#capital you to 1. mark importance 2. mark politeness 3. mark insistence | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

antoine-roquentin · 5 years

Link

I think one of the major problems with the modern left is a focus on cultural analysis instead of economics. When I say culture I EXPLICITLY DON'T MEAN racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and Indigenous rights/decolonization.

Stupidpol and their ilk are reactionaries and should be treated as such. What I'm talking about is the focus on things like analyzing TV shows or picking over the latest issues of the NYT op-ed column, the sort a caricatures you see on Chapo.

Zizek is emblematic of this syndrome. He's a theorist of ideology, a film critic, a Lacanian psychoanalyst and complete reactionary on gender and immigration issues, and he's widely considered to be one of preeminent Marxist scholars alive. And, and this is important, Zizek does fuck all actual economic material analysis. Mark Fisher, who was an excellent Marxist theorist, covers almost exactly the same ground from a different perspective, and you can repeat this across academia.

Inside academia the problem has gotten so bad that the best economic analysis is being carried out by the fucking post-humanists. Take, for example, Anna Tsing's excellent Supply Chains and the Human Condition. Tsing is a brilliant theorist but she spends most of her time writing about multi-species interactions between humans and mushrooms. Carbon Democracy, one of the best theories of the carbon economy ever written, is by a left-Foucaldian.

There are some exceptions to this, Andreas Malm's Carbon Capital is wonderful, Riot Strike Riot is great and I have to mention the group I call The Other Chicago School, Endnotes, whose infrequent analysis is a breath of fresh air. But Endnotes isn't particularly well read even inside the academy, which takes back outside the ivory tower in the dismal mess that is what passes for popular left "economics."

I want to go back to Occupy for a second because what happened there is indicative of the problem. Occupy, at least technically, actually had a theory of economics that went beyond "neoliberalism bad, welfare state good." And it's really not as bad as its critics have since accused it of being. Graeber's "the 1% meme" was supposed to be part of an MMT analysis of the ability of banks to create money out of nothing, see Richard A. Werner. The theory then goes with the ability to create money out of nothing the question becomes who should actually have that power. The 1% are the people who control that power and use that it to gain wealth and their wealth to gain power.

This is essentially what happened after 2008 and it relates to an entire analysis of the politics of debt and war that's captured really well in the last chapter of Debt, The First 5000 Years, drawing from Hudson's excellent Super Imperialism. Again, not bad, and not the disaster it became in Liberal hands. But note two things:

1, His work is intentionally detached from the production process- Graeber uses a value theory of labor about the social reproduction of human beings. That theory is really interesting and I'll leave a link to his It is Value that Brings Universes into Being here. But Graeber is an anthropologist, not an economist, and his recent work is mostly composed of a set of theories of bureaucracy.

And, don't get me wrong, I really like Utopia of Rules and Bullshit Jobs, and it's possible to build an economic theory out of them, but almost no one actually does. And this gets us back to my second point about Occupy and economics.

2, Not a single other person I have ever met, including people who were in Occupy, have ever actually heard the theory behind the 1%. Part of this has to do with Graeber’s rather admirable desire to not become an intellectual vanguardist. But, I cannot overemphasize how much of this is a result of the left's retreat into an analysis of consumerism instead of capitalism and its further insistence that the entire fucking global economy can be explained by chapters 1-3 of Capital and this just isn't a "read more theory" rant, it's not like reading the rest of Capital is going to help you here. But even that's better than what's actually happened, which is people reading Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and the Communist Manifesto and trying to derive economic theory from that, or getting lost in a Gramscian or psychoanalytic miasma trying to explain why revolution didn't happen. But we can't keep fucking doing this.

If we do we're just going to keep getting stuck in endless fucking inane arguments, one of which is about which countries are Imperialist or not based on trying to read the minds of world leaders, and the other of which is a bunch of racists trying to argue that they're actually "class-first" Marxists and that if we don't say slurs and be mean to disabled people we're going to lose the "real working class," which is somehow composed only of construction workers banging steel bars.

So let's stop letting them do that. One of the reasons Supply Chains and the Human Condition is so great is that it describes how the performance of gender and racial roles creates the self super-exploitation at the heart of global capitalism. Race and gender cannot be ignored in favor of some kind of "class-first" faux-leftist bullshit. THEY ARE LITERALLY THE DRIVER OF CAPITAL ACCUMULATION.

Most of the global supply chain has been transformed into entrepreneurs and wannabe entrepreneurs (see the countless accounts of Chinese garment factory workers who dream of getting into the fashion industry and who attempt to supplement their meager income by setting up stalls in local marketplaces to sell watches and clothes).

The fact that global supply chains have reverted to the kind of small family firms that Marx and Engels thought would disappear is a MASSIVE problem for any kind of global workers movement, because it means that the normal wage relation that is supposed to form the basis of the proletariat isn't actually the governing social experience of a large swath of what should be the proletariat, either because they're the owners of small firms contracted by larger firms like Nike who would, in an older period of capitalism, have just been workers or because the people who work for those firms are incapable of actually demanding wage increases from the capitalists because they're separated by a layer from the firms who control real capital, and thus are essentially unable to make the kind of wage demands that would normally constitute class consciousness because the contractors they work for really don't have any money. These contractors are in no way independent.

Multinational corporations set everything from their buying prices to their labor conditions to what their workers say to lie to labor inspectors. The effect of replacing much of the proletariat with micro-entrepreneurs is devastating.

The class-for-itself that's supposed to serve as the basis of social revolution has decomposed entirely. Endnotes has a great analysis of how this happened covering more time, but the unified working class is dead. In its place have come a series of incoherent struggles: The Arab Spring, the Movement of the Squares, the current wave of revolutions and riots stretching from Sudan to Peru to Puerto Rico- all of them share an economic basis translated into demands on the state. We see housing struggles, anti-police riots, occupations, climate strikes, and a thousand other forms of struggle that don't seem to cohere into a traditional social revolution and WE HAVE NO ANSWER.

I don't have one either, but we're not going to get out of this mess by trying to read the tea leaves of the CCP or analyzing how Endgame is the ruling class inculcating us into accepting Malthusian Ecofascism.

I want to emphasize YOU DON'T NEED TO SHARE MY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS to develop one, I'm obviously wrong on a lot of things and so is everyone else. The point is that we need to start somewhere.

There are other benefits to reading economics stuff even if it can be boring sometimes, like being able to dunk on nerd shitlibs and reactionaries who do the "take Econ-101" meme by being able to prove that their entire discipline is bunk. Steve Keen's Debunking Economics is absolutely hilarious for this, he literally proves that perfect competition relies on the same math that you use to "prove" that the earth is flat.

Or learning that the notion that markets distribute goods optimally is based on the assumption that what is basically a form of fucking state socialism exists, and that the supply demand curve is fucking bullshit. Here's a page from Debunking Economics looking at the socialism claim, it fucking rules, and it's the result of the fact that neo-classical economics and central planning were developed together. Kantorovich and Koopmans shared a Nobel Prize.

But wait, there's more! We can PROVE that THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS DOESN'T EXIST. Do you have any idea how hard you can own libs with facts and logic if you can demonstrate that THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS DOESN'T EXIST?

But seriously, if you go outside of the Marxist tradition there are all sorts of fun and useful things you can find in post-Keyensian circles and so on and so forth. I'm a huge fan of Karen Ho's Liquidated, an Ethnography of Wall Street/Liquidated_%20An%20Ethnography%20of%20Wall%20Street%20-%20Karen%20Ho.pdf) which looks at how the people at banks and investment firms actually behave and, oh boy, is it bad news (they're literally incapable of making long-term decisions which is wonderful in the face of climate change).

Oh, and also, all of the bankers are essentially indoctrinated into thinking they're the smartest people in the world, so that's fun.

This may sound like I'm shitting on Marxism, and I sort of am, but there's Marxist stuff coming out that I absolutely love! @chuangcn is a good example of what I think the benchmark for leftist economics and historical analysis should be.

