achieve it and whatever environmental obstacles there may be to that, is the problem to be solved. Didn't say anything about it being easy.

Personally I think that reversing the human population down to no more than 1 billion is the answer. There is no good reason to have more human beings than that, and it just adds to the stress and difficulty of creating a fair and liveable planet.



So how do you feel about the death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic? Is it a wet dream for you?
#15192537
ckaihatsu wrote:So how do you feel about the death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic? Is it a wet dream for you?


Obviously we should all agree this is a bad thing. But not gonna lie and say there isn't a upside to everything. Europe's renaissance and climb out of the middle ages was partially due to the resources opened up by 1/3rd of the population dying from the black death.
#15192541
Noumenon wrote:
Obviously we should all agree this is a bad thing. But not gonna lie and say there isn't a upside to everything. Europe's renaissance and climb out of the middle ages was partially due to the resources opened up by 1/3rd of the population dying from the black death.



So we're all getting a 'death dividend' check in the mail -- is that it?



Peace dividend was a political slogan popularized by US President George H.W. Bush[1] and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the light of the 1988–1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, that described the economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending. The term was frequently used at the end of the Cold War, when many Western nations significantly cut military spending such as Britain's 1990 Options for Change defence review. It is now used primarily in discussions relating to the guns versus butter theory.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_dividend



Or, maybe you were speaking *civilizationally* -- a scale of measurement, of class society, that may or may not 'trickle down' to everyone.
#15192548
ckaihatsu wrote:So we're all getting a 'death dividend' check in the mail -- is that it?


I suppose you could characterize it that way. Kind of like Republicans with their "death panels."

ckaihatsu wrote:Or, maybe you were speaking *civilizationally* -- a scale of measurement, of class society, that may or may not 'trickle down' to everyone.


Why all the sinister implications? The planet's resources are inherently limited. Is there any point where you would consider population reduction a good thing? What if the world's population were 100 trillion?

Wouldn't it be easier to collectively fight the global elite if we were not fighting each other for access to land, water, air, etc? The elite benefits from us being in that situation. They make out fine.
#15192549
ckaihatsu wrote:
So we're all getting a 'death dividend' check in the mail -- is that it?



Noumenon wrote:
I suppose you could characterize it that way. Kind of like Republicans with their "death panels."



I got a COVID check or two last year, but no 'death dividend' from the government, and I'm not going to hold my breath, either.

You mean this -- ?



Fierce opposition from the GOP was there even before work on the legislation began, and that battle featured an early form of fake news — a tactic that became a prominent part of the 2016 election.

Remember the "death panels"?

In 2009, when the health care law was still being written, Sarah Palin coined the phrase "death panel" in a widely shared Facebook post. The headline of her post was innocuous enough, "Statement on the Current Health Care Debate."

But that Aug. 7, 2009, social media post from the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate included a dire warning:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society.' "



https://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/50916467 ... -fake-news



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Or, maybe you were speaking *civilizationally* -- a scale of measurement, of class society, that may or may not 'trickle down' to everyone.



Noumenon wrote:
Why all the sinister implications? The planet's resources are inherently limited. Is there any point where you would consider population reduction a good thing? What if the world's population were 100 trillion?

Wouldn't it be easier to collectively fight the global elite if we were not fighting each other for access to land, water, air, etc? The elite benefits from us being in that situation. They make out fine.



You're making it sound like Hobbesian *chaos* out there, when, in fact, I think that *most* of humanity's problems right now are all around the socio-political issues of *resource usage*, divided by class control, and *not* 'population size'.


Entire World Population Could Fit in Texas

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... -in-texas/
#15192645
ckaihatsu wrote:Noumenon was talking about $70k in terms of *compensation*, for *work*, and not as being some kind of promised automatic 'happiness'. (You're *imputing* that part.)

They are kind of the same thing. Noumenon's point was that 70k as compensation would make people happy because it would be fair compensation for their jobs, no matter how indignant these particular jobs happen to be. FALSE


Okay, well, what's wrong with *consumption* -- ?
Is it "wrong" if someone enjoys a plane ride? Are they a "sinner" then -- ?

If one soccer fan, at a game, wraps his soccer programme in reflective tinfoil and aims the reflected sun at the referee, is it a sin?

