"....the one that took conservatives completely by surprise over the last decade is the takeover of corporate America..." Yes this surprised a lot of people...me included. I basically agree with the answer you gave but think there's another factor that I haven't heard talked about. It's not easy to explain in one sentence so bear with me.
- all corporations become bureaucracies - inevitably
- the separate parts of any bureaucracy don't all sing from the same hymn sheet (Sales vs HR most obviously)
- but Advertising will particularly be a sub culture - see themselves as 'Creatives' and anyone who sees themself as a 'creative' will always be in the advanced guard of lefty virtue signalling bullshit.
- the higher ups in the corporation will often just mentally 'outsource' the advertising side, not care about it much - till it comes back to bite them (Gillette, Bud wise)
- my father worked in advertising all his life (even though he loathed it) and he told me that advertising was often not about selling; more about servicing the vanities of people within the company.
The corporate executives, particularly at major corporations, are more likely to be from the upper echelons of society and receive their education/indoctrination at Ivy League or Ivy League adjacent institutions that are filled with the vanguard of Leftist intellectuals in the faculties. Since most of these places are now overtly hostile to the American people and foundational principles, it’s not surprising that the C-Suite has swung Left.
Yes, the corporate takeover has been a surprise. The short answer -- execs are amoral incentive-responders -- is probably correct. As Lenin said, we Communists will sell the capitalists the rope they will hang themselves with. On their way to the noose, though, a few of them might have realized what's up, but so far they are comatose -- bought off. Perhaps they believe they can buy their way out of an impending crisis.
The problem with Ben is that he’s very bright, but he’s not been able to see that it doesn’t matter if you know everything if you back politicians who won’t and can’t get the job done. And it part and parcel of the inefficacy of the right. Instead of coalescing around Trump, who actually made a lot of decent policy decisions, some great ones, the conflicted Republicans kneecap Trump and themselves by fighting the one guy ( and most of their own voters- doh!) who can and will actually do something.
DeSantis, who’s done an overall excellent job in Florida, should not have, for a number of reasons, run for President. His campaign has been a disaster and likely has ruined any chance for him in the future. He should have waited.
Ben's position is that we need to back politicians who can win. You can't deny that Trump comes with a hell of a lot of baggage or that his entire campaign is going to revolve around his legal troubles. That all the charges are BS doesn't change the reality that they exist.
Is it possible that it could all backfire on the Democrats by opening eyes how blatantly tyrannical they have become and how far our country has gotten from it's constitutional ideals? Yes. Is it likely that enough people will see it this way? I have my doubts.
One point Ben constantly makes is that for all Trump's talk about how the election was stolen from him, he's done nothing to explain how he plans to prevent that from happening again. We already see the covid propaganda coming back, so clearly the plan is to repeat 2020 and minimize in person voting as much as possible. So what's the plan to counter that? It's a legitimate question.
I'm disappointed with DeSantis' campaign so far, but I still would love to see him get the nomination. I think he has a better chance of winning than Trump does.
Trump is barely over 50% nationally and he's barely above 40% in Iowa & NH. Considered as a incumbent president, those are horrendous numbers. In any other year, anyone looking at the numbers would call Trump likely to bomb even if he scrapes through the primary. An incumbent with numbers this bad would be considered dead in the water.
Your post is fairy dust. He’s beating the mannequin known as “Joe Biden”, who’s also the “President”. Trump is ahead by 35-40 points over the RNC Keebler elves running against him to please their donor masters. All of them are on a bobsled to anonymity. Any pollster worth his salt will tell you that all these numbers are very bad news for the people running against at Trump, regardless of the party. If Kennedy runs as an independent, the Marxists will have to cheat twice as hard. If you are a never Trumper, you’re basically a Democrat. Do you have a John Kasich bobble head on your dashboard? You stand for Trump or you’re against America et this point. Not complicated. Everybody else is a status quo prostitute.,
AMES, IA — Donald Trump far outpaces other Republican presidential nominees in an Iowa State University/Civiqs poll, which surveyed 1,128 registered voters from Sept. 2-7. The results are the first in a five-part, monthly poll intended to track shifting voter perspectives before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15, 2024.
