tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post1476135389842445093..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: The Secret Sources of Populism — Bruno Maçãesmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-67118396433802580872020-12-02T17:52:29.742-05:002020-12-02T17:52:29.742-05:00Mike Norman: FIRST AND FOREMOST: BRAVO !
I would s...Mike Norman: FIRST AND FOREMOST: BRAVO !<br />I would say that syndicalism should be added to your analysis, and historically fascism was against communists and national socialism (as historically labeled chronologically not ideologically alone)was again st the industrialist (capitalist) that represented themselves and were identified as Individualists (monarchs of capital so to speak that dominated monopolistically and held leverage over economies forced to scale). I know that is a complex aggregate, but it represents toe composit prior tp post war neocon power politics and neo-liberal global pirvitazation that dominated market resources and practiced asset grabbing techniques of exploit (along with advantages from politically induced crisis capital: SHOCK DOCTRINE...Naomi Klein).<br />The neoliberals somewhat burnt out globalism under rival financial competiton and over expansion and sought relief in austerity policies that intensified exploitation of domestic wealth and rentier economies of scale squeezed populations insidiously into a more subservient level to protect the concentration of wealth accumulated globally by international political finance. The so-called populous reaction was partly usurped by the same stratified ranks that sought political domination through power, while some degree of relief seeking populism was manipulated by labor opportunists as well. Most of what was legitimate critique of the USER CLASS, gets lost in all the shuffling and finger pointing. Opportunists thrive under chaos and add willingly to the confusions and conflations. <br />\Meanwhile, this new rise of a more fused and hard line neoglobalism is being positioned as a new narrative in support of this rival super power competiton; more or less a revival of the DETENTE divisions of the last century (only now regionally aligned among hard conservative centrists). <br />I see the article you are canalizing as a very selectively divisive effort to re-create a new narrative that rationalizes and justifies this renewed attempt to galvanize a hard core economically dominant conservative dismissal of liberal social order, in favor of a more politically based concentration of capital based power. The dismissal of the actual causes of populism is essential in order to deflect responsibilolity and accountability of the past transgressor exploits, and to basically start the old game up again (calling it a new history). justified by supremacy rivalry it strategizes a new world order both externally and internally integrating the capitulation of entire systems of population survival. (or a disorder under command, if you follow my drift). <br />Good luck with your work !<br />Bruce <br /> Bruce E. Woychhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17782082859129051879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70638512335790626172020-12-02T17:11:11.872-05:002020-12-02T17:11:11.872-05:00Ralph: You repeat simplistic deviant rejection att...Ralph: You repeat simplistic deviant rejection attacks with tired slogan slurred talking point: terms that parallel an oppositional defiant disorder. yet your comment suggests (or portends) that you actually read (and understood)the entire article! If you actually contested some of the points made in logical argument form, it might have added to the discussion. Instead it seems that you want to appear superior to the analysis without earning that right. that is not ordinary and it is not common sense. It is the antics of a baby or of a troll that wishes to demean an argument by an appeal to ignorance. That is a logical fallacy as stated here:<br />"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric." https://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html<br /> The term argumentum ad ignorantiam was introduced by John Locke in his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" in 1690. https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-ignorance-fallacy-1689122<br />of course "ATTACKING THE PERSON' is also a fallacy known as Ad hominem - Wikipedia.<br />Bruce E. Woychhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17782082859129051879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54501816130721476492019-07-23T00:54:06.286-04:002019-07-23T00:54:06.286-04:00Well that must be about the ten thousandth article...Well that must be about the ten thousandth article by a leftie intellectual who is frustrated at the rise in populism, and who produces a long, boring series of compilicated pseudo-intellectual explanations for the phenomenon.<br /><br />I suggest the explanatin is quite simple: leftie intellectuals have become progressively more and more idiotic over the years to the point where they are now champions of the religion which goes in for female genital mutilation, wife beating, homophobia, killing authors and cartoonists etc. I'm referring to Islam of course.<br /><br />Ordinary people with a bit of common sense have got sick of these pseudo-intellectuals and have turned to the Donald Trumps of this world in search of some ordinary if boring common sense.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.com