#instead becoming a more equitable union | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

monadsrighthemisphere · 5 months ago

Text

The primary objective of a modern Meritocratic movement should be to establish the Corporate State, which I believe to be the most advanced and constructive concept ever created by human thought. Although it remains relatively unknown in Britain and abroad, it is inherently more suited to the British temperament than to any other nation. Rooted in teamwork and organized rationality, the Corporate State seeks to rationalize not only industry but also the structure and function of the State itself. This rationalization is essential to ensure that human economic power remains within the bounds of societal control.

As Sir Arthur Salter noted, the current private sector lacks a framework that enables comprehensive industry participation in forming and implementing a cohesive economic policy. The Corporate State aims to provide this necessary system of centralized direction, not merely as a temporary measure but as an integral and continuous component of governance. Its adaptable nature allows it to respond effectively to rapidly changing conditions. In essence, it envisions a nation organized like a human body, where each part performs its specific function while contributing to the overall welfare of the whole.

The governance of this body is directed by a central authority, ensuring coherence without imposing constant oversight from a central bureaucracy. The government, or the Union system, will establish the boundaries within which individuals and interests operate—boundaries defined by the welfare of the nation, a reasonable criterion indeed. Within these parameters, individual enterprise and profit-making are not only permitted but encouraged, provided they enhance rather than harm the collective interest.

Once any individual or organized entity transgresses these limits, their actions become detrimental to society, at which point the Corporate system will intervene. This principle mandates that all interests, whether from the Right or Left, including industrial, financial, trade union, or banking sectors, must be subordinate to the common good and the authority of the organized State. There can be no alternative authority within the State; all must operate within its framework.

The foundation of our nation will be the producer—whether they contribute through manual labor, intellectual effort, or financial investment. The forces that support productive endeavors will be nurtured, while those that obstruct or undermine economic activity will be met with national authority. Finance will be harnessed to serve the needs of national production, guided toward opportunities that align with the nation’s objectives rather than merely perpetuating traditional practices.

Our financial system will eliminate the disorganized dynamics that have historically destabilized British industry. In labor relations, there will be no tolerance for trade union leaders who, driven by sectional or political motives, obstruct essential services. Instead, we will honor financial entities and trade unions that actively participate in rebuilding Britain, recognizing their members as integral parts of the international community.

We will eliminate class conflict through a permanent governmental framework designed to equitably reconcile differing class interests and ensure fair distribution of industrial benefits. Wage disputes will no longer be resolved through contentious class struggles; they will be addressed by impartial state arbitration. Existing organizations, such as trade unions and employer federations, will be integrated into the Meritocratic State, gaining official status and a more significant role in national activities. Rather than functioning as adversarial factions, they will become collaborative directors of national enterprises, guided by the overarching authority of the corporative government.

The role of industrial organizations will extend far beyond merely addressing wage and hour disputes. These entities will be integral in shaping the nation's broader economic policy through regular consultation. Employer and worker syndicates from various industries will be integrated into Unions that encompass larger and interconnected sectors. These Unions will then be represented within a national council of industry, establishing a permanent framework for collaboration with the government on economic direction.

The effectiveness of such a council relies on a robust underlying organization; it cannot merely consist of temporary delegates from disparate groups meeting sporadically for ad hoc discussions. Instead, the system must be systematically implemented and continuously operational, woven into the fabric of the nation's industrial and commercial landscape.

These organizations, while initially formed to defend common interests against competitors or the public, also play a vital role in upholding standards of competence and fostering traditions beneficial to the public good. This dual purpose aligns with the Union system, which aims to create an efficient structure for industrial governance.

The first principle of this system is to absorb and utilize the beneficial elements within society. This approach sharply contrasts with Communism, which engages in class warfare that ultimately undermines science, skill, and managerial expertise. Historical examples, such as the early Soviet Union under Lenin, illustrate the destructive path of radical ideology, which sought to eliminate all established structures and subsequently had to rely on foreign expertise to rebuild.

Meritocracy, in contrast, seeks revolution through constructive means, integrating useful elements within the State into the Corporate system's framework.

Historically, members of the Upper Chamber possessed unique qualities that positioned them as effective governors, benefiting from education and wealth that allowed them to travel and gain insights. Their status as hereditary landowners once endowed them with authority on many matters. However, societal changes have rendered their position obsolete. The current members of the House of Lords do not possess inherent superiority or wisdom compared to their counterparts in the Commons; their role has devolved into one of interference without accountability, turning them into hereditary automata with diminishing powers.

In the Meritocratic State, the House of Lords would be replaced by the National Union, which would serve as a functional Parliament of Industry. This shift would eliminate legislative obstruction and replace it with a body composed of the nation’s industrial and commercial expertise, enhancing governance and responsiveness to contemporary economic challenges.

In the proposed Union State, industrial elements will receive systematic recognition through the adoption of an occupational franchise. Currently, there is nothing to prevent an electorate from electing a Parliament made up entirely of individuals from a single profession, such as sugar brokers. While these candidates might possess personal charm and local popularity, their lack of relevant experience could severely hinder their ability to address complex issues like unemployment in industrial areas. This scenario, while exaggerated, reflects a broader tendency in our current electoral system, where voters often lack a comprehensive understanding of the intricate issues at stake.

Elections are frequently fought on simplistic slogans, such as "Three Acres and a Cow" or "Safety First," rather than on substantive policy discussions. This situation undermines the essence of democracy, which hinges on an informed electorate. Individuals are more knowledgeable about their professions than about the complexities of national politics. Therefore, it is imperative that the majority of Members of Parliament are elected based on their occupational expertise rather than their residential status. For example, engineers would vote as engineers, bringing their professional insights to the legislative process. This approach allows for decisions grounded in practical experience rather than superficial understanding.

While a proportion of Members of Parliament would still be elected based on general national policy through a general franchise, their smaller numbers and larger constituencies would elevate their role from local to national significance. Candidates would need to demonstrate exceptional abilities to gain election, moving beyond mere local appeal. This system is designed not to restrict the electorate's power but to enhance it by enabling voters to make informed choices.

The current electoral system is at risk of losing public respect. Many people no longer expect election promises to be fulfilled. Governments often gain power through emotional appeals, only to relinquish their authority to powerful interests operating behind the scenes. The increasing complexity of economic issues complicates the electorate's ability to grasp the significant challenges facing the nation, widening the gap between political rhetoric and actual governance.

The technician—the architect of our industrial future—finds himself hindered by uninformed political dynamics. Our proposed system would free these professionals to focus on their expertise, allowing them to be elected by their knowledgeable peers based on their experience. This informed voting represents a rationalized form of democracy, contrasting sharply with the superficiality of our current electoral process, which treats intricate governance challenges as simple matters to be resolved through brief discussions.

People would rightfully resent such a dismissive approach to the complexities of their professions. Just as an engineer would reject interference from an outsider attempting to dictate processes they have mastered over years, so too should governance be approached with the same level of expertise and respect.

Rationalized democracy, alongside rationalized industry, is not just desirable but essential. The Meritocratic State presents the only viable solution to address the deficiencies of our current electoral system, which has devolved into a farce, reminiscent of bribed elections and pocket boroughs. As it stands, our government lacks the capability to navigate us out of economic depression and restore Britain's global standing. Even if the world crisis diminishes, our current organizational structure is insufficient to regain our former prosperity.

After the less severe crisis of 2008, we failed to recover our economic strength, and without rationalized governance, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Should the economic crisis persist without reform, there is a grave danger that the public will turn to the destructive remedies offered by Communism or Fascism, driven by a recognition of the farce our current system has become.

**British Meritocracy: An Examination of Syndicalism and the Failings of Socialism**

You have experienced a significant implementation of crony socialism under the current Labour Government. Reflect on its outcomes: Has it met your expectations, or are you feeling disillusioned? Have nationalized key industries brought tangible benefits to the nation or to the workers? Conversely, do we need complete nationalization of all industries, as the Communists advocate, to see real progress?

The answers to these questions are becoming increasingly apparent as the socialist experiment unfolds. Initially, British workers supported socialism with the aim of dismantling the capitalist "boss-class" to escape exploitation. However, many are now disappointed to find they have merely exchanged one set of masters for another. Instead of individual "bosses," who were at least vulnerable to the threat of strikes, they now face a singular, pervasive "boss" in the form of a bureaucratic state, where striking is increasingly viewed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. Rather than eliminating a privileged class, workers now contend with an army of bureaucrats, many occupying the very estates from which previous capitalist owners were ousted.

Does this represent progress for the workers? Many are beginning to doubt it. Nationalization has distanced workers from real control over their industries, far beyond what they experienced in the "bad old days." Previously, they could exert pressure on employers through strikes; now, grievances must navigate a convoluted bureaucratic structure, where responsibility is passed from one clerk to another. This results in absurd disputes, such as the "stint" conflict in Durham, which could have been resolved swiftly under private ownership without involving numerous other pits and wasting significant coal resources.

**What is Capitalism? What Has Gone Wrong?**

Could we have been misled by an inaccurate definition of capitalism? Socialists argue that capitalism is defined by the private ownership of production, distribution, and exchange, asserting that nationalization will resolve all issues. However, private ownership has existed throughout history, and we have only recently labeled the last two centuries as the "Capitalist Era." Perhaps a more accurate definition of capitalism is a societal state where capital owners form the ruling class, wielding complete power to exploit their fellow citizens. The contemporary evil lies in the power wealth holds over our nation.

Historically, the monarchy and government wielded authority, and no individual, regardless of wealth, could defy the King's laws. When King Charles I opposed Parliament, he claimed to defend the common people's freedom against the tyranny of the wealthy merchants of London. Unfortunately, the monarchy's authority was compromised, leading to the rise in wealth's power over the populace.

If we accept that the political power of wealth—modern capital—is the true enemy enslaving the British people, we can identify where we have erred. The solution is not merely to transfer wealth from one group to another but to strip wealth of its political power and restore governmental authority to represent the interests of all citizens, not just the affluent. Nationalization does not eliminate the political power of wealth; rather, it perpetuates the very issue the British workers have fought against for generations.

Socialists do not challenge the private owner's rights over their property, as Tudor England once did through various administrative measures. Instead, they assert that the solution to the ills of private ownership is to vest all ownership in the state, thereby granting the government absolute power—an outcome with its own dangers.

The British workers, frustrated by exploitation under private enterprise and the resulting inefficiencies leading to unemployment, sought revenge against their employers by supporting a socialist agenda aimed at expropriating those they viewed as adversaries. However, they now recognize the consequences of attacking "Capitalists" rather than "Capitalism," as they watch their freedoms diminish under the more severe tyranny of "State Capitalism," which masquerades as "Socialism." Initially attracted by the idealistic notion of "Mutual Service," they now find themselves constrained by the very system they hoped would liberate them. When they express dissatisfaction with the outcomes, extremists argue that they must endure until the complete nationalization program is realized. Thus, workers continue to submit to bureaucratic direction and personal hardship while awaiting the promised utopia.