Chuang responded to the call put out by Endnotes to cut "The Red Thread of History," or essentially to stop fucking arguing about 1917, 1936, 1968 and so forth and look at material conditions instead of trying to find our favorite faction and accuse literally everyone else of betraying the revolution, and then imagining what we would have done in their shoes. The present is different from the past and we need to organize for this economic and social reality, not 1917's.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBvBIVhXYAYlVfj.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBvBM3CXoAA7Qmx.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBvBP0SWkAEl6OX.jpg

Chuang produced an incredibly statically and sociologically detailed account of the Chinese socialist period in issue 1 and the transition to capitalism in the soon to be put online issue 2 that focuses on shifts in production and investment and shifts in China's class-structure and how urban workers, peasants, factory mangers, technicians, and cadre members reacted to those movements and shaped each others decisions and mobilizations. They largely avoid discussions of factional battles of the upper level of the CCP, which dominate liberal and communist accounts of the period and produce, in supposed communists from David Harvey to Ajit Singh, a Great Man theory of history.

Instead, they trace how strikes and peasant protests shaped the CCP's decision making and how the choices of people like Mao and Deng Xiaoping were limited by material conditions, in this case by their production bottleneck.

What's great about Chuang is that their work is so rich in sociological detail that you don't need to agree with them at all about what communism is and so on for their account to be useful, and they force us to think about the world from the perspective of competing classes bound by economic reality, instead of the black-and-white "good state/bad state," "good ruler/bad ruler," discourse that dominates our understanding of both imperialism and the global economy.

I'm just going to end this with a TL;DR: Cut the read thread of history and stop fucking arguing about 1917, use economic theory to dunk on Stupidpol and shitlibs. When you talk about "material conditions" talk about the production process, supply chains, capital movements and so on, not which states are good and bad (the bourgeoisie is a global class friends), recognize that strategies need to be built around current economic and social conditions, WHICH ARE INSEPARABLE FROM RACE AND GENDER, climate change is more complicated than the 100 companies meme (I only touched on this but please read Fossil Capital and Carbon Democracy), and in general try to learn more about different schools of economics and social theory, I swear reading something that wasn't written in 1848 isn't going to kill you.

599 notes · View notes

orbemnews · 4 years

Link

Biden’s Task: Overhaul the Economy, as Fast as Possible WASHINGTON — After a two-month, $2 trillion sprint to pass aid for an economy still hobbled by the coronavirus pandemic, President Biden is finally set to detail his “Build Back Better” agenda next week in Pittsburgh. Its name, carried over from the 2020 campaign, has become a catchall phrase that cabinet officials and junior aides use to describe all manner of plans to overhaul American capitalism. In the weeks ahead, the president’s strategic choices will show the country what “building” really means, to him. Mr. Biden’s forthcoming proposals, which aides and documents suggest could cost as much as $4 trillion over the next decade, are a pivot to the core economic agenda he campaigned on: rebuilding infrastructure, revitalizing America’s competitiveness in emerging industries and reducing the barriers that hold back men of color and women in the workplace. Mr. Biden will have the benefit of momentum in pushing them, and of a political moment that seems ripe for another large spending bill. Democrats are riding high on the public approval ratings for their coronavirus relief bill across the country. Even the most conservative Democrats in the Senate are eager to spend big again to address infrastructure concerns that have festered for a decade, and to combat widened income inequality that has helped fuel the rise of populist politicians in both parties. A year of protests over racial justice, and an early administration focus on racial equity, has energized liberal lawmakers to move aggressively to close racial opportunity gaps in the economy. And across party lines in Washington, warnings over increased federal deficits have quieted, as lawmakers voted repeatedly over the past year to spend trillions of dollars to sustain the economy through crisis. Still, Mr. Biden’s next economic task will be much more difficult than his relief bill, which sailed through the House and Senate with only Democratic votes. Moderate Democrats are more insistent this time that the process engage Republicans, and that at least some of the spending be paid for with tax increases that could add up to trillions of dollars. Conservatives have already lined up to reject Mr. Biden’s plans to force corporations and the rich to pay more to fund the programs. In navigating those obstacles, Mr. Biden faces a strategic dilemma: how to pass as much of his potentially transformative agenda, as quickly as possible, through the narrow window afforded him by Democrats’ thin margins in the House and Senate. Mr. Biden’s team has recommended that he split his efforts between two bills, totaling $3 trillion in new spending and up to $1 trillion more in tax breaks, seeing that as a way to ensure that at least part of his agenda makes it through Congress. Some allies wonder whether the president is willing to compromise the “human” half of his spending priorities — his plans to invest in educational access and programs to lift women in the work force, including help with care for children and aging parents — to secure what would be the most expensive federal investment ever in roads, bridges, public power and the building blocks of a low-carbon energy economy. Liberal economists stress that if he wants to truly upgrade the economy, Mr. Biden needs both. “This is actually a really exciting and important moment, in terms of the compelling argument for expanding our concept of infrastructure to include human capital — the idea that strengthening both the work force and the access around care is crucial,” said Thea Lee, the president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington. “There is an old-fashioned way of thinking,” she said, “which is the only thing that counts as an investment in the future is tangible, a structure that you can pick up or kick.” Mr. Biden is a politician who loves to build big, tangible things, preferably assembled by well-paid, blue-collar union members. In the waning days of his vice presidency, in 2016, he toured the Mississippi River to celebrate projects built with money from an $800 billion economic stimulus bill that had passed seven years before. He stopped at a port, a bus and train terminal, and a rail yard where he declared, “I’m a railroad guy.” In his campaign, he spoke frequently of the need to build more in the United States to improve the economy and better compete with international rivals like China in a host of emerging industries like fifth-generation cellular networks, known as 5G, and advanced battery manufacturing. Like President Donald J. Trump before him, he has set ambitious goals to reverse a decades-long slide in American factory employment, pledging to create at least five million new jobs in manufacturing and innovation. Aides say he is particularly fond of repeating his pledge to install 500,000 electric-car charging stations across the country. The “Build Back Better” plan that his economic advisers recommended Mr. Biden pursue this week would lead with those physical investments: a combination of spending and tax incentives on traditional infrastructure, high-growth industry cultivation and carbon-reducing energy investment that documents suggest could top $2 trillion. But Mr. Biden’s economic advisers emphasize that the economy needs more than construction to increase productivity and achieve the president’s goals. They argue that it also needs investments in education, like universal prekindergarten and free community college, and in efforts to relieve the burdens of caring for family that often hamper working women. Those initiatives are included in the second half of the proposal that aides took to Mr. Biden this week, along with extensions of newly expanded tax credits meant to fight poverty. On Wednesday, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Cecilia Rouse, and another of the council’s members, Heather Boushey, said initiatives like providing paid leave and reducing child care costs are critical pieces of building an economy where women can work and earn more. Frequently Asked Questions About the New Stimulus Package How big are the stimulus payments in the bill, and who is eligible? The stimulus payments would be $1,400 for most recipients. Those who are eligible would also receive an identical payment for each of their children. To qualify for the full $1,400, a single person would need an adjusted gross income of $75,000 or below. For heads of household, adjusted gross income would need to be $112,500 or below, and for married couples filing jointly that number would need to be $150,000 or below. To be eligible for a payment, a person must have a Social Security number. Read more. What would the relief bill do about health insurance? Buying insurance through the government program known as COBRA would temporarily become a lot cheaper. COBRA, for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, generally lets someone who loses a job buy coverage via the former employer. But it’s expensive: Under normal circumstances, a person may have to pay at least 102 percent of the cost of the premium. Under the relief bill, the government would pay the entire COBRA premium from April 1 through Sept. 30. A person who qualified for new, employer-based health insurance someplace else before Sept. 30 would lose eligibility for the no-cost coverage. And someone who left a job voluntarily would not be eligible, either. Read more What would the bill change about the child and dependent care tax credit? This credit, which helps working families offset the cost of care for children under 13 and other dependents, would be significantly expanded for a single year. More people would be eligible, and many recipients would get a bigger break. The bill would also make the credit fully refundable, which means you could collect the money as a refund even if your tax bill was zero. “That will be helpful to people at the lower end” of the income scale, said Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst at Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. Read more. What student loan changes are included in the bill? There would be a big one for people who already have debt. You wouldn’t have to pay income taxes on forgiven debt if you qualify for loan forgiveness or cancellation — for example, if you’ve been in an income-driven repayment plan for the requisite number of years, if your school defrauded you or if Congress or the president wipes away $10,000 of debt for large numbers of people. This would be the case for debt forgiven between Jan. 1, 2021, and the end of 2025. Read more. What would the bill do to help people with housing? The bill would provide billions of dollars in rental and utility assistance to people who are struggling and in danger of being evicted from their homes. About $27 billion would go toward emergency rental assistance. The vast majority of it would replenish the so-called Coronavirus Relief Fund, created by the CARES Act and distributed through state, local and tribal governments, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. That’s on top of the $25 billion in assistance provided by the relief package passed in December. To receive financial assistance — which could be used for rent, utilities and other housing expenses — households would have to meet several conditions. Household income could not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, at least one household member must be at risk of homelessness or housing instability, and individuals would have to qualify for unemployment benefits or have experienced financial hardship (directly or indirectly) because of the pandemic. Assistance could be provided for up to 18 months, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Lower-income families that have been unemployed for three months or more would be given priority for assistance. Read more. “This next package is really about investing in our future and making the kind of smart investments that we know will increase growth,” Ms. Rouse said at a White House news briefing. “And we want that growth to be widely shared.” “These aren’t simply women’s issues,” she said. “They affect all families, the ability of our economy to recover and our nation’s competitiveness.” Inside the administration, aides disagree on the likelihood that both halves of the plan — the physical piece and the human piece — could pass Congress this year. Some see hope that Republicans, spurred by the business community, could join an effort with Democrats to muster 60 votes to pass a bill that spends heavily on roads, bridges, water systems and other traditional infrastructure. Some Democrats, like Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a key swing vote, have insisted that Republicans be involved in the effort. But most Democrats in and outside the White House see little chance, if any, of a large bipartisan bill taking shape. They point to early opposition from Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, who has called the proposals a likely “Trojan horse” for tax increases, and whose aides have begun labeling them a “Green New Deal” in disguise, even before Mr. Biden releases the details. Lobbyists following the process closely expect Mr. Biden to allow Senate moderates to effectively test the proposition, giving them a fixed time to line up 10 Republicans behind an ambitious infrastructure bill that would almost certainly need to be financed by something other than the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations that the administration favors. At the same time, Democratic leaders will most likely prepare to move at least one part of Mr. Biden’s plans quickly through the budget reconciliation process, which allows senators to skirt the filibuster and pass legislation with a bare majority, as they did for the coronavirus relief bill. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Finance Committee, said in an interview that he is drawing up legislative text for tax increases to fund the Biden spending: “I’m going to start rolling out specific proposals so that people can have ideas about how they might proceed,” he said. Moving on a party-line basis could leave all or most of the “human” programs behind, some in the administration fear. But analysts in Washington suggest many of them could eventually be rolled into an epic, single bill, perhaps costing $3 trillion and offset in part by tax increases on corporations and the rich, which would pass with only Democratic votes. The idea, said Jon Lieber, a former aide to Mr. McConnell who is now managing director, United States, for the Eurasia Group in Washington, is that by moving fast and aggressively, Mr. Biden might be able to strong-arm even reluctant Democrats, who see their political fates tied to the continuing success of the administration in the polls. The odds of a large bill passing this year, Mr. Lieber said, are “very, very, very, very good. What would stop them?” Source link Orbem News #Bidens #Economy #Fast #Overhaul #Task

