#Managerial Tyranny

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.2.1 How does private property affect freedom?

The right-“libertarian” either does not acknowledge or dismisses as irrelevant the fact that the (absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as workers and tenants). Thus a free-market capitalist system leads to a very selective and class-based protection of “rights” and “freedoms.” For example, under capitalism, the “freedom” of employers inevitably conflicts with the “freedom” of employees. When stockholders or their managers exercise their “freedom of enterprise” to decide how their company will operate, they violate their employee’s right to decide how their labouring capacities will be utilised and so under capitalism the “property rights” of employers will conflict with and restrict the “human right” of employees to manage themselves. Capitalism allows the right of self-management only to the few, not to all. Or, alternatively, capitalism does not recognise certain human rights as universal which anarchism does.

This can be seen from Austrian Economist W. Duncan Reekie’s defence of wage labour. While referring to “intra-firm labour markets” as “hierarchies”, Reekie (in his best ex cathedra tone) states that ”[t]here is nothing authoritarian, dictatorial or exploitative in the relationship. Employees order employers to pay them amounts specified in the hiring contract just as much as employers order employees to abide by the terms of the contract.” [Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty, p. 136 and p. 137]. Given that “the terms of contract” involve the worker agreeing to obey the employers orders and that they will be fired if they do not, its pretty clear that the ordering that goes on in the “intra-firm labour market” is decidedly one way. Bosses have the power, workers are paid to obey. And this begs the question: if the employment contract creates a free worker, why must she abandon her liberty during work hours?

Reekie actually recognises this lack of freedom in a “round about” way when he notes that “employees in a firm at any level in the hierarchy can exercise an entrepreneurial role. The area within which that role can be carried out increases the more authority the employee has.” [Op. Cit., p. 142] Which means workers are subject to control from above which restricts the activities they are allowed to do and so they are not free to act, make decisions, participate in the plans of the organisation, to create the future and so forth within working hours. And it is strange that while recognising the firm as a hierarchy, Reekie tries to deny that it is authoritarian or dictatorial — as if you could have a hierarchy without authoritarian structures or an unelected person in authority who is not a dictator. His confusion is shared by Austrian guru Ludwig von Mises, who asserted that the “entrepreneur and capitalist are not irresponsible autocrats” because they are “unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumer” while, on the next page, admitting there was a “managerial hierarchy” which contains “the average subordinate employee.” [Human Action, p. 809 and p. 810] It does not enter his mind that the capitalist may be subject to some consumer control while being an autocrat to their subordinated employees. Again, we find the right-“libertarian” acknowledging that the capitalist managerial structure is a hierarchy and workers are subordinated while denying it is autocratic to the workers! Thus we have “free” workers within a relationship distinctly lacking freedom — a strange paradox. Indeed, if your personal life were as closely monitored and regulated as the work life of millions of people across the world, you would rightly consider it the worse form of oppression and tyranny.

Somewhat ironically, right-wing liberal and “free market” economist Milton Friedman contrasted “central planning involving the use of coercion — the technique of the army or the modern totalitarian state” with “voluntary co-operation between individuals — the technique of the marketplace” as two distinct ways of co-ordinating the economic activity of large groups (“millions”) of people. [Capitalism and Freedom, p. 13] However, this misses the key issue of the internal nature of the company. As right-“libertarians” themselves note, the internal structure of a capitalist company is hierarchical. Indeed, the capitalist company is a form of central planning and so shares the same “technique” as the army. As Peter Drucker noted in his history of General Motors, ”[t]here is a remarkably close parallel between General Motors’ scheme of organisation and those of the two institutions most renowned for administrative efficiency: that of the Catholic Church and that of the modern army.” [quoted by David Engler, Apostles of Greed, p. 66] Thus capitalism is marked by a series of totalitarian organisations. Dictatorship does not change much — nor does it become less fascistic — when discussing economic structures rather than political ones. To state the obvious, “the employment contract (like the marriage contract) is not an exchange; both contracts create social relations that endure over time — social relations of subordination.” [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p. 148]

Perhaps Reekie (like most right-“libertarians”) will maintain that workers voluntarily agree (“consent”) to be subject to the bosses dictatorship (he writes that “each will only enter into the contractual agreement known as a firm if each believes he will be better off thereby. The firm is simply another example of mutually beneficial exchange.” [Op. Cit., p. 137]). However, this does not stop the relationship being authoritarian or dictatorial (and so exploitative as it is highly unlikely that those at the top will not abuse their power). Representing employment relations as voluntary agreement simply mystifies the existence and exercise of power within the organisation so created.

As we argue further in the section F.3, in a capitalist society workers have the option of finding a job or facing abject poverty and/or starvation. Little wonder, then, that people “voluntarily” sell their labour and “consent” to authoritarian structures! They have little option to do otherwise. So, within the labour market workers can and do seek out the best working conditions possible, but that does not mean that the final contract agreed is “freely” accepted and not due to the force of circumstances, that both parties have equal bargaining power when drawing up the contract or that the freedom of both parties is ensured.

Which means to argue (as right-“libertarians” do) that freedom cannot be restricted by wage labour because people enter into relationships they consider will lead to improvements over their initial situation totally misses the point. As the initial situation is not considered relevant, their argument fails. After all, agreeing to work in a sweatshop 14 hours a day is an improvement over starving to death — but it does not mean that those who so agree are free when working there or actually want to be there. They are not and it is the circumstances, created and enforced by the law (i.e., the state), that have ensured that they “consent” to such a regime (given the chance, they would desire to change that regime but cannot as this would violate their bosses property rights and they would be repressed for trying).

So the right-wing “libertarian” right is interested only in a narrow concept of freedom (rather than in freedom or liberty as such). This can be seen in the argument of Ayn Rand that ”Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state — and nothing else!” [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 192] By arguing in this way, right-“libertarians” ignore the vast number of authoritarian social relationships that exist in capitalist society and, as Rand does here, imply that these social relationships are like “the laws of nature.” However, if one looks at the world without prejudice but with an eye to maximising freedom, the major coercive institutions are the state and capitalist social relationships (and the latter relies on the former). It should also be noted that, unlike gravity, the power of the landlord and boss depends on the use of force — gravity does not need policemen to make things fall!

The right “libertarian,” then, far from being a defender of freedom, is in fact a keen defender of certain forms of authority. As Kropotkin argued against a forerunner of right-“libertarianism”:

“The modern Individualism initiated by Herbert Spencer is, like the critical theory of Proudhon, a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem is miserable — so miserable as to lead us to inquire if the talk of ‘No force’ be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination.” [Act For Yourselves, p. 98]

To defend the “freedom” of property owners is to defend authority and privilege — in other words, statism. So, in considering the concept of liberty as “freedom from,” it is clear that by defending private property (as opposed to possession) the “anarcho”-capitalist is defending the power and authority of property owners to govern those who use “their” property. And also, we must note, defending all the petty tyrannies that make the work lives of so many people frustrating, stressful and unrewarding.

