"Authoritarian"

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Are you thinking Russia has been doing socialism?

Looked like authoritarian state capitalism from here, even back when it was nominally 'socialist'. Power over the use of capital was concentrated in a few hands, to the enrichment of a small proportion of the population. And in recent years, the public assets have been acquired by a small number of private individuals, making it largely private capitalism, though probably with a lot of state support (US capitalists also enjoy significant support too). It now has wealth inequality to rival the US, with consequent severe poverty.
"The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country."
"Russia is really an outlier," Shorrocks said. "Even compared with the U.S., which has more wealth inequality than most countries, [Russia] is still totally separate from the rest of the world."
Russia Leads In Wealth Inequality
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
Are you thinking Russia has been doing socialism?

Looked like authoritarian state capitalism from here, even back when it was nominally 'socialist'. Power over the use of capital was concentrated in a few hands, to the enrichment of a small proportion of the population. And in recent years, the public assets have been acquired by a small number of private individuals, making it largely private capitalism, though probably with a lot of state support (US capitalists also enjoy significant support too). It now has wealth inequality to rival the US, with consequent severe poverty.
"The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country."
"Russia is really an outlier," Shorrocks said. "Even compared with the U.S., which has more wealth inequality than most countries, [Russia] is still totally separate from the rest of the world."
Russia Leads In Wealth Inequality
I think things will work out well for russia if europe switches over to russian petroleum and natural gas. I believe russia is being weaned off the dollar, along with the brics states. That is the principal result of the embargo. Russian food is non-gmo, for example. In short, a seperate system is being erected. Whether it's called socialist or capitalist makes no difference. I believe that philosophy precedes social movements. I also believe the same group runs both russia and the us. There's a good book you might like, wall street & bolshevism: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists: Antony C. Sutton: 9781905570355: Amazon.com: Books

For example, american pilots were confused and reported american vehicles on the ho chi mihn trail, because the газ truck was made from a plant set up by Ford. It was a copy of the american variant. Also the ball-bearings for russian MIRVs were manufactured in california. Just like tbe operations of general electric and standard oil in nazi germany, which are better known and accepted. Since the same people run both nations, the philosophy they expound is irrelevant. A verdant and thriving middle class occurs during times of military or economic expansion, and the dissapearance of the middle class occurs during consolidation by the state. Russia has steadily improved since the 90s, and i believe the current sanctions represent both a minima and inflection point for the russian middle class. I think they wi become quite prosperous in our lifetime. I know you will find tbat dissapointing because you dream of leading the proletariat, but perhaps you can do that here? You're an exc3llent leader. :happy:
 
Last edited:

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
Are you thinking Russia has been doing socialism?

Looked like authoritarian state capitalism from here, even back when it was nominally 'socialist'. Power over the use of capital was concentrated in a few hands, to the enrichment of a small proportion of the population. And in recent years, the public assets have been acquired by a small number of private individuals, making it largely private capitalism, though probably with a lot of state support (US capitalists also enjoy significant support too). It now has wealth inequality to rival the US, with consequent severe poverty.
"The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country."
"Russia is really an outlier," Shorrocks said. "Even compared with the U.S., which has more wealth inequality than most countries, [Russia] is still totally separate from the rest of the world."
Russia Leads In Wealth Inequality
Call It Sleep
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Russia has steadily improved since the 90s, and i believe the current sanctions represent both a minima and inflection point for the russian middle class.
I think that 'improvements' depends on which aspects you look at. I think there have been pros and cons, people who have benefitted and others who have lost. Are you thinking world record wealth inequality is an improvement? Or fall in life expectancy?
Wikipedia:
"Following the economic collapse of the early 1990s, Russia suffered from a sharp increase in the rates of poverty and economic inequality.[6] Estimates by the World Bank based on both macroeconomic data and surveys of household incomes and expenditures indicate that whereas 1.5% of the population was living in poverty (defined as income below the equivalent of $25 per month) in the late Soviet era, by mid-1993 between 39% and 49% of the population was living in poverty.[7] Per capita incomes fell by another 15% by 1998, according to government figures."

