I don't see how your linked post has much relevance to what I was discussing. If you want to defend Israel's brutal, decades-long occupation and war crimes, there's a different thread for that.

I was simply trying to realistically analyze the situation. — Apollodorus

Yeah, I just disagree with how accurate that analysis is. But most importantly I sense a kind of passivity in the way you describe it -- as if we're waiting around for the right movement to come along, where in reality there are all kinds of people organizing right now, all around us, and all kinds of movements as well. And not just here but all over the world.

But perhaps I misinterpreted.

So what’s missing other than organization?
— Xtrix

Love. That's all I can think of. — James Riley

Maybe you're right. Another way of saying it perhaps is care -- caring for one another, for people who aren't in our social circle or from our part of the world, and for the environment. But that's all a kind of love. So maybe there's something to these religious figures, like the Dalai Lama, and to the 60s and the Beatles. :grin:

A part of me thinks that's it -- a lack of love.

Another part of me thinks that love, care, and concern for others (and for where one lives -- Earth) are as much a part of human nature as anything else -- as greed, fear, or hatred. Human beings are complex creatures.

It's simply the fact that powerful forces are acting in ways that manipulate and control us -- without our knowing it. We know advertisers and big business do this all the time, and the media. But now we've got social media to contend with as well, and that's even more efficient because it's got mathematics behind it -- A.I., algorithms, etc. This is all being programmed using essentially the same model that the mass media used long before social media came on the scene, and which Herman and Chomsky analyzed in Manufacturing Consent. On top of all this, there are just structural issues in place, embedded in our lives -- like the very fact that nearly all of us are essentially forced to work for wages, to become employees (subordinate to an employer), and to spend most of our lives within the confines of jobs that by their nature have to underpay us. This alone takes time, attention, energy, and life away from things we could be doing -- pursuing our own interests, acting creatively, dedicating our lives to causes of mutual concern, etc.

Bottom line is that love/care needs to be brought to the fore, but is currently suppressed under a system that values personal gain (basically greed) above all else -- i.e., accumulation of wealth, money, profits, etc. That's capitalism. This is especially true in the most savage variant of this type of thinking: the neoliberal era that we've all been living in for 40 years.

How to reawaken those aspects of human nature within such a system?

A tough question, especially with the powers owning and controlling the data and information we all see and hear. Tough to break outside of it and "think for oneself"... but it can be done.

Putting down the newspaper, turning off the TV, and putting your iPhone away for a little while can help, I think. But equally important is getting other people to as well, having conversations with them, and taking action collectively -- that's why we need organization.

You could take communism for your political vision but most people will not go along with that. — Apollodorus

Actually, most people do go along with that — and growing. Calling it “communism” can mean almost anything, but if that’s supposed to mean anti-neoliberalism, then yes, that’s already caught on. On the left and right.

True, we can also convince ourselves that there’s nothing to do and that nothing will happen. But I reject that. That’s defeatism, very passive, and exactly the reason nothing changes to begin with.

Short of that, in the past it took war. Or, at the very least, massive social upheaval. So there is always that. I don't want to see my son have to fight in that. But alas, maybe it's his time and I should take a seat. — James Riley

Education plays a big role, but I think this other aspect does as well. We can educate ourselves and one another, but it takes work, and usually has to be done outside the system. Our public schools have been attacked for decades, of course. Underfund or defund anything we don’t like. Claim there’s a problem that doesn’t exist, defund it, watch it fail, then point to the failure and say “You see!” Then you can privatize it, turning it more into a “business” — so that now you have the student debt problem, with degrees that don’t do much, and kids never really learning anything about the world or about themselves. At least at the majority of schools.

Personal story: I went to a public university, with half the expenses paid in scholarships and half in loans; I was in state for 1 1/2 years, and was an RA my senior year (free room and board), and also worked.

I’m still paying off my loans to this day, while I barely use my B.A.

My story is fairly typical I think. I liked my time in school, as many of us do— I liked my friends and some professors. I often look back nostalgically.