Anarchism, by definition, is in favour of organisations and social relationships which are non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian. Otherwise, some people are more free than others. Failing to attack hierarchy leads to massive contradiction. For example, since the British Army is a volunteer one, it is an “anarchist” organisation! Ironically, it can also allow a state to appear “libertarian” as that, too, can be considered voluntary arrangement as long as it allows its subjects to emigrate freely. So equating freedom with (capitalist) property rights does not protect freedom, in fact it actively denies it. This lack of freedom is only inevitable as long as we accept capitalist private property rights. If we reject them, we can try and create a world based on freedom in all aspects of life, rather than just in a few.

[beardedmrbean]

Canada has long been a draw for people from India's Punjab province seeking new opportunities elsewhere. But has the Canadian dream soured?

It's hard to miss the ardour of Punjab's migrant ambitions when driving through its fertile rural plains.

Billboards promising easy immigration to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK jut out through ample mustard fields.

Off the highways, consultancies offer English language coaching to eager youth.

Single-storey brick homes double up as canvasses for hand-painted mural advertisements promising quick visas. And in the town of Bathinda, hundreds of agents jostle for space on a single narrow street, pledging to speed up the youth's runaway dreams.

For over a century, this province in India's northwest has seen waves of overseas migration; from the Sikh soldiers inducted into the British Indian Army travelling to Canada, through to rural Punjabis settling in England post-independence.

But some, especially from Canada, are now choosing to come back home.

One of those is 28-year-old Balkar, who returned in early 2023 after just one year in Toronto. Citizenship was his ultimate goal when he left his little hamlet of Pitho in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. His family mortgaged their land to fund his education.

But his Canadian dream quickly lost its allure a few months into his life there.

"Everything was so expensive. I had to work 50 hours every week after college, just to survive," he told the BBC. "High inflation is making many students leave their studies."

Balkar now runs an embroidery business from a small room on one side of the expansive central courtyard in his typical Punjabi home. He also helps on his family's farm to supplement his income.

Opportunities for employment are few and far between in these rural areas, but technology has allowed entrepreneurs like him to conquer the tyranny of distance. Balkar gets the bulk of his business through Instagram.

"I have a good life here. Why should I face hardships there when I can live at home and make good money?" he asks.

The BBC spoke to at least half a dozen reverse migrants in Punjab who shared similar sentiments.

It was also a common refrain in the scores of videos on YouTube shared by Indians who had chosen to abandon their life in Canada and return home. There was a stark difference one young returnee told the BBC between the "rosy picture" immigration agents painted and the rough reality of immigrant life in Toronto and Vancouver.

The "Canada craze" has let up a bit - and especially so among well-off migrants who have a fallback option at home, says Raj Karan Brar, an immigration agent in Bathinda who helps hundreds of Punjabis get permanent residencies and student visas every year.

The desire for a Canadian citizenship remains as strong as ever though among middle- and lower middle-class clients in rural communities.

But viral YouTube videos of students talking about the difficulty in finding jobs and protests over a lack of housing and work opportunities has created an air of nervousness among these students, say immigration agents.

There was a 40% decline in applications from India for Canadian study permits in the second half of 2023, according to one estimate. This was, in part, also due to the ongoing diplomatic tensions between India and Canada over allegations Indian agents were involved in the murder of Canadian Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

There are also hints of deeper cultural factors at play, for a waning Canadian dream among an older generation of Indian migrants.

Karan Aulakh, who spent nearly 15 years in Edmonton and achieved career and financial success, left his managerial job for a comfortable rural life in Khane ki Daab, the village where he was born in 1985. He told the BBC he was upset by LGBT-inclusive education policies in Canada and its 2018 decision to legalise recreational cannabis. Incompatibility with the Western way of life, a struggling healthcare system, and better economic prospects in India were, he said, key reasons why many older Canadian Indians are preparing to leave the country.

"I started an online consultancy - Back to the Motherland - a month and a half ago, to help those who want to reverse migrate. I get at least two to three calls every day, mostly from people in Canada who want to know what job opportunities there are in Punjab and how they can come back," said Mr Aulakh.

For a country that places such a high value on immigration, these trends are "concerning" and are "being received with a bit of a sting politically", says Daniel Bernhard of the Institute of Canadian Citizenship, an immigration advocacy group.

A liberalised immigration regime has been Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's signature policy to counter slowing economic growth and a rapidly aging population.

According to Canada's statistics agency, immigration accounted for 90% of Canada's labour force growth and 75% of population growth in 2021.

International students contribute to over C$20bn ($14.7bn; £11.7bn) to Canada's economy each year, a bulk of them Indians who now make up one in five recent immigrants to the country.

India was also Canada's leading source for immigration in 2022.

The numbers of those leaving are still small in absolute terms with immigration levels at all-time highs in Canada - the country welcomed nearly half a million new migrants each year over the past few years.

But the rate of reverse migration hit a two decade high in 2019, signalling that migrants were "losing confidence" in the country said Mr Bernhard.

Country specific statistics for such emigrants, or reverse migrants, are not available.

But official data obtained by Reuters shows between 80,000 and 90,000 immigrants left Canada in 2021 and 2022 and either went back to their countries, or onward elsewhere.

Some 42,000 people departed in the first half of 2023.

Fewer permanent residents are also going on to become Canadian citizens, according to census data cited by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. In 2001, 75% of those eligible became citizens. Two decades later, it was 45%.

Canada needs to "restore the value of its citizenship," said Mr Bernhard.

It comes as Canada debates its aggressive immigration targets given country's struggle to absorb more people.

A recent report from National Bank of Canada economists cautioned that the population growth was putting pressure on its already tight housing supply and strained healthcare system.

Canada has seen a population surge - an increase of 1.2 million people in 2023 - driven mostly by newcomers.

The report argued that growth needed to be slowed to an annual increase of up to 500,000 people in order to preserve or increase the standard of living.

There appears to have been a tacit acceptance of this evaluation by policymakers.

Mr Trudeau's Liberal government recently introduced a cap on international student permits that would result in a temporary decrease of 35% in approved study visas.

It's a significant policy shift that some believe may end up further reducing Canada's appeal amid a wave of reverse migrations.

[darkmaga-returns]

One can always count on social media to carry out the regime's anti-American agenda.