Among the participants, 434 said they “definitely” or “probably” will attend the Iowa Republican Caucuses and identified themselves as Republican or independent. Just over half (51%) of these likely Republican caucus-goers picked former President Trump as their top choice. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis trailed in second place with 14%, followed by former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (10%) and entrepreneur and political commentator Vivek Ramaswamy (9%).
Furthermore, your statement is not accurate. If 49% of voters like someone other than Trump in a primary, you’re telling me that none of them are going to vote for Trump in the general election versus a Marxist Democrat puppet? “C’mon man”...as your “President” likes to say...
Why do you particularly believe this poll over others? In any case an incumbent Republican president getting just 51% support among likely Iowa caucusgoers would be considered terrible, terrible news for him in any other year. You are literally refusing to face the facts you yourself are posting.
Simple fact is that an incumbent doing 43% in Iowa would be considered toast in the general. Admit it or don't. Trump's not quite an incumbent but it's not unreasonable to consider him as one.
If support for Trump was as broad and deep as you imply, then he'd have to be doing better than 43%, wouldn't he? How do you square that? A literal majority of Republicans want someone else. Just depends on if support coalesces around one alternative fast enough.
This is a short excerpt from a longer interview and Rufo’s responses are spot on as far as they go. Corporate CEOs have secured their favors from the Right (low taxes, less regulation, free markets) and are now pandering to the Left, perhaps to avoid boycotts and expand their customer base. But let’s not forget the power of new corporate “standards” developed by Left-leaning organizations, like the UN and the WEF. A company can score highly on the ESG standards, for example, by hiring a DEI officer and committing to carbon neutrality by 2030. These “stakeholder Capitalism” measures and high ESG scores give them improved access to capital from Big Banks, like Chase, and more public and private investment through funds managed by woke firms like BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard.
Just another $0.02 worth - the “blackmailing” of corporate C-suite by their major shareholders at Black Rock, Vanguard, and Arabella Advisors. Yes, corporations are bureaucratic, yes, they are run by mutually-inclusive mockingbirds who speak ivy-league-speak, and all of that filters down to SVPs and managers. Ugh! What about the holders of the purse strings? Those pesky investor firms that control the majority of stock? They stand to gain $Billions (trillions) from the whole-world control that is on the horizon (if we don’t stop it!).
Mr Rufo ! Thanks for The plumb line of your philosophical position, one you constructed True to Form, one that therefore shines with the ultimate beauty in Understanding ! Among your increasing followers, I am privileged to have discovered you. Your Reasoned presentations are the most prolific conservative advances to date. Under their strength the illogical, the vain, and the vile expressions of conflicting ideals fall to the wayside. Only the most well designed oppositional premises can withstand yours, as it should be. However, Your words and voice, aligned with the erudite tradition of worldwide conservative ideals are not an anomaly of the American Spirit. Your voice represents the vast majority of Americans. Therefore, I congratulate you and support you.
This posted interview certainly highlights your insight into political mechanisms for cultural change. Thank you. Keep moving in your realm of ideation. You are creating viable material worthy of entering the crucible whereby Virtue made visible plumbs maligned architectural fissures to align with the eternal, balanced Cornerstone of vibrant democracy.
Never any mention of Wokeism as it pertains to the UN Agendas 21-30. Is it not all part of a plan to deceive? Globalization is where it’s headed. Creating confusion and Incremental brainwashing!
So, let's start with this premise: for-profit corporation decision-making is profit-driven as opposed to amoral. They have a set of values determined by profit-seeking. Their objective is to maximize corporate value for their owners whether that is for shareholders or for privately held for-profit corporations.
By the use of the word 'amoral' you are attempting to convey to your readers the idea that the 'moral' imperative for corporations should by driven by economics rather that the 'immoral' cultural side of life. In reality, the push to ascribe 'amoral' to business decision-making, 'moral' to conservative side (ie money) and 'immoral' to the progressive side (ie cultural responsibilities) misses the point of business - which is to maximize profits for the corporation and it's owners via a very Randian way,.. self-interest.
So the use of the word 'amoral' suggests to me that you're trying make a distinction in the minds of your readers and listeners that if a corporation seeks to maximize profits, has no DE&I programs, and does not contribute philanthropically to progressive groups and organizations, then that corporation is 'moral'. Conversely, your use of the word 'amoral' also strongly suggests that 'immoral' corporations are those that are culturally responsible, contribute to progressive groups and institutions, has DE&I programs and offices, etc.
