#most of them have not researched socialist nations enough to be able to see it as within grasp

[birdmenmanga]

Missed ass opportunity... the last time I was at the Marxist meeting one of the members brought up how there was a strong gender imbalance in the organization that heavily favored men, and wondered how they could increase recruitment of women. They kindly reminded current members to not say misogynistic things such as "women just don't care about politics" because it really really seems like women who are curious about Marxism tend not to return if people in the organization say shit like that. I mentioned that women likely do care about politics; that they were simply more likely to focus their efforts on things such as women's rights because they often feel more threatened by the patriarchy than capitalism.

What I SHOULD have said was, "I have a suggestion."

[kojinnie]

AOT Characters’ Modern Jobs Headcanon; The Vets Edition!

The jobs that The Vets would have in modern!au, their workplace antics and their back story. There might be some inaccuracies when describing the job as obviously I don’t work at these industries to know its intricacies. Most of the jobs are office jobs. Enjoyyyy!

My Masterlist .::. Pt. II: Zeke Yeager’s Modern Jobs Headcanon   

Most recent work: Dream Me Home (Before Shiganshina) | reader x erwin smith

A/N: I really need to finish a presentation deck due tonight for an early morning meeting tomorrow but of course, this comes first hahaha 

erwin!

A/N: Basically lawyer!erwin is the way to go, innit?

He's in his 40s, so he may have a settled career

He came from a white-collar, middle-class family. So he wasn’t silverspoon-fed, but his parents had enough money to put him through good school

Got a scholarship to go to one of the nation’s finest law schools

Kept it lowkey in college’s social circle, graduated with summa cum laude, developed a strong academic relation with his professor, and got recommended for an internship at top law firm at the capital city

Starting his career as a corporate lawyer, but then built his expertise as white-collar crime attorney

In his early 30s, he represented a union suing against conglomerate corporation in a big case that had national coverage, from then on he began to know his calling

Expanding his portfolio and became well-known for defending workers, consumers and civilians against corporate fraud scheme

Currently doing a lot of pro-bono cases for deprived victims of big corporate fraud. You would see him frequently gracing your local newspaper we love us some socialist king

On the side, he often writes for law journal and fills in as guest professor at local universities for summer courses

Established his own law firm with some of his partners, specializing in white collar crime and labor & employment law

He’s damn accomplished, but never really had any time for self-indulgence. Even after he becomes a household name in the country, with tens of attorneys working under him, his employees would still see him working on New Year’s Eve

He was always attentive to his employees, though. Although he has a very strict, borderline no-life work ethics, he never forces his employees to follow his habit, in fact he despises when his employees works on holidays and can be seen blaming himself for it a bit of a hypocrite but thats ok

He still takes metro to work. He prefers a very lowkey, ordinary lifestyle because he fears if he shows any knack for indulgence, he will be susceptible to gratification from potential enemies or crooked politicians

Definitely a sight to see at the workplace, for he's tall and always oozes a sense of authority in the way he speaks and carries himself generally

His emotional intelligence is top-notch, you would never meet someone who is able to be very objective and calculating, while being kind and compassionate at the same time

His fellow attorneys put a lot for respect for him, and hundreds of applicants come to his considerably small firm every week, because a lot of aspiring attorney find him inspiring to work with

He wasn’t oblivious to his shiny reputation, but he’s trying his hardest to not let the compliments get to his head. Sometimes he doesn’t give himself enough credit for it

Was approached by one of the political party’s committee to run for local senate, but turned it down

basically he’s perfect if you like a man who’s never home for christmas

Hange!

A/N: Ok ok, I really wanna see Paleontologist!Hange because it has always been my fave dream job, but I want Hange to be out and about with people so here it is

Hange is the type to be incredibly good at one thing, that she will dedicate her whole life for that pursuit, but will be awfully oblivious to a whole lot of things (not intentional of course, they just have a very limited attention span) (they wouldn’t know who kanye west is or what tiktok is)

Like Erwin, they came from a middle-class family. While Erwin’s parents might have been teachers, accountants or other common profession, Hange came from a family of academician and researchers

Hange studied Human Geography at uni, but later found passion specifically in its relation to industrialization and urban development

Hange aims to advocate for a better living condition for workforce, and nearby inhabitants of industrialized city detroit would be a beautiful city if only they let hange designed it

Hange is a professor at university, where they also led a non-profit research think-thank that also serves as pressure group for better government policy.

