4 ms·

100.000 british men simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate. Throughout history it has been the case that sustained per

by Joeri 10y ago

100.000 british men simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate. Throughout history it has been the case that sustained perceived inequality inevitably leads to revolution. We're nowhere near that point, but if trend lines continue and the middle class gets wiped out, it will happen. Democracy is supposed to prevent things from getting that bad, but we have seen that free elections are easily manipulated when you control the money and the message people hear, which is why these presidential elections will once again be a vote for either of two pro-super-rich candidates. Ironically it is in the super-rich's best interest to raise taxes on themselves to stop this from getting out of hand.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Sure they can. Their weapon is the media instead of bullets. They just have to convince at least half of them the British policies benefit them. Plus provide them with guns. They'll shoot the other half for the British. Just like Democrat vs Republican politics and media in the U.S.. Nation can't win if it's divided and fighting each other over the actions of elites who they continue to fund and vote in. ;)
- jonknee 10y ago
  ... And yet Gandhi was right. Those 100,000 British men failed and India is today the world's largest democracy.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    He was right and wrong. He was right that 100,000 British men couldn't use lead with obviously-bad situation to control India. He was wrong given small numbers of men used a careful combo of military, money, and media to control U.S., Britain, and India. Currently, India mainly serves as cheap labor to support money-making operations in U.S., Britain, and other countries. Gandhi was ultimately wrong: original exploitation was simply using tactics without psychological acceptance today's tactics have.
    - petra 10y ago
      But in the case of India, didn't they try the other way and it didn't work for them, so they decided to go on the way of liberal economic reforms, while still adapting patent law to their unique circumstances(which i fully support) ?
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        You'd have to be more specific. I haven't studied India's history that much. I just know the result of globalization have been a fraction of a few countries' populations get rich essentially doing nothing while most population produces that wealth. And some countries almost totally do that for benefit of others. India appears to be one of those countries. So, it's in a modern form of economic slavery to rich, imperialist countries that now use capitalist tactics instead of bullets. I'd still be interested in whatever historical points or patent differences you're talking about. I'm also assuming you're Indian as well?
        petra 10y ago
        Not Indian, Israeli. Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents. Historical point: Up until relatively recently,India did have a closed economy, but did a lot to open their economy to foreign trade and investment(for example in the past you couldn't open a foreign subsidiary in India, Now there's even Amazon in India). As for capitalistic tactics etc, that's definetly true. Just look at how much of the important contributions to silicon valley came from Indian people, both brain-drained and outsourced.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Not Indian, Israeli." Cool. Always like to see you all in security or legal discussions as you have interesting perspectives. :) "Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents." I didn't realize they did that. I love that as I want serious changes to pharma patents here. It's basically legalized murder and unacceptable given what U.S. top causes of death are. So, I guess they did resist in some key ways. :) "Up until relatively recently,India did have a closed economy, but did a lot to open their economy to foreign trade and investment" Even the U.S. was isolationist for a while. It usually fails as both capitalists and consumers want the benefits of international trade. That opens them up to concessions. From there, we look at how they fair in ratio of benefit to their country vs to foreign countries. Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China seem to be examples of winners that ensure trade is very positive for them vs major countries. India seems to be one of the losers but has potential that's untapped. "Just look at how much of the important contributions to silicon valley came from Indian people, both brain-drained and outsourced." I actually don't know how many did outside smart people being hired at Google, etc to build key techs. Most of the groundbreaking stuff was American with VC or defense funding. Lots of improvements and experimental stuff (eg small players) involved foreigners. Big companies like IBM have their R&D in Israel, China, whatever brain-draining the crap out of them. So, it seems like a mix to me. I guess what I'm getting at is that American innovators often got things started, becomes stagnant a bit, and then they start boosting it with foreign innovators. Other times, it's foreign innovators straight up making a contribution either here or over there. That gets monetized somehow by big players either through feature parity or acquisition.
ams6110 10y ago
The election is looking like it will come down to Trump v. Sanders. Both of whom were the LAST choice of the "elite" who supposedly are pulling all the puppet strings.
- a_small_island 10y ago
  >Trump v. Sanders Why do you think this?
- ajoy39 10y ago
  I don't know how you can look at the democratic primary an think it looks like Sanders will be the nominee.
Fricken 10y ago
If you look at previous eras of great wealth inequality such as the French revolution or the events leading up to the New Deal, the working classes were desperate enough to rise up. Either through force, or through sufficient threat of force they brought about changes that restored some balance to the system. Nowdays, particularly in America, there is enough wealth to go around such that nobody is really that desperate. The masses are sufficiently pacified, but not so secure that they get funny ideas or opt to drop out and become hippies. We've got them exactly where we want them. So long as no substantial portion of the population goes hungry for more than 3 days everything is cool. There's other things that have been working well. The ongoing threat of terrorism, black people, and mass surveillance keeps people in their place. Replacing mainstreet with wal-mart, increasing secularism, and the killing off of local media outlets with the internet is very useful for destroying community cohesiveness. It all helps to cultivate the perception that if everything goes to hell, you are alone in the universe and no one will help you. Unless some unknown unkown emerges to throw this all out of balance, there won't be any meaningful pushback, and the 99% will continue to serve us as a natural resource to be exploited.