But as I get older things become clearer: the state of the university was bad. It was overpriced and too big. It was a lot of fluff, most of which I didn’t retain or use. Despite some exceptions, most courses weren’t very interesting. Teachers tried their best, and it’s partly my fault for choosing the major and the classes that I did, but you would think somewhere along the way they would teach you about meditation, Karl Marx, or demand a history course be taken. There was too much test taking and focus on GPA, and so little time thinking and discussing. Everyone who did study hard was doing so to get a high paying job. Political organizing was very weak indeed— the mindset was more party-oriented and nihilistic.

It was a big school, and perhaps I just overlooked what was right under my nose all along— who knows? One simply can’t know all the ways in which one misses out by not being in more serious schools.

Anyway— I tell of my experience to demonstrate that I was very much in the meaty part of the educational curve during the neoliberal era. I think my case is representative.

What I’ve learned since has been far more valuable— on my own through books, from friends, from traveling, and even from YouTube (which can be a fantastic resource if you know where to look).

So we can educate ourselves, and we should. I think we’re catching on that education is largely a scam, a factory of testing where you’re award s degree, a ton of debt, and then shoved off into the world to be a good employee. That’s the underlying attitude: be a good capitalist. And don’t rock the boat by questioning certain things.

I think the social upheaval part is more what’s needed now. Nothing seems to change otherwise. But we also see from the Capitol riots that without a set of objectives or beliefs worth fighting for, we’re left standing around scratching our heads. While I like the willingness to act, there are no ideas behind the actions. So education in that respect becomes relevant, otherwise it’s empty machinations.

It’ll come down to enough people organizing. We saw it with Occupy, with Bernie, we saw it with the Womens March, with climate marches and with BLM. Just in the last decade. It’s all around us. We already have the numbers politically— polling and voting statistics show this clearly.

So what’s missing other than organization?

But the company is well known. — ssu

Not sure about that. Even among the forum, it's not as well known as it should be. It should be as known as Amazon and Tesla, in my view.

Stakeholder capitalism sounds too good to be true. — Shawn

And almost certainly is.

I think collective bargaining is a great idea, but so long as capital can run over seas to take advantage of communist (or other non-democratic) labor, then it can't work. The labor supply reduces demand and lowers the value. — James Riley

We can very easily change that as well. It's not like there's nothing we can do. We can prevent tax havens just as well as we can prevent outsourcing. You put restrictions and regulations on what companies can do. This threat of "we'll just take our business elsewhere" is an empty one. These companies would not survive if it weren't for the United States government and general society, and they know it.

True capitalism would be great. It's just that all the self-described capitalists are "Socialism for me, capitalism for you." — James Riley

Eh, I don't even think it would be great -- it'd be a disaster, in fact. At the core of it -- private ownership and profit-making -- are values I don't fully agree with. They've been around a long time, and it's hard to even see alternatives to them, but I think it is as worthy of questioning as systems of slavery, feudalism, and caste.

A system where communities control their lives through collective involvement and engagement, similar to what is done politically in small towns here in New England, seems like a reasonable alternative. The difference is simply including economic affairs, i.e. the workplace.

For some reason, everywhere else we want and expect some say, but inside the buildings of Lowes, Home Depot, Wal Mart, Wendys, McDonalds, Starbucks, Krugers, Dunkin Donuts, and so on -- we resign ourselves to our allotted roles, relegated to whatever tasks we're charged with -- settling for whatever hours, wages and benefits they give deem worthy of giving us. Everything gets decided from a central location someone -- some headquarters, where a handful of people on the board of directors, elected by a handful of major shareholders, and in collaboration with CEOs and other top executives, make all the decisions that hundreds of thousands (or millions) of worker bees have to live with. Why?

Instead, switch from a system of top-down tyrannies to one where things are decided democratically, where representatives (like managers, supervisors, and other leaders) are elected by the workforce, and where the workforce (in conjunction with the community as a whole) decides what goods and services get produced, where and how they get produced, and (perhaps most importantly) what to do with the profits.