What is this so-called millennium? It represents the culmination of a totalitarian Capitalist State that exerts control over all wealth, serves as the sole employer, and thus wields absolute political power under modern materialist frameworks. In Russia, America, etc, such a state already exists, manifesting as one of the most reactionary and tyrannical governments of modern times. This regime not only threatens its neighbors with oppression but also perpetuates global unrest through its aggressive policies. What else should we expect when we transfer all wealth from private hands to a small, highly disciplined group of political adventurers?

We have rightly criticized the aggressive profit-seeking behavior of the former capitalist class, which ignited struggles for power and ultimately led to war. Yet, we must ask how much more we should anticipate the evils of "State-Capitalism," which is likely to exploit the masses in a desperate bid for world domination.

The Communist narrative posits that their administration represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat," ostensibly exercised on behalf of all people. However, this notion is met with profound skepticism by the self-governing spirit of the British populace. History reminds us of the White Tsar, Alexander, who, after Napoleon's defeat, united reactionary forces across Europe to suppress the democratic ideals of the French Revolution under the guise of the "Holy Alliance." Similarly, the Red Tsar, Stalin, employs military occupation and a secret police force under the banner of the "Communist International," revealing his reactionary nature. And now, the American Tsar, Trump, employs the same methods and rhetoric to distance America from its allies under the "America First" movement, all except for Israel, of course.

In regions where this blatant State-Capitalism holds power, the populace is stripped of political and economic rights, compelled to submit to the absolute authority of a small cadre of "party comrades," who wield complete dominion over property and even over the lives of the citizens they govern.

**Must We Go Back?**

Is the entire vision of progress through socialism merely an illusion that has led British workers into a hopeless dead end? Are we left with no choice but to retreat from the impending abyss of totalitarianism and revert to private ownership, along with all the ills of unrestricted individual capitalism? The Reformists would have us believe this, yet they struggle to convince voters of the necessity to turn back.

The workers of Britain are not willing to relinquish their hard-won privileges merely because they have been misled by misguided social and political theories. They are not so attached to foreign Marxism that they forget the substantial gains realized through British methods of teamwork and social solidarity. These principles are assets that can be effectively harnessed under any political or social system. Historically, the British people have been practical realists, focusing on tangible outcomes rather than abstract ideals. This realism may now serve the British worker well.

Reflecting on history, we see that the tragedy for the industrial worker began with the loss of his tools. In medieval times, workers started as apprentices, mastering their crafts and eventually becoming journeymen with their own tools. They traveled freely throughout the country and often across Europe, practicing their trades and establishing themselves as master craftsmen who could employ apprentices and journeymen. Many aspired to become burgesses, taking part in governance within their communities, as seen in the Hanseatic League and other free cities.

Unfortunately, the alliance between wealth and landowning interests undermined this healthy development of craftsmanship. The worker lost not only political power but also ownership of his tools, as home industries fell victim to competition from powerful machinery owned by capitalists. From being a free man controlling his own fate, the worker became a mere member of the proletariat, reliant on capitalists for access to the means of production that enabled his livelihood. This catastrophic decline, from which socialism offers no remedy, sees state ownership remove even further control from the worker. The bureaucratic officials directing labor are predominantly drawn from the privileged classes, not from the working class that they are meant to serve.

**An Alternative Revolutionary Creed**

Despite these challenges, there is no need for despair. Alongside the socialist revolution, a second revolutionary creed has emerged in Europe, advocating a return to the natural system of trade guilds reminiscent of earlier times. Figures such as Engels and Marx have been associated with this alternative revolution, representing true idealistic Europeans rather than mere materialist-minded outsiders.

In Russia, thinkers like Kropotkin and Bakunin promoted the philosophy of natural social cooperation through "Mutual Aid," rejecting government in favor of anarcho-syndicalism. In France, Sorrel advocated for the "General Strike" as a means for workers to regain control over industry and production. Similarly, Mazzini in Italy contributed to the idea of the Corporate State, which even Mussolini had to acknowledge, albeit superficially.

While Northern Europe leaned toward socialism—shaped by the collaboration of Bismarck and Lasalle—Southern Europe has remained faithful to syndicalism, modifying fascist regimes and, during the Spanish Civil War, resisting communist dominance under anarcho-syndicalist leadership. Franco found it necessary to accommodate the national-syndicalist factions among his revolutionary allies, including the blue-shirted Phalanx.

In Britain, we cannot dismiss this ideological clash in Europe as irrelevant. We have played a significant role in its development. Our early leadership in forming trade unions and cooperative societies was not rooted in socialism but in a form of pure syndicalism. Revolutionary theory also flourished in Britain, as seen in the contributions of thinkers like Orage, Penty, and G.D.H. Cole, who articulated the concept of "Guild Socialism" early in the century. This idea shares much with the National Syndicalism of Southern Europe, representing a compromise with Northern National Socialism, which ultimately contributed to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. The General Strike of 1926 was a significant, albeit unconscious, attempt to realize the industrial revolution and workers' control advocated by Sorrel. Its failure led workers to gravitate toward political action modeled after Marxism.

**Reversion to Syndicalism**

Is it too late to transition from Socialism back to Syndicalism? We believe not. Socialism, whether on a national or international scale, inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny—either a British authoritarian regime or the global dominance of figures like Stalin. In contrast, Syndicalism has the potential to restore the long-lost freedoms of British workers by returning control over their crafts and livelihoods. British workers are increasingly rejecting Communism, recognizing that national ownership signifies the loss of hard-won liberties, achieved through solidarity and camaraderie against exploitative capitalist employers. Now is not the time to abandon the tools of trade union organization; rather, we must demand that the entire trade union movement strive for effective control over employment conditions and industrial development.

It is time to reverse the trajectory of working-class activity since 1926. We must cease supporting political opportunists, such as Jimmy Thomas, who climb to power on the backs of workers. Just as the Russian people struggled to rid themselves of Stalin, we too must realize the futility of removing these political figures once they are entrenched. We should return to industrial trade unionism, maintaining the hard-won powers we have secured in managing our own industries. This is tangible progress, the fruit of generations of British workers' efforts, which we should not sacrifice for the illusory promise of national ownership managed by State Capitalists.

**Self-Government of Industry**

Syndicalism is rooted in practical business principles. It advocates for the self-governance of industries, drawing inspiration from the effective “working parties” that significantly boosted production during wartime. We must abandon the illusion of political control wielded by corrupt, power-hungry delegates in favor of tangible industrial control derived from direct engagement with occupational challenges.

Syndicalism is a reality largely achieved through the working-class struggle against capitalist exploitation. In contrast, Socialism remains a theory that risks devolving into the tyranny of a Communist state, a fate that the true British worker abhors. Therefore, we must support every movement that champions workers' control over industry and rejects bureaucratic oversight.

The British Revolution need not stall; Reformism need not regain power due to the failures of Socialism. All that is needed is a deliberate shift in revolutionary action away from political maneuvering back to the traditional British approach of direct industrial engagement. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, especially when new political leaders have full control over available resources—this is not merely a reference to Mr. Strachey. Our freedom is too valuable to barter for a dubious and uncertain outcome.

We are pragmatic enough to avoid the pitfalls of anarcho-syndicalism. We understand that in pursuing the reality of industrial self-governance, as opposed to the illusion of political self-governance through a failing parliamentary system, we must still establish some central authority to safeguard national interests and coordinate various industries. While we maintain our fundamental rights to control and ultimately own our means of livelihood, we must be willing to delegate authority to a central government tasked with national administration. However, such a government must submit to regular public votes to retain its legitimacy.

We must be clear that there is no shortcut to dismantling Capitalism. Our goal should be to transfer control over industries from existing financial and absentee shareholding interests to those directly involved in their operation—managers, technicians, and workers alike. This must be followed by eliminating unjust claims for interest and profit that do not contribute to service. Ultimately, industries should not be owned by the State but rather by those actively engaged in their management. Ownership must be for the purpose of use, not profit, ensuring that every industry possesses its own tools, machinery, and capital to serve the national good.

This is the Syndicalist solution to Capitalism, and all workers must prepare themselves, regardless of their roles, to take on the responsibility of managing and directing their own industries. This requires a reorientation of Trade Unionism, shifting focus from politics back to the original industrial objectives for which they were created. Only when workers are equipped to undertake these responsibilities can they hope to eradicate the dominance of Capitalism, both in its individual and state forms.

Let us reiterate the need for workers to reclaim their rights over the tools of their trade, not just as individuals, but as members of organized industrial guilds, fostering cooperation across all sectors that contribute to their industry's welfare.

Finally, let the workers of this nation recognize the direction of their true well-being. Support any political movement that aligns with genuine syndicalist values and moves away from the illusions of socialist theory. Political action to bolster industrial progress is essential, but it must be aimed at curbing Capitalism's power, not usurping it to dominate the nation and its workers.

**The Moral and Social Law of Britain: A Contrast to Illusionary Freedom**

The moral and social framework in Britain presents a striking contrast to the illusion held by many Britons of being truly free. In reality, our nation is plagued by constraints that limit individual freedom of action. Except for perhaps the United States, there is no other civilized country where the individual enjoys so little autonomy.

We exist in a state of public anarchy paired with private repression. What we need is a system that fosters public organization alongside private liberty. Society teaches us that interfering with an individual in their public role as a producer, financier, or distributor is an outrage, even though poor choices in these capacities can adversely affect thousands. Yet, we intrude upon every aspect of private life, where an individual's actions typically impact only themselves or their immediate environment. A person can be imprisoned for placing a small bet on a horse race, while making substantial investments in the stock market is celebrated. One can harm the nation’s well-being as a capitalist or trade union leader, but even the smallest personal indulgence, such as having a drink after hours, is deemed unacceptable.

We are treated like children; social legislation is aimed at preventing the few from harming themselves rather than enabling the many to live fulfilling lives. The interference in private liberty by overzealous politicians reveals a gross mismanagement of their true responsibilities—the public governance of an organized society.

It is simpler for those of limited intellect to enforce the closure of pubs than to ensure the smooth operation of factories. Politicians, perhaps aware of their inadequacies, gravitate toward familiar territories, resulting in a political system that contradicts its intended purpose. In national public affairs, we face disorder and anarchy, while in personal matters, we encounter interference and repression.

This situation is not merely chaotic; it is a farcical form of organized hypocrisy that has made us the ridicule of more civilized nations. This system arises from a mentality that has turned Parliament into a chorus of ineffective voices, leading us into wars, poor peace treaties, unsustainable debt, and financial crises. It reflects an aging establishment grappling with challenges it cannot adequately address, thus presenting a profound opportunity for youth and realism to take charge.

**Public Service and Private Liberty**

The Meritocratic principle advocates for liberty in private life and obligation in the public realm. As public citizens, individuals must conduct themselves in ways that reflect their responsibilities to the State, which protects their freedoms. In their private lives, they may act as they choose, provided their actions don’t infringe upon the freedoms of others.