0 notes

slackbastard · 6 years

Text

Antifa is liberalism, feminism is cancer, and I’m a monkey’s uncle

My first reaction on reading Marianne Garneau's essay 'Antifa is liberalism' (Ritual, April 11, 2018) was: lolwut. The second was to be reminded of Ward Churchill's essay 'Pacifism As Pathology': in particular, his being at pains to distinguish between, on the one hand, examining pacifism as pathology and, on the other, arguing in favour of the notion that pacifism is pathology. [1] On further reflection -- and leaving aside the fact that I think the weaknesses in Garneau's claims are reasonably apparent and that similar kinds of arguments have been made previously -- I thought I may as well write a more considered response. [2]

To begin with, it's obviously useful to examine the meaning both of antifa and of fascism. While 'fascism' is left undefined and largely unexamined, for Garneau 'antifa', as well as being a species of liberalism, is also a political strategy: 'direct physical and verbal confrontation with extreme right groups, in person and online'. [3] This strategy, they argue, has radical pretensions which 'ironically' places it at odds with liberalism (the strategy of direct confrontation with extreme right groups violates liberal principles of freedom of speech and assembly). Nonetheless, antifa is liberal(ism) in the sense that it's founded upon a liberal understanding of society as 'a collection of individuals' and -- glossing Hobbes, Locke and Rawls -- 'society is simply an amalgamation of the private preferences and behaviors of private citizens'. This liberal conception of society is opposed to one which 'looks at how society is structured, and to whose benefit' and takes 'stock of societal institutions and their functioning, to examine how this deploys relationships of power between different social groups'. This perspective, argues Garneau, is critical to understanding contemporary society, and is absent from the 'antifa' worldview. In summary, 'antifa is liberalism' because the underlying philosophical and political assumptions which govern its practice are liberal.

Is this an accurate description? Does antifa 'draw our attention away from systemic problems and towards individual behavior'? Does it individualise racism and fail to understand or to address its systemic nature? Does it devote too much attention to countering the Alt-Right on college campuses and 'outing' closeted fascists who occupy public office? Maybe; maybe not: it's difficult to know given that the author doesn't examine in any detail any particular anti-fascist group or project, or identify the liberal villain lurking at the heart of their praxis. By my reckoning, however, I don't think that the argument can be sustained, at least not if the handful of longer-term antifa projects in the US -- which list includes NYC Antifa, Rose City Antifa, and The TORCH Network -- are the object of scrutiny. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is the case, that the collectives which have assembled around these projects are: armed with a structural analysis of racism, fascism and white supremacy; committed to locating contemporary political developments within their social and historical contexts and, by doing so, relating fascism and the far-right to broader social structures; prepared to acknowledge the limitations of antifa as a revolutionary and liberatory praxis; nevertheless insistent on taking fascism seriously, and acting in order to contains its growth.

I would further suggest that understanding contemporary anti-fascism in the United States, North America and elsewhere requires some understanding of its history. [4] And while the definitive account of this history is yet to be written, there are traces, and these traces tend to undermine Garneau's argument. Take, for example, the emergence of 'Anti-Racist Action' in the late 1980s. In its origins, it involved a small group of young people in Minneapolis deciding to fight back against the attempted infiltration of the punk and skinhead community by neo-Nazi and white supremacist elements. This project eventually expanded to include folks in other cities and from other cultural and political communities. [5] In any event, the 'existential' nature of this threat was not abstract but concrete -- as is often the case when there's an increase in fascist political activity. This is an important point which I think is missing from Garneau's account.

To return to the subject of the relationship between anti-fascism, liberalism and radical politics, on one level I'm not overly-concerned if anti-fascism is understood as being one or the other: the more pressing question is 'is it effective'? To answer this question requires an understanding of the goals of anti-fascism beyond 'opposing fascism'. One of the chief complaints 'Antifa is liberalism' makes has to do with the inefficacy of antifa. Punching nazis in the face, disrupting speeches by Alt-Right demagogues and exposing neo-Nazi and white supremacist individuals in uniform and in public office, we are informed, do not bring about the destruction of systemic forms of race- and class-based domination and exploitation, transform college campuses into welcoming spaces for trans and/or undocumented students, or counter state policies that impoverish and marginalise the general population. Such claims are not new, and this line of argument is not unique. [6] In this context, these supposed failures could more simply be read as the product of a misunderstanding of the goals of anti-fascism. If so, then a more relevant question for those committed to egalitarian social change would be: to what extent does anti-fascism contribute to or retard the development of such a political project? In which context, I think the following is apt:

To theorize is simply to try to understand what we are doing. We are all theorists whenever we honestly discuss what has happened, distinguish between the significant and the irrelevant, see through fallacious explanations, recognize what worked and what didn’t, consider how something might be done better next time. Radical theorizing is simply talking or writing to more people about more general issues in more abstract (i.e. more widely applicable) terms. Even those who claim to reject theory theorize — they merely do so more unconsciously and capriciously, and thus more inaccurately.

Theory without particulars is empty, but particulars without theory are blind. Practice tests theory, but theory also inspires new practice.