By your reasoning, you are also indirectly saying that not-for-profit groups, organizations, and corporations who espouse progressive ideas and ideals are by default 'immoral'. And, those that are supportive your views are thus 'moral' in an attempt to manipulate or re-enforce your views in your readers and listeners minds.
So what are for-profit corporations motives? Maximize profits. That's it. Period. Notice that I did not put an adjective, ie moral, immoral, or amoral, in front of 'motives' in that first sentence in this paragraph. It simply is not appropriate for that sentence. Why? For-profit corporations are driven by, well,.. profits.
Now, bringing this together for you, corporations associate with, contribute to, and get in bed with whomever can potentially maximize profits. It's not an either/or proposition. If the corporation believes they can make a profit, or prevent losses, then they will do it. Again, notice here to that I did not say with whom that they get in bed with. It simply doesn't matter. Maximizing profits is the goal. Left, right, or indifferent, it doesn't matter. It's all about making and protecting profits.
Theoretically there are "moral" people that are "woke", that advocate for civil rights and social justice, but they are rare, and if they don't stay quiet and mute their criticism of the "woke" RACE GRIFTERS, they tend to get stabbed in the back.*
The issue is corruption. Moral people are not corrupt.
Amoral corporations, NGOs and creepy "woke" transhumanists-globalists ARE CORRUPT, or will become corrupt as soon as the "woke" "left" turns its attention to them.
See Nassim Taleb's work on "The Dictatorship of the Intolerant Minority".
-----
* This is how TOXIC, LYING WOKE RACE GRIFTERS stab liberal/center-left critics in the back
Was Jesus immoral? Here's the parable he shared: "To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away." The moral blessing comes from bold and creative risk taking, regardless of the system employed: Economic or Altruistic. Capitalism, an imperfect system because of greed, is nevertheless the best system for widespread distribution of wealth the world has ever employed. Distribution of wealth in Communism is a stillborn, non-productive economic methodology. It kills creativity, motivation, and economic growth.
What is "degrowth"? Well, that's simple. It's not just the newest brand name for the "Net Zero" environmentalist scam; it's Communism rebranded and newly organized for the 21st century. That is, it is death. It is the fulfillment of Critical Marxist Herbert Marcuse's vision for a synthetic fusion of capitalism and socialism outlined in One-dimensional Man and An Essay on Liberation (pdf) from the 1960s. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay breaks down the idea of "degrowth," sharing from a socialist magazine, an unlikely article in a physics publication, and a new book that claims "Degrowth Communism" is the realization of what Karl Marx really intended with his theories.
I know this is weeks old now, but I was reminded of the discussion when I saw this post on LinkedIn today by the CEO of Pfizer in which he touts the benefits of DEI programs. It’s impressively inaccurate. Also, the reference to the World Economic Forum is truly odd.
'So, corporate executives are confronting three-dimensional pressure, and—as amoral incentive-responders—they make the obvious choice: they kowtow to these left-wing cultural policies.' The kowtowing corporate execs apparently don't realize they are digging their own graves. Or more accurately, destroying the very prosperity that has delivered a high standard of living for all, and their wealth in particular. Your work may eventually help them get the connection, or change the incentives, or both. Hope that happens before it's too late. It's going to take a while to repair the damage, which will probably require large-scale replacement of those in charge of the current self-destructive incentives.
Yes. The underlying material and class structures began to change after WW2 in the shift from an economy of production, farming, legacy manufacturing, yeoman business owners and their working class employees to a postmodern consumer and digital economy.
Everything from the 1950s/60s on was just an elaboration of the rise of the professional-managerial classes, who are neither working class or wealthy.
The expansion of globalism and neoliberalism/neoconservatism are similarly functions of those underlying material, economic and class dynamics.
As quoted by NS Lyons in his article on the Canadian truckers' protest, Christopher Lasch (historian) pointed out the postmoderns hold the "belief" (woke is a cult) that "Reality is a social construct".
Thus, the "woke" postmodern cult mutated into a dogmatic quasi religion of luxury-digital-gnosticism.
Woke = "Virtuals"
Non-woke = "Physicals".
The more digital-global economics expand, the more wealth and power the woke-gnostic cult gains.