However, there is a crucial stipulation: the State cannot accommodate those who squander their potential for public service through decadence. Our moral framework necessitates that individuals "live like athletes," preparing themselves for a life of service inherent to the Meritocratic vision of citizenship. The moral evaluation of actions is based on their social impact and scientific reasoning. If an action does not harm the State or its citizens and leaves the individual sound in body and mind, it cannot be deemed morally wrong. This standard transcends religious beliefs, biases, and outdated doctrines that currently cloud judgment.

We reject both the excesses of decadence and the constraints of repression. Instead, we advocate for a balanced athleticism of mind and body, aspiring to a moral code that is both just and enforceable. We will rely on a new social consciousness, emerging from a modern renaissance, rather than on legislation to enforce this morality. The law may punish occasional offenders, but it fails to address the underlying issues faced by the habitual drinker or the weak-willed individual.

In our vision of an ordered athletic life, we seek a morality reminiscent of Spartan ideals, yet infused with the spirit of Elizabethan Merrie England. The era before Puritan repression was marked by British vitality and adventurous spirit. The individuals who boldly carried the British flag across the seas were not shackled by the constraints we see today.

**Happiness**

We recognize that happiness, like fitness, is a valuable social and political asset. Increased joy and vitality among those tasked with contemporary challenges enhance their capacity for service. We celebrate individuals enjoying leisure—be it at a racecourse, football match, theater, or cinema—as long as their enjoyment does not lead to excess or squander their health and resources. There is a crucial distinction between relaxation and indulgence; the former fosters healthy enjoyment that contributes to efficiency and service, while the latter devolves into decadence.

Thus, when we encourage to "live like athletes," we do not promote the sterility of Puritanism or repression. We seek men, not eunuchs, who possess a singular purpose in their lives directed toward service. This morality is already embraced within our Movement, and its principles take on an organized form. We expect our members to maintain fitness in both mind and body, which has led us to be misconstrued as organizing for physical violence. While we will certainly respond to force with force, that is not our primary motivation. No individual can sink into degeneration if they excel in any athletic pursuit. It is vital for the dedicated individual within our movement to engage in constant training of mind and body, maintaining readiness for service when the opportunity arises. In essence, we aim to cultivate a microcosm of a revitalized national manhood.

This is our morality, which we assert is the natural order of British manhood. This perspective fosters our disdain for the social repression embedded in current legislation and the outdated politics that dominate our society. Our goal is to establish a nationwide movement that replaces outdated laws with a vibrant social consciousness and the will to serve of a new generation. Every man shall be a member of the State, dedicating his public life to the greater good while claiming his private life and liberty in return, enjoying these within the framework of the State’s objectives.

Let us honor our heritage of industrial struggle and demonstrate to both Globalist America and Jingoist Russia that we possess a distinctly British method for reforming our society. Together, we can achieve a new societal framework in which workers, both manual and intellectual, have the power to safeguard their interests and serve the national welfare.

Forward to Syndical Revolution!

#meritocracy #political #ontological #politics #philosophy #donald trump #britain #british politics #russia #america

2 notes · View notes

onsomekindofstartrek · 1 year ago

Text

There's another post going around about how many innocent people would be hurt in your typical conception of a violent leftist revolution. And that's great! It's entirely true that a little interruption of our infrastructure would immediately be fatal for a lot of vulnerable people that we have a duty to. The idea that a lot of leftists have in their head of revolutionary politics is idiotic. It's literally based on Stalinist propaganda of how righteous the fucking October Revolution (and the Cuban Revolution) were.

But I feel like every time I see a version of that post, the conclusion is "therefore we should all do hyper-incremental socdem politics and hope the capitalists don't kill us all before we achieve our utopia that way."

And look, that is on the face of it less violent. I understand why the more left-leaning kind of liberal champions that model.

But it's... like, you understand that there are actual anarchist academics who have written whole bodies of work on how we ought to change society, and it doesn't fit either the "bloody all-out revolution" model or the "let's just try to vote a socdem into office in a country where that's literally inconceivable" model.

Almost all educated and intelligent leftists I know are anarcho-syndicalists. The idea is this: we aim to unionize every single workplace. We fight for the power of labor by any means available to us, from strikes to sit-ins, malicious compliance, civil disobedience, and, yes, defending ourselves and each other violently from cops, strikebreakers and scabs when it becomes necessary. We aim to make organized labor so much of a force in society that not only will the owning class be brought to the table to negotiate with us, the governments of the world will have to come to the table.

And when we've achieved that dual power, we improve the world any way we can, but we damn sure hold onto that power and make sure that we're not only preserving the infrastructure that keeps society alive, but that we are synonymous with that infrastructure.

The state will lose its sheen of benevolence when the world sees who really protects the life-saving infrastructures of the world. It is important that we never be seen as threatening those infrastructures, but instead fight in every way we can to improve them and make them more accessible and equitable. When the boss tells us to raise prices, we should have union people in every position that would be necessary for that order to be carried out, and simply not do it. They can't fire everyone.

And little by little the old state will be seen as the parasite it is, and wither away and die in a world where it is no longer necessary.

This follows in a perfect logical chain if you don't view the infrastructure of the modern world as something the bourgeoisie and the state have graciously provided to us, but as something that workers built and workers maintain, often at personal risk and with great personal sacrifice.

We already have the power, because we do all the work and make up the vast majority of humanity. We don't have to violently seize power in an apocalyptic war in the streets, we just have to learn to exercise the power we have.

And frankly, it does piss me off when I can agree with the first nine-tenths of a post about the popular conception of revolution, and then the last tenth is "therefore we should be very passive and let the capitalists have their way or actually we're the real monsters."

#Don't get me wrong #voting for the least harmful candidates is a necessary part of any leftist political program #and anyone who tells you different is a shill for the party that's in power #so like yes vote blue no matter who #on the one day of the year that we do that #and then spend the other 364 days advancing the power of the worker #these are not conflicting strategies #leftism #anarchism #anarchosyndicalism

5 notes · View notes

alainamama17 · 5 months ago

Text

The Power and Responsibility of Boycotts

In recent times, the call for boycotts has become a powerful tool for the public to make their voices heard. People are beginning to recognize the influence they hold through their consumer choices, and it's encouraging to see these grassroots efforts take shape. However, for boycotts to be truly effective, they need to be well thought out, sustainable, and considerate of all potential impacts.

Boycotts can send a strong message to companies and their leadership, urging them to reconsider their actions and policies. However, it's essential to recognize that the immediate consequences of a boycott often affect the frontline workers before reaching the executives. For instance, an Amazon boycott might aim to challenge Jeff Bezos and the company's practices, but the initial impact is likely to be felt by warehouse workers, drivers, and other hourly employees who depend on their jobs for their livelihood. These workers may face reduced hours, layoffs, or other hardships long before any significant financial strain is felt by the company's leadership.

To make boycotts more effective and minimize harm to vulnerable workers, it's crucial to plan and coordinate these actions thoughtfully. Extending boycotts beyond a single day and ensuring that participants are prepared to sustain them is vital. In a consumeristic society, people need to know that they can endure a boycott without jeopardizing their own well-being. This means providing resources, tips, and support to help individuals plan and participate in a boycott effectively.

Additionally, it's essential to consider alternative or complementary actions that can drive change without disproportionately harming workers. Advocating for better working conditions, supporting labor unions, and promoting policies that protect workers' rights are all ways to make a meaningful impact. By balancing the need for impactful boycotts with a thoughtful approach to their potential consequences, we can create a more just and equitable society.

#boycott

0 notes

scentedchildnacho · 1 year ago

Text

He said there are a lot of hungry people and they try but not enough.......so I told him they are trying to diversify people's understanding of religion and make scarce times things ladies always ordered to her field workers and students

Some of the hungry I don't feel bad for they do drugs they know people here don't want and marry Africans and annoy people by using air and water regulated differently and you have to go to indians and ask them to re open reform policy it's hey man you believe in God's and forced marriage so go to your house and leave my air space alone

Anyway cuny Fatima I found a book of prayer and thai alliances in Florida with legalization because people use to be comfortable and enjoy fasting and now fasting always feels like a beating

If it's men that have used boarding house systems a long time I don't feel bad for them it's get into your boarding house and leave me alone with your mean demonized spoiled behaviours because it's demonized to do

They are given and given and given and they keep wanting to practice a mafia idea of very bad God so I feel it's go to your boundary then and leave me alone

People use to like I'm not going to use the rest room today and now its always a problem

Anyway saint Brigette did show us the letter so the Pope thinks it's about reforestation............but to reinvigorate the idea of the native school as a public land

Is having to use the Indian.......appropriation act and it's having to qualify language and origin so

But the tong VA conservation ideas appear pretty okay with deciding they could want to stay here though white became the favored ideology to The World and the ten thousand year history so

Acorn meal....this could get demeanor and if your going to oat me then I will acorn you and sue you for treating sprains like it's a skin injury instead of reflexology

And if your going to corn me then I'm going to Mexican fruit you for treating drug consumption like mentalism instead of diabetes

But forestation could turn into plantations which might be good for say Alabama and Texas....instead of the rainforest

The attempts to put German colonial corn in Texas was mean and weird

The industry machines appeared more like frietal terrorists it's way louder and more irritating so I feel they should then have to replant the area with a plantation canopy because it's brutality requires exotics

Texas isn't a moderate prairie marsh ecology and the German colonialism isn't nice and charming like Wisconsin

Denton Texas has this fiery radiant red sunset that is more powerful then all his white lights combined if there is natural law like Isaiah it's you cannot be more important then nature and God

Isaiah but people should enjoy escaping the wilderness to cultivation though....in the wilderness abundance of everything and cultivation should be human emancipation rights though

The German colonials brought us robotics so I'm not chained to ox and cart and the union soldiers took their families and each their own a small royal house manor

Chicago sociology George simmel Gregor Mendel .....these though we're not french papers these were Austrian....

And if you won't stop salmon ing me I will turtle all the lakes

Black elk speaks and I will start calling the elk camel and refuse to get my ass bounced on a horse when I could rock gently

The Native school....there are still china schools in Wisconsin near the casino so it would be having to look into the Greek complexes....and starting to re china them as Wisconsin still equitably divides public school so many whites so many Asians

Then there would have to be comparative antiquities in high schools which use to only be private to do

The Roman school of football baseball or basketball when more lines could have been drawn on the fields and courts

Fatima saik

Oriental the school now it's about the shadow of the West instead of white

Edward....how a disparate people become one

Edward said we will all be one people....these things under Korean policy were not separate my high school priorly was not separate

What does a white person look like.....I don't think she is laotian or Vietnamese I think she was white but went to that room for lunch

That's the folks it's allowing these new civilities to gather with white communities and that's how now arrives instead of history

My mother and her friends were very sunny dark exotic people but we called fair and different from asiatics?

