An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Saturday, July 21, 2012
David Sirota — Batman hates the 99 Percent
"The Dark Knight Rises" and the new "Call of Duty" game both demonize Occupy. Has pop culture turned on populism?
Well when the populism is rebranded as "mob rule" it does sound kind of spooky. Its all in how you say it unfortunately.
Ask todays kids (im equating them with pop culture) if they believe in one person one vote or if they believe that workers have rights or if they believe you should have power just cuz your dad had power.
I think they would not give the answers the 1% would like with these.
I think also it is the fashion many of these folks sport... purple hair, piercings, mohawks, etc... they "look" dangerous...
and the author seems to want to make the case that the media in the 80's and 90's etc.. "demonized" the non-mainstream... let me tell him Rush Limbaugh has made a mint claiming just the opposite!
And there is a right-side guy Bernie Goldberg that puts out like a book a year that becomes a best seller again that makes the case that is has been THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Goldberg
I think there are many examples on either side of protagonists and antagonists both of the left and right and vice versa....
The chief objection to democracy was enunciated by Plato. Democracy is the "rule of the rabble" and it devolves into irresponsible governing — bread and circuses. Plato held that rule was properly placed in the hands of the wise, but this meant the truly wise. Much of The Republic is about wisdom and how it can be gained, and how an elite could be educated into it in order to be fit to rule. Plato is clearly talking about enlightened people in the Eastern sense of the term as spiritual wisdom, or gnosis, rather than the Western use, e.g., the 18th century Enlightenment.
Aristotle saw democracy as the best of the worst, within nothing better yet on the table.
The Founding Fathers created a republic instead of a democracy to put control in the hands of an elite, at that time a propertied elite of European white males, in order to control "the rabble" and prevent "mob rule."
We know what happened as a result of the that, even though over time the franchise was extended to the non=propertied, women, and non-whites/non-Europeans.
But popular democracy in terms of political institutions even though direct democracy is now possible technologically? Not yet.
The present push is to convince people that the elite can be truste with governance but not the people. Government "of the people, by the people and for the people" means through representatives that answer to the call of money.
Matt:"I think also it is the fashion many of these folks sport... purple hair, piercings, mohawks, etc... they "look" dangerous..."
Yes it started in the Sixties with long fair from men, etc. Must milder than now since we were just coming out of the bland Fifties.
But the message was conscious and intentional. We are not like you and don't want to have anything to do with your institutions, which we regard as not only corrupt to the core but also sick. Recall that this protest was largely about Vietnam and US imperialism. Pretty much the same now although Vietnam is a thing of the past. But same-o, same-o.
We called ourselves "freaks" because it was out intention to freak out the people in charge at all levels. Well, we did.
Some of these kids are doing the same thing to establish the independence of both themselves and their generation from what they see as unacceptable. For others, it's just a fad.
Actually, just about everyone who was a freak prior to Woodstock was real and committed. Woodstock turned it into a fad, and drugs had already been dragging things down for several years.
Kids have a lot of energy but are easily distracted by things like sex, drugs (and alcohol) and music. These take different forms in different generations, as social psychologists and sociologists who study these phenomena know.
For me being a leftie is about equality of opportunity and equitable reward for endeavor.
I did a post grad in Artificial Intelligence, there are so many facets to human intelligence. I also studied statistics and learned the normal distribution curve. The differences between human intelligence and ability are relatively trivial.
If equal opportunity were to be provided, if work and ability was rewarded fairly. There's no good scientific reason for such excessive wealth and income inequality. Best to keep the differences small and avoid the gross errors.
I've been a manager and an individual contributor in many large organizations. Antisocial, selfish and unproductive behaviors at work are too often rewarded, good team work is routinely ignored, sneaky cunning, social cliques, cronyism, cheating and deception are rampant. Being honest is career limiting. Opportunity is a lottery. Reaching the top rarely indicates a socially well adjusted, high quality, intelligent, wise person with real ability. It's too often a mixture of luck and an ability to ape the behavioural traits rewarded by some phoney incentive scheme.
Develop institutions with an element of democracy built in at every level, filter out the overly selfish, select the socially adjusted, wise and sentient ones for leadership. Filter out some of the ignorance and naivety of the rabble by careful use of representative voting.