Radical theory has nothing to respect and nothing to lose. It criticizes itself along with everything else. It is not a doctrine to be accepted on faith, but a tentative generalization that people must constantly test and correct for themselves, a practical simplification indispensable for dealing with the complexities of reality.

But hopefully not an oversimplification. Any theory can turn into an ideology, become rigidified into a dogma, be twisted to hierarchical ends. A sophisticated ideology may be relatively accurate in certain respects; what differentiates it from theory is that it lacks a dynamic relation to practice. Theory is when you have ideas; ideology is when ideas have you. “Seek simplicity, and distrust it.”

One final point.

Garneau claims that: 'In general, antifa treats white supremacy as a matter of inner beliefs rather than of the structure of society that grants arbitrary privilege to white people, ensures the white working class’s compliance with the capitalist system of exploitation, and further represses and disciplines the part of the class that isn’t white.' I don't think this is correct. On the one hand, many who involve themselves in anti-fascist organising do so from a left perspective which is critical of the role of racism in dividing workers and derailing class struggle, and whose opposition to fascism and the far right is partly derived from a commitment to furthering this struggle. On the other hand, the understanding of white supremacy and its political function is in general, I would suggest, more along the lines of that advanced by antifa blogs such as Three Way Fight:

Three Way Fight is a blog that promotes revolutionary anti-fascist analysis, strategy, and activism. Unlike liberal anti-fascists, we believe that "defending democracy" is an illusion, as long as that "democracy" is based on a socio-economic order that exploits and oppresses human beings. Global capitalism and the related structures of patriarchy, heterosexism, racial and national oppression represent the main source of violence and human suffering in the world today. Far right supremacism and terrorism grow out of this system and cannot be eradicated as long as it remains in place.

At the same time, unlike many on the revolutionary left, we believe that fascists and other far rightists aren't simply tools of the ruling class. They can also form an autonomous political force that clashes with the established order in real ways, or even seeks to overthrow global capitalism and replace it with a radically different oppressive system. We believe the greatest threat from fascism in this period is its ability to exploit popular grievances and its potential to rally mass support away from any liberatory anti-capitalist vision.

Perhaps the chief difference in perspectives here is the considered belief that 'fascism' is not reducible to the political effect of a social structure; that individuals, properly organised, can in fact assume the status of a 'vested institutional interest'. As such, fascism poses a threat to the 'organs of working class power' that Garneau and other leftists would like to develop, one which is not reducible to and should not be mistaken for the 'Confederate flag-waving, hate-spewing racists' that Garneau believes constitutes the limits of antifa understanding, and a threat which requires a more serious and nuanced analysis than on offer in Ritual. In any case, the last word belongs to Mark Bray:

The only long-term solution to the fascist menace is to undermine its pillars of strength in society grounded not only in white supremacy but also in ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many others. This long-term goal points to the tensions that exist in defining anti-fascism, because at a certain point destroying fascism is really about promoting a revolutionary socialist alternative (in my opinion one that is antiauthoritarian and nonhierarchical) to a world of crisis, poverty, famine, and war that breeds fascist reaction ...

Undoubtedly street blockades and other forms of confrontational opposition can be very useful against any political opponent, but once far-right formations have manged to broadcast their xenophobic, dystopian platforms, it is incumbent upon us to drown the out with even better alternatives to the austerity and incompetence of the governing parties of the Right and Left.

On its own, militant anti-fascism is necessary but not sufficient to build a new world in the shell of the old.

[1] See also : This Nonviolent Stuff′ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, Charles E. Cobb, Duke University Press, 2015; The Failure of Nonviolence, Peter Gelderloos, Left Bank Books, 2015; ‘How nonviolence is misrepresented’, Brian Martin (Gandhi Marg, Vol.30, No.2, July-September 2008). [2] See, for example, 'Fascism/Antifascism' by Jean Barrot (Gilles Dauvé) and numerous other, related materials on libcom. [3] On fascism in the US, see : 'Neofascism in the White House', John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review, Vol.68, No.11, April 2017 ('Not only a new administration, but a new ideology has now taken up residence at the White House: neofascism. It resembles in certain ways the classical fascism of Italy and Germany in the 1920s and ’30s, but with historically distinct features specific to the political economy and culture of the United States in the opening decades of the twenty-first century'). [4] Recent titles of relevance include: Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, Mark Bray, Melville House, 2017 and Militant Anti-Fascism: A Hundred Years of Resistance, Mala Testa, AK Press, 2015. See also : Beating The Fascists: The Untold Story of Anti-Fascist Action, Freedom Press, 2012; 'Red Action – Left Wing Political Pariah: Some Observations Regarding Ideological Apostasy and the Discourse of Proletarian Resistance', Mark Hayes (published as Chapter 12 in Against the Grain: The British far left from 1956, Evan Smith and Matthew Worley, eds, Manchester University Press, 2014). Two journal articles of particular relevance are ''A Good Deal of Disorder' or The Anarchists & Anti-Fascism In The UK', M. Testa, Anarchist Studies, Vol.25, No.2, 2017 [PDF] and 'Anti-Fascism and Prefigurative Ethics', Benjamin Franks, Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action, Vol.8, No.1, Summer 2014 [PDF]. [5] See : Solecast 44 w/ Mic Crenshaw on The Anti-Racist Action Network & Radical Politics (June 15, 2017). Mic's account of the origins of ARA, and his reflections on the differences between anti-fascist organising then and now, can also be usefully read alongside ‘How British Police Shut Down the Original UK Antifa’ (James Poulter, Vice, March 12, 2018). [6] See : On Contact: Antifa with Mark Bray (RT America, September 30, 2017). BRAY: Well you know anti-fascists are not trying to organize an armed uprising; they're trying to stop small- and medium-sized fascist groups before they advance ... See also : ‘The Cult of Violence Always Kills the Left’, Chris Hedges, truthdig, April 16, 2018.

#antifa #liberalism #antifaisliberalism

3 notes · View notes

trpsluminous · 5 years

Text

I was standing outside of Jabal Al-Qalaa – the highest vantage point to the rolling hilled city of Amman. Open your eyes here and in the heart of the city below, you’d see the large buff-colored stones of the roman theatre, look to your right and standing tall are the formidable pillars of the temple of Hercules, close your eyes and you’d hear the muezzin’s calls to prayer reverberating through the countless minarets of the city.

Inhabited by humans since the Paleolethic period, the country of Jordan was occupied by the Babylonian and Mesopotamian empires, the Nabateans, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Ottoman; at various points in its history. All that have ruled here have left their distinctive mark on the country’s culture, design and architecture and this has culminated in one the most harmonious juxtapositions of the modern era.

Out trip to Jordan commenced with Amman as our port of entry. While being the capital of Jordan, it is the political, cultural and commercial centre and of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Prior to our trip, we had purchased a Jordan pass which is essentially a super pass for your stay in Jordan – it not only provides entry to many tourist sites but also includes a visitor visa for the adults. As for the children’s visas, it was a visa on arrival, the fees can be paid through a credit card at the airport immigration counter; rented a car at the airport and drove to our hotel.

A view from the window of our room

Day 1 – After breakfast we visited the old town. The narrow streets of the old town were clogged with selfie-snapping tourists and there was not a corner spared. We made our way through the most populous city in Jordan and reached King Faisal street in the heart of the downtown; here tucked away in a very unassuming by lane is perhaps the most famous name in Amman – the Hashem Restaurant. One of the oldest restaurants and an indisputable icon of Amman; it is a very humble street side joint but the best meal of Falafel, Hummus and Mint tea you’d ever treat yourself to.

After the meal we started walking towards the Roman Theatre. On the way we stopped at an Arabic sweet shop called the Habbineh – the kunafa and the baklava here are a must.

The Roman Theatre

Built into a hillside, the 6000 seat theatre was constructed during the time of the Roman emperor Antonius Pius (138-161 CE) and was oriented north to keep sun off the spectators.

The columns outside the Roman Theatre

Center stage

It is steep

The roman theatre with its steep seating has an excellent acoustics design (You can stand at the center of the stage and your voice will echo. The person sitting on top of the last row would be able to hear you clearly). It has an unbeatable vantage from the higher seats (the steps leading to the top are steep and the climb is tiresome but worth the effort). It is not happenstance that the theatre is hugely popular for hosting host various events even today.

