26/ this pisses me off to no end, because we’re so fucking smug about it, but Haiti is still struggling massively today.
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:57 JST Patricia Aas
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:51 JST Patricia Aas
43/ Ok, chapter 3 done. And.. it’s not even an argument, it’s just a bunch of assertions about cause and effect, leading to a conclusion to basically rip out all structures of “capitalism” but what is or is not “capitalism” is not even well defined.
For sure after reading The Shock Doctrine, the IMF can absolutely fall into an anthill (trying out simple curses). And no developing nation should pay the debts of their unseated dictators or debt they were forced into by extremist capitalists that wreaked their economies.
But to suddenly wreak havoc in general on the global economy For Reasons is beyond irresponsible, it is genocide.
I am getting really fucking tired of economists of all sorts.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:51 JST Patricia Aas
44/ Started on chapter 4 “Private Appropriation and Common Wealth” and it’s childish in its presentation of Good Guys and Bad Guys. This refusal to deal with the complexities of the real world is flabbergasting.
Bill repeated this. -
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:51 JST Patricia Aas
45/ it’s recycled antisemitic tropes reframed as more sanitized class wording. The evil money people out to get you.
Yeah, we are living in a society which contains significant structures built by people who believe that Greed Is Good Actually. And if people just managed to be More Selfish, everything would be Great (for some definition of Great).
But that structure not only rewards that, but it to some degree mandates it. And this is where the idea of The Unaccountability Machine comes in. If you want this structure to behave differently you have to change something in this reward cycle.
But to think that even such a “small” change won’t result in massive unpredictable consequences is beyond naive it is negligent and possibly crime-against-humanity-negligent.
So yeah, we should do reforms, so many reforms, a whole stack of reforms. But for gods sake we can’t pull the carpet out from under other vulnerable humans while we Roll Out Our Big Plan. People will literally die. And what kind of ego must you have to think that You Know Best? That’s ridiculous. And tbh proof that you don’t. Only someone who is clueless would proceed with that level of confidence.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:52 JST Patricia Aas
40/ White men with way too much time on their hands… the dazzling confidence of a man who has never tested a single idea he’s had in his entire life.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:52 JST Patricia Aas
41/ I’ll try a bit more, but jeez.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:52 JST Patricia Aas
42/ this is exactly the same absolute irreverence for other human beings that the Milton Friedman capitalism extremists have. Fuck everyone, rip off that fucking bandaid (society), IT WILL BE AMAZING WHEN WE’RE DONE ✨
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:53 JST Patricia Aas
38/ I’m becoming annoyed now, basically we went from private property is a form of savings, to private property then requires regulation (to protect the savings), to private property also needs money, so private property is the source of a state (which then has monopoly on regulation and money), and a state is by its nature (I can’t even tell you how that came about) a war machine, and ipso facto Military Industrial Complex.
I have so many questions.
Again I feel that this is more a personal opinion wrapped in academic language than an actual logical argument.
Maybe I need to read the chapter again… but tbh I’m losing hope that this book will be rigorous on any level, and I’m surprisingly disappointed at that.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:53 JST Patricia Aas
39/ … I don’t know what to say… remember when I said that capitalism has created structures inside the complex system which is our world, and that anyone who has worked with complex systems knows that trying to abruptly rip them out can cause catastrophes that we cannot even predict? (Ok, maybe I didn’t say exactly that, but that’s what I meant)
That’s basically his entire plan. Use The Shock Doctrine moment to Rip Out Everything.
Fuck everyone. Fuck all the people living hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck. They will just have to… (🤷🏻♀️die?) while we Rebuild The World In This Utopian Vision.
Disabled people dependent on daily help in their homes for basic needs? Don’t call us, we’ll call you. IT WILL BE PERFECT ONCE WE’RE DONE!
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:54 JST Patricia Aas
34/ He brings up the problem of land in North America and the Native view of nature as a commons violently meeting the European idea of property ownership. Very nice, big improvement over Piketty.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:54 JST Patricia Aas
35/ I feel like this whole book is building towards something, but it is very hard to see what.
Currently he’s in the middle of going through how private property necessitates government regulation and then casually throws out that the state has a monopoly on violence. And some vague reference to nationalism. -
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:54 JST Patricia Aas
36/ ok he went from defining concepts in baby steps to jumping to conclusions and from those to more conclusions and now suddenly the purpose of a state is war and maintaining the property rights of the powerful. I’m sorry, but we’re not even in model land anymore, we’re straight up in “that’s your opinion, man” territory now.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:54 JST Patricia Aas
37/ This seems very US centric and seems to assume that a state is inherently imperialistic. Now I’m sure this could perhaps apply to other contemporary states (Russia comes to mind) but I don’t believe that this is true as a general rule. And tbh, I don’t believe that this is the type of state neither population wants.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:55 JST Patricia Aas
31/ this idea was Keynes’. And apparently Marx agreed with me? Maybe?
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:55 JST Patricia Aas
32/ Wait? Is Harvey a crypto guy? Because he sounds like a crypto guy.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:55 JST Patricia Aas
33/ Chapter 2 is over and I still don’t know where he is going with this. This whole thing is very abstract and noncommittal.
Starting on chapter 3: “Private Property and the Capitalist State”
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:56 JST Patricia Aas
28/ “If exchange value weakens and ultimately disappears as the guiding means by which use values are both produced and distributed in society, so the need for money and all of the lustful pathologies associated with its use (as capital) and possession (as a consummate source of social power) will also disappear.”
I really don’t know where he’s going with this. He seems to say that money is needed as a practical medium for exchange in a society, but I think he’s also saying that if we can remove the “instrument” part of money then it cannot be abused. I don’t know what that means in practice.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:56 JST Patricia Aas
29/ tbh I feel we’re way too far into model land here. Are humans intrinsically bad or good? I’m not sure it’s a useful question. Even “good” people can be driven to do “bad” things.
Like a person shoplifting diapers and formula because they can’t afford it and they have a baby at home, are they “bad” or are they “good”?
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:56 JST Patricia Aas
30/ Ah ok, what if money expires/rots like a gift card? Tbh then I think a money renewal market would appear, where you could turn in your About To Expire money, and get Fresh Money. And when you want to use it the… let’s call it a bank… would give you About To Expire money. And for this they would for sure find a way to make “money”. Either in an “exchange fee” or something like it. As long as you get in fresh money all the time you are golden. Oh no, this sounds like cryptocurrency exchanges.
-
Embed this notice
Patricia Aas (patricia@social.vivaldi.net)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 10:07:57 JST Patricia Aas
27/ Ok, I think the homeowner thing was maybe a metaphor for money? Basically saying homes/money are not Bad In Themselves, but that both can be misused when they are manipulated into instruments?
-
Embed this notice