|
|
Post by brucestevens on Aug 2, 2012 6:09:03 GMT -5
I fully expect Obama to win in November, and I fully expect young voters to go for him in droves, but it's clear that he's not going to do anything substantial to alleviate this. And it'll be interesting to see the reaction when that happens... there really is no alternative. I have been fairly disappointed in Obama. That being said, he is a better choice in my mind than Romney. However, I do not share your optimisim. I think Romney will run away with it. Democrats seem incapable of communicating reality. The "tax and spend" liberal tag cannot be shaken, even though it is not reality. It is also interesting working in a regulated industry. There is certainly a different feel to the FDA under Obama than under Bush. Much more enforcement, though I still think they miss the mark quite a bit. While personally I will vote Obama, professionally my life is easier with Romney. Bruce |
|
|
|
Post by Infinite Ego on Aug 2, 2012 7:14:45 GMT -5
I know that is widespread especially among upper middle class professionals. Job and more job, career and more career and when they have time off they have nothing going on or just blow their money and time on a trip to the amusement park.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinite Ego on Aug 2, 2012 7:35:58 GMT -5
I fully expect Obama to win in November, and I fully expect young voters to go for him in droves, but it's clear that he's not going to do anything substantial to alleviate this. And it'll be interesting to see the reaction when that happens... there really is no alternative. I have been fairly disappointed in Obama. That being said, he is a better choice in my mind than Romney. However, I do not share your optimisim. I think Romney will run away with it. Democrats seem incapable of communicating reality. The "tax and spend" liberal tag cannot be shaken, even though it is not reality. It is also interesting working in a regulated industry. There is certainly a different feel to the FDA under Obama than under Bush. Much more enforcement, though I still think they miss the mark quite a bit. While personally I will vote Obama, professionally my life is easier with Romney. Bruce I think Obama will win it but you have to remember that these guys are all just spokespersons. They don't make decisions. The only decisions Bush made in 8 years was what he wanted to eat. That's it. Same for Obama. And both parties, at this point, are virtually indistinguishable in their fidelity to their corporate masters. This was the goal behind the drive to finally crush the remnants of unionism in the US: to create a unitary source of power from which all parties must draw. If Romney wins you'll see basically more of the same. Sure, the rhetoric changes and the style varies, etc., but the basic policy sets will not change at all. You'll get more austerity on the domestic front and more war 'over there.' All the while the "1%" will continue to drown in money. The prospects for the economy of the future? More of the same money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/low-pay-jobs/index.htm?iid=PopularLook, things are and will continue to work out for the top %20 but it's the middle that is being hollowed out. The US is headed for a future that kinda resembles the old model of the 3rd world nation. A few at the top that preside over a population of peasants. Except that peasants actually had it better in some respects than Americans today. Peasants had land to cultivate and subsist off of. Americans have nothing, they've been deprived of productive property, so they're going to be dependent upon a state that has no interest in supporting them. That's why I cannot rule out the potential for a mass extermination event or, alternatively, some kind of massive new colonization program. I know that sounds crazy but if things keep going in the direction they are the state will be forced, some how, to just terminate or displace millions to get the dead weight out of the system. Either dispose of them by killing them off (imagine, if you will, a second Civil War) or ship them out to another part of the world and tell them to have a go at it on their own. This is a program, for example, that the Chinese are undertaking in places like Africa. Sounds like science fiction but capitalism, when its back is against the wall, will not only steam roll other nations but will ground up a domestic population as well. This was the function of war until the 1980s when wartime fatalities started to dwindle to almost nothing due to dramatic advances in battlefield medical care. For the most part, soldiers just aren't dying on the front lines like they did in WWII etc. We better hope that 'Occupy' grows into something bigger and better or the future will be a nightmare. And maybe it will. I mean, think about it, you have a swelling pool of potential revolutionaries: 20-somethings with smarts but nothing to look forward to and nothing yet to lose but their debts. No houses, 401k plans, no kids, etc....these people represent a big threat to the state and the status quo. |
|
|
|
Post by chrissh on Aug 2, 2012 9:04:43 GMT -5
It was inevitable that this thread would wind up on this note ;D To reiterate: Does shred guitar represent sociopolitical despair? Does popular entertainment mock foment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinite Ego on Aug 2, 2012 9:46:08 GMT -5
I think it is a micro-cosmic symptom of larger problems. Did no one take my Gomer Pyle challenge?