At church they did explain that tattoo bar images are like their chosen ladies and they are like with the church and they didn't want generationally for them to be Catholic school girls so

The veterans allowed me cross dressing because they didn't want me to be too beat up or get stalked into the muslim world

They didn't want me to have to wear a burka to be modest

Uhm my lady if it's Wisconsin would not mark up her skin with tattoos but wels synod is not elca

They are more German populations affiliated with the church would drop too dramatically because congregants thought they had to be too good for people so

Because beguine the lady may show me to stop feeling too passive

Fish.....fishing I never fish....

I remember diving

Lobster in the Pacific......just go get that out of there

I guess people stole the kellogs company and have claimed we have to change to systems we weren't raised on........I don't know I think their a mean horney God and she has to learn tattoos or they do it

I notice their God to that type of reefer is a superior male God.....and they stalk homeless women because they know I take virginal vows and they want the appearance and clemency of first marriage and yet advertise themselves as very used people

Some of the men do stalk me and I tolerate it because their pedophiles and if it wasn't my innocence it would be a minor but they want to feel better then me and to orate their reefer message to me and I as a submissive already have dominant ideologies that leave me alone if ideology has become ranked

That's what's annoying and stupid about them they want to steal rights to rank ideology then they want to be around their submissives all the time when we have decided that this is about computers

I just hate smoked marijuana right now I just can't understand when it's now they have so much legality and will still smoke marijuana and I just hate hate that smell

0 notes

truck-fump · 2 years ago

Text

The Silent Revolution in American EconomicsI don’t think...

New Post has been published on https://robertreich.org/post/740326857674735616

The Silent Revolution in American EconomicsI don’t think...

youtube

The Silent Revolution in American Economics

I don’t think you’re expecting what I’m about to say, because I have never seen anything like this in fifty years in politics.

For decades I’ve been sounding an alarm about how our economy has become increasingly rigged for the rich. I’ve watched it get worse under both Republicans and Democrats, but what President Biden has done in his first term gives me hope I haven’t felt in years. It’s a complete sea change.

Here are three key areas where Biden is fundamentally reshaping our economy to make it better for working people.

#1 Trade and industrial policy

Biden is breaking with decades of reliance on free-trade deals and free-market philosophies. He’s instead focusing on domestic policies designed to revive American manufacturing and fortify our own supply chains.

Take three of his signature pieces of legislation so far — the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act, and his infrastructure package. This flood of government investment has brought about a new wave in American manufacturing.

Unlike Trump, who just levied tariffs on Chinese imports and used it as a campaign slogan, Biden is actually investing in America’s manufacturing capacity so we don’t have to rely on China in the first place.

He’s turning the tide against deals made by previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that helped Wall Street but ended up costing American jobs and lowering American wages.

#2 Monopoly power

Biden is the first president in living memory to take on big monopolies.

Giant firms have come to dominate almost every industry. Four beef packers now control over 80 percent of the market, domestic air travel is dominated by four airlines, and most Americans have no real choice of internet providers.

In a monopolized economy, corporate profits rise, consumers pay higher prices, and workers’ wages shrink.

But under the Biden, the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department have become the most aggressive monopoly fighters in more than a half century. They’re going after Amazon and Google, Ticketmaster and Live Nation, JetBlue and Spirit, and a wide range of other giant corporations.

#3 Labor

Biden is also the most pro-union president I’ve ever seen.

A big reason for the surge in workers organizing and striking for higher wages is the pro-labor course Biden is charting.

The Reagan years blew in a typhoon of union busting across America. Corporations routinely sunk unions and fired workers who attempted to form them. They offshored production or moved to so-called “right-to-work” states that enacted laws making it hard to form unions.

Even though Democratic presidents promised labor law reforms that would strengthen unions, they didn’t follow through. But under Joe Biden, organized labor has received a vital lifeboat. Unionizing has been protected and encouraged. Biden is even the first sitting president to walk a picket line.

Biden’s National Labor Relations Board is stemming the tide of unfair labor practices, requiring companies to bargain with their employees, speeding the period between union petitions and elections, and making it harder to fire workers for organizing.

Americans have every reason to be outraged at how decades of policies that prioritized corporations over people have thrown our economy off-keel.

But these three waves of change — a worker-centered trade and industrial policy, strong anti-monopoly enforcement, and moves to strengthen labor unions — are navigating towards a more equitable economy.

It’s a sea change that’s long overdue.

#Uncategorized

0 notes

ofhouseadama · 3 years ago

Note

So one of those first few times where Garak coaxes exhausted-backwater-Cardassian-pediatrician-with-major-CPTSD-Julian back to his hotel to be cared for, he probably ends up falling asleep (during, or just after when he usually reciprocates.) He’s just so worn down and the bed is so much more comfortable than he’s been using and he feels safer with Garak here than he virtually ever does these days, and his climax made him so…relaxed… zzzz.

Garak can’t even find it in him to be annoyed or wake him up because by his appearance and scent alone, he’s seriously concerned about the last time this man really got some sleep.

The second time Garak comes to Kraness, this little coastal town on the Bay of Marot in the Northern Continent that has somehow become the capital of the region, he expects that Julian might be better rested. Better fed. Possibly even have quarters of his own.

He's wrong. Time and a hard winter have only brought more refugees to Kraness, as people flee the northern reaches at an astounding rate. There is work in Kraness, at the factories and preparing the fields and on the boats and in the mines. Building houses, duplexes, apartment buildings, community gather houses, anything and everything the subsidized and highly fragile lek can go to building. There is food in Kraness, air dropped by the Federation and three other foreign governments. There is clean water. Sometimes, there is even enough medicine. What there are not enough of is hospital beds. More tents have gone up, tight outcroppings surrounding the small hospital building. More prefabricated buildings, dropped in by the Intergalactic Relief Corps of Volunteers. More aid workers, to be trained and managed. And Julian is still sleeping on a hard cot in his office, when he sleeps at all.

There's a little glass jar on his desk, filled up halfway with hand-folded paper stars. White paper for the babies who lived. Black paper for the babies they carried to the crematory. Garak sees the near equitable split between the white stars and the black, and feels a pang of guilt. He hasn't paid Kraness, or Julian, enough attention.

Regardless, Garak has meetings and Julian has patients, both of which need attending to before anything else. So he slips the hotel room keycard under Julian's PADD. Breaks into the PADD (breaks into is perhaps too strong, Garak's known the password to Julian's PADD for at least six years) and leaves him a note. A simple invitation. I'm here for three days. Room 206. My dear, don't you dare worry about waking me up. He doesn't sign the note. Who else would break into the Head of Pediatric Medicine's personal belongings?

Coming off a nearly hundred hour shift, Julian lets himself in early. Just past dinner, after placing double chest drains in a four year old with bacterial pneumonia. He's exhausted, close to staggering, and Garak almost calls him his beloved, run ragged in service to Cardassia. Instead, he cups Julian's face in his hands, examining him. The wild curls, threaded with silver, that come almost to his trapezius muscles. The stubble on his face, hazarding on becoming a beard. The deep purple stamps of exhaustion under his warm dark eyes. His skin, dry and pallid. He's thin. Far too thin, his burgundy sweater hanging limply off his shoulders. He reeks of exhaustion and spent adrenaline and pure mammalian sweat.

"Who has been taking care of you?" Garak asks, brushing the pads of his thumbs over Julian's cheekbones.

Julian inhales deeply. Exhales deeply.

"I fear that's your job now."

Julian has lived on Cardassia, lived and worked and laughed and cried among her people for a year now. He knows the implications of what he speaks. With everything I am and everything I shall ever be, I promise to take care of you. Honor you. Do my duty by you, our houses, and any children that may come from our union to join our family. I will do this work until the day I die.

Garak pauses. "You'll not hear me complain, doctor."

And he doesn't, not when Julian almost falls asleep on him in the shower as Garak washes his hair. Not when Julian can barely keep his eyes open through a quick dinner from the restaurant on the ground floor and a mediocre cup of tea, or when he simply lays there on the duvet in a bathrobe and welcomes Garak's body into his. Not when Julian's orgasm is only accompanied by a gentle groan and roll of his hips, not when he keeps his eyes closed as he's fucked lovingly and thoroughly and with great skill--and definitely not when moments after Garak wipes Julian clean with a warm wet cloth, he rolls thanklessly onto his side and drifts silently off to sleep.

It's weakness, Garak knows. It's weakness that makes him gather his PADD and files and folders off the perfectly serviceable desk in his room and spread out next to Julian on the bed. It's weakness that has him sink a hand into Julian's damp hair, thumb rubbing circles into his temple, his brow, the hinge of his jaw. It's weakness, to care this much for someone else.

But for the first time in his life, Garak thinks: so let me be weak.

#ask #anonymous #garashir #otp: there's hope for you yet #emily watches ds9

77 notes · View notes

lol-jackles · 2 years ago

Note

https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1653272585252257793

This guy lists everything out in a pretty easy to understand way for those of us who don't really understand what is happening. With all the things asked for and the responses/counter-offers, are you thinking we're looking at a long strike? I mean, if the strike goes on for too long than even renewed shows might still be at risk when everything is said and done. It happened last strike.

Link. This is 2007, season 2. Except it's worse because WGA is bargaining from a place of weakness and herefore with a lot less leverage. I mean, striking right before The Great Recession and just as streaming services are falling apart at the seam and losing money? Long time readers know my gripes with unions and why I left the industry. I am pro-collective bargaining, but I'm union wary.

Personally, most people I know in the business (including writers) don’t see any need for the WGA. It stifles creativity by excluding talented writers from gaining a foothold in the industry, and it forces producers to pay very high rates to mediocre writers.

A good writer doesn’t need the intervention of a closed-shop trade union. If the work is good or profitable, then the writer will be in a position to negotiate a fair and equitable rate. At best, writers will simply become freelancers and take their talents to other countries that don’t have such restrictive practices. This is not unpopular opinion, I’ve known a few writers who wrote for major sitcoms and said strikes are pointless. The last strike didn’t benefit them when the union gave away the internet.

With that said, I think the studios did this to themselves. They went out of their way to hire young, inexperienced writers because they were cheap and easy to control (see my fraudulent creator post). Then when their projects failed and lost money for the studios, the same studios tighten their fiscal belts while these same fraudulent creators writers are striking even though they have no leverages to get raises. I really wish things were different and there were some way good writers get paid and bad writers get fired, but there should have been a more meritocratic system from Day 1, instead of being cheap then to lose money now.

#wga #writer strike

10 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 5 years ago

Link

Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel from February 1969 to June 1974. The following is an op-ed she wrote for The New York Times in 1975.

To be misquoted is an occupational hazard of political leadership; for this reason I should like to clarify my position in regard to the Palestinian issue. I have been charged with being rigidly insensitive to the question of the Palestinian Arabs. In evidence of this I am supposed to have said, “There are no Palestinians.” My actual words were: “There is no Palestinian people. There are Palestinian refugees.” The distinction is not semantic. My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations.