Social media giant Facebook has long been a thorn in the side of gun owners ever since Donald Trump was first elected in 2016. Since that period, Big Tech has taken it upon itself to become the private enforcement arm of the managerial state. In effect, Big Tech companies have functioned as Pinkerton-style law enforcement agencies who do the regime’s dirty work of censoring any individuals or organizations who voice explicitly right-wing views on issues ranging from immigration to gun rights.

Facebook’s privatized tyranny was on full display when the social media giant indefinitely suspended the account of legendary firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson on Nov. 22, 2024. Smith & Wesson was founded by gunmakers Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson by 1852 and has remained one of the U.S.’ flagship gun manufacturers. Smith & Wesson has a large social media following with over 1.6 million users. Facebook’s act of censorship against Smith & Wesson was not by accident and was certainly done to send a message.

RELATED: El Niño Speaks 90: Gun Rights in Peril

On Nov. 27, the prominent gunmaker posted on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, about its censorship ordeal:

Despite our extensive efforts and resources spent on trying to adhere to Facebook’s ever-changing community guidelines on firearms, our account was suspended indefinitely on Friday, November 22nd, 15 years after its original creation.

The gunmaker posted the notification Facebook sent them on Nov. 22, which stated, “We suspended your Page.” As usual, the social media giant did not provide any warning for the suspension beforehand.

[voraciouslyindulgent]

@theslagmaker

After years of focusing exclusively on administrative and managerial tasks, of which there were many for a city constantly expanding, Tarn boarded the Peaceful Tyranny, a ship still much beloved but neglected during his planetary stay. Once all necessary maintenance protocols have been completed and it was cleared for travel once more, he bid temporary farewell to New Kaon, his current home, and sailed for the stars in a simple retrieval mission. There was no real need for him to make this journey personally, but he welcomed the opportunity nonetheless.

As much as he adored being witness to the continuous growth and abundant successes of a post-war Empire, Tarn had spent the majority of the war on constant move, and a habit once learned was difficult to shed altogether, especially for a mech with a tendency to hold on to the past.

A few cycles into his journey, he was surprised to stumble upon a ship he recognized, on which he'd found belonging and acceptance during a most tumultuous time. The manner with which the encounter had happened was somewhat embarrassing. He was a different mech back then, lost and burdened by a great suffering, and he did not want to be remembered as someone aimless and broken. It would be terrible manners to not at least extend a proper salutation, in any case.

Searching through his contacts, he found the frequency of an alternate Lord, and sent a polite ping. ::Greetings, my esteemed Lord Megatron. All hail the Empire. May prosperity shine upon every Cybertronian who proudly wears the symbol of the Cause upon their frames. Please forgive my silence as of late. Preoccupied has been my time upon a new world of my choosing, a new world which I now devotedly serve. May I have the honour of conversing with you? I had not been my best self during our previous encounter, and I would like to make amends and remedy the lacking impression I must have imparted.::

[deblala]

The WHO’s Managerial Gambit: Local Officials Can Enforce Biomedical Tyranny — But No One Will be Held Accountable

https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-whos-managerial-gambit-local-officials-can-enforce-biomedical-tyranny-but-no-one-will-be-held-accountable/

[jadenameless-blog]

Ok but I think the reason that communism is/was so scary to Americans is/has been the fear of inescapable managerial tyranny.

"you have to apply for permission to get a car" is a lot scarier than "you can't afford a car".

Consider that perhaps we just need to coin a new name for the distinction between "those who supply resources up front for a risky venture which turns out to succeed can profit therein" and "successful ventures are seized and their profit is redistributed to those who are/were employed in their operations or to the public"

I suggest "individual risk+benefit based economics" and "public risk+benefit economics"

Or "Individuism" and "Publism" for short.

Every so often you see a rightoid going "These communist big banks and big corporations are at it again" and because I am where I am I often see these when they are being made fun of "Get a load of this dude, he thinks banks and corporations are communist, how stupid can you get?"

And look at this point this has been going on long enough that it is mildly shameful to not understand what is going on here if you are at all interested in politics. It's not the most ignorant quip you can make, but if you don't have some understanding of what's going on here it does reflect poorly on you. In short, I wish people would stop with this reaction because it annoys me.

And an answer for those that don't know? Well the definitive original version of this is James Burnham's 1942 book "The Managerial Revolution" which is sort of a book-length version of "This isn't real capitalism we're living under now, it's 'managerialism.," that the USSR, nazi germany, and New Deal America are.

And that does provide a good way to frame how people interact with banks and corporations, this does not feel like you are being transacted with, this feels like you are being managed, frequently even if you are technically a customer. And so therefore, any commercial interaction more complex than putting some money on the table and immediately receiving some treats, that's communism.

[mypostingcareerlurker]

From my travels and conversations with americans I suspect most of your countrymen do not realize how poor the actual living conditions of the middle class are in America.

In Spain an employed engineer in his early 40s with 15 years experience might make about 40k/year, wich is probably half, or a third, of what his american counterpart makes, yet the spaniard enjoys a much better quality of living. This is true for a 1 1/2st world nation like Spain, but it is much truer in 2nd world nations like Argentina, Morocco, or Colombia.

The problem with the US is that the state doesn't deliver. In Switzerland you are crushed with taxes as well, but in exchange you get to live in a clean, orderly society. In the US your taxes are used to subsidize (or it may be said to generate) a growing underclass which hates your guts.

-Cornelio

[luxe-pauvre]

SEPTEMBER 2021

Read:

Turn off the gaslight

We Are What We Remember

The mathematical case against blaming people for their misfortune

Natural and unnatural

The food wars (will we ever get a clear idea about what foods we should eat?)

What makes a woman’s body*

Analgesic culture: can reframing pain make it go away?

The Doctor vs. #MeToo

How to Fix the Vaccine Rollout

The Dangerous Evolution of the Coronavirus

The problem with prediction

The inflation of concepts

The antidote to fake news is to nourish our epistemic wellbeing

How to be a genius

The tyranny of work

How “Promising Young Woman” Refigures The Rape-Revenge Movie

Has The Pandemic Transformed The Office Forever?

What If You Never Get Better From Covid-19?