What if 90,000 people do this at the same time, and the referee dies of heat stroke from the reflected sun? Would that kind of mass consumption (of tinfoil and printed soccer programmes) be "a sin" (aka. evil, harmful, destructive)?
#15192659
QatzelOk wrote:
They are kind of the same thing. Noumenon's point was that 70k as compensation would make people happy because it would be fair compensation for their jobs, no matter how indignant these particular jobs happen to be. FALSE



No, fairness and happiness are *not* the same thing -- the implied premise *stands*, that good wages / salaries are desirable and can actually be realized, but only at the expense of the *boss'* compensation, per the video.

('Undignified', not 'indignant'.)


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, well, what's wrong with *consumption* -- ?

Is it "wrong" if someone enjoys a plane ride? Are they a "sinner" then -- ?



QatzelOk wrote:
If one soccer fan, at a game, wraps his soccer programme in reflective tinfoil and aims the reflected sun at the referee, is it a sin?

What if 90,000 people do this at the same time, and the referee dies of heat stroke from the reflected sun? Would that kind of mass consumption (of tinfoil and printed soccer programmes) be "a sin" (aka. evil, harmful, destructive)?



You're arguing individual-proportionate *culpability* for consumer practices that are empirically anti-social at *mass* scales, like producing air pollution from one's tailpipe.

My previous point stands that you're content to *blame consumers*, thereby letting the *deciding*, producing *corporations* off-the-hook regarding culpability.


Components of Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image
#15192663
ckaihatsu wrote:My previous point stands that you're content to *blame consumers*, thereby letting the *deciding*, producing *corporations* off-the-hook regarding culpability.

If you're saying that I don't blame corporations enough, I think you're wrong in the extreme.

It is corporations that force humans to indulge in these horrific acts of mass consumption. They need to die.

But to make the average consumer aware of how poison his ordinary, daily consumption is... requires a hard look at the consumption itself. Then, once consumers are aware of how brainwashed and dangerous they have become (because of corporate rule for hundreds of years), change will be possible.

As long as individual consumers are *content* with their poisonous consumption habits (which includes media brainwashing), any attempts to *solve* this problem will be fought by average consumers.

By telling people "corporations have made us all poisonous and brain-dead monsters," (which is true) they can then realize how much harm their corporate-assigned consumption really is.
#15192669
QatzelOk wrote:
If you're saying that I don't blame corporations enough, I think you're wrong in the extreme.



Yeah, that's true -- on reflection I *know* that you critique corporations regularly.

It's ultimately a matter of *emphasis*, though, because you're not critiquing corporations and the consumer *in parallel*, here.

My argument is that people *need* transportation in a modern world, yet the *options* have usually had to be *car*-based in the postwar era.


Biking Montreal - Montreal's Newest Bicycling Infrastructure Dazzles!




---


QatzelOk wrote:
It is corporations that force humans to indulge in these horrific acts of mass consumption. They need to die.

But to make the average consumer aware of how poison his ordinary, daily consumption is... requires a hard look at the consumption itself. Then, once consumers are aware of how brainwashed and dangerous they have become (because of corporate rule for hundreds of years), change will be possible.

As long as individual consumers are *content* with their poisonous consumption habits (which includes media brainwashing), any attempts to *solve* this problem will be fought by average consumers.

By telling people "corporations have made us all poisonous and brain-dead monsters," (which is true) they can then realize how much harm their corporate-assigned consumption really is.



But don't you see that you've arrived at a *dead end* -- ?

Okay, so if consumers are self-critiquing, *then what* -- a few lifestyle *adjustments* can and may be made, individual-by-individual, or household-by-household, but then meanwhile the *corporations* just go on doing what they're doing:



The scope of the disasters also exposes the bankruptcy of capitalism and its complete inability to deal in any meaningful way with the ongoing climate crisis.

In a 1982 internal memo that was “given wide circulation to Exxon management,” it was made clear that global temperatures would increase sharply as more CO2 was released into the atmosphere. The memo at the time predicted an increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases and global temperatures seen today and also predicted that global temperatures would exceed an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius before the middle of this century and 2 degrees Celsius sometime around 2060.

[...]

More recently, the 2017 Carbon Majors report showed that just 100 corporations worldwide now produce about 90 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions each year, and are responsible about half of all greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity since the industrial revolution. That same presentation also noted that if the trend in fossil fuel extraction and release continues for the next quarter century, global average temperatures would be on track to reach an increase of 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... s-a23.html
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

The comparison isn't to religions as organized in[…]

any comment on this ? Wasnt the SU part of the[…]

October 27, Tuesday The Union preparations at […]

Neville chamberlain, the greatest man of the twen[…]