A view from the top

The top seats of the amphitheatre were the revered ones. As against being closest to the performances, the royalty and other important dignitaries would sit in the top rows to get an unobstructed view of the performances, not to mention the incredible acoustics.

After visiting the roman theatre, we visited one of the popular malls in the city – the Abdali Mall. We then returned to our hotel and called it a day – a special mention for our hotel, the Amman Marriott, an exceptional property with superlative dining options.

The wonderful Amman Mariott

Day 2:

Following breakfast we strolled through the old town again. Over the years, it has managed to retain its character reminiscent of an old Arabic Bazaar; many shops, however, have now been replaced by currency exchanges. The city also has its fair share of museums and art galleries. Another exquisite offering are the cafes here; the city is adorned with exquisite cafes. After a quick coffee at the Jafra Cafe we made a mandatory pit stop at the ice cream place outside the cafe and were on our way to the Amman Citadel.

The Amman Citadel

Atop the highest of the seven hills of the city is the Amman Citadel. It houses the ruins of the Temple of Hercules – the formidable towers of which are visible from almost any corner of Amman. Here, at the Citadel, you can get a bird’s eye view of the dramatic contrast in the architecture of the city below. It is absolutely mesmerising.

The Temple of Hercules

The Roman Theatre

Serious talk! with a view

The entire area is surrounded by a 1,700 feet long wall which has been here since the bronze and iron ages. There’s plenty to see here, but the most striking are the temple of Hercules and the Ummayad palace.

A view of the stone towers at sunset

After out visit to the Citadel , we went to one of the roof top restaurants. Amman has its surplus of quality roof top restaurants with breathtaking views of the the city that looks insistently graceful during the day time and surreal when illuminated under the night skies.

After dinner, we returned to our hotel and called it a day.

Stay with us to the dead sea

Private: Across Jordan – Amman (Days 1-3) I was standing outside of Jabal Al-Qalaa - the highest vantage point to the rolling hilled city of Amman.

0 notes

bigyack-com · 5 years

Text

DealBook: Exclusive Details on Michael Bloomberg’s Plan to Rein in Wall Street

Good morning. (Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.)

Bloomberg leans left and takes aim at Wall Street

Exclusive: We’re the first to report Mike Bloomberg’s proposals for changing how the financial industry is regulated, which he is planning to announce this morning. The plan features ideas that wouldn’t be out of place for Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.Among Mr. Bloomberg’s proposals:• A financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent• Toughening banking regulations like the Volcker Rule and forcing lenders to hold more in reserve against losses• Having the Justice Department create a dedicated team to fight corporate crime and “encouraging prosecutors to pursue individuals, not only corporations, for infractions”• Merging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac• Strengthening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and “expanding its jurisdiction to include auto lending and credit reporting”• Automatically enrolling borrowers of student loans into income-based repayment schemes and capping paymentsMany of the proposals are a reversal from Mr. Bloomberg’s previous stance on financial regulation. In 2011, he complained that Democrats were taking “punitive actions” against Wall Street that could harm the economy. And comments he made in 2015 linking the financial crisis to the end of banks’ so-called redlining practices have drawn fierce criticism in recent days.It’s a sign of how far left Democratic presidential hopefuls feel they need to go to succeed in this year’s primary — even with a multibillion-dollar war chest. Mr. Bloomberg’s financial transactions tax plan is remarkably similar to one that has the backing of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.Progressive critics are likely to argue that it doesn’t go far enough. Many Democrats have also proposed some sort of wealth tax, while Ms. Warren has called for a complete overhaul of the private equity industry and Mr. Sanders wants to break up the big banks.Bloomberg’s campaign insists he isn’t flip-flopping: On the Volcker Rule, for instance, a spokeswoman said: “When it was introduced, as now, Mike was skeptical of regulators’ ability to divine traders’ intent.” His new plan would focus “on the outcome of speculative trading — big gains and losses — rather than on traders’ intent.”We’ll have more soon on nytimes.com/dealbook. Breaking: This morning, Mr. Bloomberg qualified for the Democratic debate in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, the first time he will appear onstage with his rivals for the nomination. ____________________________Today’s DealBook Briefing was written by Andrew Ross Sorkin in New York, and Michael J. de la Merced and Jason Karaian in London.____________________________

Apple cuts sales guidance over coronavirus

The iPhone maker was one of the first big companies to reveal how the coronavirus outbreak was affecting its business. The company said yesterday that “a slower return to normal conditions than we had anticipated” forced it to scrap its guidance for revenue this quarter.There is more to come. China’s central position in global supply chains — and as a huge market in itself — means that the outbreak could ripple through company’s financials for months.Good luck, analysts! The virus outbreak’s negative but uncertain effects are coming up often in earnings calls: “Coronavirus” has been cited in 170 investor presentations by S&P 500 companies in the past month, according to a search of transcripts in S&P Capital IQ. Apple’s forecast for future profits was already more vague than usual “due to the greater uncertainty,” Tim Cook, its C.E.O., said last month.Taking a different approach, Walmart said this morning that its forecast for the current financial year didn’t take into account any potential effects of the virus outbreak.

HSBC makes ‘ruthless’ cuts in U.S. and Europe

The London-based bank said this morning that it planned to cut about 35,000 jobs over the next three years as it retreats from the West to focus more on Asia.“We are intending to exit a lot of domestically focused customers in Europe and the U.S. on the global banking side,” Ewen Stevenson, the bank’s C.F.O., told Bloomberg Television. He said the lender would make “surgical and ruthless” cuts to underperforming businesses.The plan is to accelerate investment in its Asian and Middle Eastern businesses, which already generate nearly half of its revenue. That’s the strategy that Standard Chartered, another London-based, Asia-focused bank, has followed.The initiative may not be enough. Shares in HSBC dropped 3 percent this morning. Alan Higgins, the chief investment officer of Coutts & Company, told Bloomberg that the strategy was “on the conservative side.”

Jeff Bezos pledges $10 billion on climate change

The Amazon chief has announced his biggest charitable donation to date, a fund to study and fight climate change, Karen Weise of the NYT writes.Mr. Bezos is a latecomer to large-scale charitable giving, starting in 2018 with a $2 billion program to combat homelessness created with his then-wife, MacKenzie.Amazon has been under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. It revealed in September that it emitted about 44.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2018, making it one of the world’s top 200 emitters. And employees have called on the company to stop providing services to oil and gas industries.“One hand cannot give what the other is taking away,” said Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, a group of workers protesting the company’s environmental practices.

Europe’s venture capitalists are getting serious

Atomico said this morning that it had raised Europe’s largest-ever independent tech venture fund, worth $820 million. The London-based venture capital firm’s founder, Niklas Zennstrom, told Michael in an interview that it was a sign of how the European start-up industry is coming into its own.There are now 99 “unicorns” — VC-backed start-ups worth at least $1 billion — in Europe, compared with 22 five years ago. “Companies are taking on bigger challenges, and there’s more ambition and experience,” Mr. Zennstrom said.That enabled Atomico to raise more money for its fifth fund than the $750 million it had originally planned. Among the investors in this fund are founders and early employees of Atomico-backed companies like Spotify, the payments company Klarna and the game maker Supercell. Mr. Zennstrom himself is a Swedish billionaire who co-founded Skype.But Mr. Zennstrom sees hurdles ahead:• Valuation multiples for European start-ups aren’t as high as those for U.S. companies. (There are twice as many V.C.-backed unicorns in the U.S., according to PwC.) Even so, Mr. Zennstrom said that unlike their American rivals, European start-ups were more focused on creating businesses that can become profitable.• Although Europe has plenty of gifted coders, getting them to come to a particular start-up — often in a different country — is a challenge.

Mark Zuckerberg calls for global rules for online content

While on a trip to Europe, the Facebook founder suggested that new rules and standards were needed to promote public trust in tech platforms.“I believe good regulation may hurt Facebook’s business in the near term, but it will be better for everyone, including us, over the long term,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in an FT opinion piece. Facebook also published a white paper with “guidelines for future regulation.”E.U. officials rejected his proposals. “It’s not enough. It’s too slow, it’s too low in terms of responsibility and regulation,” said a European Commissioner. And in response to Mr. Zuckerberg’s opinion piece, George Soros wrote a letter to the FT calling on the C.E.O. to “stop obfuscating the facts by piously arguing for government regulation” and urging him to resign.