As non-intuitive as it is for many populists (left or right or independent), survival will be dependent on aligning with the traditional manufacturing and agricultural economy and small businesses outside of the global economy and "green" economy.
Manufacturing and farming corporations (from Exxon to Musk) are the only entity with power that are the *natural enemy* of the "woke" global gnostic-digital cult.
How Herbert Marcuse’s widow used a Scientology-linked cult’s methodology to gamify Identity Politics and thus helped steer the U.S. Left down the dead-end path of identitarian psychobabble.
"....the one that took conservatives completely by surprise over the last decade is the takeover of corporate America..." Yes this surprised a lot of people...me included. I basically agree with the answer you gave but think there's another factor that I haven't heard talked about. It's not easy to explain in one sentence so bear with me.
- all corporations become bureaucracies - inevitably
- the separate parts of any bureaucracy don't all sing from the same hymn sheet (Sales vs HR most obviously)
- but Advertising will particularly be a sub culture - see themselves as 'Creatives' and anyone who sees themself as a 'creative' will always be in the advanced guard of lefty virtue signalling bullshit.
- the higher ups in the corporation will often just mentally 'outsource' the advertising side, not care about it much - till it comes back to bite them (Gillette, Bud wise)
- my father worked in advertising all his life (even though he loathed it) and he told me that advertising was often not about selling; more about servicing the vanities of people within the company.
The corporate executives, particularly at major corporations, are more likely to be from the upper echelons of society and receive their education/indoctrination at Ivy League or Ivy League adjacent institutions that are filled with the vanguard of Leftist intellectuals in the faculties. Since most of these places are now overtly hostile to the American people and foundational principles, it’s not surprising that the C-Suite has swung Left.
Yes all very true that...I just wanted to pick out something else that I haven't seen much talk about.
Ivy league Indoctrination, Yes...and some! https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
Yes, the corporate takeover has been a surprise. The short answer -- execs are amoral incentive-responders -- is probably correct. As Lenin said, we Communists will sell the capitalists the rope they will hang themselves with. On their way to the noose, though, a few of them might have realized what's up, but so far they are comatose -- bought off. Perhaps they believe they can buy their way out of an impending crisis.
The problem with Ben is that he’s very bright, but he’s not been able to see that it doesn’t matter if you know everything if you back politicians who won’t and can’t get the job done. And it part and parcel of the inefficacy of the right. Instead of coalescing around Trump, who actually made a lot of decent policy decisions, some great ones, the conflicted Republicans kneecap Trump and themselves by fighting the one guy ( and most of their own voters- doh!) who can and will actually do something.
DeSantis, who’s done an overall excellent job in Florida, should not have, for a number of reasons, run for President. His campaign has been a disaster and likely has ruined any chance for him in the future. He should have waited.
Ben's position is that we need to back politicians who can win. You can't deny that Trump comes with a hell of a lot of baggage or that his entire campaign is going to revolve around his legal troubles. That all the charges are BS doesn't change the reality that they exist.
Is it possible that it could all backfire on the Democrats by opening eyes how blatantly tyrannical they have become and how far our country has gotten from it's constitutional ideals? Yes. Is it likely that enough people will see it this way? I have my doubts.
One point Ben constantly makes is that for all Trump's talk about how the election was stolen from him, he's done nothing to explain how he plans to prevent that from happening again. We already see the covid propaganda coming back, so clearly the plan is to repeat 2020 and minimize in person voting as much as possible. So what's the plan to counter that? It's a legitimate question.
I'm disappointed with DeSantis' campaign so far, but I still would love to see him get the nomination. I think he has a better chance of winning than Trump does.
Respectfully, you are living in dreamland.
Trump is barely over 50% nationally and he's barely above 40% in Iowa & NH. Considered as a incumbent president, those are horrendous numbers. In any other year, anyone looking at the numbers would call Trump likely to bomb even if he scrapes through the primary. An incumbent with numbers this bad would be considered dead in the water.
Your post is fairy dust. He’s beating the mannequin known as “Joe Biden”, who’s also the “President”. Trump is ahead by 35-40 points over the RNC Keebler elves running against him to please their donor masters. All of them are on a bobsled to anonymity. Any pollster worth his salt will tell you that all these numbers are very bad news for the people running against at Trump, regardless of the party. If Kennedy runs as an independent, the Marxists will have to cheat twice as hard. If you are a never Trumper, you’re basically a Democrat. Do you have a John Kasich bobble head on your dashboard? You stand for Trump or you’re against America et this point. Not complicated. Everybody else is a status quo prostitute.,
Be serious. Every mainstream poll is a suppression poll. Here’s a poll from yesterday.