Incidentally, this isn't a pipe dream. It has happened in the past and it happens now -- all over the world, including the US. Cooperatives are one example. They provide a basic model for what I'm talking about. A lot of interesting (and somewhat surprising) things to learn from, most of which I've been unaware of for most of my adult life -- and I live fairly close to a major one: Ocean Spray. Never knew that was a co-op!

Unions play a big role in all of this too -- historically, anyway. But they can today as well. I'd like to see more unionization across the board.

Regardless, co-ops and unions are both important. But embedded in both examples is a more local focus and a more social focus. Both involve practical things we can do in our workplaces, provided we do it with other people. As long as we feel there's no alternatives, or aren't aware of any, we remain hopeless. Likewise, whether we see alternatives or not, nothing will happen without other people -- to learn from, to help educate ourselves with, to organize with and to act with.

But I digress. The point is: there are alternatives to capitalism, the "true" version of which not only has never existed, but which isn't even an ideal to work towards.

I could go on, but you get the picture. True capitalism, which they claim they want, would crush them. They are a bunch of government tit-sucking hypocrites and true capitalism would show them for the cowards they are. Show me a true risk-taking, bootstrapper who did everything on his own and I'll kiss Ayn Rand's dead ass. — James Riley

This is fantastic. :lol:

I agree wholeheartedly. Of course Friedman was too clever not to see this — so his line would be something like “no subsidies or bailouts, let the market punish and eliminate the weaker companies” while keeping corporate personhood, etc.

Window-dressing most probably, in that they probably wouldn't do anything that doesn't benefit them in the first place and I'd assume care very little about anything else.... but that doesn't mean that some of the time what benefits them, cannot also benefit the population at large. — ChatteringMonkey

Well in the case of BlackRock it's kind of interesting. The CEO is a lifelong Democrat, and so already buys into this stakeholder theory version of capitalism. But besides that, when it comes to asset managers, where the mentality isn't so short-term, it does well to consider things like climate change -- it's sensible, just as it is with insurance companies. Therefore, shifting investments to ESG funds (which no doubt have their issues) and promoting more transparency and accountability for climate-related strategies seems like a self-interested move. These aren't stupid people.

When it comes to industries most culpable for climate change, like Big Oil and Big Agro, while they are beginning to acknowledge climate change is real and will try to convince everyone that everything they do is "green" are always going to be the ones most resistant to change, as it directly effects their livelihoods. For asset managers, who make their money off of how much they make for their investors (along with fees), there's a different set of priorities. If they see the energy sector as unprofitable in the long term (meaning fossil fuels), it stands to reason they will divest -- if they have any sense at all and, again, this is assuming they're not idiots.

Too little too late, perhaps.

All this hiding behind the skirts of big government is inimical to true capitalism. — James Riley

Well that depends on what "true capitalism" is. Many influential people, like Friedman and Ayn Rand and others, would probably define "true capitalism" as free-market or a laissez-faire capitalism. But never in history has that existed. It's an abstraction, purely theoretical -- namely, a pipe dream. Even if taken as a kind of unachievable "limit" or ideal to move towards, it's still ridiculous. But because it's never been achieved, in the same way as "true socialism" has never been achieved, it always allows proponents to claim we need more actions to get closer to that ideal in order to see the promised results -- more deregulation, privatization, "Big Government" getting out of our lives, etc. Let the market decide and there will be a natural equilibrium achieved, and so forth.

However sincere these people may be, I think after 40 years of this ideology being put into practice (neoliberalism) and the results of it, people are starting to see that perhaps they've been used as a cover for simply giving the capitalist class what they've wanted all along: more power for themselves. They've always hated the New Deal, for example, and had been pushing for its dismantling for years. With Reagan, it was finally achieved in the political realm. Now the foxes were guarding the hen house. Look at John Shad of the SEC and others around this time.

I am skeptical that knowing history or politics is of much use, unless you are in a direct position to influence or make substantive changes. — Tom Storm

Well there's an argument that they're worthwhile in their own right, regardless of use. But I do take more of the position that unless they're applied, it's basically a kind of hobbyism. But I've argued the same thing about philosophy, too.