by Joeri 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Sure they can. Their weapon is the media instead of bullets. They just have to convince at least half of them the British policies benefit them. Plus provide them with guns. They'll shoot the other half for the British. Just like Democrat vs Republican politics and media in the U.S.. Nation can't win if it's divided and fighting each other over the actions of elites who they continue to fund and vote in. ;)

jonknee 10y ago
... And yet Gandhi was right. Those 100,000 British men failed and India is today the world's largest democracy.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  He was right and wrong. He was right that 100,000 British men couldn't use lead with obviously-bad situation to control India. He was wrong given small numbers of men used a careful combo of military, money, and media to control U.S., Britain, and India. Currently, India mainly serves as cheap labor to support money-making operations in U.S., Britain, and other countries. Gandhi was ultimately wrong: original exploitation was simply using tactics without psychological acceptance today's tactics have.
  - petra 10y ago
    But in the case of India, didn't they try the other way and it didn't work for them, so they decided to go on the way of liberal economic reforms, while still adapting patent law to their unique circumstances(which i fully support) ?
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      You'd have to be more specific. I haven't studied India's history that much. I just know the result of globalization have been a fraction of a few countries' populations get rich essentially doing nothing while most population produces that wealth. And some countries almost totally do that for benefit of others. India appears to be one of those countries. So, it's in a modern form of economic slavery to rich, imperialist countries that now use capitalist tactics instead of bullets. I'd still be interested in whatever historical points or patent differences you're talking about. I'm also assuming you're Indian as well?
      - petra 10y ago
        Not Indian, Israeli. Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents. Historical point: Up until relatively recently,India did have a closed economy, but did a lot to open their economy to foreign trade and investment(for example in the past you couldn't open a foreign subsidiary in India, Now there's even Amazon in India). As for capitalistic tactics etc, that's definetly true. Just look at how much of the important contributions to silicon valley came from Indian people, both brain-drained and outsourced.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Not Indian, Israeli." Cool. Always like to see you all in security or legal discussions as you have interesting perspectives. :) "Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents." I didn't realize they did that. I love that as I want serious changes to pharma patents here. It's basically legalized murder and unacceptable given what U.S. top causes of death are. So, I guess they did resist in some key ways. :) "Up until relatively recently,India did have a closed economy, but did a lot to open their economy to foreign trade and investment" Even the U.S. was isolationist for a while. It usually fails as both capitalists and consumers want the benefits of international trade. That opens them up to concessions. From there, we look at how they fair in ratio of benefit to their country vs to foreign countries. Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China seem to be examples of winners that ensure trade is very positive for them vs major countries. India seems to be one of the losers but has potential that's untapped. "Just look at how much of the important contributions to silicon valley came from Indian people, both brain-drained and outsourced." I actually don't know how many did outside smart people being hired at Google, etc to build key techs. Most of the groundbreaking stuff was American with VC or defense funding. Lots of improvements and experimental stuff (eg small players) involved foreigners. Big companies like IBM have their R&D in Israel, China, whatever brain-draining the crap out of them. So, it seems like a mix to me. I guess what I'm getting at is that American innovators often got things started, becomes stagnant a bit, and then they start boosting it with foreign innovators. Other times, it's foreign innovators straight up making a contribution either here or over there. That gets monetized somehow by big players either through feature parity or acquisition.

ams6110 10y ago

The election is looking like it will come down to Trump v. Sanders. Both of whom were the LAST choice of the "elite" who supposedly are pulling all the puppet strings.

a_small_island 10y ago
>Trump v. Sanders Why do you think this?
ajoy39 10y ago
I don't know how you can look at the democratic primary an think it looks like Sanders will be the nominee.

Fricken 10y ago

If you look at previous eras of great wealth inequality such as the French revolution or the events leading up to the New Deal, the working classes were desperate enough to rise up. Either through force, or through sufficient threat of force they brought about changes that restored some balance to the system. Nowdays, particularly in America, there is enough wealth to go around such that nobody is really that desperate. The masses are sufficiently pacified, but not so secure that they get funny ideas or opt to drop out and become hippies. We've got them exactly where we want them. So long as no substantial portion of the population goes hungry for more than 3 days everything is cool. There's other things that have been working well. The ongoing threat of terrorism, black people, and mass surveillance keeps people in their place. Replacing mainstreet with wal-mart, increasing secularism, and the killing off of local media outlets with the internet is very useful for destroying community cohesiveness. It all helps to cultivate the perception that if everything goes to hell, you are alone in the universe and no one will help you. Unless some unknown unkown emerges to throw this all out of balance, there won't be any meaningful pushback, and the 99% will continue to serve us as a natural resource to be exploited.