Your numbers are incorrect. https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2023/09/08/24caucus-poll1
AMES, IA — Donald Trump far outpaces other Republican presidential nominees in an Iowa State University/Civiqs poll, which surveyed 1,128 registered voters from Sept. 2-7. The results are the first in a five-part, monthly poll intended to track shifting voter perspectives before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15, 2024.
Among the participants, 434 said they “definitely” or “probably” will attend the Iowa Republican Caucuses and identified themselves as Republican or independent. Just over half (51%) of these likely Republican caucus-goers picked former President Trump as their top choice. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis trailed in second place with 14%, followed by former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (10%) and entrepreneur and political commentator Vivek Ramaswamy (9%).
Furthermore, your statement is not accurate. If 49% of voters like someone other than Trump in a primary, you’re telling me that none of them are going to vote for Trump in the general election versus a Marxist Democrat puppet? “C’mon man”...as your “President” likes to say...
Why do you particularly believe this poll over others? In any case an incumbent Republican president getting just 51% support among likely Iowa caucusgoers would be considered terrible, terrible news for him in any other year. You are literally refusing to face the facts you yourself are posting.
Yeah, ok. The Keebler Elves will win. You got me. Genius argument. Jaw dropping logic. Next.
Thanks for admitting that Trump's numbers are terrible for an incumbent, I think?
Simple fact is that an incumbent doing 43% in Iowa would be considered toast in the general. Admit it or don't. Trump's not quite an incumbent but it's not unreasonable to consider him as one.
If support for Trump was as broad and deep as you imply, then he'd have to be doing better than 43%, wouldn't he? How do you square that? A literal majority of Republicans want someone else. Just depends on if support coalesces around one alternative fast enough.
This is a short excerpt from a longer interview and Rufo’s responses are spot on as far as they go. Corporate CEOs have secured their favors from the Right (low taxes, less regulation, free markets) and are now pandering to the Left, perhaps to avoid boycotts and expand their customer base. But let’s not forget the power of new corporate “standards” developed by Left-leaning organizations, like the UN and the WEF. A company can score highly on the ESG standards, for example, by hiring a DEI officer and committing to carbon neutrality by 2030. These “stakeholder Capitalism” measures and high ESG scores give them improved access to capital from Big Banks, like Chase, and more public and private investment through funds managed by woke firms like BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard.
Just another $0.02 worth - the “blackmailing” of corporate C-suite by their major shareholders at Black Rock, Vanguard, and Arabella Advisors. Yes, corporations are bureaucratic, yes, they are run by mutually-inclusive mockingbirds who speak ivy-league-speak, and all of that filters down to SVPs and managers. Ugh! What about the holders of the purse strings? Those pesky investor firms that control the majority of stock? They stand to gain $Billions (trillions) from the whole-world control that is on the horizon (if we don’t stop it!).
Mr Rufo ! Thanks for The plumb line of your philosophical position, one you constructed True to Form, one that therefore shines with the ultimate beauty in Understanding ! Among your increasing followers, I am privileged to have discovered you. Your Reasoned presentations are the most prolific conservative advances to date. Under their strength the illogical, the vain, and the vile expressions of conflicting ideals fall to the wayside. Only the most well designed oppositional premises can withstand yours, as it should be. However, Your words and voice, aligned with the erudite tradition of worldwide conservative ideals are not an anomaly of the American Spirit. Your voice represents the vast majority of Americans. Therefore, I congratulate you and support you.
This posted interview certainly highlights your insight into political mechanisms for cultural change. Thank you. Keep moving in your realm of ideation. You are creating viable material worthy of entering the crucible whereby Virtue made visible plumbs maligned architectural fissures to align with the eternal, balanced Cornerstone of vibrant democracy.
Ben needs a shave. Looks like he just went to town on two scoops of devil's fudge.
Never any mention of Wokeism as it pertains to the UN Agendas 21-30. Is it not all part of a plan to deceive? Globalization is where it’s headed. Creating confusion and Incremental brainwashing!