Well, here it is: shred shares in the same 'spirit' of limitlessness (anomie) that things like capitalism and fascism, etc., represent. They all are symptoms and representations of what Durkheim would call 'infinity disease.'
That song that Jim Neighbors was sining is the anthem for social disaster. The ego's unchecked will to power. It leads to collective suicide. When you see a shredder going a million billion notes per hour you are seeing a pathological ego spinning its little wheels in a vacuum ('pure axial rotation' as Hegel called it -- wicked sense of humor. He meant 'spinning your wheels' going nowhere. It's infantile narcissism that confuses limitless rotation for the ascendancy of the unfettered ego
When a society embraces that shit it is headed off a cliff.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrissh on Aug 2, 2012 10:32:07 GMT -5
Heh, I meant that rhetorically, but yes to all. Isn't 'the Impossible Dream' from Don Quixote? That is relevant.
"Infinity disease", that's brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasein on Aug 2, 2012 10:35:42 GMT -5
I have been fairly disappointed in Obama. That being said, he is a better choice in my mind than Romney. However, I do not share your optimisim. Bruce Who said that it's optimism ;D I guess anything can happen between now and November, but barring anything traumatic like another economic crisis, Obama's pretty much got this in the bag. I don't really see this as a good thing... the differences between Romney and Obama are ones of degrees and aesthetics at this point. I didn't expect much from Obama... I really just expected the bare minimum for being a decent human being. Surprise surprise, he couldn't even do that. It has been a very illustrative election and presidency in some respects. Back in 2008, my philosophy was that you basically couldn't trust anything that a candidate said... they would basically say whatever they wanted in order to get elected and then do whatever they wanted when they got to office. So if you wanted to know what a candidate would do, you would have to look for other clues... But I was not prepared for the Kafka-esque nightmare that the Obama campaign and his supporters had in store. Obama would say something, espouse some platform, and his supporters would insist that he actually supported the opposite. "I am opposed to gay marriage." Oh, but he must really be supportive of gay marriage, he's just saying that so he can get elected. "I am supporting a healthcare plan virtually identical to New Gingrich's back in 1994." Oh, he must really support a public option, he's just saying that to get elected. Then when he got elected, he actually did what he said he would, and his supporters shrugged their shoulders and insisted that his hands were tied, the president doesn't really have that much power, "and so on and so on." Sure, he had some good ol' fashioned lies (like how he would close Guantanamo). But now politicians don't even have to lie anymore... they can actually hide behind the truth and their supporters will step in and provide you with the necessary fantasy. I hope OWS turns into something, but I am a bit skeptical, especially after hanging out at Zuccotti Park and talking to the organizers. The odds are stacked against them from the start... think back to the last time there was this sort of revolutionary unrest in America in the 60's. Lots of people laugh at that time period now, but at the time the government and law enforcement agencies were scared shitless. Black Panthers, Angola, massive violent riots over Vietnam... remember J. Edgar Hoover calling the Black Panther's free breakfast program for poor schoolchildren "the greatest threat America faces"? A lot has changed since then. Police forces have become militarized, the prison-industrial complex went into hyperdrive, prisons purposefully incited racial tensions inside prisons to discourage unity, War on Drugs decimated inner-city communities, neo-liberalization gradually destroyed the middle class and forced people to rely on massive amounts of debt to stay afloat... And now you've got OWS, who on the very first day of protests actually typed up an itinerary for the day and gave a copy to the police. Their version of non-violence is almost like a cruel parody of Gandhi's... there were arguments over whether sitting down while the police arrested them constituted "violence." Protesters would actually line up in a single fine line to make it easier for police to arrest them. And most sickeningly, they would turn over other protesters to the police for minor infractions... even for things like pan-handling. It's almost like they thought that if they played nice, went along with all the rules, the police would come to accept them. And so many of them still don't understand why the police went after them with such prejudice... after