Ecuador would like Julian Assange out of their embassy by the sounds of it.

[squirrelp]

Quite approve of this though...

 

[shifting gears]

Does he ever describe himself as "the worlds most established and respected anarchist" ? You know like "The best anarchist".

Nah, not really his style. And of course he'd balk at the quoted description.

But given that he's a genius within the field of linguistics; a philosopher of sorts; one of the most quoted of all living academics... I could go on - as well as a self-identifying anarchist - then it's not actually a particularly outlandish claim, whether he'd agree or not.

 

[Ralph Llama]

Then don't go on and report his posts afterwards.

I did not. I remember because I did place him on ignore.
Apologies for overdoing the reporting. I thought the way it worked for trolling was to report the individual posts that contain trolling comments that were disrupting the thread. Obviously not LOL.

Abusing 'report post' function Friday at 6:41 PM 1 until Apr 16, 2018 at 8:00 PM
Abusing the report post button Friday at 6:12 PM 1 until Mar 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM

Right-

mojo pixy, you were suggesting you were interested in my use of `industrial feudalism` ?

There is no "feudal industrialism" that isn't just a meaningless mashup of two terms Marx uses in the intro to Capital to talk about the roots of Capitalism.

So go on, explain yourself. Please. Or don't. But don't come on all supercilious when so far you're giving every impression of noisy ignorance and hippy bollocks.

EtA, oh ffs the twit is banned. I'm conflicted now

This piece from Rogue States (Chomsky) covers it as well as hopefully clarifying the point I made about JA`s point.

p208
A century ago, during the early stages of the corporatization of the United States, discussion(about these matters)was quite frank. Conservatives a century ago denounced the procedure, describing corporatization as a "return to feudalism" and "a form of communism," which is not an entirely inappropriate analogy. There were similar intellectual origins in neo-Hegelian ideas about the rights of organic entities, along with the belief in the need to have a centralized administration of chaotic systems- like the markets, which were out of control. It’s worth bearing in mind that in today’s so-called "free-trade economy" a very large component of cross-border transactions (which are misleadingly called trade), probably about 70 percent of them, are actually within centrally managed institutions, within corporations and corporate alliances, if we include outsourcing and other devices of administration. That’s quite apart from all kinds of other radical market distortions.

The conservative critique-notice that I am using the term "conservative" in a traditional sense; such conservatives scarcely exist any more-was echoed at the liberal/progressive end of the spectrum early in the 20th century, most notably perhaps by John Dewey, America’s leading social philosopher, whose work focused largely on democracy. He argued that democratic forms have little substance when "the life of the country"-production, commerce, media-is ruled by private tyrannies in a system that he called "industrial feudalism," in which working people are subordinated to managerial control, and politics becomes "the shadow cast by big business over society." Notice that he was articulating ideas that were common coin among working people many years earlier. And the same was true of his call for the replacement of industrial feudalism by self-managed industrial democracy.

Interestingly, progressive intellectuals who favored the process of corporatization agreed more or less with this description. Woodrow Wilson, for example, wrote that "most men are servants of corporations," which now account for the "greater part of the business of the country" in a "very different America from the old, .. . no longer a scene of individual enterprise, … individual opportunity, and individual achievement," but a new America, in which "small groups of men in control of great corporations wield a power and control over the wealth and business opportunities of the country," becoming "rivals of the government itself," and undermining popular sovereignty, exercised through the democratic political system. Notice this was written in support of the process. He described the process as maybe unfortunate, but necessary, agreeing with the business world, particularly after the destructive market failures of the preceding years had convinced the business world and progressive intellectuals that markets simply had to be administered and that financial transactions had to be regulated.

Socioeconomic Sovereignty, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Rogue States)

Maybe you could break that down for poor young Noxion

butchersapron ,who seems to be spymaster `s leading light on the subject , didn`t even know that JA was a hacker!?

