After receiving widespread attention in his native France, Thomas Piketty’s ”Capital in the Twenty-First Century” has received even greater attention on this side of the Atlantic, and deservedly so. It offers a stark and depressing picture for those who believe that some combination of democratic politics and economic growth can protect us from rampant inequality. If Piketty is right, then we are instead faced with an infernal logic of r>g, that is, in most cases at most times the rate of return on capital (“r”) exceeds the rate of economic growth (“g”), and this dictates increasing inequality of wealth. Since wealth inequalities are transmitted over time, the conclusions are also negative for anyone interested in equal opportunity.The Washington Post — The Money Cage
Why hasn’t democracy saved us from inequality?
Kenneth Scheve, Professor of Political Science at StanfordUniversity and a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, and David Stasavage, Professor of Politics, New York University
What democracy? We have a plutocracy-lobbocracy that is very relatively "open", thanks to a heritage rapidly vanishing into the mists. It used to be called "friendly fascism." We also have a very powerful mythology that obscures the essential realities.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy, in the context of a 300 million population in vast, urban agglormerations, in which the power is concentrated in multinational corporations and financial institutions is simply a myth.
As Brzezinski's accurate, if chilling, statement has it:
"The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state."
"People, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations."
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
“This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”
Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973)
The great majority of intellectuals have their heads stuck in the sand, so they can keep on writing and "thinking."
The great majority of intellectuals have their heads stuck in the sand, so they can keep on writing and "thinking."
ReplyDeleteMost liberal intellectuals support the plutocracy. Their hatred and fear of the crude and uneducated orders is much more intense than any minimal outrage they might feel about economic injustice. And they have a pretty good deal in society, so there is not much to worry about. If they begin to worry about the security of their own sinecures, they might support some modest reforms.
Most liberal intellectuals support the plutocracy ... If they begin to worry about the security of their own sinecures, they might support some modest reforms.
ReplyDeleteModest reforms, yes. Nothing serious that would upset the apple cart, though. They'll be able to keep writing and "thinking" along the right lines, however superficially controversial. Nothing like a good debate to maintain the illusion of freedom, and nothing like flattery to keep the allegiance of "useful idiots". The "power of the purse" governs it all towards the endgame.
Western-style “Democracy” Unravels in Southeast Asia’s Thailand
ReplyDeletehttp://journal-neo.org/2014/04/06/western-style-democracy-unravels-in-southeast-asia-s-thailand/
A Tale of Two Protests: Ukraine and Thailand – End Game
http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/08/a-tale-of-two-protests-ukraine-and-thailand-end-game/
The BFP Roundtable Takes On NATO, Russia, Turkey and the “New Cold War”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gaosVLUclw#t=285
Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973)
ReplyDelete--------------
In other words, the "intellectuals" have had at least half a century almost to figure it out and do what is right. If that isn't "la trahison des clercs", I don't know what it is.
Researching the Infamous Quotations Attributed to Zbigniew BrzezinskiPosted by Richard Grove
ReplyDeleteWell, Grove seems to be looking at older sources, such as the article and the 1970 edition. Anyone have the 1973 Viking Press edition?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, Tom, I think you're avoiding the obvious for the sake of being a smart aleck. The general thrust of things is clear enough, give or take a sentence or two from Brzezinski, who of course is a saintly figure who has our best interests in mind, and is completely detached from the Rockefeller interests.
I have a searchable copy of the 1970 ed and the only quote that shows up is the first one, and it is ZB quoting someone else.
ReplyDeleteYou can download it here and check.
I don't think I am being a smart aleck in checking quotes. First I checked the ZB 1970 edition and then looked to see if anyone credible had checked.
All of the other instances of the quote that I could find did not cite page numbers.
So I'll conclude that until further documentation is provided that this quote is problematic and lacks credence.
I'n no fan of ZB, but this quote doesn't seem to be genuine.
Oops. Here the missing link to the 1970 ed.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is Very Hard Work. It requires attention, focus and critical thinking. These are traits that the vast majority of humans have proved incapable of developing. A smaller number of humans are simply unwilling to do so.
ReplyDeleteThis is the basic reason Mass Democracy has failed. And this is why democracy can be 'bought', because Big Money can use advertising to tell an electorate that is incapable and/or unwilling to think for itself what it should think.
Until The Franchise becomes a Privilege that has to be earned, that can only be acquired by using attention, focus and critical thinking, then democracy will always fail. Always
The 1970 edition has 123 pages, whereas the about the nation state as a fundamental unit is referenced at page 246. The 1982 edition at Amazon has over 300 pages.
ReplyDeleteSorry about that. The sentence should read:
ReplyDelete...whereas the quote about the fundamental unit is found on p. 346 of the 1973 Viking Press edition...
wrong again--I need to sleep.
ReplyDeleteNot p. 346 but p. 246 of the 1973 edition
@ Nebris
ReplyDeleteThis is the basis of John Dewey's liberalism. If the educationally system does't educate people for liberal democracy, there won't be one. In his day, the debate was between Walter Lippmann's classical liberalism and Dewey's social liberalism aka democratic capitalism and social democracy. The former is based on radical individualism and the second on contextualism, including culture and institutions that underlies the social fabric and create social cohesion.
Of course it is in the interest of those who oppose majority rule in a society where "the lower classes" are the majority to control the educational and communications systems, including the media. They are actually reverse Marxists who consciously subscribe to class cohesion and see politics as a struggle among classes and class interests for control of institutions.
I am not saying that ZB did not write those things. It is quite plausible he did and he may well have written them.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not considered good form to string together quotes out of context that may convey an impression that the author did not put forward as such.
As a scholar, I was trained to check sources and to be suspicious of unsourced material that cannot be traced. Given the ease of doing this now with the net, I generally check.
Additionally, one of the issues here is that ZB, David Rockefeller, CFR, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, world order, etc., are not only historical, but the fodder for conspiracy theories on both left and right. Sorting out what happened requires picking through a pile of rubbish.
Getting the facts straight is important so that what actually happened is established rather than being dismissed as conspiracy theory.
Yes, Tom, what you say is true, but frankly, you sound senile, in the sense that you glide over the fact--here is a case for the word--that we are a plutocracy, we are in the clutches of a security state that has been foisted upon us, we are in a situation that is truly urgent, and not merely grist for your mill or that of scholars. Similar to your reaction was Dan Kerwick's reaction to Nomi Prin's book: "On the one hand this book sounds somewhat interesting in that it develops some detail and names names. On the other hand, there is nothing remotely novel or surprising about the story it tells. That the US government works hand-in-hand with the major players in US industry and US finance to promote US interests and power around the world is old news."
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine anything more stupid even while being "smart"? The house is burning down, but that is "well known" and since it started a while back is merely "history." To tell the truth, you remind me of people playing on the decks of the Titanic. Well, keep comfy, your time will come.
Sandy, if you recall Dan attacked me for pushing conspiracy theory. I responded with evidence.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that evidence doesn't count, especially when these ideas are dismissed as conspiracy theory.
Look at Noam Chomsky's work, for example. It is extensively documented.
Anyone with radical views that want to be taken seriously has to present an airtight case to reach those who are not already convinced.
For example, this is the import of Thomas Piketty. As Krugman observes in his NYRB review, Piketty has made the radical view of inequality persuasive based on careful modeling and evidence. Prior to this the economics profession could brush off distributional issues as irrelevant (Lucas). No longer. Piketty has shifted the universe of discourse.
This needs to be done with neoliberalism not only as an economic view but also as a political view. That means careful scholarship to be convincing. There is a lot of it out there already, but so far nothing has been able to shift the universe of discourse away from neoliberalism.