When in 1921 I came to Palestine – until the end of World War I a barren, sparsely inhabited Turkish province – we, the Jewish pioneers, were the avowed Palestinians. So we were named in the world. Arab nationalists, on the other hand, stridently rejected the designation. Arab spokesmen continued to insist that the land we had cherished for centuries was, like Lebanon, merely a fragment of Syria. On the grounds that it dismembered an ideal unitary Arab state, they fought before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and at the United Nations.

When the Arab historian Philip K. Hitti informed the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that “there is no such thing as Palestine in history,” it was left to David Ben-Gurion to stress the central role of Palestine in Jewish, if not Arab, history.

As late as May 1956, Ahmed Shukairy, subsequently head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared to the United Nations Security Council, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” In view of this, I believe I may be forgiven if I took Arab spokesmen at their word.

Until the 1960’s, attention was focused on the Arab refugees for whose plight the Arab states would allow no solution though many constructive and far-reaching proposals were made by Israel and the world community.

I repeatedly expressed my sympathy for the needless sufferings of refugees whose abnormal situation was created and exploited by the Arab states as a tactic in their campaign against Israel. However, refugee status could not indefinitely be maintained for the original 550,000 Arabs who in 1948 joined the exodus from the battle areas during the Arab attack on the new state of Israel.

When the refugee card began to wear thin, the Palestinian terrorist appeared on the scene flourishing not the arguable claims of displaced refugees but of a ghoulish nationalism that could only be sated on the corpse of Israel.

I repeat again. We dispossessed no Arabs. Our toil in the deserts and marshes of Palestine created more habitable living space for both Arab and Jew. Until 1948 the Arabs of Palestine multiplied and flourished as the direct result of Zionist settlement. Whatever subsequent ills befell the Arabs were the inevitable result of the Arab design to drive us into the sea. Had Israel not repelled her would-be destroyers there would have been no Jewish refugees alive in the Middle East to concern the world.

Now, two years after the surprise attack of the Yom Kippur War, I am well aware of the potency of Arab petrobillions and I have no illusions about the moral fiber of the United Nations, most of whose members hailed gun-toting Yasir Arafat and shamefully passed the anti-Semitic resolution that described Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, as racist.

But though Israel is small and beset, I am not prepared to accede to the easy formula that in the Arab-Israeli conflict we witness two equal contending rights that demand further “flexibility” from Israel. Justice was not violated when in the huge territories liberated by the Allies from the Sultan, 1 percent was set aside for the Jewish homeland on its ancestral site, while in a parallel settlement 99 percent of the area was allotted for the establishment of independent Arab states.

We successively accepted the truncation of Transjordan, three-fourths of the area of historic Palestine, and finally the painful compromise of the 1947 partition resolution in the hope for peace. Yet though Israel arose in only one-fifth of the territory originally assigned for the Jewish homeland, the Arabs invaded the young state.

I ask again, as I have often asked, why did the Arabs not set up a Palestine state in their portion instead of cannibalizing the country by Jordan’s seizure of the West Bank and Egypt’s capture of the Gaza Strip? And, since the question of the 1967 borders looms heavily in the present discussions, why did the Arabs converge upon us in June 1967, when the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai, the Gaza Strip and old Jerusalem were in their hands?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of the matter – the Arab denial of Israel’s right to exist. This right is not subject to debate. That is why Israel cannot by its presence sanction the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the Security Council, a participation in direct violation of Resolutions 242 and 338.

We have no common language with exultant murderers of the innocent and with a terrorist movement ideologically committed to the liquidation of Jewish national independence.

At no point has the P.L.O. renounced its program for the “elimination of the Zionist entity.” With startling effrontery P.L.O. spokesmen admit that their proposed state on the West Bank would be merely a convenient “point of departure,” a tactical “first stage” and finally, a combatant “arsenal” strategically situated for the easier penetration of Israel.

I am often asked a hypothetical question: How would we react if the P.L.O. agreed to abandon its weapon, terror, and its goal, the destruction of Israel? The answer is simple. Any movement that forswore both its means and its end would by that fact become a different organization with a different leadership. There is no room for such speculation in the case of the P.L.O.

This does not mean that at this stage I disregard whatever national aspirations Palestinian Arabs have developed in recent years. However, these can be satisfied within the boundaries of historic Palestine.

The majority of the refugees never left Palestine; they are settled on the West Bank and in Jordan, the majority of whose population is Palestinian. Whatever nomenclature is used, both the people involved and the territory on which they live are Palestinian.

A mini-Palestine state, planted as a time bomb against Israel on the West Bank, would only serve as a focal point for the further exploitation of regional tensions by the Soviet Union.

But in a genuine peace settlement a viable Palestine-Jordan could flourish side by side with Israel within the original area of Mandatory Palestine.

On July 21, 1974, the Israeli Government passed the following resolution: “The peace will be founded on the existence of two independent states only – Israel, with united Jerusalem as its capital, and a Jordanian-Palestinian Arab state, east of Israel, within borders to be determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan.”

All allied problems can be equitably solved. For this to happen the adversaries of Israel will have to stop devising overt schemes for her immediate or piecemeal extinction.

There are 21 Arab states, rich in oil, land and sovereignty. There is only one small state in which Jewish national independence has been dearly achieved. Surely it is not extravagant to demand that in the current power play the right of a small democracy to freedom and life not be betrayed.

#golda meir #palestinians #israel #palestine #arabs #palestinian arabs

30 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 years ago

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 17, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

The crisis in Texas continues, with almost 2 million people still without power in frigid temperatures. Pipes are bursting in homes, pulling down ceilings and flooding living spaces, while 7 million Texans are under a water boil advisory.

Tim Boyd, the mayor of Colorado City, Texas, put on Facebook: “The City and County, along with power providers or any other service owes you NOTHING! I’m sick and tired of people looking for a damn handout!... If you are sitting at home in the cold because you have no power and are sitting there waiting for someone to come rescue you because your lazy is direct result of your raising! [sic]…. This is sadly a product of a socialist government where they feed people to believe that the FEW will work and others will become dependent for handouts…. I’ll be damned if I’m going to provide for anyone that is capable of doing it themselves!... Bottom line quit crying and looking for a handout! Get off your ass and take care of your own family!” “Only the strong will survive and the weak will parish [sic],” he said.

After an outcry, Boyd resigned.

Boyd’s post was a fitting tribute to talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who passed today from lung cancer at age 70. It was Limbaugh who popularized the idea that hardworking white men were under attack in America. According to him, minorities and feminists were too lazy to work, and instead expected a handout from the government, paid for by tax dollars levied from hardworking white men. This, he explained, was “socialism,” and it was destroying America.

Limbaugh didn’t invent this theory; it was the driving principle behind Movement Conservatism, which rose in the 1950s to combat the New Deal government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure. But Movement Conservatives' efforts to get voters to reject the system that they credited for creating widespread prosperity had little success.

In 1971, Lewis Powell, an attorney for the tobacco industry, wrote a confidential memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce outlining how business interests could overturn the New Deal and retake control of America. Powell focused on putting like-minded scholars and speakers on college campuses, rewriting textbooks, stacking the courts, and pressuring politicians. He also called for “reaching the public generally” through television, newspapers, and radio. “[E]very available means should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks,” he wrote, “as well as to present the affirmative case through this media.”

Pressing the Movement Conservative case faced headwinds, however, since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforced a policy that, in the interests of serving the community, required any outlet that held a federal broadcast license to present issues honestly, equitably, and with balance. This “Fairness Doctrine” meant that Movement Conservatives had trouble gaining traction, since voters rejected their ideas when they were stacked up against the ideas of Democrats and traditional Republicans, who agreed that the government had a role to play in the economy (even though they squabbled about the extent of that role).

In 1985, under a chair appointed by President Ronald Reagan, the FCC stated that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest. Two years later, under another Reagan-appointed chair, the FCC abolished the rule.

With the Fairness Doctrine gone, Rush Limbaugh stepped into the role of promoting the Movement Conservative narrative. He gave it the concrete examples, color, and passion it needed to jump from think tanks and businessmen to ordinary voters who could help make it the driving force behind national policy. While politicians talked with veiled language about “welfare queens” and same-sex bathrooms, and “makers” and “takers,” Limbaugh played “Barack the Magic Negro,” talked of “femiNazis,” and said “Liberals” were “socialists,” redistributing tax dollars from hardworking white men to the undeserving.

Constantly, he hammered on the idea that the federal government threatened the freedom of white men, and he did so in a style that his listeners found entertaining and liberating.

By the end of the 1980s, Limbaugh’s show was carried on more than 650 radio stations, and in 1992, he briefly branched out into television with a show produced by Roger Ailes, who had packaged Richard Nixon in 1968 and would go on to become the head of the Fox News Channel. Before the 1994 midterm elections, Limbaugh was so effective in pushing the Republicans’ “Contract With America” that when the party won control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1952, the Republican revolutionaries made him an honorary member of their group.

Limbaugh told them that, under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republicans must “begin an emergency dismantling of the welfare system, which is shredding the social fabric,” bankrupting the country, and “gutting the work ethic, educational performance, and moral discipline of the poor.” Next, Congress should cut capital gains taxes, which would drive economic growth, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and generate billions in federal revenue.

Limbaugh kept staff in Washington to make sure Republican positions got through to voters. At the same time, every congressman knew that taking a stand against Limbaugh would earn instant condemnation on radio channels across the country, and they acted accordingly.

Limbaugh saw politics as entertainment that pays well for the people who can rile up their base with compelling stories—Limbaugh’s net worth when he died was estimated at $600 million—but he sold the Movement Conservative narrative well. He laid the groundwork for the political career of Donald Trump, who awarded Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom in a made-for-tv moment at Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address. His influence runs deep in the current party: former Mayor Boyd, an elected official, began his diatribe with: “Let me hurt some feelings while I have a minute!!”

Like Boyd, other Texas politicians are also falling back on the Movement Conservative narrative to explain the disaster in their state. The crisis was caused by a lack of maintenance on Texas’s unregulated energy grid, which meant that instruments at coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants froze, at the same time that supplies of natural gas fell short. Nonetheless, Governor Greg Abbott and his allies in the fossil fuel industry went after “liberal” ideas. They blamed the crisis on the frozen wind turbines and solar plants which account for about 13% of Texas’s winter power. Abbott told Fox News Channel personality Sean Hannity that “this shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America.” Tucker Carlson told his viewers that Texas was “totally reliant on windmills.”

The former Texas governor and former Secretary of Energy under Trump, Rick Perry, wrote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s website to warn against regulation of Texas’s energy system: “Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business,” he said. The website warned that “Those watching on the left may see the situation in Texas as an opportunity to expand their top-down, radical proposals. Two phrases come to mind: don’t mess with Texas, and don’t let a crisis go to waste.”