The speed read

Deals• Pier 1 Imports filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. (NYT)• Univision is reportedly in talks to sell itself to an investor group for about $10 billion, including debt. (WSJ)• Alstom agreed to buy Bombardier’s train division for up to $6.7 billion to take on China’s CRRC. (Reuters)• Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway sold a third of its stake in Goldman Sachs and a fifth of its shares in Wells Fargo. (Reuters)Politics and policy• The millennial goal of retiring early would be bad news for the Fed if they could manage to do it. (NYT)• Some employees at Oracle are protesting plans by their C.E.O., Larry Ellison, to hold a fund-raiser for President Trump. (Business Insider)Tech• Germany is poised to let Huawei into its 5G wireless network, a blow to the Trump administration’s fight against the Chinese telecom giant. (NYT)• The SoftBank-backed hotel platform Oyo reported a fourfold increase in revenue and a sixfold rise in its annual loss. (Bloomberg)• Palantir revamped its compensation to give employees bonuses in restricted stock, to save cash ahead of a potential I.P.O. (Bloomberg)Best of the rest• BlackRock has become a symbol for anticapitalist fervor in France (NYT)• The N.B.A. commissioner, Adam Silver, said that the league’s rift with China could cost it up to $400 million in lost revenue. (CNBC)• Have global carbon emissions peaked? The short answer is probably not. (Bloomberg)Thanks for reading! We’ll see you tomorrow.We’d love your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected]. Read the full article

0 notes

mastcomm · 5 years

Text

DealBook: Exclusive Details on Michael Bloomberg’s Plan to Rein in Wall Street

Good morning. (Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.)

Bloomberg leans left and takes aim at Wall Street

Among Mr. Bloomberg’s proposals:

• A financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent

• Toughening banking regulations like the Volcker Rule and forcing lenders to hold more in reserve against losses

• Having the Justice Department create a dedicated team to fight corporate crime and “encouraging prosecutors to pursue individuals, not only corporations, for infractions”

• Merging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

• Strengthening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and “expanding its jurisdiction to include auto lending and credit reporting”

• Automatically enrolling borrowers of student loans into income-based repayment schemes and capping payments

Many of the proposals are a reversal from Mr. Bloomberg’s previous stance on financial regulation. In 2011, he complained that Democrats were taking “punitive actions” against Wall Street that could harm the economy. And comments he made in 2015 linking the financial crisis to the end of banks’ so-called redlining practices have drawn fierce criticism in recent days.

It’s a sign of how far left Democratic presidential hopefuls feel they need to go to succeed in this year’s primary — even with a multibillion-dollar war chest. Mr. Bloomberg’s financial transactions tax plan is remarkably similar to one that has the backing of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Progressive critics are likely to argue that it doesn’t go far enough. Many Democrats have also proposed some sort of wealth tax, while Ms. Warren has called for a complete overhaul of the private equity industry and Mr. Sanders wants to break up the big banks.

Bloomberg’s campaign insists he isn’t flip-flopping: On the Volcker Rule, for instance, a spokeswoman said: “When it was introduced, as now, Mike was skeptical of regulators’ ability to divine traders’ intent.” His new plan would focus “on the outcome of speculative trading — big gains and losses — rather than on traders’ intent.”

We’ll have more soon on nytimes.com/dealbook.

Breaking: This morning, Mr. Bloomberg qualified for the Democratic debate in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, the first time he will appear onstage with his rivals for the nomination.

____________________________

Today’s DealBook Briefing was written by Andrew Ross Sorkin in New York, and Michael J. de la Merced and Jason Karaian in London.

____________________________

Apple cuts sales guidance over coronavirus

There is more to come. China’s central position in global supply chains — and as a huge market in itself — means that the outbreak could ripple through company’s financials for months.

Good luck, analysts! The virus outbreak’s negative but uncertain effects are coming up often in earnings calls: “Coronavirus” has been cited in 170 investor presentations by S&P 500 companies in the past month, according to a search of transcripts in S&P Capital IQ. Apple’s forecast for future profits was already more vague than usual “due to the greater uncertainty,” Tim Cook, its C.E.O., said last month.

Taking a different approach, Walmart said this morning that its forecast for the current financial year didn’t take into account any potential effects of the virus outbreak.

HSBC makes ‘ruthless’ cuts in U.S. and Europe

The London-based bank said this morning that it planned to cut about 35,000 jobs over the next three years as it retreats from the West to focus more on Asia.

“We are intending to exit a lot of domestically focused customers in Europe and the U.S. on the global banking side,” Ewen Stevenson, the bank’s C.F.O., told Bloomberg Television. He said the lender would make “surgical and ruthless” cuts to underperforming businesses.

The plan is to accelerate investment in its Asian and Middle Eastern businesses, which already generate nearly half of its revenue. That’s the strategy that Standard Chartered, another London-based, Asia-focused bank, has followed.

The initiative may not be enough. Shares in HSBC dropped 3 percent this morning. Alan Higgins, the chief investment officer of Coutts & Company, told Bloomberg that the strategy was “on the conservative side.”

Jeff Bezos pledges $10 billion on climate change

The Amazon chief has announced his biggest charitable donation to date, a fund to study and fight climate change, Karen Weise of the NYT writes.

Mr. Bezos is a latecomer to large-scale charitable giving, starting in 2018 with a $2 billion program to combat homelessness created with his then-wife, MacKenzie.

Amazon has been under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. It revealed in September that it emitted about 44.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2018, making it one of the world’s top 200 emitters. And employees have called on the company to stop providing services to oil and gas industries.

“One hand cannot give what the other is taking away,” said Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, a group of workers protesting the company’s environmental practices.

Europe’s venture capitalists are getting serious

There are now 99 “unicorns” — VC-backed start-ups worth at least $1 billion — in Europe, compared with 22 five years ago. “Companies are taking on bigger challenges, and there’s more ambition and experience,” Mr. Zennstrom said.

That enabled Atomico to raise more money for its fifth fund than the $750 million it had originally planned. Among the investors in this fund are founders and early employees of Atomico-backed companies like Spotify, the payments company Klarna and the game maker Supercell. Mr. Zennstrom himself is a Swedish billionaire who co-founded Skype.

But Mr. Zennstrom sees hurdles ahead:

• Valuation multiples for European start-ups aren’t as high as those for U.S. companies. (There are twice as many V.C.-backed unicorns in the U.S., according to PwC.) Even so, Mr. Zennstrom said that unlike their American rivals, European start-ups were more focused on creating businesses that can become profitable.

• Although Europe has plenty of gifted coders, getting them to come to a particular start-up — often in a different country — is a challenge.

Mark Zuckerberg calls for global rules for online content

While on a trip to Europe, the Facebook founder suggested that new rules and standards were needed to promote public trust in tech platforms.

“I believe good regulation may hurt Facebook’s business in the near term, but it will be better for everyone, including us, over the long term,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in an FT opinion piece. Facebook also published a white paper with “guidelines for future regulation.”

E.U. officials rejected his proposals. “It’s not enough. It’s too slow, it’s too low in terms of responsibility and regulation,” said a European Commissioner. And in response to Mr. Zuckerberg’s opinion piece, George Soros wrote a letter to the FT calling on the C.E.O. to “stop obfuscating the facts by piously arguing for government regulation” and urging him to resign.

The speed read

Deals

• Pier 1 Imports filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. (NYT)

• Univision is reportedly in talks to sell itself to an investor group for about $10 billion, including debt. (WSJ)

• Alstom agreed to buy Bombardier’s train division for up to $6.7 billion to take on China’s CRRC. (Reuters)

• Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway sold a third of its stake in Goldman Sachs and a fifth of its shares in Wells Fargo. (Reuters)

Politics and policy

• The millennial goal of retiring early would be bad news for the Fed if they could manage to do it. (NYT)

• Some employees at Oracle are protesting plans by their C.E.O., Larry Ellison, to hold a fund-raiser for President Trump. (Business Insider)

Tech

• Germany is poised to let Huawei into its 5G wireless network, a blow to the Trump administration’s fight against the Chinese telecom giant. (NYT)

• The SoftBank-backed hotel platform Oyo reported a fourfold increase in revenue and a sixfold rise in its annual loss. (Bloomberg)

• Palantir revamped its compensation to give employees bonuses in restricted stock, to save cash ahead of a potential I.P.O. (Bloomberg)

Best of the rest

• BlackRock has become a symbol for anticapitalist fervor in France (NYT)

• The N.B.A. commissioner, Adam Silver, said that the league’s rift with China could cost it up to $400 million in lost revenue. (CNBC)

• Have global carbon emissions peaked? The short answer is probably not. (Bloomberg)

Thanks for reading! We’ll see you tomorrow.