all, aren't the police part of the 99%, too? But that's where "99% vs 1%" becomes too simple of an analysis of class. You go read message boards where NYPD talk, and they just LOVE beating up and arresting those OWS types. Why? Because they see them as a bunch of NYU liberal art majors and Williamsburg hipsters, whining about their college loans. You think a bunch of police officers, working class joes to the core, are going to see themselves in a Parsons graduate? If you only see the world as "Goldman Sachs executives vs. everyone else" you're going to miss a lot of things, not the least of which includes the massive amount of Third World laborers whose miniscule salaries provide the cheap goods and surplus value that keeps the whole capitalist enterprise going. There were some good things that came out of OWS... the fact that law enforcement came down so harshly and swiftly on them despite the protestors disorganization and relative toothlessness only shows that they guys on top are getting pretty nervous. And the reaction from Fox News, CNBC, et al was quite literally hysterical in the Lacanian sense... over and over again I heard them asking, "But what do you WANT?" Clearly, for many people the very idea of OWS was a traumatic experience. But this is a protest group that has been raised on "The End of History" rhetoric and a storybook version of the Civil Rights Movement. They've already hit a roadblock, and they don't seem to have the theoretical wherewithal to explain their setbacks and what to do next. I hope that they will find a way around it, but frankly I'm a bit pessimistic... My, that was a lot more than I originally intended to write  |
|
|
|
Post by brucestevens on Aug 2, 2012 11:27:25 GMT -5
In a nutshell, threads like this are why I love this place. Few places where the conversation can cover Yngwie, OWS, The Election and general guitar wankery all at once.  |
|
|
|
Post by Infinite Ego on Aug 2, 2012 11:32:52 GMT -5
In a nutshell, threads like this are why I love this place. Few places where the conversation can cover Yngwie, OWS, The Election and general guitar wankery all at once. No kidding! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Infinite Ego on Aug 2, 2012 11:40:42 GMT -5
I have been fairly disappointed in Obama. That being said, he is a better choice in my mind than Romney. However, I do not share your optimisim. Bruce Who said that it's optimism ;D I guess anything can happen between now and November, but barring anything traumatic like another economic crisis, Obama's pretty much got this in the bag. I don't really see this as a good thing... the differences between Romney and Obama are ones of degrees and aesthetics at this point. I didn't expect much from Obama... I really just expected the bare minimum for being a decent human being. Surprise surprise, he couldn't even do that. It has been a very illustrative election and presidency in some respects. Back in 2008, my philosophy was that you basically couldn't trust anything that a candidate said... they would basically say whatever they wanted in order to get elected and then do whatever they wanted when they got to office. So if you wanted to know what a candidate would do, you would have to look for other clues... But I was not prepared for the Kafka-esque nightmare that the Obama campaign and his supporters had in store. Obama would say something, espouse some platform, and his supporters would insist that he actually supported the opposite. "I am opposed to gay marriage." Oh, but he must really be supportive of gay marriage, he's just saying that so he can get elected. "I am supporting a healthcare plan virtually identical to New Gingrich's back in 1994." Oh, he must really support a public option, he's just saying that to get elected. Then when he got elected, he actually did what he said he would, and his supporters shrugged their shoulders and insisted that his hands were tied, the president doesn't really have that much power, "and so on and so on." Sure, he had some good ol' fashioned lies (like how he would close Guantanamo). But now politicians don't even have to lie anymore... they can actually hide behind the truth and their supporters will step in and provide you with the necessary fantasy. I hope OWS turns into something, but I am a bit skeptical, especially after hanging out at Zuccotti Park and talking to the organizers. The odds are stacked against them from the start... think back to the last time there was this sort of revolutionary unrest in America in the 60's. Lots of people laugh at that time period now, but at the time the government and law enforcement agencies were scared shitless. Black Panthers, Angola, massive violent riots over Vietnam... remember J. Edgar Hoover calling the Black Panther's free breakfast program for poor schoolchildren "the greatest threat America