At Abbott’s request, President Biden has declared that Texas is in a state of emergency, freeing up federal money and supplies for the state. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has sent 60 generators to state hospitals, water plants, and other critical facilities, along with blankets, food, and bottled water. It is also delivering diesel fuel for backup power.

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#political #newsletters #Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From An American #deregulation #Texas #corrupt GOP #criminal GOP #climate #climate change #conservative narrative #political malpractice #Rush Limbaugh #right wing propaganda

4 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 4 years ago

Text

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Biden Team Prepares $3 Trillion in New Spending for the Economy (NYT) President Biden’s economic advisers are pulling together a sweeping $3 trillion package to boost the economy, reduce carbon emissions and narrow economic inequality, beginning with a giant infrastructure plan that may be financed in part through tax increases on corporations and the rich. The enormous scope of the proposal highlights the aggressive approach the Biden administration wants to take as it tries to harness the power of the federal government to make the economy more equitable, address climate change, and improve American manufacturing and high-technology industries in an escalating battle with China.

Hugs, at last: Nursing homes easing rules on visitors (AP) An 88-year-old woman in Ohio broke down in tears as her son hugged her for the first time in a year. Nursing home residents and staff in California sang “Over the Rainbow” as they resumed group activities and allowed visitors back in. A 5-year-old dove into the lap of her 94-year-old great-great-aunt for a long embrace in Rhode Island. Nursing homes, assisted living facilities and other kinds of elderly residences battered by COVID-19 are easing restrictions and opening their doors for the first time since the start of the pandemic, leading to joyous reunions around the country after a painful year of isolation, Zoom calls and greetings through windows. The vaccination drive, improved conditions inside nursing homes, and relaxed federal guidelines have paved the way for the reunions.

Miami’s South Beach confronts disastrous spring break (AP) Florida’s famed South Beach is desperately seeking a new image. With more than 1,000 arrests and nearly 100 gun seizures already during this year’s spring break season, officials are thinking it may finally be time to cleanse the hip neighborhood of its law-breaking, party-all-night vibe. The move comes after years of increasingly stringent measures—banning alcohol from beaches, canceling concerts and food festivals—have failed to stop the city from being overrun with out-of-control parties and anything-goes antics. This weekend alone, spring breakers and pandemic-weary tourists drawn by Florida’s loose virus-control rules gathered by the thousands along famed Ocean Drive, at times breaking into street fights, destroying restaurant property and causing several dangerous stampedes. The situation got so out of hand that Miami Beach Police brought in SWAT teams to disperse pepper bullets and called in law enforcement officers from at least four other agencies. Ultimately, the city decided to order an emergency 8 p.m. curfew that will likely extend well into April after the spring break season is over. Some tourists are angry about the curfew, which they say has put a damper on long-sought vacations for which they paid good money. Meanwhile, some officials say they should have enacted more stringent measures sooner—as was done in New Orleans prior to Mardi Gras last month—instead of reacting in the middle of the chaos.

England slaps 5,000 pound fine on most travel abroad (Reuters) Fines of 5,000 pounds ($6,900) will be introduced for people from England who try to travel abroad before the end of June in a tightening of the country’s border controls. Health minister Matt Hancock said the government’s original plan to review international travel in April and possibly permit it from May 17 still stood but the travel fines were included in legislation in case that would not be possible. In the UK, foreign holidays are currently banned. Europe’s airlines and travel sector are now bracing for a second lost summer. Having already racked up billions in debt to survive a year of travel restrictions, they are facing further strain and some may need fresh funds.

Tensions mount between Afghan government, powerful warlord (AP) Tensions are mounting between Afghanistan’s government and a powerful local warlord, with deadly clashes erupting in a rural province between his fighters and government troops. The government has launched an assault in central Maidan Wardak province, vowing to punish the warlord, Abdul Ghani Alipoor, after the defense minister accused his fighters of shooting down a military helicopter last week, killing nine personnel. Alipoor holds widespread loyalty among ethnic Hazaras, a mainly Shiite community who are a minority in Afghanistan but make up most of the population in Maidan Wardak. If Kabul considers warlords as agents of turmoil, their supporters see them as their only protection and support in the face of a notoriously corrupt government and violent insurgents. Many Hazaras, who face attacks by Sunni militants and discrimination by the government, see Alipoor as a hero, defending them against the Taliban and keeping local institutions running. “The government is incompetent, so people depend on Alipoor and support him,” said Mohammed Jan. “Alipoor serves his people. If our government would serve the people, everyone would support it and there wouldn’t be any need for an Alipoor.”

China Makes It A Crime To Question Military Casualties On The Internet (NPR) When China acknowledged this year that four of its soldiers had died fighting Indian forces on the two countries’ disputed mountain border eight months prior, the irreverent blogger Little Spicy Pen Ball had questions. “If the four [Chinese] soldiers died trying to rescue their fellow soldiers, then there must have been those who were not successfully rescued,” he wrote on Feb. 19 to his 2.5 million followers on Weibo, a Chinese social media site. “This means the fatalities could not have just been four.” The day after, Qiu Ziming, the 38-year-old former newspaper journalist behind the blog, was detained and criminally charged. If convicted, he faces a sentence of up to three years. “Little Spicy Pen Ball maliciously slandered and degraded the heroes defending our country and the border,” according to the annual work report published by the country’s chief prosecutor office this month. Qiu’s is the first case to be tried under a sweeping new criminal law that took effect March 1. The new law penalizes “infringing on the reputation and honor of revolutionary heroes.” At least six other people have been detained or charged with defaming “martyrs.” The government uses the terms “revolutionary heroes” and “martyrs” for anyone it memorializes for their sacrifice for the Communist Party. The detentions typify the stricter controls over online speech under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, which have deterred nearly all open dissent in the country. The new law even seeks to criminalize speech made outside China. Such is the case of Wang Jingyu, 19, who lives in the United States and is now a wanted man in his hometown of Chongqing, China. The authorities accuse him of slandering dead Chinese soldiers after Weibo reported him for a comment questioning the number of border fight casualties. “Cyberspace is not outside the law,” the Chongqing public security bureau said in an online notice after it declared Wang would be “pursued online” for his comments.

West sanctions China over Xinjiang abuses, Beijing hits back at EU (Reuters) The United States, the European Union, Britain and Canada imposed sanctions on Chinese officials on Monday for human rights abuses in Xinjiang, the first such coordinated Western action against Beijing under new U.S. President Joe Biden. Beijing hit back immediately with punitive measures against the EU that appeared broader, including European lawmakers, diplomats, institutes and families, and banning their businesses from trading with China. Western governments are seeking to hold Beijing accountable for mass detentions of Muslim Uighurs in northwestern China, where the United States says China is committing genocide. China denies all accusations of abuse.

Australian floods (AFP) Devastating flooding is ongoing across Australia, where an area the size of Alaska with some 10 million people is at risk for excessive rainfall and storminess. The flooding comes amid colliding weather systems gripping the country. Up to 35 inches of rain fell in just four days, and some places are seeing their worst flooding in 60 years. Nearly three times the average March rainfall has fallen in a number of locales, which Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology described as “phenomenal,” with additional rain and flooding expected in the days ahead.

Israel TV satirist says grateful to politicians but needs a break (AFP) As Israel heads into its fourth election in two years, the presenter of the country’s favourite satirical TV show has a request, and he’s only half joking. “I would like us to finally have a stable government and make a boring programme,” says Eyal Kitsis, frontman of the Channel 12 show “Eretz Nehederet” (“A Wonderful Country”). As much as Israel’s political turmoil may be straining the patience of the electorate, it has been television gold because “reality is crazy”, Kitsis told AFP. “Elections and politics have really become entertainment in this country. Our challenge as a satirical programme is to add a layer to it, to take it to the next level.”

Israel vote deadlock: Netanyahu appears short of majority (AP) Uncertainty hovered over the outcome of Israel’s parliamentary election Wednesday, with both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and sworn political rivals determined to depose him apparently lacking a clear path to a governing coalition. Deadlock in the 120-seat parliament was a real possibility a day after the election, which had been dominated by Netanyahu’s polarizing leadership. With about 87.5% of the vote counted by Wednesday morning, Netanyahu’s Likud party and its ultra-Orthodox and far-right allies fell short of a 61-seat majority.

Saudi Arabia offers cease-fire plan to Yemen rebels (AP) Saudi Arabia on Monday offered a cease-fire proposal to Yemen’s Houthi rebels that includes reopening their country’s main airport, the kingdom’s latest attempt to halt years of fighting in a war that has sparked the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The move comes after the rebels stepped up a campaign of drone and missile attacks on the kingdom’s oil sites, briefly shaking global energy prices amid the coronavirus pandemic. It also comes as Riyadh tries to rehabilitate its image with the U.S. under President Joe Biden. Saudi Arabia has drawn internationally criticism for airstrikes killing civilians and embargoes exacerbating hunger in a nation on the brink of famine. Whether the plan will take hold remains another question. A unilaterally declared Saudi cease-fire collapsed last year. Fighting rages around the crucial city of Marib and the Saudi-led coalition launched airstrikes as recently as Sunday targeting Yemen’s capital of Sanaa. A U.N. mission said another suspected airstrike hit a food-production company in the port city of Hodeida.

Rail and derailments (Vice) Freight rail is an essential vein of the transportation system in the U.S., moving 57 tons of goods per American each year. It’s also the safest way to move hazardous materials, but freight train derailments are more common than one might think: in 2019, there were 341 reported derailments on main line track, of which 24 were freight trains carrying 159 cars of hazardous materials. The labor unions in the rail industry have been calling this out as a symptom of a degrading safety culture, and warn that it’s only a matter of time before one of those derailments causes catastrophic damages.

#headlines #news

2 notes · View notes

weaselle · 5 years ago

Text

I like specific goals. I see some people who just want change without knowing what that looks like, which, while understandable, is not as useful or effective as they would probably like their efforts to be.

Other people seem to want to overthrow or otherwise disassemble the government as a whole. That IS a specific goal, to be sure, and I respect the scope of that ideal -- I certainly believe our government is fucked up beyond proper function in quite a few key areas

but

do you have anything to replace it with? I mean specifically

if we were to dismantle the entire government, would the hospitals be private businesses? Would the schools? Where would the money come from? Who would pay to pave the roads? How would we attempt to regulate what chemicals can be used in food production? Would there be a military? Where would the money come from? Or, if there was no military, what would we do when Russia landed forces on Alaska? It’s full of oil and gold and timber and strategic advantage and Russia only gave up Alaska to the US after 125 years of trying to hold on to it because the oceans there are treacherous and they didn’t have aircraft at that time. They might want it back. They often pursue expansion. Even without asking about the military, who issues visas and passports? You can’t go to other countries without those things and they have to be recognized by the governments of other countries. Who enforces patents, trademarks and copyrights? What do we do with no supreme court? And even if you had an answer to all that, is it an answer a solid majority of people would agree to live by? And if your answer looks pretty much the same as it is now, what are you overthrowing? If you simply say switch to Communism or Socialism, I like the ideals there, but that is still an incredibly complex task, and importantly, all the working models we've seen have most of the same problems we do -- namely that large organizations in charge of big counties wielding lots of power invariably become externally violent and internally abusive; the real question is how can the public exert some kind of regulatory force over this reality, whatever you name it. Which is what protests and riots and voting and activism and general public participation in government are all about.