We’d love your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected].

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/business/dealbook-exclusive-details-on-michael-bloombergs-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/

#Business

0 notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

Maryn Wilkinson, ‘Taylor Swift: the hardest working, zaniest girl in show business…’, 10 Celebrity Studies 444 (2019)

The shift from rock and country music to pop stardom is rife with obstacles. Rock and country stars are perceived to be more ‘authentic’ than their pop music counterparts, because their image is imbued with a sense of labour (see Frith 1981; Grossberg 1992, Moore 2002, Peterson 1997, Palmer 1997). Rock and country stars are therefore often perceived as ‘the real thing’: because they work hard at writing, performing and recording their own material, play specific instrumentation, struggle to get their music produced and performed (often sweating and straining physically on stage), and because their lyrics are filled with personal tales of working life and hardship. Within American country music, stardom is also reliant on a strong sense of truth telling; performances are seemingly rooted in autobiography and intimate confession, from Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard, to Patsy Cline and Loretta Lynn. The opposite informs the discourse around pop music: where intimacy, sincerity, labour and realism imbues country, artificial entertainment, commercial manufacture, and synthetic construction mark the realm of pop (Grossberg 1992).

When Taylor Swift publicly announced she was leaving country music for pop stardom, in anticipation of her 2014 release 1989, she had to navigate this tricky terrain carefully. Swift’s transformation was remarkably successful; she became one of the biggest female pop stars in the world, and managed to hold on to much of her original fan base, as well as expand her appeal. How did her star text render this transition possible? It is my contention that Swift shifted the discourse of ‘authenticity’ that informed her country persona away from its focus on confessional truth-telling and (Southern) hard work, towards one of the authentically ‘zany’; a figure who emphasises the pop ‘performance’ as one of hard work instead, because she exposed its construction as one that does not come ‘naturally’. Less quirky cute and more physically comic than the closely related ‘adorkable’ (McIntyre 2015), the zany persona presented Swift as a comical, clumsy goofball working hard at trying to adapt herself to the world of commercial entertainment. In the following few paragraphs, I first briefly elaborate on category of the zany, and then demonstrate how and where it infused Swift’s star text during her transition to pop music. By presenting herself as the ‘zany’, Swift was able to position herself, in this stage of her career, both as a constructed, hapless pop princess and an autonomous and savvy industry professional, all the while maintaining an ‘authentic’ sense of hard work.

In Our Aesthetic Categories (2012), Sianne Ngai examines the three aesthetic categories that dominate contemporary culture: the cute, the zany and the interesting. Ngai positions these three categories in relation to capitalism and the Post-Fordist mode of production. In contrast to the cute (where the commodity is one of romance and consumption), and the interesting (informed by discursive exchange and realism in circulation), Ngai argues that the zany marks a sense of production. The zany is a category fuelled by work, by the performative, by comedy (Ngai offers Lucille Ball’s persona in I Love Lucy as a key example). It is a decidedly neo-liberal character, Ngai argues, capable of adjusting to new roles and situations quickly; a figure that is ‘doggedly persistent’ in ‘comically strenuous efforts’ (Ngai 2012, p. 175), highly physical and intensely affective. The zany is characterised by an ability to quickly pick up new skills, by constant transition, performance and impersonation, and above all, by an incessant ‘doing’. The zany is thus emblematic of our current times of precarious labour, because the zany (1) embodies the spheres of production and reproduction alike; (2) offers a constant dialectic between social inflexibility and flexibility; and 3) erodes the distinction between work and play. In offering all this, I suggest, the zany is able to introduce a meticulously crafted pop performance and safeguard it within the context of authenticity because the zany ‘works hard’ at the performance and is revealed ‘truthfully’ to still be a playful goofball underneath. This is precisely what we see at work in Swift’s transition from country to pop stardom, and what rendered her transition relatively seamless.

Swift’s early celebrity adhered closely to the terms of country music’s authenticity/labour framework. She wrote and performed her own songs, accompanied herself on the guitar, and recounted real-life experiences in her diary-entry style lyrics. Swift quickly garnered a large fan base by offering fans intimate access to her ‘real’ self, working her ‘celebrity-as-commodity’ star text through all possible points of connection (Elcessor, 2012; Turner 2013). She posted regular behind-the-scenes videos, talked directly to camera about personal experiences, introduced her ‘real’ friends, relationships and family, discussed her writing process, was open about her heartaches, and regularly surprised her fans publicly, in reverse fan pilgrimages of sorts. Her star image was based on the combined pillars of hard work, ‘real’ talent and her ‘authentically’ being herself. Swift’s transition to artificial, manufactured pop music at a career high thus required intricate manoeuvring. ‘The reinvention of Taylor Swift’, as Rolling Stone called it (2014), began by tentatively straddling genre borders during the pre-release publicity for 1989. Swift publicly announced she would move from Nashville to New York, and stated that henceforth she would be offering her fans ‘blatant pop music’ (ibid. Rolling Stone, the ‘blatant’ underscoring both her commitment to the genre and her honesty about it). The pop venture was cautiously marked as distinctly collaborative. Swift worked with renowned commercial pop producers Max Martin, Shellback and Jack Antonoff, while but all insisted she would retain her highly personal and confessional writing style. (Grammy promotions for the album later revealed that during her collaboration with these recording professionals, she remained ‘true’ to herself; the footage shows her singing song ideas goofily, spontaneously, into her collaborators’ voicemails, and evidences the sense of zany fun, hilarity and play that informed their working together.)

As Swift’s star text transitioned more solidly into pop-star territory, her persona became increasingly zany. The different music videos for 1989 all highlight Swift’s skills for adaptation and transformation by showing her in a wide range of elaborate and extravagant, zany performances. In Shake it Off, the first video for the album, this is most evident. In the video, we witness Swift try on a range of ‘pop’ performance-modes with different dance troupes (hip hop, ballet, cheerleading): she flaps her limbs wildly as she attempts to join them, constantly re-adjusting her performances in blushed embarrassment, while managing to get the laugh and the audience on her side. After ‘shaking off’ her failings in each register, the video concludes with Swift’s implied realisation that she will never quite ‘fit in’ to any commercially viable image, and prefers to embrace her natural zany state instead. By exposing the artificial manufacture of pop performances, and showing how hard she needs to work at them, Swift utilises the figure of the zany to remind the audience of her ‘true’ natural state underneath her pop abilities, while preserving her image of hard work, through her (comic) incessant doings.

Swift’s zaniness made another important public appearance in 2015, after Swift withdrew 1989 from online streaming, and wrote a tightly constructed public letter to Apple Music arguing artists should be paid during the first three months of their service. When Apple promptly responded by adjusting its terms, and Swift proceeded to star in a range of Apple Music advertisements, it became evident that her business acumen had placed her in a unique position of power. With her pop music industry clout now evident, Swift quickly countered this by placing the authentic, zany Taylor at the heart of the Apple Music advertisements; we see her singing and dancing wildly while running on a treadmill, until she falls of it, clumsily but with great gusto, slapstick-style.

Swift’s ‘zany’ public persona provided her pop star celebrity with a continued sense of authenticity. It highlighted the work that goes into manufactured performance but exposes a ‘natural’ state clumsiness to conceal commercial and professional autonomy. The slippery slopes of the terrain nevertheless persist. After the release of 1989, Swift’s ‘authenticity’ began to tear at the seams. Critics lamented her freshly dyed platinum blonde hair, and her uncomfortable public ‘performances’ off-screen and stage (particularly her publicity stint romance with Tom Hiddleston and her dispute with Kanye West). Swift announced a prolonged hiatus, because ‘people might need a break from [her]’ (Stutz 2015). In this light, it is intriguing that the singer announced in the lyrics of her 2017 come-back single, ‘Look what you made me do’, that ‘the old Taylor’ is now ‘dead’. It remains to be seen, however, whether or not ‘zany Taylor’ someday will rise again.