Edit - some childish statement I made which was probably out of my own paranoia.

Spymaster - raise your own game. I`m not playing one.

 

[butchersapron]

One more into this drivel: the defining characteristic of feudalism is the use of extra economic methods to produce a social surplus and a concomitant unity of politics and economics as a result. That is, direct violence legitimated by a system of inherited rank and associated privilege. The defining characteristic of capitalism is the securing of this surplus via economic means - wage labour and the separation of the economic and the political.

Which better describes our current situation?

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman`s - has not made one informative post since I started posting here, trolls regularly under the protection of the admin, and simply adopts the common sympathy without analysis... like a sheep.

'under the protection of the mods'?

i've made loads of informative posts since 4/1/18. and quite a few beforehand too, chuck.

 

[Ralph Llama]

One more into this drivel: the defining characteristic of feudalism is the use of extra economic methods to produce a social surplus and a concomitant unity of politics and economics as a result. That is, direct violence legitimated by a system of inherited rank and associated privilege. The defining characteristic of capitalism is the securing of this surplus via economic means - wage labour and the separation of the economic and the political.

Which better describes our current situation?

Neither.... or a bit of both, hence the need for a more accurate description of this societies socio-economic situation.

It is exactly the `concomitant unity` of politics and economy, enforced by direct violence (admittedly sometimes reduced to managerial control and subtracting the inherited rank) which led John Dewey to call it out as `industrial feudalism`

politics becomes "the shadow cast by big business over society.

So, to make it clear, it is the lack of separation between the economic and the political in our society which undermines it`s claim to be capitalist and creates the need for the description `industrial feudalism`.

Noxion- I`m talking about the way large corporations corrupt the fabric of government to the point it is acting in their interest and not for society.

Pickman`s- Whatever... you where trolling this thread... I got punishment for reporting it ...I don`t think there is anything inherently bad or wrong about that (I like tribalism it has many beneficent qualities). I was just a little hurt. Only a very tiny little bit though and mainly out of the frustration of being trolled whilst having a political discussion

 

[butchersapron]

What did you think that you just made clear? And why is a passing description of late 19th century US society (one where manifest destiny had not yet played out and so was playing catch-up with modern capitalism) an accurate one for todays world?

No one today works for 300 days for the lord and 65 for themselves. No one today is compelled to work anothers lands by right of rank. This is drivel and you don't understand the terms you 'use'. Why did i bother.

 

[mojo pixy]

He [Dewey] argued that democratic forms have little substance when "the life of the country"-production, commerce, media-is ruled by private tyrannies in a system that he called "industrial feudalism," in which working people are subordinated to managerial control, and politics becomes "the shadow cast by big business over society."

Someone coined the phrase, based on his personal economic-political-social analysis. Noam Chomsky liked it, and because you agree completely with Noam Chomsky you've adopted the phrase uncritically.

However, that phrase ''industrial feudalism'' is clearly based on a simplistic analysis that could only have been devised by an American. It ignores a few important things that can be said to be important parts of ''the life of the nation''; properly representative democracy, strong labour unions, there existing more than two political parties, there existing actual left-wing political parties. Off the top of my head. Things which aren't true in the USA but perhaps are in other countries. The mistake, essentially, is using an american analysis of american systems and concluding that they must apply everywhere.

And then there's the idea of chipping away at capitalism to only take away a few things about it, call it a new name (feudal industrialism .. or is industrial feudalism .. and would there be a difference? whatever) and then say THIS is what we have, if we had that other thing with the chipped off bits back on, things would be fiiiine. Why is there a need to create spurious distinctions between corporatism, industrial feudalism, crony capitalism, state capitalism and some presumably gooder, other, purer, righter, real capitalism (ah choir of angels!)

It's just apologism, and I don't care if Noam Chomsky agrees with it. Hey guess what - he might be wrong (omg sacrilege, Chomsky is never wrong!)
or as I said he might be talking about a particular place and a certain system that works in a specific way, not generalising into the whole world.