Politics and history helps one understand the current state of the world, why things are how they are, how they got here, how they function, and so on. That's as worthwhile as studying physics or chemistry, in my view. Perhaps more so.

It's monopolism window-dressed as "socially conscious" economics. Concentration of financial, economic, and political power in the hands of self-interested elites. Power taken out of the hands of people and governments by stealth. — Apollodorus

I tend to agree, as much as I want to believe the opposite. Seemingly nothing will happen with the merchant value system unless people intervene -- and that means governments. Still, it's surprising to see BlackRock and others use their proxy voting to back directors, etc. That's a good thing, regardless of the fact that we need 100X more effort.

I'm over my head on this, but here's my speculation: A system that imposes a fiduciary duty (look that up if you don't know what it really entails) upon anyone, which said duty shoe-horns itself into legality, ethical and moral righteousness and defense, is the concentration of power in the hands of self-interested elites. It is power taken out of the hands of the people and governments openly and brazenly. It is self-interest alone. — James Riley

Yes. In my research, however, fiduciary duty isn't what I thought it was. I thought it was basically the law that CEO's and boards of directors have a legal obligation to make the most money for shareholders. It turns out that isn't quite true. It's more of a dogma that's been held for a long time, and we need to look no further than 50s and 60s corporate behavior to see an alternative. Shareholder theory -- what's basically the "Friedman principle" -- has dominated ever since, but only now beginning to crack.

This is being replaced by "stakeholder theory," pushed by guys like Larry Fink and others. It's really just a softer version of capitalism, in the same way as Keynesian economics was still capitalism. But maybe that's the path that needs to be taken, who knows? I'd prefer to see much quicker reaction and, ultimately, the overthrowing of corporatism (and capitalism) altogether, in favor of real democracy (i.e., extending to the workplace as well) -- but I'm also a pragmatist. If that's a pipe dream, short of a revolution, then I'll take whatever viable path there is. If we have to go push through by manipulating the game these plutocrats are playing, then we should do so and hit them where it hurts. We see glimpses in Engine No. 1's efforts, in court cases, and even in things like the Gamestop short squeeze. I say: good. We should be attacking from all angles, both within the political system and, perhaps more importantly, from within the economic system as well.

My story of the Black Rock desert is no different than your story of the Black Rock movie: irrelevant to the OP. — James Riley

Yes -- irrelevant.

Never heard of it and I don't think this diminishes me. There are lots of things I don't care to know about. — Tom Storm

No one mentioned anything about being diminished. Yet I would argue it's still worth knowing something about, given their power. In the same way as knowing something about Standard Oil in the early 20th century would have been worthwhile.

Very true -- but you'd be surprised by how few know what they are.

The point of my asking this, as I mentioned above, is that they're one of the more important players in the economy. They own significant shares of major corporations, etc.

BlackRock's chairman and CEO is Larry Fink. He's been pushing a "new" ideology called "stakeholder capitalism" -- which means emphasizing the importance of the community, employees, and world in which the business operates, rather than simply increasing shareholder value. That means more investment in ESG funds, using their proxy vote to elect directors on various boards, etc. We saw it this week with their backing of the nominees of Engine no.1 at Exxon. I think that's significant.

What do we make of this? More window-dressing? A much-needed transitional step away from Friedman/neoliberal economics?

A little more than half so far. Better than I expected.

Let me briefly synopsize what apologists for state terrorism have hitherto asserted:


- Israel has a right to defend itself against the people they're oppressing and the land they're occupying.

- Israeli terrorism is more humane.

- The disproportionate death rates is due to Israel being a more powerful military force.

- There is no way to to fight Hamas without killing civilians, because they're intertwined with civilian infrastructure.

- Anyone who cares about Palestinians is virtue-signaling.


Have I missed anything?

So the answer doesn't matter. That's what I think too. — Daemon

The answer not only matters, but you’re living it.

Too stupid to understand it? That’s your business. In that case, throw out medicine too.