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real

A Pox on the Poor

Making Meaning (Against “relevance” in art)

Why a Universal Society is Unattainable

‘A managerial Mephistopheles’: inside the mind of Jeff Bezos

Imagine a workplace where you could actually tell the truth

Prioritising the present doesn’t mean you lack willpower

Scientists for the people

Burn: The Misunderstood Science of Metabolism by Herman Pontzer

Why Calories Don’t Count by Giles Yeo

Food Isn’t Medicine by Joshua Wolrich

Exercised: The Science of Physical Activity, Rest and Health by Daniel Lieberman

Gut by Giulia Enders

The Diet Myth by Tim Spector

Spoon-Fed by Tim Spector

Watched:

Social Constructs

How Not to Fall for Bad Statistics

Our Quest to Understand the Brain with Matthew Cobb

Why You Root for Gone Girl’s Amy Dunne

Halt and Catch Fire (S3)

Silent Witness

Vigil

Listened To:

Clint Eastwood by Gorillaz

She’s My Collar by Gorillaz

Stylo by Gorillaz**

Daydream In Blue by I Monster

Wandering Star by Portishead

Sour Times by Portishead

Angel by Massive Attack

Talk Show Host by Radiohead

I Just Don’t Know What To Do With Myself by The White Stripes

Dirty Laundry by Bitter:Sweet

Tim Spector: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Food Is Wrong

Gut Health and why we need to throw out the rule-book with Professor Tim Spector

Went To:

A Night In with Margaret Atwood and Joyce Carol Oates

Why We Are Who We Are - The Science of Identity

Thinking Better - The Art of the Shortcut

A Night In with Lemony Snicket

Ryoji Ikeda @ 180 The Strand

Van Gogh Alive @ Kensington Gardens

Gowers Grand Round is back! 🥰

[zwischenstadt]

It hardly needs saying that the term “decolonize” once meant something wholly different than it does now. To put it not a little too bluntly, in the heyday of the anticolonial movement it was the colonies and the colonized that needed decolonizing, not the colonizers, but now even that need, as we like to say, has been “colonized.” Of course we understand that the “decolonize” in the slogan “decolonize your syllabus” is metaphorical, that it means diversify or “decenter” (as we also like to say), but that does little to allay the fact that, formally, rhetorically, it collapses the distinction between colonizer and colonized. Sometimes, decentering oneself and one’s syllabi means little more than absolving oneself of accountability for the colonial past. Just to give it a name, we might call this phenomenon “colonial narcissism.” Early symptomatic expressions of this introjection of otherness to let oneself off the hook can be found in various sources, but if we were to pick one it might as well be Michel Foucault when he said “A whole series of colonial models was brought back to the West, and the result was that the West could practice something resembling colonization, or an internal colonialism, on itself.”1 It is not that Foucault was wrong—innovations in exploitation are portable, forced and free migration complicate the geography of colonialism, domestic police occupations are not all that different from foreign military occupations, the consequences of colonialism are as much psychosocial as they are political and economic, etc.—but that is not really the issue. The “you” in the slogan “decolonize your syllabus” is not addressed to those existentially threatened by police violence and the like but instead to those—the professional managerial class, we might call us—who are its beneficiaries. This misunderstanding, it seems, stems from a kind of primal scene: a foundational misrecognition of the new shape of violent expropriation that emerged with the historical turn from colonialism to neocolonialism. Colloquially, in other words, we consistently elide the difference between the terms colonialism and neocolonialism, but “neocolonialism” was never intended to stand merely for the continuation of the old European system of colonial rule by an indigenous comprador class, now with its European overseers working remotely. When Jean-Paul Sartre coined the term in 1956, for example, the neocolonialist he had in mind was not a cunning European banker or conspiring African finance minister, but instead the sort of do-gooder that we now associate most strongly with NGOs—“a fool who still believes that the colonial system can be overhauled,”2 or, as he had it in 1961, an “enlightened, liberal and sensitive soul” imagining that there were third-way solutions to the otherwise seemingly incontestable revelation that “Europeans have only been able to make themselves human beings by creating slaves and monsters” (84). It didn’t matter whether the reformer was earnest or cynical, colonialist or colonized, indigenist or évolué. It was simply the structure of reform that was the overarching ideological problem. As Sartre put it, “independence granted”—or the colonizer’s recognition of the political, economic and cultural autonomy of the colonized—“is merely a variation on servitude” (102) exacted by “the power and the ferocity of neocolonial trickery” (113). Neocolonialism grasped with new purpose and weaponized what, in 1960, he called “the contradiction of racism, colonialism and all forms of tyranny”—that “in order to treat a man like a dog, one must first recognise him as a man.”3

Blake Stimson, “Decolonize Your Syllabus”

A worthwhile read

https://nonsite.org/deneocolonize-your-syllabus/

[wherelibertydwells]

Anarcho-tyranny: when the state is more interested in controlling citizens so that they do not oppose the managerial class rather than controlling real criminals. Laws are enforced selectively, depending on what is perceived to be beneficial for the ruling elite.

In unleashing havoc on communities and in punishing those who confront it, the ruling class is executing a political strategy — a combination of anarchy and tyranny, a method of oppression that strengthens their power and targets political enemies.

The chaos that anarcho-tyranny breeds serves as the rationale for the tyranny it builds.

Anarcho-tyranny is not a political ‘system’ like ‘anarcho-capitalism’. The anarchical element is not itself anarchist. Rather, this element refers to the space made available for lawless destruction, harassment, and violence.

Stated simply, the Regime uses disorder to terrorize its opponents and uses state power to protect the anarchical element and to crush any resistance to disorder (tyranny). This oppression serves the regime’s political and social goals. Disorder, in other words, is a feature, not a bug, of the system.

What's the term for the stage of authoritarianism where the police are seemingly unable to handle large scale crime but at the same time persecute very minor offences with extreme efficiency and brutality?

[cultml]

This is something else the paleos touched on, but never fully explored. The managerial state not only becomes self-serving as it matures, but it also becomes inward looking, a self-contained culture. Once it becomes class-aware, as we are seeing today, it becomes rapidly insular. The dual purposes are the moral signifiers inside the system and maintaining the barrier between those inside and those outside. These work in concert to further isolate the system from the general society.

This is why our politicians sound increasingly deranged. Not sounding like normal people is very important inside the system. Who they are is not us, so they are constantly looking for ways to signal that to one another. This is why they are now barricading themselves into a green zone in Washington. Most likely, this will begin to happen at the state level. Americans will be ruled by pod people living and operating inside special zones guarded by razor wire and armed men.

The last phase of anarcho-tyranny may turn out to look something like colonial occupation, where the people in charge live in fortified towns. They use their control of the system to maintain the illusion of power, but in reality, it is all just a very expensive drama that has no practical impact, beyond the cost. The practical aspects of life are handled by corporations and ad hoc associations. Managerialism brings us full circle to a firm of feudalism with material excess.