The university that Hange teaches in, is also the uni where Erwin teaches in summer. They’re close-knitted colleagues as they share similar passion. Erwin relies on Hange a lot for some intellectual insights to help his cases  

Hange is relentless in their cause, you may find Hange everywhere! From street protest to a hearing in the government court. They are passionate and will do anything for the cause they believe in

Hange was once hired by the government as an independent consultant for a new housing project, but left because they grew to be frustrated by the government’s bureaucracy and their outward reluctance to follow Hange's recommendation

Hange spends a lot of time overseas, consulting and advocating development in newly industrialized countries

On Hange’s birthday, her fellow researchers surprised them with a ‘pampering day’ where they took them to an optometrist because Hange had been complaining about their eyesight for a YEAR that gave them a lot of migraines, but was always either too busy or too lazy to go

Hange never really considers themselves as working, because they enjoy their job very much. Hange likes to spend months observing a community, talking to people for hours, and trying their best in understanding their problem

Out of so many great qualities that Hange has as a researcher that meets different set of people everyday, prejudice or preconceived judgment is completely absent in Hange’s demeanor and perspective

Hange doesn’t get a lot of free-time, even if they do, they’d wander around the city to do a little observation. But when the weather’s bad and they’re stuck at home with their pet lizard, they would logged into Quora to answer random internet questions

They’re an avid writer for National Geographic, and one time Hange won a pitch to make a documentary about an industrial city project they were working on

After the docu-series got broadcasted, Hange gained a small but passionate and loyal fans on the internet. You could even find a subreddit dedicated for Hange’s works

for real I want to be Hange. I want to have that kind of passion in life

levi!

A/N: I spent a lot of times thinking about Levi’s job in modern!au. Because here’s the thing, either we adopt his unfortunate childhood into its modern!au equivalent, or let’s just recreate his whole upbringing. But I think his personality stems from a specific things he experienced during childhood, so let’s not dismiss that.

Levi came from a struggling working class family. I reckon his parents might have had worked multiple jobs to sustain their living expense. Unfortunately they both passed away when Levi was very little, and left little to no inheritance

Levi’s parents were not close to their extended family, so when they died, Levi was admitted to the system and had to brace several foster families who didn’t really pay attention to him

Little Levi had come to realize that life’s all about survival and so he had been able to fend on for himself since very young age, he never asked for things

His uncle, Kenny, finally won custody over Levi when he was in elementary. Kenny made money from small-scale racketeering here and there. Levi never asked what he did for living, as long as he got food to eat and tuition paid off

Kenny was emotionally absent, but he loved spending time with the oddly quiet little child, teaching him a lot of crafts, from carpentering to how to flay pig’s skin

Levi didn’t really care about getting into college, and thought that he’d probably end up working for his uncle, so he put his bare minimum throughout school, although he was really good with numbers, especially in math, accounting and finance

One time in high school, Levi’s teacher asked him to sign up for the olympiad team, Levi turned it down because he thought that was a rich kid thing

He didn’t even apply for college, and worked odd jobs after high school. Probably working as cashiers or assistant to retail shop’s owner for couple of years, enough for him to afford a cheap studio apartment on his own

One of his bosses came to acknowledge Levi’s talent, and trusted him to handle the company’s accounting

By sheer luck, the company hit it big, and Levi found himself running the day-to-day accounting of mid-sized business with over 300 employees

He made good money already without a college degree, but with a new-found confidence Levi applied for uni, where he chose to study accounting (of course)

Although he was confident with his skills, he understood he needed to widen his horizon and network -- thus uni

Levi was one of the oldest members of his cohort in uni, but graduated with highest distinction

After graduating, with his skills and experience, it wasn’t hard for Levi to score a job at top accounting firm

There, he discovered an interest for forensic accounting, where through audits, analysis and investigation, he basically finds out if a company is doing fraud and embezzlement or not

This is where he came to know and get acquainted with Erwin and Hange (yippie they’re together again)

The firm he works for was assigned to investigate the finances of a troublesome company that had been sued by its workers for a jeopardizing working condition. Erwin was on the case, and Levi helped him with evidences for legal proceeding.

By chance, Erwin introduced Levi to Hange. At first, Levi would find Hange annoying and overtly energized, but after learning the things they have done, Levi grew to appreciate Hange’s passion (and secretly wants to have more of his positive outlook)

Levi is fucking good his job. In short amount of time, he could get a really ideal position in the office. He was almost foolproof, finding even the tiniest bit of discrepancy in his audit. He’d get assigned to the big league case/project.