There have been many answers. You’re in fact living with a tacit understanding of what a human being is. In the West, since around Aristotle’s time, human beings have been defined as the zoon logon echon. In the medieval period, we were creatures of God. Etc.

“Satisfactory” has nothing to do with it. What’s a “satisfactory” answer to health— to what is healthy? Maybe we should throw out the field of medicine, since that question is “stupid and vague” as well, by your standards— after all, there’s no “satisfactory” answer.

It's a stupid, vague and therefore pointless question, — Daemon

That has engaged the greatest minds throughout history. I’ll go with them over a random internet person.

If this question is stupid, every question is stupid.

The question of what we are, as human beings, is one of the oldest ones and clearly still relevant today. How we answer that question — whether explicitly in philosophy forums or in academic halls, or tacitly in how we formulate goals and conduct ourselves — obviously has large implications for humanity’s future, because the decisions of our political and economic leaders are ultimately grounded in such answers (again, not always explicitly or consciously). So you’ve touched on one of the “big ones,” in my view.

My own take in answering this question is to look at what we do— and not just in special occasions, but as Heidegger says in our “average everydayness.”

If we want to describe an object’s function, for example, we look at characteristic use. A hammer can drive in nails or open paint cans, for example, but the latter wouldn’t usually be described as its function— because it’s not typically used that way.

Likewise for human beings, I think we have the tendency to privilege abstract (rational) thinking and otherwise conscious behavior as not only our defining property (related to language) but also our basic “function” — and this is, in a sense, a mistake. Not that it’s not true, but that it overlooks what’s truly typical. Because when you look at characteristic “use”— viz., what we typically do in an average day and in average moments — we apparently aren’t very rational or even very conscious, at least in the way the traditional Western view would describe.

Rather we seem mostly unaware of various phenomena, not only our internal workings (like digestion or breathing or heartbeating) but also our bodies, emotions, feelings and sensations, reactions, attitudes, actions and thoughts. Most of our thoughts aren’t abstract but rather “junk,” just noise, in this average state. Most of our actions are habitual— automatic, unconscious, even “irrational” in a sense. Personally, the practice of meditation shows me quite clearly just how much is forgotten, overlooked, taken for granted, and otherwise ignored in my life.

So then the question becomes: when you look at habit and automaticity, or unconscious behavior, what picture of a human being emerges?

Descartes says (more accurately) “I am consciously aware, therefore I am.” This is at the start of modern philosophy and science. But to me this is like saying “I’m awake, therefore I’m alive.” What happens in sleep? Are we not alive? Do we cease to exist? No. Likewise, if our activity is largely unconscious, does this mean “I am not”? No. In fact, as I mentioned above, it appears as if there’s more evidence to suggest we’re acting mostly unconsciously— and so perhaps it is the sum that grounds the cogitare?

Food for thought.

The Darwinists have looked more at the way we have evolved from animals, although the missing link has not been found. — Jack Cummins

Come on now. This is just a mistake. Don’t fall into this reasoning. There is no “missing link.” All evidence points to us evolving from primates, and we are in fact primates ourselves.

This does not, however, explain everything. But let us be very careful about critiquing science.

but have IRA members ever ran through London stabbing other people indiscriminately until they were eventually shot? Have they ever disguised bombs as balloons and flown them towards Elementary schools? Do they throw loads of rocks at random British civilians for no reason other than that they are British? — BitconnectCarlos

No — we all agree that Israel’s terrorism and war crimes are of a far higher quality. Their way of killing children is much more humane.

You fail to understand the difference between the intentional murder of innocents, say, putting a knife through a stranger's back because of his ethnicity on one hand, and the targeting of military targets and infrastructure. Until you understand this difference it's all gonna be the same to you. — BitconnectCarlos

The United States often says the exact same thing. Like the Al Shifa bombing.

When our team does it, it’s not intentional— because we’re the god guys. When they do it, it’s intentional and they’re evil.

This is what you continually fail to see. You swallow the pretext wholesale. If we look at the real world, and not “intentions,” the death counts tell a slightly different story than the rationalizations we tell ourselves.