[soulvomit]

There is some media zeitgeist stuff that irritates me. Maybe I'm atan age where a lot of stuff for the mainstream is just no longer written with me in mind (but I could argue that as a Gen Xr, non-indie work has seldom to never been written with me in mind, anyway.) I saw my own parents reach a point where we didn't like or relate to the same media anymore. But here are some trends I'm observing about a lot of media, that I just *don't enjoy.* 1) Everyone having some kind of deep-seated identity crisis and having to go on a deep dive into their psyche in the first season.  It's like we don't relate to characters anymore who don't need epic shit tons of therapy right off the bat, who aren’t falling apart in front of us. I'll use Star Trek as an example because it's an example of how identity issues were written before, vs how they're written now. Like, older Trek for example *definitely* explored issues of identity - but it showed more than told. We definitely knew, in older Trek, that certain characters were themed around identity - Spock, Worf, Data, every "fish out of water" character EVER - and that identity was portrayed as something that a character would have to explore for the rest of their lives. For that matter, identity quests and "who am I" are actually a fairly common theme in sci fi and fantasy and have been for all of my life. But now they're done in weird, ham-handed ways involving a lot of totally interiorized hand-wringing that's more believable of the young Tumblr users who are in fandom, than of 20something/30something action characters who have careers and adult lives. It's like a lot of people can't relate to characters that aren't as inwardly-focused and insecure as they are. And it makes a lot of works written this way, inaccessible to me as an older viewer. There's giving a character *inwardness*... but that can be done without burying a character's head really far up their own butt. (And some characters deal with their identity crises by focusing *outward.* I feel like "focus OUTWARD" may be a generational identity issue though. I feel like I was taught to find the answers to practically every identity quest I've ever had... by Finding The Others, by having life experiences and wins AND failures... not by trying to gaze into my navel and not by trying to find myself exclusively in fictional portrayals.) (I'm sorry I can't be more specific about this. It's just a trend I keep noticing.) 2) This tendency to assign every character a QUIRK, and then play those quirks into the ground. To me, that's just lazy. Something that annoyed me with the characterizations on Star Trek Discovery was how fucking ANNOYING so many human characters were; it's like they try so hard to make everyone an individual that it comes off like... a really bizarre kind of neurological tokenism. Like, there are ways you can portray human characters without leaning onto their most visible quirk or their neurodivergence. Characters are individuals with family lives, not collections of quirks and census data points, and even with actual differences, they’re still individuals.

3) Pro-monarchist messaging. Old Disney believe it or not was not as bad at this as post-2000s Disney is.  There were portrayals of tyranny and unjust rulership. 4) Writers and fans who are so convinced that they are progressive that you can't ever critique their fandom or their writing because it means you're attacking their progressiveness, and all other writing is automatically BAD, and anyone who dislikes their writing is BAD... yet they’re free to cancel at will and judge at will. They invariably are never as progressive as they think they are, and their writing won't be seen as progressive in 10 years, and a lot of the takes I've heard are actually horseshoe theory. In many cases it’s about making corporate monopolies bigger and more inescapable instead of ensuring a more robust and diverse ecosystem of creators.  5) Youth-targeted writing that deals with sexual orientation/gender issues by simply never having any central character in a romance at all... but that *could* be a reaction to "shipping," too. Maybe younger readers these days prefer to be free to pair their favorite characters off with who they see fit, rather than have the writer do it for them. But fuck!! Everything can't be a Choose Your Own Adventure novel or a game!   6) Every show or book has to be all things to all people in an increasingly throttled market instead of allowing for a diverse ecosystem of differing fan cultures. 7) Perfect Happy Families. Looking at you, Disney. I miss wicked stepparent tropes, tbh, because kids who experience child abuse or family dysfunction or a hard childhood deserve to see characters who overcome those things instead of being told they're imagining that all families aren't Perfect Happy Families. It's like we've gone deep into some Hayes Code, 1950s Network TV weirdness here... but without even being able to lean on the genres that *did* allow other kinds of portrayals (fantasy and sci fi). And it's especially egregious in Disney because in older Disney films, at least characters had the ability to enact change on their world in some way, but modern characters aren't. 8) Stories that basically take place inside a bottle. I feel like kids' works no longer tend to have the broad, sprawling landscape in which the kids can adventure. It's like our IMAGINATIONS are constrained! DREAM, PEOPLE. PEOPLE CAN STILL LEAVE THE HOUSE IN FICTION 9) WHAT CAME OF ADVENTURE STORIES? 10) A relatively recent trope of portraying young LGBTQ people as an urban pod of annoying, neurotic friends who all work at Whole Foods or as influencers, and have no other personality besides their identity and one assigned quirk. 11) A weird trope wherein a teenager is basically made king or queen (without it realistically being handled), or a 20something is just handed a senior command or managerial position. Sabrina, Star Trek,  I'm looking at both of you. And finally: It's like characters aren't believable anymore to average younger viewers unless they actually represent and validate the worldviews of young people who don't go outside, never leave their computer, and are trying to figure out who they are by looking through a keyhole or at the shadows on the Facebook wall of Plato's cave. The idea that your worldview is actually going to be *different* or that *you will be changed by knowledge?* That there is some kind of *call to adventure?* Pfeh. That seems to be gone. Even our adventure stories take place inside a bottle. It's like we're so deep inside the Matrix at this point that the only stories anyone can tell, are about being inside the Matrix. (Could "The Matrix" have even been written now?) Even "Harry Potter" portrayed a world in which magic had few stakes in the real world and most of the action took place within limited confines. 

[queenlua]

neoliberalism et al

“[. . .] When neoliberal institutions encounter critiques of diversity (racial, gender, etc.), they turn those critiques into new procedural logics (do workshops on bias! create incremental metrics that document greater attention to diversity!). When they encounter evidence that conventional styles of meetings are unproductive and simply reproduce existing forms of managerialism, they look for a new style of meeting (thus avoiding the more complicated problem of managerialism).

So I think to talk about the failings of a neoliberal habitus involves the breathtakingly difficult challenge of asking what a more humane style of working together towards common purpose might look like and what might be expected to come of that. If were to say, for example, that academic institutions should wholly abandon all forms of managerial assessment (of teaching efficacy, of scholarly productivity or impact factor, etc.), what would I argue is better (and in so doing make clearer what was wrong with assessment regimes under neoliberalism?) It is easy to find books that explain what’s wrong with neoliberal assessment (Jerry Mueller’s The Tyranny of Metrics or Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction) but those critiques explain that those metrics don’t do what they’re claiming to do and they do other unintended things that hobble or cripple an organization in achieving its stated mission. They don’t reject on principle the idea of assessing effectiveness. So one could say that maybe if you leave people to think for themselves, in terms that make sense, whether their work is going well, and to think in dialogue about shared work, you will largely get a better and more humane outcome than if you manage them. Faculty autonomy proposes exactly this: that people who subscribe to a professional ethic can be left alone to live up to that ethic and only require management in the breach. “Strong” neoliberalism flips out about this point because it has a philosophical conception of human beings which it rarely has to defend explicitly and never has to verify through skeptical examination in which it believes human beings will cheat, fail, and shirk responsibility if they are not monitored and managed.