"Public health indicators show a dramatic corresponding decline. In 1999, total population fell by about three-quarters of a million people. Meanwhile, life expectancy dropped for men from 64 years in 1990 to 57 years by 1994, while women's dropped from 74 to about 71. Both health factors and a sharp increase in deaths of the youth demographic from unnatural causes (such as murders, suicides and accidents) have significantly contributed to this trend. As of 2009, life expectancy is higher than at the nadir of the crisis in 1994, yet it still remains below the 1990 level, with men living to 59, and with women's life expectancy decreasing to 70.[8]"

. I think they will become quite prosperous in our lifetime.
Which they? The billionaires or the majority of the population?
I know you will find tbat dissapointing because you dream of leading the proletariat, but perhaps you can do that here?
No such dreams. Where is here?
 

Spokey

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
321
The problem is that deference to authority is indispensable to modern civilization. I do not have a degree in biochemistry, physics, or biology and I have no interest in getting one. I am an expert in two narrow subjects and it took me many years to get here. I simply don't have time to form all of my own opinions on nutrition and lifestyle, or even moral and spiritual subjects. I need to pick respected authorities and believe in them and advocate for them. That's just how life works. Making sure those authorities are not wrong or corrupt is a complicated political problem. You can't just brush it away by saying something like "Do your own research." Yeah, like I'm going to spend eight years building up the requisite expertise to do my own research on a lot of this stuff. You need a deep background in chemistry, statistics, experimental methodology and design of experiment, and how socio-political forces influence the research scene. "Do your own research" is a rather pathetic lie. Not gonna happen in any meaningful way. I just spent over a decade mastering my own profession. I need the cheat sheet version on certain other subjects.

On the matter of nutrition and certain medicines I am a proud authoritarian for Ray Peat. He is my authority and I defer to him as a loyal subject. I will go to bat for him when people attack him in the lower realms with stupid points I can easily deflect.

There's a difference between trusting an expert and being brow beaten into deferring to authority.

The difference between Ray and say Merck, is Ray doesn't spend billions trying to crush scientific opposition to his work. He's not silenced anyone or created marketing and PR to bolster his statements. His ideas can be evaluated on the basis of evidence by those who have the inclination and time. He doesn't force you agree with him, he doesn't come from an authoritarian place.
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
I think that 'improvements' depends on which aspects you look at. I think there have been pros and cons, people who have benefitted and others who have lost. Are you thinking world record wealth inequality is an improvement? Or fall in life expectancy?
Wikipedia:
"Following the economic collapse of the early 1990s, Russia suffered from a sharp increase in the rates of poverty and economic inequality.[6] Estimates by the World Bank based on both macroeconomic data and surveys of household incomes and expenditures indicate that whereas 1.5% of the population was living in poverty (defined as income below the equivalent of $25 per month) in the late Soviet era, by mid-1993 between 39% and 49% of the population was living in poverty.[7] Per capita incomes fell by another 15% by 1998, according to government figures."

"Public health indicators show a dramatic corresponding decline. In 1999, total population fell by about three-quarters of a million people. Meanwhile, life expectancy dropped for men from 64 years in 1990 to 57 years by 1994, while women's dropped from 74 to about 71. Both health factors and a sharp increase in deaths of the youth demographic from unnatural causes (such as murders, suicides and accidents) have significantly contributed to this trend. As of 2009, life expectancy is higher than at the nadir of the crisis in 1994, yet it still remains below the 1990 level, with men living to 59, and with women's life expectancy decreasing to 70.[8]"


Which they? The billionaires or the majority of the population?

No such dreams. Where is here?

Regarding Russia, you may be correct. People i've talked to have said things have improved quite a bit. I dont trust the world bank, but sure things are bad right now in russia. The last time things were decent there was in tbe early 80s, from what i've heard. People lived decently after perestroika. Nonetheless, i thinm russia will come up, based on my own interpretation of factors, prinipally among them russia's natural resources, cultural ideologies, and neo capatalism.

For me it comes down to this Tara: we're slaves. It doesnt matter how it's phrased. For over a hundered years now there's been intellectual clashes between communism, capatlisk, socialism. Has it budged anytbing at all, has it supplied one meal to a hungry family? No. No politician, no news agency, nk state, has ever phrased problems in an accurate way. The terms and ideologies they expound, in short the terms we are supplied, have always served to distract us from alternate theories, just like in medicine.

