4 ms·

And so do we, when we participate in voting - we legitimise the theater. But don't worry - we are at the end of the democratic time. We are moving/have moved

by re-al 5y ago

And so do we, when we participate in voting - we legitimise the theater. But don't worry - we are at the end of the democratic time. We are moving/have moved into technocracy communitarianism, where all the meaningful decisions are taken by NGOs at the supra-national level. This is why we have electric car charging points, 7-8 storey building blocks with a shop downstairs, narrower roads (the future is car-less), tiny homes, being pushed off the land, etc. Mark Carney etc will be help lead the charge away from capitalism. "In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney, former governor both of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, claims that western society is morally rotten, and that it has been corrupted by capitalism, which has brought about a “climate emergency” that threatens life on earth. This, he claims, requires rigid controls on personal freedom, industry and corporate funding." If you're confused how the governor of 2 national banks is now rallying against capitalism, don't worry - go back to sleep. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-mark-carney-man-of-destiny-arises-to-revolutionize-society-it-wont-be-pleasant https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-mark-carney-ma...

dalbasal 5y ago
I never said theatre is illegitimate, just that it's always been a big part of governance. This is true for Pharaoh Tutankhamun, King George, Boris Johnson, Xi Jinping and I can't even think of a counterexample. I'm not sure if it's good, bad or neither. In any case, if you're at a place where you're trying to squeeze the Truth About Power And Everything into a paragraph comment... IMO, the danger of thinking through "isms" is that they become more meaningless as they become more evocative. A cascade of evocative, idealistic terms definable via other evocative idealistic terms. This applies both to your comment and to Carney.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  The problem with criticizing "isms" is that it causes you to make even grander generalizations than the people you're trying to criticize.
- re-al 5y ago
  Terms is how we communicate, hence my use. If you ask me, I'm calling a spade a spade, and Carney is saying a dog turd is cake. But I think its great you engage in the conversation - we can then establish what each of us means by whatever term, and proceed. You will not get any such satisfaction from Carney and his ilk. I'm providing more concrete terms for others to potentially investigate, instead of the evocative, idealistic ideas we are provided. We are told 'progress', 'society', 'justice' etc - these mean whatever you like. But who is stating them? What do they mean by them? What is justice to person who represents the governance structure? What is progress to someone who heads up a corporation? These are terms we all use, but the idea behind them means exactly the opposite by those who govern us, to what we commonly understand. Ultimately, its for us all as individuals to understand what those terms (and other) mean to us, and to then do the research to see if that is the usage that those who govern us also have. That is the work for any individual to do. Of course, no one checks what is meant - no one. Yet it is all out there. The mistake we make is to assume we are on the same page.

by re-al 5y ago

dalbasal 5y ago

I never said theatre is illegitimate, just that it's always been a big part of governance. This is true for Pharaoh Tutankhamun, King George, Boris Johnson, Xi Jinping and I can't even think of a counterexample. I'm not sure if it's good, bad or neither. In any case, if you're at a place where you're trying to squeeze the Truth About Power And Everything into a paragraph comment... IMO, the danger of thinking through "isms" is that they become more meaningless as they become more evocative. A cascade of evocative, idealistic terms definable via other evocative idealistic terms. This applies both to your comment and to Carney.

pessimizer 5y ago
The problem with criticizing "isms" is that it causes you to make even grander generalizations than the people you're trying to criticize.
re-al 5y ago
Terms is how we communicate, hence my use. If you ask me, I'm calling a spade a spade, and Carney is saying a dog turd is cake. But I think its great you engage in the conversation - we can then establish what each of us means by whatever term, and proceed. You will not get any such satisfaction from Carney and his ilk. I'm providing more concrete terms for others to potentially investigate, instead of the evocative, idealistic ideas we are provided. We are told 'progress', 'society', 'justice' etc - these mean whatever you like. But who is stating them? What do they mean by them? What is justice to person who represents the governance structure? What is progress to someone who heads up a corporation? These are terms we all use, but the idea behind them means exactly the opposite by those who govern us, to what we commonly understand. Ultimately, its for us all as individuals to understand what those terms (and other) mean to us, and to then do the research to see if that is the usage that those who govern us also have. That is the work for any individual to do. Of course, no one checks what is meant - no one. Yet it is all out there. The mistake we make is to assume we are on the same page.