And yet even the proposition about autonomy and professionalism often accepts that every properly professional person ought to be striving for a kind of maximalism: to do the best, to do the most, to achieve peak performance. So I can imagine a more human managerialism that simply sees a belief about autonomy as a different road to the usual objectives: for organizations to extract maximum value from the people they have hired. That’s where on one hand Ilana Gershon’s writing about changes in how we value labor is useful but also where a book like Daniel Milo’s Good Enough might be helpful. Maybe a more humane way of thinking about work and life involves abandoning altogether an ethos of maximalism (before climate change perhaps compels us in a panic to do so under conditions that do not permit reflection). Perhaps that same idea (that we don’t need to be the best or the most, just adequate) could open working together and living alone to other kinds of reflection that neoliberalism does not allow: what do we value, really? Why?”

[source]

[fly-pow-bye]

ThunderCats - “Working Grrrl”

Co-Executive Producer: Victor Courtright

Supervising Producer: Nate Cash

Producer: Marly Halpern-Graser

Written by: Joan Ford

Directed by: George Kaprielian

Grrrl power!

Our episode begins at the Bolkin Stadium, where a crowd of Bolkins are cheering on a huge race between Cheetara...and just Cheetara. Despite being a one-super-fast-woman race, the fans are still chanting Cheetara's name as she becomes a yellow blur.

The rest of the ThunderCats are in the audience too, and Tygra, the straight man of the group, just can't help but question everything around him.

Tygra: What are we watching?!

Lion-O: A race!

Tygra: What race?! It's one person running in circles!

Thanks for explaining the joke. One of the Bolkins does explain that the winner of the race becomes the mayor of the Bolkin village, and suggests that the other Bolkins didn't want to enter because they're slow even by non-super-speedster standards.

Being the only contestant, Cheetara becomes the new mayor of the Bolkins by default. During her victory, a little Bolkin girl named JanJan shows up and asks Cheetara how she can be just as fast as she is. She could tell her that one kind of has to be born with this sort of thing, but Cheetara decides to be...well, Cheetara.

Cheetara: I'll tell you a secret, JanJan. If you work really really hard and train every single day for a really long time...it won't matter, because you'll never be as fast as me.

(JanJan shows disappointment)

Cheetara: ...but that's okay! You don't have to be the fastest to be like me. You just have to be the best...at something!

Nice...save? Cheetara, fitting for her stuck-up character, suggests she can be the best Cheetara fan ever.

To make a short story even shorter, it ends up working.

JanJan: This is my entire identity now!

It's definitely a commentary on something, but I can't really say what.

However, the celebration ends, as, bum bum bum bum, Monkian has invaded the arena, and is challenging Cheetara to a race! Lion-O does what he would normally do when faced off against one of the ThunderCats' sworn enemies, only to be rightfully pushed back because he's not doing anything wrong yet.

Also, Monkian is clearly being silly. Sure, he was a master of swinging across trees in the original, but super-speed isn't really Monkian's superpower. Cheetara knows this, and is just as stuck-up as ever, and decides to risk her newly appointed status on what should be a landslide victory.

The race begins, and it's a race that, while well animated despite the screenshot suggesting otherwise, mostly takes place with a plain blue background. I know, it's TV, they have to cut some corners somewhere. There are some pretty neat ideas, though, like when Monkian runs so fast, he causes a sonic boom dissipating the clouds and breaking part of the stadium. Wait, what?!

Tygra: How did Monkian become so fast?!

I was going to say "thanks for explaining the weirdness of this scene, Tygra!", but I guess they needed some hint that this is not normal for Monkian for anyone who started the series with this episode. There's something clearly going on here.

However, there's no way anyone can prove any funny business is going on with this monkey business, as Monkian becomes the new Bolkin Mayor. Lion-O, once again seemingly ignoring that they have to know he's doing something wrong before beating him up, attempts to get the ThunderCats to beat him up, only for the audience to start throwing garbage at him.

His first order as the new Mayor is to instate a travel ban on anyone who came out of a Cat's Lair. Okay, they weren't that blatant; he just bans the ThunderCats from the arena while he does a few more things to it.

As they're stuck at the Cat's Lair, Tygra, the stater of the obvious, looks at his laptop and notices that Monkian isn't exactly the greatest Mayor ever. He essentially turned the Bolkins into his slaves, and he delights in this so much that, in one of the examples of his tyranny, he's just making them move rocks from one pile to the other for no real benefit to anyone. Even the Brutemen from the original were used to build a lair.

Panthro does point out that the Bolkins kind of did this to themselves by even allowing such a contest to happen, because...he doesn't want justice? Lion-O has a different idea...

...a training montage, complete with an 80's song instrumental! Unfortunately, they don't really get as far as the training montage, as Cheetara really didn't take losing a race too well. It may have been the first time she ever lost to anyone. Panthro tries to cheer her up by using her own words against this failure-caused depression: she doesn't need to be the fastest to be like Cheetara. Unfortunately, Cheetara continues those words and says that she needed to be the best at something.

She does have one idea, as she leaves the Cat's Lair to find something she can be the best at. She even takes the laptop, despite it not being hers.

This something turns out to be the wonderful world of Business at the Wolo Village. No, really, the business is just named "Business Corp." Her first job is to sort all of the mail in the mail room, and he knows she can do it because all of the other workers are there, too. Unfortunately, they're all sleeping on the job. What is Cheetara to do to prove that she can be the best?

By educating herself with a tape, and since she has to learn all of this quickly, she has to fast forward the tape and try to soak in all of that information. Gotta say, that is an idea I haven't seen, and it is fitting for the speedster. I wonder if The Flash ever did this.

She manages to use all of the managerial skills she learned to get the slackers to form the mail in neat piles. The manager is so proud of this, he decides to just give her his job immediately. Finally, while she can no longer be the best at running, she can be the best at working 9 to 5...though the manager has to correct her that it's actually 10 to 6.

We may not get a training montage, but we do get a business montage instead, complete with a song so great, it's even replayed in the credits for this episode. If there's any nitpick I could make here, that walk-cycle in the lower left is sort of odd. As she walks, her head seems to change shape to this maniacal grin and back to normal every time she takes a step. Maybe I'm missing a joke here, but it's pretty out of place. In the end, she's at the top of the corporate ladder.