Well when the populism is rebranded as "mob rule" it does sound kind of spooky. Its all in how you say it unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteAsk todays kids (im equating them with pop culture) if they believe in one person one vote or if they believe that workers have rights or if they believe you should have power just cuz your dad had power.
I think they would not give the answers the 1% would like with these.
I think also it is the fashion many of these folks sport... purple hair, piercings, mohawks, etc... they "look" dangerous...
ReplyDeleteand the author seems to want to make the case that the media in the 80's and 90's etc.. "demonized" the non-mainstream... let me tell him Rush Limbaugh has made a mint claiming just the opposite!
And there is a right-side guy Bernie Goldberg that puts out like a book a year that becomes a best seller again that makes the case that is has been THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Goldberg
I think there are many examples on either side of protagonists and antagonists both of the left and right and vice versa....
rsp,
The chief objection to democracy was enunciated by Plato. Democracy is the "rule of the rabble" and it devolves into irresponsible governing — bread and circuses. Plato held that rule was properly placed in the hands of the wise, but this meant the truly wise. Much of The Republic is about wisdom and how it can be gained, and how an elite could be educated into it in order to be fit to rule. Plato is clearly talking about enlightened people in the Eastern sense of the term as spiritual wisdom, or gnosis, rather than the Western use, e.g., the 18th century Enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteAristotle saw democracy as the best of the worst, within nothing better yet on the table.
The Founding Fathers created a republic instead of a democracy to put control in the hands of an elite, at that time a propertied elite of European white males, in order to control "the rabble" and prevent "mob rule."
We know what happened as a result of the that, even though over time the franchise was extended to the non=propertied, women, and non-whites/non-Europeans.
But popular democracy in terms of political institutions even though direct democracy is now possible technologically? Not yet.
The present push is to convince people that the elite can be truste with governance but not the people. Government "of the people, by the people and for the people" means through representatives that answer to the call of money.
Awww...poor lefties. Batman didn't kowtow to the nauseatingly incessant Hollywood promotion of the so-called 99% Occupy mob.
ReplyDeleteDeal with it.
Matt:"I think also it is the fashion many of these folks sport... purple hair, piercings, mohawks, etc... they "look" dangerous..."
ReplyDeleteYes it started in the Sixties with long fair from men, etc. Must milder than now since we were just coming out of the bland Fifties.
But the message was conscious and intentional. We are not like you and don't want to have anything to do with your institutions, which we regard as not only corrupt to the core but also sick. Recall that this protest was largely about Vietnam and US imperialism. Pretty much the same now although Vietnam is a thing of the past. But same-o, same-o.
We called ourselves "freaks" because it was out intention to freak out the people in charge at all levels. Well, we did.
Some of these kids are doing the same thing to establish the independence of both themselves and their generation from what they see as unacceptable. For others, it's just a fad.
Actually, just about everyone who was a freak prior to Woodstock was real and committed. Woodstock turned it into a fad, and drugs had already been dragging things down for several years.
Kids have a lot of energy but are easily distracted by things like sex, drugs (and alcohol) and music. These take different forms in different generations, as social psychologists and sociologists who study these phenomena know.
@ Sam
ReplyDeleteBeen drinking much Kool-Aid lately?
Dear Sam,
ReplyDeleteThe economy sucks because of people like you.
Your pal,
Edmund
For me being a leftie is about equality of opportunity and equitable reward for endeavor.
ReplyDeleteI did a post grad in Artificial Intelligence, there are so many facets to human intelligence. I also studied statistics and learned the normal distribution curve. The differences between human intelligence and ability are relatively trivial.
If equal opportunity were to be provided, if work and ability was rewarded fairly. There's no good scientific reason for such excessive wealth and income inequality. Best to keep the differences small and avoid the gross errors.
I've been a manager and an individual contributor in many large organizations. Antisocial, selfish and unproductive behaviors at work are too often rewarded, good team work is routinely ignored, sneaky cunning, social cliques, cronyism, cheating and deception are rampant. Being honest is career limiting. Opportunity is a lottery. Reaching the top rarely indicates a socially well adjusted, high quality, intelligent, wise person with real ability. It's too often a mixture of luck and an ability to ape the behavioural traits rewarded by some phoney incentive scheme.
Develop institutions with an element of democracy built in at every level, filter out the overly selfish, select the socially adjusted, wise and sentient ones for leadership. Filter out some of the ignorance and naivety of the rabble by careful use of representative voting.