Were i to say "the struggle for income equality will make us all eaually impoverished" many people would presume me to be a capatlist or proponent of free markets, yet that does not reflect my thinking. All governments and all monetary systems are features of slavery. Im sure you'd agree, he, or she, who controls the terms controls the outcome. Essentily, i feel that the actual solution lies in social relations, and like ray, in health. I understand that people want labels, and want to exert their own influence on consciousness. I agree that is the purpose of life. But when it's done with presupplied constructs and terms, the struggle is already lost. We do not choose our leaders. Therefore, i would say the problems of the world are in social relations and in health.

As to the world bank, im sure you're aware of their policies on vacci ation. You may enjoy reading "shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capatlism" by naomi klein. She discourses on the world banm / imf. Do you trust our banks here? Then why trust the world bank?

Things are hard in russia, but their people are tbouroughly conditioned into slavery. They don care about ideology, they just want a decent life materially. That is one big reason i feel productive endeavors will be transferred to russia. Carrol quigley, bill clinto 's hisfory teacher, agrees. Russia would be more compliant slaves than us. Additionaly, as regards income, how can theybcompare the levels when the state supplied vouchers for so many necessities? Russia is hurting, but those numbers are only significant from a western lerspective, where we're nickeled and dimed for every little thing. As i said also, american export has sustained russia many times.

Long ago, rulers controlled their people with knowledge of the heavens and seasons. Today, people are the same. Things appear too outlandish to bekieve, yet explain things perfectly. Despite this, we slaves have always sought to feel no distress, to belong to the group. With lanvuage, as orwell and peat have written, when you use the presupplied terms to explain your bondage, you have already lost.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
For me it comes down to this Tara: we're slaves.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Wage slavery has some advantages of serfdom and direct ownership by masters, but it's still very constrained for most people.

Has it budged anytbing at all, has it supplied one meal to a hungry family?
Well actually, yes, I think the governing politics make a big difference. I think some of the efforts have improved some peoples lives significantly, in terms of access to basics like food, even while there may still be other problems going on. Consider Cuba, Mondragon, Chavez' Venezuela, the US New Deal, some periods in Mao's China. There were real and at least partially successful efforts to make sure people got the necessities of life. The neoliberal revolution a few decades ago - Reaganomics, Thatcherism, etc - really did take away food and heating and housing form significant numbers of people, in the process of concentrating wealth in the hands of a smaller number. Where I am, we used to have full employment at a family wage, and much lower levels of child poverty, before that regressive takeover.

We do not choose our leaders.
I think this is an important point. Democracy requires not only the opportunity to cast a vote in a fair election, but also cndidates with real solutions, and a population informed enough to make good use of the opportunity. And freedom from the threat of foreign intervention by super powers if they choose a path that serves the population more than the capitalists (eg. consider the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua). Election finance and the state of the mainstream media have a big effect, too.

You may enjoy reading "shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capatlism" by naomi klein.
I haven't read it, but I've heard about the book and I'm familiar with the concept. I've been seeing it in action locally, too. Disaster being used by extreme right national government to corner local government into selling off assets that it would be economically wise to keep. I heard a talk by Klein a few weeks ago about climate change, and I've read other things by her. She's an excellent researcher, writer and speaker.

She discourses on the world banm / imf. Do you trust our banks here? Then why trust the world bank?
I think some form of money may be useful. The current methods of controlling the money supply, most of the international and national banks, can mostly be trusted to enrich their owners and controllers. Banks are amongst the institutions, along with roads etc, that I think should be under democratic control, not private ownership. That used to be the case here; they used to support local small business development. When they ceased to be, it had real effects on who could borrow money to set up and maintain small businesses etc.
The IMF has been a key player in enforcing 'structural adjustment' (privatisation, impoverishment) the world over.

Things are hard in russia, but their people are tbouroughly conditioned into slavery. They don care about ideology, they just want a decent life materially. That is one big reason i feel productive endeavors will be transferred to russia. Carrol quigley, bill clinto 's hisfory teacher, agrees. Russia would be more compliant slaves than us. Additionaly, as regards income, how can theybcompare the levels when the state supplied vouchers for so many necessities? Russia is hurting, but those numbers are only significant from a western lerspective, where we're nickeled and dimed for every little thing. As i said also, american export has sustained russia many times.
Trade and investment deregulation treaties have paved the way for the TNCs to move their production to wherever it is cheapest - lowest wages, lowest environmental standards, lowest standards and enforcement of work conditions, most complieant workforce. Race for the bottom, with losers on all sides and profit to the 1% (much of it to the 0.01%). The currently wealthy countries got there by protecting their economies. The recently negotiated TPPA is another step empowering the TNCs to exert control over countries - a big chunk of the world - against democracy, via the investor- state dispute mechanisms.