And that doesn't affect how I see his work on language and thought, which remains outstanding and seminal.

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman`s- Whatever... you where trolling this thread... I got punishment for reporting it ...I don`t think there is anything inherently bad or wrong about that (I like tribalism it has many beneficent qualities). I was just a little hurt. Only a very tiny little bit though and mainly out of the frustration of being trolled whilst having a political discussion

own your actions, don't blame them on me.

 

[Ralph Llama]

What did you think that you just made clear?

The term `industrial feudalism` and its relation to the current socio-economic state.

And why is a passing description of late 19th century US society (one where manifest destiny had not yet played out and so was playing catch-up with modern capitalism) an accurate one for todays world?

Because it was termed at the point that the division of government and private enterprise was dwindling.

mojo pixy - I use the term because because it is correct. I disagree on several issues with Chomsky(who is an anarchist you idiot), and don`t follow blindly but agree with much of his analysis. It`s so well founded and researched it`s hard not to.
So you think i am a one trick pony? The reason I use Chomsky a lot is because he makes anarchy accessible to people who don`t understand it (yourself and noxion) and is well established and respected by the left in general.

However, that phrase ''industrial feudalism'' is clearly based on a simplistic analysis that could only have been devised by an American. It ignores a few important things that can be said to be important parts of ''the life of the nation''; properly representative democracy, strong labour unions, there existing more than two political parties, there existing actual left-wing political parties. Off the top of my head. Things which aren't true in the USA but perhaps are in other countries. The mistake, essentially, is using an american analysis of american systems and concluding that they must apply everywhere.

There is no `proper representative democracy`
Did you notice the Unions being oppressed with direct violence? No ?
I am using a term by an `American` which describes the conspiracy between government and corporation. You don`t see that where you live?

Could you please explain to me exactly why the description does not apply to ... say the UK.. now ?

Pickman`s - :/ I`ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I am paranoid so it`s hard to distinguish reality sometimes. Sorry.

 

[butchersapron]

The term `industrial feudalism` and its relation to the current socio-economic state.



Because it was termed at the point that the division of government and private enterprise was dwindling.

You didn't. You managed to convince me you don't know what either part of the term means - never mind the term.

It was termed? Taking this as being formed or some analogue i don't think you understand what any of the terms in this discussion mean. Given your, equally wacky, understanding of what markets are, i think i'm now wasting my time.

 

[butchersapron]

This press conference is now over.

 

[Ralph Llama]

An interesting way to concede defeat

 

[mojo pixy]

mojo pixy - I use the term because because it is correct. I disagree on several issues with Chomsky(who is an anarchist you idiot), and don`t follow blindly but agree with much of his analysis. It`s so well founded and researched it`s hard not to.
So you think i am a one trick pony? The reason I use Chomsky a lot is because he makes anarchy accessible to people who don`t understand it (yourself and noxion) and is well established and respected by the left in general.

Not anarchy, anarchism. You conflating the terms does not fill me with confidence.

There is no `proper representative democracy`

In reality, anywhere, now? Anywhere ever in the past? Or just in theory you think there can be no such thing?
You'll need to clarify and show your working. If you need to rely on quotes, try to quote something other than Chomsky.

Did you notice the Unions being oppressed with direct violence? No ?

It has happened under particular flavours of government. And not under others. Examples exist of governments attacking unions and also of governments working well with unions. Not sure what your point is.

I am using a term by an `American` which describes the conspiracy between government and corporation. You don`t see that where you live?
Could you please explain to me exactly why the description does not apply to ... say the UK.. now ?

The description ...conspiracy between government and corporations, you mean?
Well, what there actually is (in those terms) is a conspiracy between capital and state power. I call it capitalism and I'm against it. I broadly support state power being used to ensure fair distribution of resources based on need, and when state power is no longer necessary to ensure fair distribution of resources based on need I support state power being dismantled.