faces"? A lot has changed since then. Police forces have become militarized, the prison-industrial complex went into hyperdrive, prisons purposefully incited racial tensions inside prisons to discourage unity, War on Drugs decimated inner-city communities, neo-liberalization gradually destroyed the middle class and forced people to rely on massive amounts of debt to stay afloat... And now you've got OWS, who on the very first day of protests actually typed up an itinerary for the day and gave a copy to the police. Their version of non-violence is almost like a cruel parody of Gandhi's... there were arguments over whether sitting down while the police arrested them constituted "violence." Protesters would actually line up in a single fine line to make it easier for police to arrest them. And most sickeningly, they would turn over other protesters to the police for minor infractions... even for things like pan-handling. It's almost like they thought that if they played nice, went along with all the rules, the police would come to accept them. And so many of them still don't understand why the police went after them with such prejudice... after all, aren't the police part of the 99%, too? But that's where "99% vs 1%" becomes too simple of an analysis of class. You go read message boards where NYPD talk, and they just LOVE beating up and arresting those OWS types. Why? Because they see them as a bunch of NYU liberal art majors and Williamsburg hipsters, whining about their college loans. You think a bunch of police officers, working class joes to the core, are going to see themselves in a Parsons graduate? If you only see the world as "Goldman Sachs executives vs. everyone else" you're going to miss a lot of things, not the least of which includes the massive amount of Third World laborers whose miniscule salaries provide the cheap goods and surplus value that keeps the whole capitalist enterprise going. There were some good things that came out of OWS... the fact that law enforcement came down so harshly and swiftly on them despite the protestors disorganization and relative toothlessness only shows that they guys on top are getting pretty nervous. And the reaction from Fox News, CNBC, et al was quite literally hysterical in the Lacanian sense... over and over again I heard them asking, "But what do you WANT?" Clearly, for many people the very idea of OWS was a traumatic experience. But this is a protest group that has been raised on "The End of History" rhetoric and a storybook version of the Civil Rights Movement. They've already hit a roadblock, and they don't seem to have the theoretical wherewithal to explain their setbacks and what to do next. I hope that they will find a way around it, but frankly I'm a bit pessimistic... My, that was a lot more than I originally intended to write Well, I agree with everything you said there. Believe me, my whole career has been oriented on just how the subjugated shoot themselves in the foot and contribute to their own downfall: ideologically, strategically, psychologically, etc. OWS is a major disappointment and contradictory loser in so many ways, still, good movements sorta go through this confusion and stupidity phase unless we're talking elite cadre (e.g., Bolshevik) forms of revolution. I don't want that. So, still room for optimism though, like you, I am highly skeptical. I do, however, think the whole revolt via absurd conformism phase is over. Too many kids have had a boot on their throat or a friends or seen it on FB to think of the police as just like them by now. The next phase should be two-fold: a dramatic increase in grassroots violence coupled with a distillation of the overall movement and cobbling together party and electoral thrusts. Of course, violence will be counterproductive as you cannot win against the police at their own game but it could provide dynamic reflection into the second course and finally and totally disenchant anything attached to the official apparatus. Kids are learning now that they live in a totalitarian state and they are no longer just wanting jobs but something radically different. It will be a long haul if it happens at all but what are the options/alternatives? Resignation? |
|
mirth
New Member
Posts: 931
|
Post by mirth on Aug 2, 2012 11:42:29 GMT -5
OWS is doomed without a charismatic leader that people can trust and is more clever than the bigwigs. The whole "anonymous" character was an attempt to be clever, but ultimately was unoriginal and uninspiring. Not to mention often misinformed.
I'm all for a revolution if its better for people, but it needs to be based in facts, and not shrouded in conspiracy nonsense. For that OWS is not likely to get my support. Though the original intent was good now it looks a lot like whining to me, and not whining about the system as much as whining about personal finances.