We neatly transition from the newly rechristened "Cheetara Corp." to the woods, where the ThunderCats are wondering how Cheetara is doing with her new plan to be the best at business. Even with this minor scene, it enhances the montage's joke even further, as it's revealed that Cheetara's montage of pushing it to the top didn't leave out that much. Not only was this her first day...

Tygra: She left the Cat's Lair, like, three hours ago! She probably hasn't even filled out an application yet!

...thanks for underestimating your teammate's abilities, Tygra. It's understandable, but still. Also, "like"? Is he a valley girl now? Anyway, they make it back to the Bolkin Stadium to find out what exactly gave Monkian his ability to run faster than the former fastest person on Third Earth...

...which also had a name change since we last saw it. The ThunderCats ban is still in place, and Lion-O is just too proud to not exclaim exactly who he and his teammates are despite his plans to just try to sneak past the guards. He should know because he was there when the ban was put into place, but he shouldn't know because Lion-O is the dumb-dumb.

Thankfully, JanJan, remember her, managed to sneak past the tire fires and offers a way for them to sneak in undetected. Why would she do this? Because she already focused all of her energy on being the best Cheetara fan ever, and she didn't want to waste the effort. She can sneak them in, but first, they need disguises.

We Gilligan cut to the ThunderCats in their disguises, which consist mainly of "Monkian is heart" shirts and full manes. Lion-O is ticked off about this for some reason. Either he really didn't like having to pretend to like Monkian, or he really felt that "say we're the ThunderCats" strategy could have worked. Not sure.

Whatever the case, the disguises work, and they're able to go to the Monkian Speed Stunt Spectacular. The ThunderCats didn't get them because...well, maybe they snuck into this audience without having them put on? Again, I'm not sure. They sneak out to Monkian's secret room, which happened to be left open with no lock or key.

They look in Monkian's room, and are shocked to find out. Clearly, it must be the giant unicorn poop on the table. Okay, maybe it could be a giant glob of Neapolitan ice cream that he just put on the table, but that's the first thing to come to my mind. Not enough to show this disgusting room, Wilykit says this:

Wilykit: Why did he do that to the ceiling?

...yeah, the less I question this, the better. Of course, it's not the ice cream/poop, but the obvious safe that Monkian just put in the middle of the room. Panthro says that this is basically breaking and entering, but Tygra, of all people, goads him into destroying the safe with the classic "you're just worried you CAN'T break the safe!" trick.

Sure enough, it's revealed that Monkian was hiding a magic potion in there that gave him this super speed. In other words, he used steroids, but they don't use the "S" word. There was sort of a hint towards this in the race scene, where we get a shot of Monkian's legs being super big as he runs. However, this would be easy to confuse this with ThunderCats Roar's usual problem of having the characters change shape and size between scenes. This episode sometimes does it even in the same scene!

Monkian barges in, and we finally get our fight scene of the week...well, sort of. The good news is that he was barging in because the juice wore out. They don't decide to beat him up, they just toss the magic potion to each other like this is a game of monkey in the middle. Oh, now I get it: Monkian in the middle.

In one particular scene, Lion-O gets passed the bottle, and...he just stands there. Is this the return of the infamous Reboot Puff Strategy?

Lion-O: Hmmm, I should probably move.

...even Lion-O's aware of how silly this is. They do get a little bit of a proud crowd reaction.

Eventually, it ends up in the hands of JanJan, and Monkian is rather eager to take that potion away from her. The audience...actually, they don't seem to do that much to their Mayor even with his misdeeds being fully visible. It's possible they have no real time, because the plots are about to converge like a bulldozer plowing into a building. They don't really cut back and forth between them; it just feels like they completely forgot about it until now.

By the way, bulldozer plowing into a building is exactly what happens, as Cheetara and her shoulderpad suit leads a bunch of bulldozers to bulldoze the arena. Why is she able to do this?

Because Monkian signed a contract, allowing Cheetara Corp to own his name and arena. Unlike the steroids, there was no hint of this happening at all. The reasoning makes sense, as Cheetara, disguised with merely a mustache, had him sign a contract that would declare him "super cool". As told by pretty much all the signs around Monkian Stadium, that's far more important to him than reading any kind of fine print.

Without any additional races or use of that fast magic, she manages to save the day and, after Monkian's disqualification, she becomes the Mayor again. But, uh oh, she can't just leave her business! She finds a solution rather quickly, which I guess fits Cheetara's character, and it is a continuation of a gag from earlier. It passes.

...she really didn't grow as a character throughout any of this, did she? Honestly, I didn't really expect that to happen.

How does it stack up?

It's a simple idea, and the execution isn't bad. Outside of a rushed ending, it works. I'll give this a 4.

Next, a crime fighter not from Third Earth! ...well okay, neither are the ThunderCats, but another one nonetheless!

← ThunderSlobs 🐈 Mandora - The Evil Chaser →

[alexsmitposts]

