Anand Giridharadas: "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" (there's a book behind it)
Jane Mayer - Dark money (there's a book behind it)
Rutger Bregman . Utopia for Realists- The Case for a Universal Basic Income (there's a book behind it) All of the above on the background discussed here:
Yanis Varufakis with Professor Noam Chomsky at NYPL, April 16, 2016 | DiEM25 Then, meet Bernie. then,
maybe you want to sign the Manifest for democratization of Europe, or
[work | get along] with DiEM25. or, briefly, if you aim to live in a free and democratic society, you have to aim for these principles in your country's Constitution:
- democratic principle: the personal wealth of each and everybody is limited from above (capped) to an amount equal to a max lifetime of average wages (assuming last year in your national economic system the average wage was 1000 units, your total personal wealth is limited to 130 years*12 months*1000~1.500.000 units).
- freedom principle: the society has an obligation to provide to every citizen the minimum wealth necessary to cover the basic living needs (roof, clothes, food, energy, means of communicating).
- education, healthcare and free access to research results are mandatory public infrastructure and off-limits to commerce (i.e. paid, in principle, directly from public taxes and not from private investments or acts of private benevolence which may follow the looting)
in essence these are the parameters which will guide the economy and its modeling, and not the reverse. Pay attention permanently whom you vote/let in public power: Any politician/bureaucrat who doesn't aim for these three principles explicitly is a demagogue, an impostor or an unevolved chimpanzee in a suit-and-tie, it doesn't deserve your vote=doesn't deserve an income from your trust/efforts/taxes. See you younger next year!
The above is not a poetic figure of speech, the details come in these few lines:
- free market is never a realistic approximation of an economy, market never comes empty: it's filled from the beginning and you, the gullible, are most of the times cornered by it;
- liberal capitalism seems to work (for a minority) until it fails them, then you, the majority, pay, to make up for the difference: the free-market promoting US, bailed-out its own banks with non-market public money when push came to shove; the liberal global trading rules are becoming tariffs if they don't serve the bullshitters.
- the self-interest of all living humans cannot create an invisible hand as in
They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without know- ing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.Anyone with a Physics 101, or some bits of neocortex, would discover immediately that the first thing someone self-centred, with a random economic advantage, would do is to continue growing that advantage as far as possible, meaning that the resulting society is a pyramid, with a few ultra-rich on top, and all the rest forced to work for them just for own survival. If that's too abstract to you, here's an example: A self-centred idiot in the market finds a 100 bill in a corner, next thing he does: pays two muscles to "lobby" some other participant to give up its products or its bought merchandise. Then he sells the stuff and pays some more muscles and does it all over again. Next year, he's writing the law of the markets where he's the chief. Until his self-centred idiot neighbour kills him and proclaims himself chief/lawyer of the market. History shows that these guys only stop when they are divinity, that is, never alive. History also shows that this is obviously outdated for countries which practised socialism.
- all the capitalist systems insist on "the property", the problem is that only the socialist countries managed to make their citizens property owners: don't believe me? check the statistics of the EU countries in terms of house ownership, you'll be surprised to find that all the previously socialist countries have a larger proportion of house owners than all the capitalist ones. And here property means truly owning it, not having a mortgage to pay.
So, in capitalism, it's not your property the economists and politicians are talking about.
- no so-called capitalist "developed country" can or could afford free education and free healthcare. Socialist countries could. If you disagree, call your senator/president/prime-minister to prove it! I lived in a socialist country and I know it did.
So, if we let a capitalist system evolve, it destroys the host society: it becomes a tribe with few rich and in power, and the rest of the population as a decorum fussing for the enjoyment of those few. A capitalist EU does not have a future, the Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union reads:
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
The lecture series on Marx by Prof. Robert Paul Wolff. This week it's at its 3rd. If u're a zombie, don't pay attention to it.
This type of work (thank you, Professor) is what academics should be doing, instead of converting public money (their salaries) into private money (copyrighted knowledge), as they do now.
I would've recommended his book "Understanding Marx", but it's under copyright.
BTW, here's what "knowledge society" means, it's not what you thought: a society awash with knowledge, nope; it's a society hoping to extract rent from copyrighting whatever it touches (see WIPO, TRIPS and future like-horrors). Unsurprisingly, societies trying it become failed societies: knowledge is not shared (because you're supposed to make it a commercial item), so citizens become, individually, as intelligent as their pocket.
Circulation of knowledge degrades into the circulation of money. It's not bad just because it is a backward thing to do, but bullshit is promoted to "knowledge" just because its owners would be able to sell more copies of it. Just watch. Internet was supposed to allow collectively the society jump into a wiser, more knowledgeable state, instead, the legal notions of copyright and intellectual property are hoarding more economic power for some few, who never had a special relation with the creation of knowledge in the first place.
If u're a zombie, don't fight back the above with the creative commons license (CC) for intellectual works in general or GPL license, for software. If u want your children, or the society around you, grow stupid, don't use any of these and ignore this message, don't give it a
like, it has no use of it.