If you want to believe it, you’re welcome to.

The precautions and the steps taken before bombing are all very well documented. — BitconnectCarlos

As are the war crimes. You selectively choose one and ignore the other.

I guess because it’s a more “civil” kind of war crime, and a more well-intentioned terrorism, we’ll let it slide. We’re the good guys, after all, and everything we do is defensive.

The Nazi archives are filled with similar sentiments.

Yes, but reactions aren't causes. Hitler may have came to power as a reaction against the Allied forces and the treaty of Versailles, but those things didn't cause Hitler. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, they did. They’re factors that led to Hitler. The US bombing of Iraq led to ISIS. Israel’s treatment of Gaza led to Hamas.

You wouldn’t have Hamas without Israeli-imposed conditions. You want to continually translate this as some direct causal link, taking it literally as “Israel created Hamas” or whatever, but you know very well what’s meant. Argue semantics somewhere else.

Hamas is a reaction? Yes. Reactions aren’t causes— right, they’re effects. Effects from what exactly? Israeli treatment. So if Israel is serious about preventing further war, they should perhaps change their policies and stop making Gaza an unlivable shithole.

Front page of Ny Times today, and this only scratches the surface:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/us/israel-gaza-conflict.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Killing innocent people is not what is pertinent here. — BitconnectCarlos

On the contrary. You might not want to face it, but it’s extremely pertinent.

Israel actually takes extensive precautions to limit casualties and only targets military infrastructure, — BitconnectCarlos

Like media and residential buildings. Israel says it, so it must be true.

I deny war crimes. — BitconnectCarlos

Like most apologists for state terrorism. Swallow the propaganda whole, because it happens to be your team. Basic tribalism; basic propaganda.

You’re simply deluded.

This position of blaming everything that Hamas does on Israel also robs the Palestinians of agency and moral responsibility. Actions are ultimately taken by individuals and groups in the present and these actions are not determined entirely via past events unless you just want to strip people of free will. — BitconnectCarlos

Give me a break.

I didn’t blame Israel for what Hamas does any more than I blame the US for everything ISIS does. But both were created by Israel and the US policy, respectively.

I’m talking about the present. In the PRESENT, Palestinians in Gaza are living in a hellhole. It just so happens they’ve also been living that way for decades, thanks to Israel.

Israel is a terrorist state, as is the US. Your delusions are your own.

I haven't made anything up. — thewonder

Yes, you have.

You've proven yourself too much a buffoon for me to really care about responding seriously. Sorry, but I'm not interested.

Chomsky is talking about contemporary Libertarianism — thewonder

Which is what I'm talking about, too.

and the origins of Libertarianism as an Anarchist school of thought. — thewonder

No. Not as an "anarchist school of thought." You're making that up. He does mention that it's related to 17th and 18th century classical liberalism, which has commonalities to traditional anarchism.

Read the article. — thewonder

I already have -- and it's completely irrelevant.

https://youtu.be/mbouhVto1MY

(Because I’m tired of explaining it.)

Wall Street Journal editorial:

Meanwhile Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran saw that Democratic support for Israel in the U.S. has declined. We credited President Biden this week with not trying to dictate Israel’s security decisions, but he soon bent rhetorically to his party’s left, saying Wednesday he “expected a significant deescalation today.”

Yes -- that weak statement is a step too far for the editorial board.

We're simply living in different realities at this point.

In US history at least wealthy economic conservatives have talked a good game about the virtues of self-discipline and freedom from government control, but they've also been the quiet beneficiaries of centralized influence over protective tariffs, immigration policy, monetary policy, bailouts, subsidies, etc. — Erik

Indeed. The list goes on and on: tax cuts, weakening of tax havens, weakening of the SEC, weakening of the IRS, patent laws, roads, police and military protection, the court system, state-funded innovation and research (computers, the internet, etc.), and on and on. All gifts from the state -- i.e., from the taxpayers. None of this is considered "socialism," of course.

But when the state tries to do something for the population al la the New Deal, it's "big government meddling in your lives." It's communism. Marxism.