Russia is hurting, but those numbers are only significant from a western lerspective, where we're nickeled and dimed for every little thing.
I've read extracts and reviews, but not the whole of, Barbara Ehrenreich's 'Nickled and Dimed'. Have you come across it?

Long ago, rulers controlled their people with knowledge of the heavens and seasons. Today, people are the same. Things appear too outlandish to bekieve, yet explain things perfectly. Despite this, we slaves have always sought to feel no distress, to belong to the group. With lanvuage, as orwell and peat have written, when you use the presupplied terms to explain your bondage, you have already lost.
Yeah, getting totally focussed on current comfort and conformity, and swallowing the rulers stories whole, gets in the way of figuring out what's really going on and what to do about it. I strongly agree about the importance how we use language. One of the misuses of terminology that keep's striking me lately is the inaccurate conflation of 'democracy' and 'capitalism'.




For me it comes down to this Tara: we're slaves.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Wage slavery has some advantages of serfdom and direct ownership by masters, but it's still very constrained for most people.

Has it budged anytbing at all, has it supplied one meal to a hungry family?
Well actually, yes, I think the governing politics make a big difference. I think some of the efforts have improved some peoples lives significantly, in terms of access to basics like food, even while there may still be other problems going on. Consider Cuba, Mondragon, Chavez' Venezuela, the US New Deal, some periods in Mao's China. There were real and at least partially successful efforts to make sure people got the necessities of life. The neoliberal revolution a few decades ago - Reaganomics, Thatcherism, etc - really did take away food and heating and housing form significant numbers of people, in the process of concentrating wealth in the hands of a smaller number. Where I am, we used to have full employment at a family wage, and much lower levels of child poverty, before that regressive takeover.

We do not choose our leaders.
I think this is an important point. Democracy requires not only the opportunity to cast a vote in a fair election, but also cndidates with real solutions, and a population informed enough to make good use of the opportunity. And freedom from the threat of foreign intervention by super powers if they choose a path that serves the population more than the capitalists (eg. consider the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua). Election finance and the state of the mainstream media have a big effect, too.

You may enjoy reading "shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capatlism" by naomi klein.
I haven't read it, but I've heard about the book and I'm familiar with the concept. I've been seeing it in action locally, too. Disaster being used by extreme right national government to corner local government into selling off assets that it would be economically wise to keep. I heard a talk by Klein a few weeks ago about climate change, and I've read other things by her. She's an excellent researcher, writer and speaker.

She discourses on the world banm / imf. Do you trust our banks here? Then why trust the world bank?
I think some form of money may be useful. The current methods of controlling the money supply, most of the international and national banks, can mostly be trusted to enrich their owners and controllers. Banks are amongst the institutions, along with roads etc, that I think should be under democratic control, not private ownership. That used to be the case here; they used to support local small business development. When they ceased to be, it had real effects on who could borrow money to set up and maintain small businesses etc.
The IMF has been a key player in enforcing 'structural adjustment' (privatisation, impoverishment) the world over.

Things are hard in russia, but their people are tbouroughly conditioned into slavery. They don care about ideology, they just want a decent life materially. That is one big reason i feel productive endeavors will be transferred to russia. Carrol quigley, bill clinto 's hisfory teacher, agrees. Russia would be more compliant slaves than us. Additionaly, as regards income, how can theybcompare the levels when the state supplied vouchers for so many necessities? Russia is hurting, but those numbers are only significant from a western lerspective, where we're nickeled and dimed for every little thing. As i said also, american export has sustained russia many times.
Trade and investment deregulation treaties have paved the way for the TNCs to move their production to wherever it is cheapest - lowest wages, lowest environmental standards, lowest standards and enforcement of work conditions, most complieant workforce. Race for the bottom, with losers on all sides and profit to the 1% (much of it to the 0.01%). The currently wealthy countries got there by protecting their economies. The recently negotiated TPPA is another step empowering the TNCs to exert control over countries - a big chunk of the world - against democracy, via the investor- state dispute mechanisms.