Although really good at his job, he’s not a social person, especially in his office. He couldn’t understand the lavish lifestyle that finance and banking people often lead. He will only show up to office party if it is really necessary for him to show up (usually to receive some kind of informal awards for, again, being so fucking good) 

He leads a no-bullshit attitude at the office, largely because of his background. He is a self-made man, and is not easy to impress by some young executives from posh school that talk bigger than they can chew

His cold, seemingly dismissive attitude gained him a reputation of being scary, when actually he is very considerate

One of the things he enjoys doing is to actually teach, he really likes when a new kid at the office come to him with none of that pretentious, big talk, and really asks for his guidance. He would love to teach you a thing or two

He would frequently check on his mentee, just to keep up with their development

And he doesn’t take credit too. When his mentee makes a milestone, he believes it’s 100% your work

If you’re his mentee, he probably doesn’t give a crap about your personal life, so don’t expect him to make small talk about that (and don’t ask him about his personal life either). But he really cares about your skill and career development

Same with Erwin, he leads a very ordinary lifestyle. He doesn’t go out often and would rather reading detective novel with his cat on the couch

He likes to spend Sunday at Uncle Kenny’s house, because he finds himself worried about the old man very often. They became close as Levi grew

Overall, Levi is a really kind and caring person if you know how not to push his button

[swordoforion]

Orion Digest №41 - A Short Treatise on Orionist Philosophy

While not a topic broached yet, I am of the personal conviction that the methods and structure laid out for eco-socialist federation are of little use without the motive for implementing them. There are those, belonging to the movements from which ESF theory is inspired, who already have their own individual motivations and desires associated with world federalism, socialism, or environmentalism. However, if the point of these ideas is to spread and attract attention so that one day, the ideals of a united and just world may be realized, so too must there be a reason why people should concern themselves with the struggles of others.

A more philosophical piece than others, below is what I consider to be a combination of previously introduced theories as well as an observation on human existence itself, and what I have come to consider the essential theory of Orion - the responsibility we have, as humans, to help others, and the resultant fight for eco-socialist federation that Orion is pledged to take on. I had written this separately from the Digest as a personal essay for purposes of elaboration and cohesiveness between the content of the Eco-Socialist Federalist Handbook and the Orionist's Creed, but I believe it fitting and necessary to publish publicly.

------------------------------------------------

The purpose of Orion is to protect the survival and prosperity of the human race, and should our world expand, all sentient life. We were founded upon the desire to alleviate the suffering of the world, and what followed naturally from that desire were both the means of doing so and the reasoning behind the goal – the ‘how’ and the ‘why.’ The former is our founding political theory – eco-socialist federalism, and the latter our essential moral philosophy – Orionist thought. Both are essential to each other – federation cannot be established unless people believe in the cause, and mere intentions are hardly useful without the necessary action.

Eco-socialist federalism is a synthesis of previous theories of environmental policy, economy, and government, designed to both tackle the problems of our current age and remain as a stable structure long after they are solved. The developments of the Industrial Revolution resulted into an economic structure that has a) grown at an exponential rate at the cost of damage to our ecosystem, and b) shifts power over time to a small population of elites and owners without political confines to implement moral restrictions. Incapable of dealing with the consequences are the various governments of the world, that fight for power through force or policy, and usually side with the wealthy that grant them advantage in the game of nations. The constant threat of war and the economic divide that thrusts many into unlivable conditions feeds into the social divisions that pain humanity, and all the while, the damage we’ve done to the natural resources upon which we depend threatens to wipe us out while we fight amongst ourselves.

Thus, the theory poses political and economic reform on a global scale, in order to strike back at abuses against human rights (prosperity) and to stave off our extinction due to the climate crisis (survival). A democratic government between nations would be formed, with members required to conform to the constitutional standards of rights and freedoms, as well as standardized economic structure. This structure would involve the public ownership of means of production via the democratic state, which would lease resources for use to registered businesses, following a worker cooperative model and required to meet labor and wage standards. The chief policy of this new government would be to aid impoverished areas of the planet while de-escalating the production rates of the most industrialized nations in waves, until the course of every nation’s production was kept low enough to cut back on emissions, until public research and revitalization programs yielded positive results.

The combination of the three approaches would be necessary – economic reform would put some nations at risk of conflict with other nations were it not for federation, ecological action would be ineffective without a long-term change in industrial practices, and a federation alone would still be at the will of those with large pockets without removal of private ownership. While it borrows from environmentalist concerns, socialist theory, and the cause of world federalism, it recognizes that each must rely and feed off of the other if effective change is to be established.

However, while the implementation of such would be beneficial for the whole of humanity, it would still require great effort and cost to do so, and the question arises of why we should bother with taking a fresh start, rather than just letting the snake eat its own tail and to have the species die off. More specifically, some wonder why they should bother themselves with helping others at all. In comes the second theory of Orion, which is properly known as Orionist thought, or Orionism for short.