I know that's a bit clunky but I thought it would be a good idea to keep it simple for you.

 

[Ralph Llama]

Not anarchy, anarchism. You conflating the terms does not fill me with confidence.

No I meant anarchy, I was not talking idealism. Your attempts to appear well informed are not convincing

The whole point of this despicable tangent the thread has taken concerns the difference between an ideal and a reality.

The point (state/corporate oppression of unions) is governments use violence to suppress the people for the corporations.

I call it capitalism

Good for you. But is it Capitalism ?

 

[Nice one]

One more into this drivel: the defining characteristic of feudalism is the use of extra economic methods to produce a social surplus and a concomitant unity of politics and economics as a result. That is, direct violence legitimated by a system of inherited rank and associated privilege. The defining characteristic of capitalism is the securing of this surplus via economic means - wage labour and the separation of the economic and the political.

Which better describes our current situation?

We live in a feudal society dominated by an oligarchy of privately- and Oxbridge-educated toffs who run not just the government, banks and diplomacy, but the media, music, comedy and even the opposition.
Class War election manifesto 2015

 

[butchersapron]

We live in a feudal society dominated by an oligarchy of privately- and Oxbridge-educated toffs who run not just the government, banks and diplomacy, but the media, music, comedy and even the opposition.
Class War election manifesto 2015

And?

 

[Ralph Llama]

It should be noted that as a `random` I am not under any expectations or social pressure when posting here, so find it a lot easier to be objective and detached emotionally. I have nothing to loose.

 

[mojo pixy]

But is it Capitalism ?

It's not Industrial Feudalism.

 

[Ralph Llama]

Feudalism Then and Now - The Amendment Gazette

I love the use of Monty Pythons politically astute peasants in this.

 

[squirrelp]

No one today works for 300 days for the lord and 65 for themselves. No one today is compelled to work anothers lands by right of rank. This is drivel and you don't understand the terms you 'use'. Why did i bother.

Far from drivel: we simply have a far more flexible and subtle slavery nowadays.

Unless someone is very fortunate they will have to spend a great proportion of their working hours simply to supply the means of existence.

 

[butchersapron]

Someone explain it to them please.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Far from drivel: we simply have a far more flexible and subtle slavery nowadays.

Unless someone is very fortunate they will have to spend a great proportion of their working hours simply to supply the means of existence.

And that doesn’t happen under capitalism?

 

[Ralph Llama]

Idealism - Wikipedia
Reality - Wikipedia

FFS.

 

[butchersapron]

 

[NoXion]

Feudalism Then and Now - The Amendment Gazette

I love the use of Monty Pythons politically astute peasants in this.

Central bankers run everything. Right. You know you're one step away from saying that the Joooooooooz run everything?

 

[NoXion]

Also, has the fucker still got me on ignore? editor ?

 

[elbows]

Equador have conceded that their recent attempts have failed.

Ecuador says Assange talks at impasse

Ecuador's foreign minister said: "On the issue of mediation, I have to say very honestly that it has not been successful because two parties are needed to mediate. Ecuador is willing, but not necessarily the other party".

She said her country would "continue looking for mechanisms" to end the stalemate.

But a spokesman from the UK Foreign Office said: "Ecuador knows that the way to resolve this issue is for Julian Assange to leave the embassy to face justice"

 

[not-bono-ever]

Have some fucking grace man and let the Ecuadorians get on with their real job without you mooching about the place

maybe he is trying to beat the Israelites record of 40 years in the wilderness.

I am sure your mates will be willing to stump up another several hundred K for your bail. oh hang on....

 

[gosub]

Sue Perkins had the perfect riposte to Julian Assange on Twitter

Sue Perkins so bears and uncanny resemblance to Mrs Gosub


Odd bunch these media baking types Noel Fielding just cut his hair to look like Puss Johnson 's boyfriend