Russia is hurting, but those numbers are only significant from a western lerspective, where we're nickeled and dimed for every little thing.
I've read extracts and reviews, but not the whole of, Barbara Ehrenreich's 'Nickled and Dimed'. Have you come across it?

Long ago, rulers controlled their people with knowledge of the heavens and seasons. Today, people are the same. Things appear too outlandish to bekieve, yet explain things perfectly. Despite this, we slaves have always sought to feel no distress, to belong to the group. With lanvuage, as orwell and peat have written, when you use the presupplied terms to explain your bondage, you have already lost.
Yeah, getting totally focussed on current comfort and conformity, and swallowing the rulers stories whole, gets in the way of figuring out what's really going on and what to do about it. I strongly agree about the importance how we use language. One of the misuses of terminology that keep's striking me lately is the inaccurate conflation of 'democracy' and 'capitalism'.
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
For me it comes down to this Tara: we're slaves.
Yeah. Wage slavery has some advantages of serfdom and direct ownership by masters, but it's still very constrained for most people.


Well actually, yes, I think the governing politics make a big difference. I think some of the efforts have improved some peoples lives significantly, in terms of access to basics like food, even while there may still be other problems going on. Consider Cuba, Mondragon, Chavez' Venezuela, the US New Deal, some periods in Mao's China. There were real and at least partially successful efforts to make sure people got the necessities of life. The neoliberal revolution a few decades ago - Reaganomics, Thatcherism, etc - really did take away food and heating and housing form significant numbers of people, in the process of concentrating wealth in the hands of a smaller number. Where I am, we used to have full employment at a family wage, and much lower levels of child poverty, before that regressive takeover.


I think this is an important point. Democracy requires not only the opportunity to cast a vote in a fair election, but also cndidates with real solutions, and a population informed enough to make good use of the opportunity. And freedom from the threat of foreign intervention by super powers if they choose a path that serves the population more than the capitalists (eg. consider the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua). Election finance and the state of the mainstream media have a big effect, too.


I haven't read it, but I've heard about the book and I'm familiar with the concept. I've been seeing it in action locally, too. Disaster being used by extreme right national government to corner local government into selling off assets that it would be economically wise to keep. I heard a talk by Klein a few weeks ago about climate change, and I've read other things by her. She's an excellent researcher, writer and speaker.


I think some form of money may be useful. The current methods of controlling the money supply, most of the international and national banks, can mostly be trusted to enrich their owners and controllers. Banks are amongst the institutions, along with roads etc, that I think should be under democratic control, not private ownership. That used to be the case here; they used to support local small business development. When they ceased to be, it had real effects on who could borrow money to set up and maintain small businesses etc.
The IMF has been a key player in enforcing 'structural adjustment' (privatisation, impoverishment) the world over.


Trade and investment deregulation treaties have paved the way for the TNCs to move their production to wherever it is cheapest - lowest wages, lowest environmental standards, lowest standards and enforcement of work conditions, most complieant workforce. Race for the bottom, with losers on all sides and profit to the 1% (much of it to the 0.01%). The currently wealthy countries got there by protecting their economies. The recently negotiated TPPA is another step empowering the TNCs to exert control over countries - a big chunk of the world - against democracy, via the investor- state dispute mechanisms.


I've read extracts and reviews, but not the whole of, Barbara Ehrenreich's 'Nickled and Dimed'. Have you come across it?


Yeah, getting totally focussed on current comfort and conformity, and swallowing the rulers stories whole, gets in the way of figuring out what's really going on and what to do about it. I strongly agree about the importance how we use language. One of the misuses of terminology that keep's striking me lately is the inaccurate conflation of 'democracy' and 'capitalism'.




For me it comes down to this Tara: we're slaves.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Wage slavery has some advantages of serfdom and direct ownership by masters, but it's still very constrained for most people.


Well actually, yes, I think the governing politics make a big difference. I think some of the efforts have improved some peoples lives significantly, in terms of access to basics like food, even while there may still be other problems going on. Consider Cuba, Mondragon, Chavez' Venezuela, the US New Deal, some periods in Mao's China. There were real and at least partially successful efforts to make sure people got the necessities of life. The neoliberal revolution a few decades ago - Reaganomics, Thatcherism, etc - really did take away food and heating and housing form significant numbers of people, in the process of concentrating wealth in the hands of a smaller number. Where I am, we used to have full employment at a family wage, and much lower levels of child poverty, before that regressive takeover.