So, let's start with this premise: for-profit corporation decision-making is profit-driven as opposed to amoral. They have a set of values determined by profit-seeking. Their objective is to maximize corporate value for their owners whether that is for shareholders or for privately held for-profit corporations.
By the use of the word 'amoral' you are attempting to convey to your readers the idea that the 'moral' imperative for corporations should by driven by economics rather that the 'immoral' cultural side of life. In reality, the push to ascribe 'amoral' to business decision-making, 'moral' to conservative side (ie money) and 'immoral' to the progressive side (ie cultural responsibilities) misses the point of business - which is to maximize profits for the corporation and it's owners via a very Randian way,.. self-interest.
So the use of the word 'amoral' suggests to me that you're trying make a distinction in the minds of your readers and listeners that if a corporation seeks to maximize profits, has no DE&I programs, and does not contribute philanthropically to progressive groups and organizations, then that corporation is 'moral'. Conversely, your use of the word 'amoral' also strongly suggests that 'immoral' corporations are those that are culturally responsible, contribute to progressive groups and institutions, has DE&I programs and offices, etc.
By your reasoning, you are also indirectly saying that not-for-profit groups, organizations, and corporations who espouse progressive ideas and ideals are by default 'immoral'. And, those that are supportive your views are thus 'moral' in an attempt to manipulate or re-enforce your views in your readers and listeners minds.
So what are for-profit corporations motives? Maximize profits. That's it. Period. Notice that I did not put an adjective, ie moral, immoral, or amoral, in front of 'motives' in that first sentence in this paragraph. It simply is not appropriate for that sentence. Why? For-profit corporations are driven by, well,.. profits.
Now, bringing this together for you, corporations associate with, contribute to, and get in bed with whomever can potentially maximize profits. It's not an either/or proposition. If the corporation believes they can make a profit, or prevent losses, then they will do it. Again, notice here to that I did not say with whom that they get in bed with. It simply doesn't matter. Maximizing profits is the goal. Left, right, or indifferent, it doesn't matter. It's all about making and protecting profits.
AMORAL = CORRUPT
Theoretically there are "moral" people that are "woke", that advocate for civil rights and social justice, but they are rare, and if they don't stay quiet and mute their criticism of the "woke" RACE GRIFTERS, they tend to get stabbed in the back.*
The issue is corruption. Moral people are not corrupt.
Amoral corporations, NGOs and creepy "woke" transhumanists-globalists ARE CORRUPT, or will become corrupt as soon as the "woke" "left" turns its attention to them.
See Nassim Taleb's work on "The Dictatorship of the Intolerant Minority".
-----
* This is how TOXIC, LYING WOKE RACE GRIFTERS stab liberal/center-left critics in the back
compactmag.com/article/a-black-dei-director-canceled-by-dei
compactmag. com /article/a-black-dei-director-canceled-by-dei
Was Jesus immoral? Here's the parable he shared: "To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away." The moral blessing comes from bold and creative risk taking, regardless of the system employed: Economic or Altruistic. Capitalism, an imperfect system because of greed, is nevertheless the best system for widespread distribution of wealth the world has ever employed. Distribution of wealth in Communism is a stillborn, non-productive economic methodology. It kills creativity, motivation, and economic growth.
When Marcuse was formulating the "woke" New Left, he explicitly merged Marxism with "capitalism" (the corporate-state).
-----
https://www.patreon.com/posts/degrowth-is-87839391
excerpt:
Degrowth is Communism
What is "degrowth"? Well, that's simple. It's not just the newest brand name for the "Net Zero" environmentalist scam; it's Communism rebranded and newly organized for the 21st century. That is, it is death. It is the fulfillment of Critical Marxist Herbert Marcuse's vision for a synthetic fusion of capitalism and socialism outlined in One-dimensional Man and An Essay on Liberation (pdf) from the 1960s. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay breaks down the idea of "degrowth," sharing from a socialist magazine, an unlikely article in a physics publication, and a new book that claims "Degrowth Communism" is the realization of what Karl Marx really intended with his theories.