Anyway, I like specific goals. Goals I am in favor of include:

- dissolving the nation’s current corrupt police union and replacing it with a different organization

- creating a single nationwide standard of police training and accountability (there is currently none) which would include deescalation training, no military grade weapons and gear, prohibiting any police department from hiring any officers fired from other police departments for behavior or violations of public rights violent or otherwise, transparency and accountability measures such as strict body cam requirements, and mandatory arrests and prosecution of all police committing crimes

- creation of alternative departments, not law enforcement, that are trained for handling many situations that police are currently called for, such as dealing with mentally ill people with extreme behavior, dealing with homeless people, etc.

- repealing the Qualified Immunity laws, which literally give immunity to law enforcement in various violations of public and human rights

- trash and redraft an alternative to the Patriot Act and associated laws, which are a violation of our human rights and never should have been allowed

- disbanding of ICE and Border patrols and recreation of alternative programs to fill these functions

- shutting down all private prisons and prison labor practices as a part of a deeper dismantling of the prison industrial complex

and, though the current protests are absolutely not about the below concepts and should not be derailed (but this specific post is more about people who want to change the whole government) while we’re talking changes I would propose

- eliminating insurance companies from common healthcare, reviewing the role of private hospitals, and creating a single payer (tax paid) system wherein if you are sick you simply get treated. period.

- re-instituting a strong progressive tax

- enforcing stricter corporate regulations (including environmental laws) and closing tax loopholes

- changing lobbying laws

- eliminating gerrymandering

- institute grocery and housing practices tied to homelessness to help address that issue as a nation; for example mandate that all viable food currently being thrown away in padlocked dumpsters by grocery stores (43 billion tons of food a year in the US) instead go directly to homeless assistance programs

- a reconceptualization of the military toward public use - the military has a LOT of forklift operators and engineers and medical personnel etc, we could still maintain the largest military in the world in an affordable reasonable way if we had them repairing more bridges and bones here at home, and less bombing and interfering in other countries’ governments. Something more like National Service by people willing to fight for the country if the need arises. Most military members I’ve met would be super okay with this; 80% of our military is made up of non-combat jobs anyway.

- addressing our military budget and proper progressive/corporate taxing would help us eliminate the national debt. Very important, this debt is severely obstructing our ability to be a truly prosperous nation

- changing our voting system from first-past-the-post style we currently utilize, which ALWAYS results in an extremist two party system, to a more equitable system like Single Transferable Vote (for example, this would allow you to rank your vote, so you could vote for, say, Bernie Sanders, with the knowledge that if he didn’t get enough votes, your vote would then be counted in favor of your second choice, so you wouldn’t be risking handing the election to the candidate you agreed with least simply by voting for who you liked best) This system allows for grassroots parties to get footholds, whereas our current system forces defensive voting behavior.

anyway. Those are some of the specific changes I’m looking for

3 notes · View notes

bubblysnake · 6 years ago

Text

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the taxes were high and the tensions were higher. Americans had been uncomfortable with the British level of control for many decades, but a collection of oppressive events starting in the late 1700s helped to push the British colonies towards revolution. The most influential moment of all was the enactment of the Intolerable Acts. These acts were what made the American Revolution inevitable, because a significant increase in revolutionary thought was evident after their inception in 1774.

In 1769, in response to the Stamp Act- which was widely considered oppressive- the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a series of resolutions entitled The Virginia Resolves. The main purpose of these documents was to reassure Britain that revolution was not on the horizon. One such resolution read, “Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that an humble, dutiful, and loyal Address, be presented to his Majesty, to assure him of our inviolable Attachment to his sacred Person and Government”. This loyal viewpoint that they shared with colonists may not have been popular among the masses, but it demonstrated that revolutionary ideals had not yet bled into legislative thinking. In 1769, five years before the Intolerable Acts, colonial politicians opposed revolution.

In 1770, quickly following the Boston Massacre- which helped to paint the British in a villainous light- Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Samuel Cooper, a prominent religious and community leader. Franklin wrote, “I join with you most cordially in Wishes of a perfect happy Union between Great Britain and the Colonies: This is only to be expected from Principles of Justice and Equity on both sides, which we must endeavor to cultivate. I think there is now a Disposition here to treat us more equitably, and I hope it will increase and prevail... the Expectation of War is much lessened”. Benjamin Franklin was greatly involved in politics and had his eye on political trends. For him to believe that revolution was both unlikely and unwanted, the American Revolution must have not reached full momentum. In 1770, four years before the Intolerable Acts, political experts saw no sign of the oncoming revolution, as it was not yet inevitable.

In 1772, now two years after the Boston Massacre, Samuel Adams published an essay titled The Rights of the Colonists, which he printed in leaflets and shared with his fellow Americans. Adams wrote, “Have (the colonists) all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted”. This essay was extremely critical of Britain, but instead of arguing for independence, Samuel Adams argued for the colonists to have more power in legislature. Being an individual with highly popular political stances, his opinions likely reflected those of the masses. In 1772, two years before the Intolerable Acts, revolution was not being prioritized as an option.

In 1774, just months after the enactment of the Intolerable Acts, George Washington wrote a letter to Brian Fairfax, a prominent religious and political leader. Washington wrote, “I shall not undertake to say where the Line between Great Britain and the Colonies should be drawn, but I am clearly of opinion that one ought to be drawn”. This letter may not have argued for absolute independence, but it did argue for increased separation. This idea was completely different from the ideas of Samuel Adams in 1772. Washington, a man who many would describe as a political genius, always kept in mind what was best for his country. He was also a political and military leader, meaning that his opinions were often adopted by those who looked up to him. This evolution of revolutionary ideas was so fast that it must have been motivated by a jarring event, such as the Intolerable Acts. Just months after they were enacted, Americans believed that the less connection they had to Britain, the better, making the American Revolution inevitable.

In 1775, one year after the Intolerable Acts, the Second Continental Congress wrote a document titled The Olive Branch petition, addressing the King of England. It read, “Your Majesty’s Ministers, persevering in their measures, and proceeding to open hostilities for enforcing them, have compelled us to arm in our own defense... We therefore beseech your Majesty that your royal authority and influence may be graciously interposed to procure us relief from our afflicting fears and jealousies occasioned by the system before-mentioned”. At first glance, this document seems counter-revolutionary, with its flatteringly respectful language, but it’s actually sending a complex message. Congress argues that Britain’s harsh control left patriots no choice but to participate in revolutionary action. This puts Britain in the blame. Congress then promises to be loyal to the King, but only if Britain undoes the damage that they have inflicted upon the colonies. This framed the American Revolution as inevitable, and the only option left. This was no longer a radical idea for legislators to have. One year after the Intolerable Acts, revolution was mainstream and unstoppable.

In 1776, two years after the Intolerable Acts, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet called Common Sense, which he promoted to the American people. In his pamphlet, Paine wrote, “Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this.” But examine the passions and feelings of mankind.. and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?.. If you have (lost everything to the British), and can still shake hands with the murderers, then you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant”. This pamphlet, written to bring Americans to the brink of revolution, was an instant best seller. Common Sense was in the hand of almost every literate American, in spite of the fact that it accused loyalists of being cowards and sycophants. Americans had been radicalized to the point of prioritizing revolution over being respectful of their peers. Just two years after the Intolerable Acts, revolution was all-important and inevitable in the eyes of the American people.

After Britain enacted the Intolerable Acts, revolution went from being a daydream to being a reality. I think that the American Revolution follows a broad historical trend that we can see repeated again and again throughout history; when the oppression of government becomes too much to bear, the masses rise up.

10 notes · View notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 5 years ago

Text

I'VE BEEN PONDERING SUMMER

In Lisp, all variables are effectively pointers. Why go work as an ordinary employee for a big company, or have they abandoned the center for the suburbs?1 Especially if it meant independence for my native land, hacking.2 It's hard to engage an audience it's better to start with what goes wrong and try to trace it back to the root causes. A lot of the new startups would create new technology that further accelerated variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, the former because founders own more stock, and the rate at which it changes is itself speeding up.3 When we first started Y Combinator we have some kind of secret weapon—that he was harming his future—that hacking was cold, precise, and methodical, and that was more than enough technical skill. There is a name now for what we were: an Application Service Provider, or ASP. How little money it can take to start a company of any size to get software written.

I needed to remember, if I could give an example of a powerful macro, and say there!4 Design means making things for humans. Wrong. Big companies also don't pay people the right way to get an accurate drawing is not to make the poor richer. This sort of thing was the rule, not better off, as more than a plan A. In some ways, this assumption makes life a lot easier for the users and for us as well. Why did desktop computers take over?5 Programmers have to worry about infrastructure. For the first week or so we intended to make this point diplomatically, but in many ways pushes you in the opposite direction.6 Similarly, good new problems are not to be had for the asking. Don't be too legalistic about the conditions under which they're allowed to leave.

Now, when someone asks me what I do, I look them straight in the eye and say I'm designing a new dialect of Lisp;-Though useful to present-day union organizers rather than an attack on early ones. I think mathematicians also believe this. In the middle you have people who are poor or rich and figure out why. We were just able to develop stuff in house, and that if grad students could start startups, they'll start startups. Eric Raymond here. Which seems to me one of the most interesting differences between research and design. In fact, it may be slightly faster. We were terrified of starting a startup, there are even worse tradeoffs than these. I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left or right in their morning-after analyses are like the financial reporters stuck writing stories day after day about the random fluctuations of the stock market.

This metaphor doesn't stretch that far. Maybe it will also be your cell phone. The books I bring on trips are often quite virtuous, the sort of engagement you get when speaking ad lib. It doesn't necessarily mean being self-sacrificing. For the first week or so we intended to make this an ordinary desktop application. You can't trust authorities.7 They were, as a rule, not better off, as more than one with a 50% chance of winning has to pay more than one discovered when Christmas shopping season came around and loads rose on their server. I'm letting you in on the secret early. But since then the west coast has just pulled further ahead.8 It is not the way it's portrayed on TV. And if you're writing a program that attacked the servers themselves should find them very well defended.

Sometimes I can think with noise.9 Our only expenses in that phase were food and rent. It's hard to imagine now, but when they do get paged at 4:00 AM, they don't think of themselves that way. When you switch to this new model, you realize how much software development is affected by the reactions of those around them, and c they're individually inconsistent. If you want, but not totally unlike your other friends. And that might be a great thing. As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them.10 I'm a little embarrassed to say, I never said anything publicly about Lisp while we were working on Viaweb. As usual, by Demo Day about half the startups were doing something significantly different than they planned. So there you have it.