I think this is an important point. Democracy requires not only the opportunity to cast a vote in a fair election, but also cndidates with real solutions, and a population informed enough to make good use of the opportunity. And freedom from the threat of foreign intervention by super powers if they choose a path that serves the population more than the capitalists (eg. consider the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua). Election finance and the state of the mainstream media have a big effect, too.


I haven't read it, but I've heard about the book and I'm familiar with the concept. I've been seeing it in action locally, too. Disaster being used by extreme right national government to corner local government into selling off assets that it would be economically wise to keep. I heard a talk by Klein a few weeks ago about climate change, and I've read other things by her. She's an excellent researcher, writer and speaker.


I think some form of money may be useful. The current methods of controlling the money supply, most of the international and national banks, can mostly be trusted to enrich their owners and controllers. Banks are amongst the institutions, along with roads etc, that I think should be under democratic control, not private ownership. That used to be the case here; they used to support local small business development. When they ceased to be, it had real effects on who could borrow money to set up and maintain small businesses etc.
The IMF has been a key player in enforcing 'structural adjustment' (privatisation, impoverishment) the world over.


Trade and investment deregulation treaties have paved the way for the TNCs to move their production to wherever it is cheapest - lowest wages, lowest environmental standards, lowest standards and enforcement of work conditions, most complieant workforce. Race for the bottom, with losers on all sides and profit to the 1% (much of it to the 0.01%). The currently wealthy countries got there by protecting their economies. The recently negotiated TPPA is another step empowering the TNCs to exert control over countries - a big chunk of the world - against democracy, via the investor- state dispute mechanisms.


I've read extracts and reviews, but not the whole of, Barbara Ehrenreich's 'Nickled and Dimed'. Have you come across it?


Yeah, getting totally focussed on current comfort and conformity, and swallowing the rulers stories whole, gets in the way of figuring out what's really going on and what to do about it. I strongly agree about the importance how we use language. One of the misuses of terminology that keep's striking me lately is the inaccurate conflation of 'democracy' and 'capitalism'.[/QUOTE]

Nickel & dimed- was that the story of the woman who had like 4 minimum wage jobs?

The countries that go to war typically have the best economies. Whether that's from a "conspiracy" or not, the economic good times come alonv with wars. The new deal came before world war ii, 50s before vietnam, the 90s before the chrrent world wars we're invooved in. In my opinion, our country was founded to be the military arm of a global mafia. I know ghandi said that it's impossible for a comparatively small number of people to rule the mass populace of a nation, but britain did rule india, and does tkday. Some of the leaders of indian movements live in england. Ghandi was a lawyer.

You raise some very good points abiut russia. It's speculation on my part, but an educated speculation.

I dont like getting dragged down in the appelations, because the fact is we dont control the rulers, there is no democracy, our votes count for nothing, we have no rights. I prefer tbis outlook because it lends a bigger-picture utility to the human condition. If we feel one ideology is right, and one ideologh is wrong, it's divisive. Whereas if we see we are all slaves, i think it increases our humanity and helps us put trivial bickering aside. We want to escape our slavery first.

If you look at the treaty of 1793 (the year the us was recognized you can check on he cia fact book), all legal privileges were returned to england. The kings have used corporations for some time, since hammurabi, to simply the managementbof their domains. We were given fishing rights off the coast of newfoundland, and certain privileges l, but that's all. In short, we lost the revolutionary war and thjs can be verified through legal history. All the commonwealth nations weren't granted freedom at the same time, without struggle. Tbat is why they have fought tkgether in every war. The engkish knew after the boer war tbey needed to find a way to accumukate cannon fodder. Hence, america, and then the soviet union came up. You can read abkut the american expeditionary force that was in russia, 1917. We're told they were there to help tbe white russians. We'd just won world war i in europe, but we weren't strong enough to supress a peasant uprising? Say you run an island. Im corporate america and i want to take over your nation. I demand you capitulate. The human thing is to refuse. In steps russia to supply you arms, but i control both america and russia. Tbus the entire world becomes dominated by the same belief system. Tbere's no difference between communism, socialism, capatlism. Whiskey became a currency shortly acter the revokutionary war, money. Farmers had excess corn and fermented it so it didnt rot. The whiskey could of course be drunk, and had otber uses. George washington crushed that system. There's no difference. Avain, being stuck i the mindset of needing money, one allows the same system to dominate over all else. Bolshevism is what most people think of when tbey conjure an oppoment to capatilism, but it's the same thing. Yes, argentina did well in tbe 60s. People naturally become prosperous when they are unfettered by slavery. It has nothing to do with bolshevism/communism/socialism.