---end---
links:
https://www.amazon.com/One-Dimensional-Man-Ideology-Advanced-Industrial/dp/0807014176
https://monoskop.org/images/2/27/Marcuse_Herbert_Essay_on_Liberation.pdf
rebirth of 1960s anti-growth environmentalism:
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-degrowth-planet.html
https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Anthropocene-Kohei-Saito/dp/1009366181
---
Troy [Keith] Preston said:
Degrowth is part of the agenda of the eco-totalitarian wing of the ruling class but the concept is Malthusian, not Marxist.
Hi John, and that relates to what I said, how?
I have no idea!
lol....
I know this is weeks old now, but I was reminded of the discussion when I saw this post on LinkedIn today by the CEO of Pfizer in which he touts the benefits of DEI programs. It’s impressively inaccurate. Also, the reference to the World Economic Forum is truly odd.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/albert-bourla_i-recently-had-the-great-pleasure-of-joining-activity-7111091807593095168-ec1c?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
Republicans lose because of the uniparty. Both stink. Ben is part of that paradigm.
'So, corporate executives are confronting three-dimensional pressure, and—as amoral incentive-responders—they make the obvious choice: they kowtow to these left-wing cultural policies.' The kowtowing corporate execs apparently don't realize they are digging their own graves. Or more accurately, destroying the very prosperity that has delivered a high standard of living for all, and their wealth in particular. Your work may eventually help them get the connection, or change the incentives, or both. Hope that happens before it's too late. It's going to take a while to repair the damage, which will probably require large-scale replacement of those in charge of the current self-destructive incentives.
Another good conversation.
Tony Robins talks with Jordan Peterson
https://youtu.be/6fwrTb3dm5Y?si=xT6wbspmZBqs8nBt
FROM YOUR ARTICLE:
"In some sense, there have been no new ideas on the Left since that time. "
DOES THE FOLLOWING LIST INCLUDE THE MAIN ITEMS YOU ALLUDE TO ["NO NEW IDEAS ] ::::::
CRITICAL RACE THEORY (CRT)
VICTIM/OPPRESSED VS. OPPRESSOR
BLACK/LGBTQ+ VS. WHITE OPPRESSORS
GENDER IDEOLOGY FREEING EVERY RESTRICTED CATEGORY OF SEXUAL ABERRATIONS
OPPRESSION OF FIRST, SECOND, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION
FOUNDING FATHERS AS OPPRESSOR RACISTS PRIME
RACIST REPUBLIC
SLAVE STATE
REPUBLICAN PARTY AS PERPETUATOR OF RACISM
DECONSTRUCTION OF THE PATRIARCHAL HEGEMONY
CAPITALISM AS RACIST ECONOMIC PARADIGM
I'm writing an article referencing your new book and this article with Ben Shapiro.
Thanks.
Yes. The underlying material and class structures began to change after WW2 in the shift from an economy of production, farming, legacy manufacturing, yeoman business owners and their working class employees to a postmodern consumer and digital economy.
Everything from the 1950s/60s on was just an elaboration of the rise of the professional-managerial classes, who are neither working class or wealthy.
The expansion of globalism and neoliberalism/neoconservatism are similarly functions of those underlying material, economic and class dynamics.
As quoted by NS Lyons in his article on the Canadian truckers' protest, Christopher Lasch (historian) pointed out the postmoderns hold the "belief" (woke is a cult) that "Reality is a social construct".
Thus, the "woke" postmodern cult mutated into a dogmatic quasi religion of luxury-digital-gnosticism.
Woke = "Virtuals"
Non-woke = "Physicals".
The more digital-global economics expand, the more wealth and power the woke-gnostic cult gains.
As non-intuitive as it is for many populists (left or right or independent), survival will be dependent on aligning with the traditional manufacturing and agricultural economy and small businesses outside of the global economy and "green" economy.
Manufacturing and farming corporations (from Exxon to Musk) are the only entity with power that are the *natural enemy* of the "woke" global gnostic-digital cult.
Lots of socialists like this guy loath the "woke" "left".
HOW "WOKEISM" ORIGINATED AS "IDENTITARIAN PSYCHOBABBLE"
nonsite.org/the-first-privilege-walk/
nonsite. org /the-first-privilege-walk/
The First Privilege Walk
BY Christian Parenti
November 18, 2021
How Herbert Marcuse’s widow used a Scientology-linked cult’s methodology to gamify Identity Politics and thus helped steer the U.S. Left down the dead-end path of identitarian psychobabble.
...