It's an old trick that people are waking up to, especially young people. They see the hypocrisy and the double standards. Thanks in large part to the Great Recession, the Occupy movement, Bernie Sanders campaigns (AOC et al.), and social media, this has all been exposed. The truth is on their side -- and it's obvious. Just as the science is on the environmentalists side. Very hard to argue with. It reminds me more of the marijuana "debate," which has come a long way indeed. The hypocrisy of allowing alcohol while criminalizing marijuana was extremely hard to justify after a while. Ditto gay marriage. The states can lead the way, as they should, as examples for others. Once it's shown that the world doesn't end when these things change, and that they can sometimes be (gasp) profitable, things start to turning around...very slowly. Like turning an oil tanker.

That gives me hope about destroying neoliberalism, and about the environment. What's depressing is that these signs should have been emerging about 30 years ago, right around 1990 -- or at the latest, around 2000. But nothing happened then, and so here we are.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Al Gore was elected instead of the walking disaster that was W. It would have been a huge plus to the environment, at least. So perhaps we'd have a head start there. But who knows. Sometimes it takes disasters like Bush and Trump -- or recessions, pandemics, wars, floods/draughts/hurricanes/extreme heat/rising seas, etc -- to wake us all up.

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too.
— Xtrix

Would you wish Joe Biden dead if he were to do something similar? — BitconnectCarlos

You were the one saying you'd like Hamas leaders dead, not me. So you've completely missed the point. The point is a simple one: if you wish the Hamas leaders dead, you should wish Bibi dead. Both are responsible for killing innocent people. Although they are by no means equal -- Bibi has killed far more. (Saying "that's because Israel has a better military" -- as you so often do -- is exactly the point: they have far more power.)

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here.
— Xtrix

It's both the Israeli government and Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

No, it isn't. Hamas is a result of decades of living in a hellhole, not the cause. The cause is the Israeli government. There would be no Hamas without Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians, just as there would be no ISIS without the US's terrorist campaign in Iraq.

Again, I'll repeat: there is no parity here. If Israel truly cared about protecting itself, and about peace, then it would stop creating conditions in which groups like Hamas gain power, and stop contributing to terrorism itself.

Same is true of the US -- blaming everything on ISIS. Yes, ISIS is awful -- but how did they arise? After years of US terrorism. If you overlook that, you're not really serious about stopping terrorism.

But it's very difficult for people to see that when it's their own "team," no matter what country. Tribalism and propaganda almost always prevail. Israel is no different. Nor are you, as a defender and equivocator for Israel.

I don't think either sides' governments are interested in peace presently, but if the people can come together and somehow demand new leadership we'd be in a much better position going forward. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, especially the people who have much more privilege and power; namely, the Israeli citizens.

The first step, of course, is recognizing that your government is engaging in war crimes. So, again, you're a good example of why things don't change -- despite your claims of wanting Bibi out.

Many Americans wanted Bush out of office too, without acknowledging that he was a war criminal.

I mean, all you have to do is look up the word, "Libertarian" in the dictionary and see that is makes no mention of corporatist. — Harry Hindu

This is meant as a joke, right? Or are you serious?

It's up to us level-headed folk to educate these numbskulls what the terms really do mean. — Harry Hindu

Yes, like the meme you posted, which is what I was using if you deign to read. Hence my mentioning "government should leave us alone" and "support free markets."

The term can be used any way you like. I don't care about that. I care about reality. The reality is that the policies proposed and supported by those who claim to be "Libertarian" are clear examples of what I mentioned: neoliberal corporatism through and through.

But you stick to the dictionary if you like.

I'll state it another way. Who would want to internalize 'rugged individualism' in regards to how MLK professed it?

And, yet the right and many on the left embrace it. — Shawn

Who would "want to internalize it"? That's like asking who would want to internalize the language or religion or stories of one's culture. A very strange way to word it.

It's simply propaganda, and many people have internalized it. Whether they want to or not. Individualism has been cultivated as an ideal. As you mentioned, it's all over -- on the left and the right.