I thinm you know about how george w stole two elections in a row, the florida count, &etc. Our votes dont matter. There is no democracy and never has been. Every democracy, every republic, has had slaves. It's just a bunch of bull**** fkr tbe state to justify themselves. The majority is always wrong.

A few weeks ago i was sitting in traffic, i saw someone on a harley waiting at a light. Of ckhrse he had to rev the engine before he departed from the intersection. 3very cukture throughout time has had it's artifacts, it's witchdkctirs, it's superstitions. The challenge is to see through these things to that which doesnt change through cultures, which doesnt change through time, and tbat is the propensity to defer to authority, to accept the false bekiefs of the tribem. Until we can collectively overcome that, things will never get better. Tbere's no way the system can get better. Jesus look at anarchy, even that's defined! It's a system of unbridled greed, violence, and baseness. Is that really the degree of faith we have in ourselves, in the human soul, that we really bekieve witbiut givernments jungle life would prevail?

Is tbere any hope we will be freed? No. But we decide within hkw the world sbould be. When we look ohtside ourselves for words and constructs, and then say that's how it is, it's not true. It's easier, but not true.
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
Sorry i dont mean to bloviate, but my basic point is, when economies get better, people are being distracted. They're going to war, they're forgetting the old ways, some trick is being played. And by using the constructs supplied, people will fail to understand.
 

James_001

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
235
It's true James was at my farm
and I was trying to get him to use my custom offset Tele 17 on his tour to advertise it.
It was dark and we were walking back to his car along an overgrown path,
and I saw he was about to step off to one side right onto a coiled copperhead!
I jerked him out of the way and he crashed into a blackberry thicket on the other side.
What am I gonna do--I had to use force!

The war on drugs is a socialist institution, look at how that turned out......
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
The war on drugs is a socialist institution, look at how that turned out......
Depending on how it's done. In the US, the 'War on Drugs' could also be seen as a boon for the profitable Prison Industrial Complex and for Big Agri*, as an excuse for disenfranchising significant chunks of the population**, and as an excuse for aggression and control in other countries. From here it looks like at least as much a capitalist institution as a socialist one. In places with a little more social orientation, drug use has got a better chance of being treated primarily as a health issue, rather than a criminal one.

* Recall the large amounts of pesticides used as biological warfare in Colombia - nominally against drugs, but practically to kill off the food supply of system opponents.
** Eg A criminal record can get you off the electoral roll, and blacks and working class or poor people in US are more likely to be imprisoned for drug offenses. Handy, if you don't want the people suffering the worst from exploitative policy to be able to vote you out.
 

James_001

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
235
Depending on how it's done. In the US, the 'War on Drugs' could also be seen as a boon for the profitable Prison Industrial Complex and for Big Agri*, as an excuse for disenfranchising significant chunks of the population**, and as an excuse for aggression and control in other countries. From here it looks like at least as much a capitalist institution as a socialist one. In places with a little more social orientation, drug use has got a better chance of being treated primarily as a health issue, rather than a criminal one.

* Recall the large amounts of pesticides used as biological warfare in Colombia - nominally against drugs, but practically to kill off the food supply of system opponents.
** Eg A criminal record can get you off the electoral roll, and blacks and working class or poor people in US are more likely to be imprisoned for drug offenses. Handy, if you don't want the people suffering the worst from exploitative policy to be able to vote you out.

ahhhhh, maybe you don't understand what socialism is or maybe we have a different definition, but the war on drugs is a textbook case of socialism.....
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Is Ray Peat not speaking about academic authoritarianism ?? I understand it has influenced politics.
What about the constitution in relation to authoritarianism?

Personally I think we are seeing the rise of pragmatism, realism ,along with this ,an alrming ruthlessness , It will be a disaster.