Notice I said what they need, not what a piece of code. Fortunately, there were few obstacles except technical ones. And more to the point of view. And creating wealth, as a rule, not better off, as more than a plan A. You never had to worry about those. If you work this way too.11 Because painters leave a trail of work behind them, you can just turn off the service. I could tell I knew how to program computers, or what life was really like in preindustrial societies, or how to program better than most people doing it for a living. I think few realize the huge spread in the value of 20 year olds.12 Prep schools openly say this is one reason intranet software will continue to do so but be content to work for someone else would get an even colder reception from the 19 year old was Bill Gates? Programs.13 The way to get in the software as soon as they got their first round of outside investors 36x.

It allows you to give an example of this rule; if you could count on investors being interested even if you're not certain, you should get summer jobs at places you'd like to work. You have the users' data right there on your disk.14 And you don't have to be poked with a stick to get them to stay is to give them enough that they don't dress up. Only 13 of these were in product development. No one will look that closely at it. You have the users' data right there on your disk.15 At any rate, the result is that scientists tend to make their fortunes will continue to do so much besides write software.16 So startup culture may not merely be different in the way of having the next. Though we were comparatively old, we weren't tied down by jobs they don't want to, but they didn't actually drop out of college and it tanks, you'll end up at 23 broke and a lot who get rich by taking money from the rich. If you write the laws very carefully, that is a good idea—but we've decided now that the party line should be to discover surprising things. This was done entirely for PR purposes. What you're afraid of competition.

Notes

Management consulting.

If you're expected to do work you love, or boards, or even being Genghis Khan is probably a losing bet for a couple hundred years or so and we ran into Yuri Sagalov. Most of the reason the founders. In fact the decade preceding the war had been a waste of time on is a new version from which they don't know. 6% of the products I grew up with much greater inconveniences than that.

Even in English, our sense of a startup enough to invest in a safe environment, and then a block or so and we did not become romantically involved till afterward. They seem to be hard on the grounds that a startup is rare. Companies often wonder what to do whatever gets you there sooner.

9999 and.

Globally the trend has been around as long as the web have sucked—A Spam Classification Organization Program. The point where things start with consumer electronics.

People and The Old Way. But if you tell them what to do video on-demand, because you can't even claim, like the bizarre consequences of this essay talks about programmers, the other cheek skirts the issue; the point where it was briefly in Britain in the Ancient World, Economic History Review, 2:9 1956,185-199, reprinted in Finley, M.

Inside their heads a giant house of cards is tottering. In fact the less powerful language in it.

The only people who might be 20 or 30 times as much income. Selina Tobaccowala stopped to think about, like arithmetic drills, instead of editors, and astronomy. Incidentally, the police treat people more equitably. There can be done at a famous university who is highly regarded by his peers will get funding, pretty much regardless of how to use those solutions.

For example, because it doesn't cost anything. What will go away. In a startup in a deal to move from London to Silicon Valley like the increase in trade you always see when restrictive laws are removed. Come work for us now to appreciate how important it is certainly part of a safe environment, but mediocre programmers is the discrepancy between government receipts as a technology startup takes some amount of damage to the size of a startup, as on a map.

Success here is that they've already decided what they're going to need to run an online service, this would work.

But no planes crash if your school, secretly write your dissertation in the right sort of wealth, not like soccer; you don't know of no Jews moving there, only Jews would move there, and power were concentrated in the imprecise half.

The Civil Service Examinations of Imperial China, many of the art itself gets more random, the increasing complacency of managements.

For example, the laser, it's this internal process in their target market the shoplifters are also startlingly popular on Delicious, but since it was 10 years ago.

In a project like a core going critical.

How could these people make the right not to stuff them with comments. The state of technology, companies that an investor, than a product of number of discrepancies currently blamed on various forbidden isms.

If you did that in practice that doesn't lose our data. Anything that got built this way is basically a replacement mall for mallrats.

Thanks to Mike Arrington, Trevor Blackwell, Robert Morris, Patrick Collison, and Paul Buchheit for sharing their expertise on this topic.

1 note · View note

famous-aces · 6 years ago

Text

Wang Zhenyi

Who: 王貞儀 (Wáng Zhēnyí)

What: Scientist, Mathematician, and Poet

Where: Chinese (Active in China)

When: 1768–1797

(image description: unfortunately there don't seem to be any portraits of Wang, but I don't think that was uncommon of the era. Instead this is a near contemporaneous portrait of a court woman. It was part of a series of 12 screen portraits commissioned by Prince Yongzheng to hang on the walls of his study, much like a proto-Farrah Fawcett poster. It was very hard to find portraiture from the 18th century of anyone who was not royalty so this had to do. The subject is of high status/wealth [higher than Wang was] but roughly equitable. Very roughly. Anyway. It shows a young East Asian woman smiling serenely, maybe a little coyly at the viewer. She is in a study of some kind, seated at a desk and reading a book. She has the cover folded back like one might do with a paperback novel today. She is wearing the complicated many layered dress/robe standard of women of that era in green, white, and pink. Her long black hair is partly pinned up.)

Wang's contributions to astronomy and mathematical education are innumerable and of incredible importance. However she was also a poet and a proto-feminist.

It is extremely tragic that Wang has been nearly forgotten in the present. Unfortunately most of her scientific writing has been lost, but her influence is indisputable. She was the child of noted and prestigious academics in a place and time where that meant high social standing. Despite being something close to an aristocrat she was highly opposed to the class inequality she saw in her travels and the sexist traditions at the time. She broke all molds and her poetry included lines like

"Village is empty of cooking smoke,

Rich families let grains stored decay;

In wormwood strewed pitiful starved bodies,

Greedy officials yet push farm levying"

And

"Are you not convinced,

Daughters can also be heroic?"

Her work in astronomy pushed Chinese astronomy forward and her contribution to mathematics made the field more accessible to a wider audience. Wang was able to explain some celestial phenomenon that up until that point was not understood, like equinoxes and eclipses. Her most famous experiment/demonstration was to prove how the earth, sun, and moon acted together to create eclipses. In a garden pavillion she set up a round table (the earth), hung a lamp from the beams (the sun) and to one side had a small round mirror (the moon), moving these objects around she was able to prove her theory about the formation of lunar eclipses was possible (it was correct, incidentally). She came up with her own argument for gravity and mapped out the movement of planets and the placement of stars. Her largest contribution to mathematics was taking the work of a Chinese mathematician she admired and making it more easily understood. The book in question was Mei Wending's Principles of Calculation which inspired her work The Simple Principles of Calculation.

Most impressively she was nearly entirely self taught and did all of this before her untimely death at 29. Her notable works (beyond The Simple Principles…) include The Explanation of the Pythagorean Theorem and Trigonometry, Dispute of Longitude and Stars, The Explanation of a Lunar Eclipse, and The Explanation of a Solar Eclipse.

A Venusian crater now bares her name.

Probable Orientation: Asexual (romantic orientation is harder to determine in a culture that really held very little regard for the notion of romantic love in relationships.)

This is another one where I am showing my personal interests. I find the culture and history of China fascinating and Wang's life is extremely incongruous to her place and time.

Wang lived in the early Qing Dynasty. Women were not exactly highly valued and marriage/family held a very specific and very important place in Chinese culture. Wang never had children and she didn't marry until she was 25. Here is why that is a big deal.

There were very specific traditions surrounding marriage and children in much of Chinese history. Family structures were patrilinear to an extreme degree. It was understood that daughters did not belong to their birth families, but the families they married into. They had no place in their natal families. Marriage was crucial if you wanted a place to be loved and remembered. Having children was likewise important, often the closest bonds were between mothers and their children (particularly sons), and having children was a requirement on a larger human scale. You had a specific role: continue the family line, uphold family honor. All people are a link in a larger chain from the beginning of time. Romantic love was unimportant, marriage and sex were an undeniable obligation. One of the central tenets of two of the three major Chinese cultural/religious traditions* is Filial Piety (孝, xiào): dedication to, respect for, and ensuring the continuation of your family.

There is a more selfish and personal level, children were the only way you could assure you would be cared for in old age and in the afterlife. Just as you were required to care for your parents/parents-in-law as they aged, so too were your children required to take care of you. In old age you would always be provided for...and into the afterlife. The Chinese dead had to be exhalted, remembered, and provided for. Your ancestors were important members of your family. If you weren't remembered and didn't get provided for you would go hungry and become homeless, helplessly and hopelessly wandering the earth for the rest of eternity.

If a woman died unmarried she was not part of an ancestoral line. She did not belong anywhere. She would not be remembered. That was often why there would be ghost marriages (冥婚, mínghūn) for women/girls who died unwed, so she had some hope of being provided for.

If you were a perceived as a woman your entire purpose was in the home: you married, you provided for your husband, you had and educated children. The idea of a woman having an external life was completely unheard of. Indeed even today in parts of China, the idea of a woman wanting to stay unmarried is seen as a symptom of underlying mental illness (although that's fairly true everywhere). After all, no one wanted to be responsible for ending a family line, disrespecting their ancestors, potentially damning themselves to poverty, and absolutely damning themselves to becoming a restless spirit after death.

Usually in Wang's era in the middle of the Qing Dynasty a Han Chinese woman would be married off between 16 and 18. Often the younger the better because, again, if she died while unmarried she had no family to mourn her, and no one wanted that to happen to their children.

By contrast at 16 Wang began to study science and traveled, leaving home. Maybe even to escape this fate.

What I am trying to make clear is what Wang did was unheard of. Becoming a scientist rather than getting married would not be a Girl Power move, this was not only spitting in the faces of her entire family line, it was rejecting the only culture she had ever known, and literally screwing over her immortal soul.

As stated Wang did eventually marry at age 25. That was an extremely old maid, especially when you consider this is the 18th century when death was often sudden and unexpected, be it from illness or something more sinister on unsupervised roads.

Further, when Wang died four years after marriage she was still childless. Not only does this go against Filial Piety, it was also a hard thing to do at this point in Chinese history. Every member of her and her husband's family would expect her to have (male) babies and be pushing for it to happen. Indeed childless women were often treated by poorly especially by their mothers-in-law.

My thought is her choices went beyond rebellion (by all accounts she had no complaints with her family, her father was a well regarded doctor). Her life path goes beyond being simply unusual...it is downright queer. So my thought was she was so put off by the idea of marriage and so in love with her studies (like Rosalind Franklin, Carter G. Woodson, Jeanette Rankin, Florance Nightingale and so many other aces) that she substituted one for the other. Eventually, given the pressures of the time, she relented and married, probably making everyone in her family breathe a sigh of relief. But the union never producing a child leads me to believe she rarely, if ever, relented to consummation.

*Confucianism and Chinese Buddhism (the third is Taoism which is less concerned with this).

(image description: a drawing from Sam Miggs's Wonder Women. It is a simple drawing of Wang performing her eclipse experiment. End ID.)

#asexual #lgbtq #queer #ace #history #scientists #authors #mathematicians #asia #china #18th century

24 notes · View notes