I struggle with equality and supporting excellence in people. If someone is far and away doing more for society, isn't lazy, etc...I believe they should be rewarded, but is there any way for that not to turn into a divided class system? I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrissh on Aug 2, 2012 11:53:20 GMT -5
OWS is doomed without a charismatic leader that people can trust and is more clever than the bigwigs. The whole "anonymous" character was an attempt to be clever, but ultimately was unoriginal and uninspiring. Not to mention often misinformed. I'm all for a revolution if its better for people, but it needs to be based in facts, and not shrouded in conspiracy nonsense. For that OWS is not likely to get my support. Though the original intent was good now it looks a lot like whining to me, and not whining about the system as much as whining about personal finances. I struggle with equality and supporting excellence in people. If someone is far and away doing more for society, isn't lazy, etc...I believe they should be rewarded, but is there any way for that not to turn into a divided class system? I don't know. Nobody should worry about having enough (basics: safe shelter, nutritious food, clean water, reliable public transport and communications, access to knowledge and the mental tools to use it, education on how to live within a society). Not any desired perk and bling associated with western extravagance, but enough basic foundation to live a sane and healthy life. Some people think that is wildly idealistic and "hippie". Fuck 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by chrissh on Aug 2, 2012 12:20:59 GMT -5
That also assumes everyone can have a role to play in their society too, that they contribute.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinite Ego on Aug 2, 2012 12:34:32 GMT -5
Charisma is the last thing needed. "Charisma" is irrational and OWS doesn't need irrationality. The true meaning of "charisma" is a gift of grace and a charismatic leader is one who is called by god and is in possession of supernatural powers. I doubt that's what you had in mind ;-)
OWS may look like a bunch of whining kids but that's how Lamestream media has been ordered to present it. That's just not the truth for the most part.
Whining about debt may look like a matter of personal finances but they just don't have the language to move from "me" to "we". It's a long process. They have 500 years of cultural hegemony to overcome. We've all be marinated in bourgeois individualism (your post, Mirth, is full on bourgeois individualism) but that's not the road out of this mess. Not more bourgeois individualism. Most of us were lucky to get careers going when we could. The situation is hellish now. We just don't get what it is like for teens and young adults (kids around here can't even mow lawns, stock shelves, flip burgers, or bag groceries because 30 and 40-something males have been reduced to that and take all their jobs). The entire education finance system has been transformed since I was an undergrad into a vast bloodsucking vampire system of exploitation. I nearly got all my education from undergrad to PhD for free whereas my daughter's undergrad education is going to cost me about 18K per semester. Gulp! I think that's about how much my wife spent on her entire 4 year degree.
20-somethings have been programmed to go to college and hit the job market and they're playing 'the game' just as they've been taught but the rules are totally different now.
If I had waited three more years to get my tenure track job I'd be toiling away as an untenured adjunct for the rest of my life. My entire field, like many, just imploded in 2009. The jobs just vanished. There's nothing. Graduate schools are backlogged with, by now, thousands of people with nothing left to do but defend their already-completed dissertations but they can't because there are no jobs and once you get that degree the 'clock' starts ticking and you only have, at best, three years to get a good job. But there are none.
So they end up working in the service sector or as an adjunct at some dead end school with zero prospects for a future.
|
|
mirth
New Member
Posts: 931
|
Post by mirth on Aug 2, 2012 12:34:49 GMT -5
ChrisH,
I completely agree, and it blows my mind why people get so upset about healthcare and school taking their money. Then as soon as they lose there money they're the first on in the unemployment line.
Still, some people you'll never get to take food, use transportation, use schools, based on whatever beliefs they may have. Others will take as much as you give, and then some. It does get complicated rather quickly, though those things should be standard. I wonder, can/should their be a limit to the giving/taking?
If you have person A who wants to work, wants to invent things, also wants nice things (cars, houses, guitars, jewelry), etc... and person B who doesn't work, has no interest in working, no interest in helping out others, uses assistance money to buy non-essential items etc...should person A be mandated to pay for what person B gets? I guess is there any responsibility on the person receiving the aid?
That's an extreme case above, but does a person receiving aid of nutrition, shelter, water, transportation, access to knowledge, health care, or any other necessity have any responsibility to be wise with these things? Or is acceptable for them to always live off the system?
I take it you mean that everyone deserves these things as part of the government (which I agree), but definitely hard to implement (who works there, and why, how much are they paid?) Do the people who control this system, profit off of it? Should they? Could they? If we went to public, single payer health care, do current doctors get there loans redeemed, since their salaries will no longer afford them the ability to pay for these loans. Do their houses get paid for, since they no longer make their mortgage, etc... I guess these are all just roadblocks that need figured out, but because of how far the system has fallen from that ideal, there are a lot of hurdles to climb.
Still, is there any responsibility on anyone, if all those necessities are provided?
|
|