Dialectic/dialogue seems to be the only way out of rigid authority, with time the new way might appear rigid. It's all a big mad merry go round, chaos ,organisation,chaos ,organisation........
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
Is Ray Peat not speaking about academic authoritarianism ?? I understand it has influenced politics.
What about the constitution in relation to authoritarianism?

Personally I think we are seeing the rise of pragmatism, realism ,along with this ,an alrming ruthlessness , It will be a disaster.

Dialectic/dialogue seems to be the only way out of rigid authority, with time the new way might appear rigid. It's all a big mad merry go round, chaos ,organisation,chaos ,organisation........


Ray Peat in mind and tissue speaks about dialectical materialism. And about the dialectics in some of his earlier articles.

I think he seems to associated Authoritarianism with rigid thinking. The "essentialist" attitude where things become things in themselves without much orientation or change.
 
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
That's great info, I have been searching for something on that in relation to Peat.
I really want that book but can't afford those prices, was waiting for his site to update.
Can art instruct science he speaks briefly on it, synectics .

Is this not his ideal then? If people engaged in this we would have a better society surely? The Blackfoot Indians used to something similar
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
I've disagreed with you in other threads on things Trumpian, bob.
But I happen to agree with you on this one.
Oft times on this forum if one tries to be careful, faithful, exacting in interpreting Peat,
one opens oneself to charges of "authoritarianism."
There are some unstated agendas active around these parts--
like "inclusivity" (which I'm for...just run a bit amok in this context).
Long time ago I tried to explore what an optimal Peat diet would be.
"Diet" as in "the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats."
Was amazed at the backlash simply to that word--"diet."
Its use was decried as "authoritarian."

Incidentally, much has been written about Trump's authoritarian impulses:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

"In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/demystifying-the-trump-co_b_8089380.html

Trump, the Anti-Constitutional Authoritarian — Liberty Lovers, Beware, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review

Can somebody please point me to some examples of me using "authoritarian" inappropriately? To me, the word has a pretty specific meaning so I doubt I have thrown it around indiscriminately. But my memory is not infallible, hence why I am asking.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Can somebody please point me to some examples of me using "authoritarian" inappropriately? To me, the word has a pretty specific meaning so I doubt I have thrown it around indiscriminately. But my memory is not infallible, hence why I am asking.

What does it mean for you ?
I can't really figure it definitively , it's easier to say what it isn't for me, immunity to change? If that's the case nobody on the forum can be because many come here for change just probably difficult adjusting the viewpoint initially .
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
What does it mean for you ?
I can't really figure it definitively , it's easier to say what it isn't for me, immunity to change? If that's the case nobody on the forum can be because many come here for change just probably difficult adjusting the viewpoint initially .

Well, what I usually mean when I used that word is imposing opinion or desires on others through force/power. It become especially pernicious when the people the view/desire is imposed upon have no way out. Then it leads to learned helplessness. I guess you can also say it is any behavior that aims to elicit response from others solely based on fear. I am sure the definitions are many but that is how I have observed it manifest itself most often.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
You and Danny Roddy could not be further away from that description IMO.

People need to recognise general discourse for what it is, Ray Peat has been nit picked relentlessly by some, he adapts and evolves.

People can forget how far along they have come with their health by using the information all of you have put together, they cherry pick what they like, most people who behave this way cannot exercise free will, they want an authority because it's easier than thinking IMO

It's an ambiguous enough term , is it like porn , you know it when you see it ?
It's original meaning was author/originator/promoter.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
You and Danny Roddy could not be further away from that description IMO.

People need to recognise general discourse for what it is, Ray Peat has been nit picked relentlessly by some, he adapts and evolves.

People can forget how far along they have come with their health by using the information all of you have put together, they cherry pick what they like, most people who behave this way cannot exercise free will, they want an authority because it's easier than thinking IMO

It's an ambiguous enough term , is it like porn , you know it when you see it ?
It's original meaning was author/originator/promoter.

Thanks.
Yes, I think words derive their through meaning from context/usage of language and situations so it can be associated with very different situations. But invariably, it seems to involve the inactivation of the person's internal guidance instinct and replace it with external "guidance". In modern times that "guidance" is really mandatory in most cases and not option that we can simply consider and ignore if we like.
 
Back
Top Bottom