As if embracing rugged individualism would bring about anything of utility. — Shawn

Your reading comprehension problems aside, that's exactly the point: it doesn't bring about anything of utility.

I suggest reading more broadly and more carefully before commenting.

I have no idea what this means. — Shawn

No kidding. Nor do you want to.

OK, then you said:

"I'd like to get reactions to this assertion from the Forum." — Shawn

Sorry, but this is what I said:

A major part of keeping the ruling minority class in the position they are, is keeping the majority divided. Most of us know this, and it takes various forms: race, social issues, religion, geographical area, etcetera. But one of the greatest (and easily overlooked) ways of keeping people apart is by encouraging the internalization of "rugged individualism" as an ideal.

I'd like to get reactions to this assertion from the Forum. — Xtrix

I wasn't looking for a reaction to the Martin Luther King quotation, and certainly not from anyone who doesn't understand what it means.

I don't quite see the utility of the quote. — Shawn

That's clear, yes. But it's Martin Luther King, not I, who said it. It's been around for decades. Is this really your first encounter with it, or have you never understood the "utility" of it?

OK, so I'm poor, have to pull myself up by my bootstraps, and have to struggle to get forward. — Shawn

I really don't know what you mean by this. Are you describing a reality or are you describing an attitude about the poor?

The fact that you are still struggling to understand what King was talking about is revealing.

By the way, this quote of rugged individualism isn't any new thing, as Reagan promoted it to the right in his days. — Shawn

Yes, the hypocrisy of "rugged individualism" that King describes goes through many administrations. Which you don't seem to understand.

So, do idiots believe that they have to just bite the bullet and muster the willpower to pull themselves from their own bootstraps? Is that what this topic is about? — Shawn

I've explained several times what the "topic" is about. You seem either unwilling or incapable of understanding it.

The above is barely coherent, by the way. I'm not even sure what you're asking.

Yeah, so I'm asking what's so individualistic about being poor? — Shawn

This question is bizarre. You're still missing the point of that quotation.

There's nothing individualistic about being poor. There's nothing individualistic about being rich. This is barely coherent.

Again, he's talking about the encouraging of people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to reject handouts from the government, to "make it on one's own" -- whether poor or otherwise. Not to rely on the nanny welfare state, etc. This is what that quote is about.

What he's pointing out, however, is hypocrisy. Why? Because when it comes to the rich, they're the first ones that benefit from a welfare state, despite professing the ideal of "individualism." When the poor ask for anything, however, they're told to take a hike.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

I don't think you're understanding that quotation.

Martin Luther King isn't saying that being poor is individualistic, he's exposing a common attitude taken by those in power: they decry socialism and encourage "rugged individualism." In reality, it's actually the reverse of that -- i.e., what we actually have is socialism for the rich, where they get tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, and protections, while the poor are told to be rugged individuals who shouldn't be asking for handouts from the "Welfare state."

What's so individualistic about being poor, unless this is just trite satire? — Shawn

Who said being poor was "individualistic"? What are you talking about?

In any case, it has very much managed to seep into all of us to some extent or other. It may be starting to crack, as evidenced by Biden's agenda, which far, far from ideal, is a step away from austerity. — Manuel

Yes, and that's encouraging. That in fact was the hope -- that he could be pushed towards more progressive policies. So far there's only proposals, which are still short of ideal, and some haven't been pushed hard enough -- but it's a start. It's light years away from anything that would have happened under Trump, where we would not only not have these proposals, we'd be fending off attempts to go in the opposite direction. People still don't realize just how dangerous that would have been, and how important it was to vote him out. Which is very discouraging.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. Whatever you may think of her she and her team had a solid grasp of communication. — Tom Storm

Again, I really don't see the paragraph you mentioned as all that eloquent and, frankly, not very impressive. The fact that it resonates -- true, but so did Donald Trump's speeches. "We're gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay for it, because they're sending over rapists and drugs."

But yes, speechwriters are hired for a reason, and proponents of neoliberalism are very good at propaganda. Was this really your only point? In that case: yes, agreed.