Pandemic Intensifies Divisions Among US Elite On Thursday April 30th, protesters, some carrying firearms, marched into the Michigan state capitol building. The demonstration was just the latest of a stream of protests demanding an end to the lockdown and social distancing. Despite giving daily briefings to the country amidst the pandemic, and urging social distancing, US President Donald Trump has tweeted in support of these protests, which are taking place across the country. Trump has also singled out Michigan’s democratic governor for criticism. It seems there is a widespread mobilization opposing necessary health measures throughout the United States. It is unclear what the protesters want. Some echo the sentiments of Glenn Beck and Texas Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick, that the lives of elderly and vulnerable people should be sacrificed for the sake of revving up America’s economy. Others echo claims circulating on social media, alleging that the pandemic is a hoax conducted by enemies of Donald Trump. Signs follow the ideological brand of the 2008-2010 Tea Party protests that opposed Obama’s healthcare plan. Slogans include “Social Distancing is Communism” and there are placards containing references to Hitler, the US Constitution, Liberty, and Tyranny. Meanwhile, there are also mobilizations of the organized political left. Examples of these include: car caravans calling for a rent freeze, strikes and organizing among essential workers. Unrest is brewing in US society as the economy is the worst it has been in decades. Unemployment numbers have reached level not seen since the Great Depression. The chasm between two factions in the US economic ruling class, divisions which expanded under Obama and became even more intense following the 2016 elections, are sharper than ever. Who is Behind The Anti-Lock Down Protests? The people responsible for the right wing mobilizations are a coalition of millionaires and billionaires who feel like they are locked out by the ultra-rich. This is the coalition that took Trump to the White House in 2016. Amidst the pandemic, these lower levels of American capital are watching the blood gush from their financial wounds. With oil prices lower than they have ever been, an essential part of the Trump coalition, fracking companies, have begun to face the possibility of their ultimate demise. Frackers were already extracting oil and natural gas from American shale on credit from banks, with low oil prices hurting their profit margins. The New York Times published an op-ed by Bethany McLean with the headline: “Coronavirus May Kill Our Fracking Fever Dream” predicting that the pandemic will finish them off for good. Meanwhile, the other big names among the Trump camp are also suffering. AmWay, the multi-level marketing scheme that enriched Trump’s billionaire Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has watched its sales plummet. Hobby Lobby, whose CEO, David Green, was one of Trump’s most outspoken supporters, closed all of its stores until further notice on April 7th. NASCAR is hoping to resume its season in late May, but its CEO, Jim France, son of outspoken Trump supporter, Brian France, has undoubtedly lost significant amounts of money from the cancelled races and lost advertisement revenue. While Home Depot, owned by Trump supporter, Bernie Marcus, has managed to stay open as an essential business, it has been forced to accept limited hours, and sales have significantly decreased in the spring months that usually generate about 30% of annual sales. The desperation to end the lockdown on the part of many millionaire and billionaire capitalists is quite real. They face financial ruin. Meanwhile, they are very well aware that certain competitors are fortified enough to ride out the storm. Who benefits from the lockdown? Amazon CEO, Jeff Bezos is an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump. He owns the Washington Post, a publication that has been harshly critical of the administration. While the lockdown has been bad for most US businesses, on April 14th, Amazon’s stock reached its all-time high. Amazon is hiring new employees to deliver products, and Bezos has made billions. The big four super-major oil companies that dominate the New York Stock exchange and function like a mini-cartel, are happily watching their competitors in fracking and drilling suffer amidst the oil price drops. With the elimination of frackers, Exxon-Mobile, BP, Chevron, and Shell Oil would walk out of the lockdown with an even more well established monopoly than before. Social media giants are certainly not suffering as Americans sit at home, updating their status, tweeting, posting pictures and watching ads. These types of corporations that already function as a natural monopoly are quite happy to see a large percentage of the US population working from home. Many of the conspiracy theories that claim the pandemic is a hoax focus on Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft. Bill Gates is an outspoken Malthusian who believes the human population must be decreased. In the conspiracy theories, Bill Gates has become a stand in poster boy for a faction of the US ruling class long-labelled “The Eastern Establishment.” The Rockefeller Family, whose Standard Oil is now reincarnated as Exxon-Mobile, the Morgans, the Duponts, the Mellons, and the “old money” elite that has been the most powerful faction in US politics for generations, represents a more managerial wing of the American elite. These are the elements that worked with Cecil Rhodes’ Round Table Group, and eventually gave birth to the Council on Foreign Relations. Rockefeller money worked to create the Trilateral Commission, Planned Parenthood, the Asia Society, and many of the other institutions that have crafted US government policy in a long-term and strategic way. These forces favor stability and long-term hegemony over their own short-term economic growth. They are closer to the Intelligence Agencies than the military, and friendlier to Silicon Valley than to retail owners and industrialists. The ideological right-wing has long targeted this wing of American politics, from the 1950s when the John Birch Society accused the Rockefellers of being Communists, up to the rants of Alex Jones denouncing Goldman Sachs and calling for “real capitalism.” These forces have entrenched themselves well enough, and built up enough of a monopolistic position, that the pandemic will not put them out of business. Rather, the pandemic is a convenient way to clear out their competitors and secure their position. As the lower levels of capital bleed, they call out their powerful nemesis with rage, realizing that while they have much to lose, the Eastern Establishment is likely to emerge even more powerful and dominant. What Comes After Lockdown? As restrictions are starting to be lifted across the USA, many questions remain about what will happen. Unemployment, poverty, and hunger are already starting to boil over. Food banks are overwhelmed. Catholic Charities in the Queens Borough of New York City encountered blocks and blocks of desperate people lined up in the hopes of receiving assistance. There is much talk in leftist circles of the 1930s and how the Communist Party USA organized hungry people to confront elected officials and demand relief. Various calls for a “rent strike” and a revival of anti-capitalism is taking place on the left.Voices that were calling for a “universal basic income” to ease economic pain have only gotten louder. Leftist film-maker Michael Moore produced and released a new film called “Planet of the Humans” arguing that economic growth is bad, and that overpopulation is the main the problem causing climate change. Alarm bells are ringing among the circles of power who can see that social unrest is pretty much inevitable. The national suicide hotline reported a 338% increase in call volume during March. Opioid deaths have also risen. The Trump faction, that was already hostile to China, is looking to point the finger of blame at Beijing. Liberal voices also condemn China but in a somewhat softer tone. The divisions among the American ruling class have become thicker than ever, and the scramble for profits is likely to intensify. A burning question for the American elite is how intense will the climate be in the lead up to the Presidential vote in November and how the results will be affected.

[tzifron]

Those Who Really Understand and Respect Machines in a Tech School

So I’m currently workin’ on finishin’ me last fookin’ degree (I swear it!) at a library and information science school. Maybe getting one more certificate to try and make something like an honest living when I’m out, but that’s it.

After that I learn what I want when I want. No more of this coerced labour bullshit and internalized fookin’ tyranny.

At it makes me fookin’ sick to the bottom of my Scouser heart to see how people ignore the maintenance and janitorial staff here.

Library and information science as a discipline is supposed to be either about public service and social work (libraries) or technical knowledge and excellence (information science) and really they don’t teach ya shit ‘bout any of those things!

They don’t know how to support folks and they don’t know ‘nutin bout machines.

They’re just a neoliberal incubator for the managerial classes and a way of filtering out the servant classes and puttin’ us in our place masquerading as ahn education.

I’ve been camping out here more than ususal because I need time away from my abusive living situation, and it’s getting harder to contain my anger on behalf of the most marginalized folks here.

I noticed that there was a buddy here in one of the elevator shafts on top of the lift workin’ on the machine. No one else was paying him any mind, but when the rich folk seemed to be gone I went and asked him, in my posh mask of a voice:

“It can be quite scary in there, can’t it?”

“Yeh... that’s why ya gotta respect it.” He replied.

I wished him the best of luck and then realized something. Fookin’ eh, my father’s a technician, been spending his life workin on board ships and at dockyards, then when he was badly injured in a workplace accident ended up having to fix photocopiers for a livin’

And that’s exactly how me father talks about machines and tools. Always in terms of respect, possibilities, and dangers. 

A technician understands and respects their tools far better than any manager or silicon valley wannabe. Just like a survivor understands and respects their tools and methods more than any doctor, nurse, or “public health professional.”

We have to.

In many cases our lives and bodies depend on it.