References

Eells, J., 8 September 2014. The reinvention of Taylor Swift. Rolling Stone, Available from: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/taylor-swift-1989-cover-story-20140908 [Accessed 1 February 2019] [Google Scholar]

Ellcessor, E., 2012. Tweeting@ feliciaday: online social media, convergence, and subcultural stardom. Cinema journal, 51 (2), 46–66. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

Frith, S., 1981. Sound effects: youth, leisure and the politics of rock ’n roll. New York: Pantheon. [Google Scholar]

Grossberg, L., 1992. We gotta get out of this place: popular conservatism and postmodern culture. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]

McIntyre, A.P., 2015. Isn’t she adorkable! Cuteness as political neutralization in the star text of Zooey Deschanel. Television & new media, 16 (5), 422–438. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

Moore, A., 2002. Authenticity as authentication. Popular music, 21 (2), 209–223. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

Ngai, S., 2012. Our aesthetic categories: zany, cute, interesting. Harvard: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]

Palmer, G., 1997. Springsteen and authentic masculinity. In: S. Whiteley, ed. Sexing the groove: popular music and gender. London: Routledge, 100–117. [Google Scholar]

Peterson, R.A., 1997. Creating country music: fabricating authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

Stutz, C., 10 August 2015. Taylor Swift says she’s taking time off after 1989 tour: ‘I think people might need a break from me’. Billboard. Available from: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6722682/taylor-swift-time-off-1989-tour-people-need-break [Accessed 1 February 2019] [Google Scholar]

Turner, G., 2013. Understanding celebrity. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]

#celebrity #public image #taylor swift #popular culture #authenticity #media

0 notes

travelsbeyondbehind · 7 years

Text

One of my earliest political memories is the fall of the Berlin Wall and the sense that a divided continent was coming back together. Since then, my travels have taken me to different countries which were behind the Iron Curtain. Previously in this series of posts, I’ve been to Berlin and Krakow – and in the last post I will turn to Budapest. In this post, I recall a work trip to Prague where I was reminded that some countries see themselves neither as East or West – but just as having a distinct history and culture.

Go to a University Ball in the UK and the dance floor will be empty until a (mediocre) rock band comes on and a load of drunk students will bop along to songs that they will probably not recall in the morning. The one time I have been to a University Ball in the Czech Republic, I felt I was transported to the set of the Czech equivalent of Strictly Come Dancing. Lines of students in the well turned out, chandeliered National House of Vinohrady performed elegant dances in near synchronisation to tunes played by a Jazz Orchestra in the corner. Later in the evening, the music become more pop-like but for a few moments at the start of the evening, I was struck by the distinctiveness of Czech culture. Whether in its fight for political freedoms, it’s long history of innovation & collaboration or in its music scene, this distinctiveness can be seen throughout Prague.

When the Iron Curtain began to fall, it was often, simplistically, thought that former communist countries would gradually become more like western Europe. In some ways that could be seen: when I first went to Prague in 2003 there was a rather a-typical Tescos but few other UK brands. Today, walk down the grand Wenceslas Square and many other global brands have joined the grocery retailer: Subway, M&S, Mothercare etc.

Wenceslas Square

Memorial to Jan Palach

But look carefully and there are hints of a narrative which is not about creeping westernisation. Near the statue of Wenceslas, there is a memorial to Jan Palach who set fire to himself in 1969 in protest against the ending of the Prague Spring with the invasion by the Warsaw Pact armies. A few metres away is the balcony from where Vaclav Havel addressed hundreds of thousands of protestors who were shaking their keys to demand they were politically unlocked from communism in 1989. At the heart of this now thriving city centre, monuments mark the fight for national identity and political freedoms which have come from within the Czech Republic.

There have been other, subtler changes in central Prague since I first visited 15 years ago: more signs are marked in Euros – despite this country’s reluctance to join the single currency. At the same time, there are fewer EU flags flapping about. Following an initial enthusiasm for EU membership, the country is increasingly Eurosceptic. Opposition to the EU is not surprising given the Czech’s past: the people rose against a union of states founded on communism so don’t want any hard-won freedoms threatened by a different union, including the EU [1].

Furthermore, the EU is also not the only relationship that the Czech politicians can draw on, they are members of the Visegrad Group, a distinct union of countries with a shared geographical and politcal history [2]. This history – different to that of countries further west – can be seen in the capital’s buildings. Standing in front of impressive Prague Castle you can see the importance of the city in medieval times, later under the Hapsburgs and now as an independent republic; each stage is reflected in the architecture and additions to these buildings, high above the Vltava river.

Staroměstské náměstí

Jewish Cemetery

This spirit of innovation can be seen in the lower town, too. The Staroměstské náměstí (Old Town Square) is at the centre of Prague but in the 14th Century it was too small so a New Town was built around it; at the same time, the city’s leaders extended inhabitants’ and traders’ rights which led to its expansion to one of the biggest cities in Europe at the time. In the 17th Century, the city’s relative freedoms allowed Jewish population to prosper which can be seen, for example, in the Jewish Cemetery. The Art Nouveau buildings – such as the Municipal House – are reminders of the wealth and influence of the city 3 centuries later, in the early 20th Century, when Czech politicians used influence to play larger role in European politics [3]. The buildings of Prague show the creativity, innovation, freedoms, values and networks that have been part of Czech identity for centuries, rather than being imposed upon the country in recent years.

A sense of a Czech Identity can be seen in the results of the policy choices of its governments. Although the centre of Prague has seen investment, the bus ride from the airport shows that the suburbs remain poor. However, research has found that social reforms helped all levels of Czech Society, unlike in other former ‘Eastern’ countries [4] and citizens believe in the reforms. As a gay traveller, I am conscious that intolerance is higher in Central & Eastern Europe with 50% uncomfortable with homosexuality but the Czech Republic is more liberal than its neighbours and examples of intolerance much lower [2]. Thinking all ‘Eastern’ countries are the same is false: each country is at a different stage of economic and political integration [1] with, for example, some ‘Eastern’ economies (e.g. Poland, Hugary, Slovakia, Romania) were more robust than western ones (e.g. Spain, Italy) [2].

Lazarská Tram Stop

A few days after the student ball in Prague, I was drinking with a Professor from Charles University in Prague in a little back street bar near the Lazarská tram stop, an area increasingly filled with student bars. In many places near here you will find a mix of locals and a few visitors. We discussed the Czech Republic today with its problems and successes; he was quite insistent that his country was not in Eastern Europe but Central Europe, an opinion which is widely held [2]. One of the distinctive elements is its music which can be heard in the streets, bars and concert halls. On my first visit I sat in the main square and watched traditional Czech dancers perform to folk music. A few years later, I sat in Charles University listening to a group play 19th Century Czech string quartets. On both occasions there was obvious pride in the quality expressions of national identity.

Most memorable, though, is a visit to the Reduta Jazz Club. A jazz group including a double bass, an electric guitar and a bass saxophone took to the stage whilst we sat drinking Czech sparkling wine and absinth. It was an unusual collection of instruments but fitted with the spirit of Prague: such a gig might not happen in other European capitals. But this city, at the cross roads of various European cultures, has continually evolved and innovated – politically, socially and musically. Every new generation will play its own sort of music and students will find their own way to dance to it, respectful of its past but rejoicing in their future at the centre of Europe.

References

[1] Rohrschneider, R. & Whitefield, S. (2006) Political Parties, Public Opinion and European Integration in Post-Communist Countries: The State of the Art. European Union Politics, 7(1), pp.141–160.

[2] Balázs, P. [Ed.] (2014) 25 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain: The state of integration of East and West in the European Union. (Brussels: European Commission).

[3] Hempson, D. (2009) Becoming ‘European:’ URL: he Diverging Paths of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Origins. 2(11), URL: https://origins.osu.edu/print/68

[4] Kaufman, R. (2007) Market Reform and Social Protection: Lessons from the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. East European Politics and Societies, 21(1), pp.111–125.

Strictly Students: Dancing Czech Style - how Prague is not in the east but distinctive. One of my earliest political memories is the fall of the Berlin Wall and the sense that a divided continent was coming back together.

#Czech Republic #East meets West #Prague

0 notes