From the second we are born, we are observing and discovering the world around us, and to know joy is to see the beauty in the world around you. Different people see and appreciate the world differently, but we all have things we hang onto, things we value, and we all try to find some meaning or answer about ourselves from the universe around us, as well as the people we meet. Every person will experience some combination of pleasure and pain in their unique journey that leads them in pursuit of some sort of satisfaction, whether it be to write a book, to see sights, or simply to find peace and understanding. It varies for everyone, but all find whatever they believe to be their meaning and purpose, and learn about themselves in the process. As we possess the ability of empathy, we are able to understand and relate to others, and in them, we can see elements of ourselves – their hopes and fears, their habits and desires.

Since we can understand others, we can understand also why they might shrink from pain, and why they might experience elation at comfort. As we all seek to fulfill our various needs, from physical to psychological, we may sometimes be blinded to the fact that others are like us as we struggle against each other to assure our survival, but if we look past that, we can see others, like ourselves, trying to survive and figure out the puzzle of existence. Realizing that we’re both just trying to make it, we can find some joy in helping others with their own experience, as it is a helping hand that we would want in our own lives. If we would want the pains and burdens to be a little lighter, and for the highs of life to be a little sweeter, we can understand why they would want it as well.

By showing kindness and improving the lot in life of others, we demonstrate the basic concept that we are not alone in this journey, and that kindness does exist. People can work together to fulfill their needs, to understand themselves and each other, and to find that personal happiness. It is not simply about personal benefit – helping others does not necessitate that they help you back. Rather, making the world better is something we must do because we see ourselves in those that suffer, whether we suffer ourselves or fear the possibility of suffering, and we act in solidarity as the change we want to see, as the voice we would want to hear, the hand we would want to lift us up. As we would want our burdens lessened, we work to lessen the burdens of others like us.

It is our responsibility, if we be able, to save the world from destruction and division, for the sake of our fellow citizens today, and for the future generations to come. To do this, we must strive for the establishment and protection of eco-socialist federation, as well as assistance and security to those in need of it. To serve others who, used to the constant fight for survival and the age-old bid for power, might never show us the same courtesy, and to push down our own desires for comfort, we must possess discipline to tame and hone our passions. Anger must become drive, greed must become temperance, restlessness must become patience, and so on. We must be willing to stand kind and firm in the face of the misguided and the grieving.

The final level of Orionist philosophy follows necessarily from the others – if we hold a responsibility to help others, it will require sacrifice to fight and change the world. It is not an easy task to convince others so set in their ways, to take on titans that burn the world and chain the people, to approach age-old empires and get them to side with ancient enemies in one fight, as one people. We cannot wait for gradual improvement, for our devastation of the environment has ensured that we are facing a ticking clock. Thus, it will take dedication beyond a simple afternoon of effort, and very likely, sacrifice of those willing to give their happiness so that many others can appreciate the beauty that they dream of seeing. Our dreams of a united and peaceful world will be lived out by those that succeed us.

The envisioned Orion is an organization that stands from now until its last member, dedicated to upholding and, whenever necessary, fighting for the survival and prosperity of humanity. Its charge is the world; not one specific people, not a select few, but all the world. Its members see the beauty in the universe around them, use empathy to understand the thoughts and dreams of others, take on the responsibility of bettering the world, temper their passions through discipline to better help the people, and are willing to sacrifice so that others may be free to explore themselves and the unending cosmos.

- DKTC FL

[violetsystems]

Silvio Gesell hated money. A German entrepreneur who moved to Argentina for business in the late 19th century, he witnessed a massive financial crash in 1890 that convinced him that money was behind the world's economic problems: poverty, inequality, unemployment, stagnation.

The problem, Gesell believed, was that money served two roles that often came into conflict: It was a way for people to store wealth, and it was the thing everybody needed to conduct business. The fact that money could store wealth meant its holders had a reason to cling to it, especially in crises like the one he saw in Argentina, when opportunities to safely put that money elsewhere looked grim. It was a typical story. When people got scared, they hoarded cash and brought business to a standstill. It led, Gesell said, to a situation of "poverty amid plenty."

Gesell wanted to create a new kind of money — a money that would "rot like potatoes" and "rust like iron" so no one would want to hoard it, a money that was "an instrument of exchange and nothing else." And the crazy part is that he did create it. Through a series of pamphlets, articles and books, Gesell inspired a worldwide movement that introduced a completely new form of money. It's one of the most fascinating, and largely forgotten, stories in economic history.

But after 70 years of obscurity, Gesell is making a comeback. All of a sudden, this obscure radical from another age has his name and ideas popping up in unlikely places — like speeches of leaders at the U.S. Federal Reserve, research papers of the International Monetary Fund and the pages of the Financial Times. As the industrialized world grapples with stagnation and as markets signal another recession, policymakers are struggling to figure out what to do. Could Gesell provide an answer?

Money with an expiration date

Gesell was born in 1862 to a German father and a French mother, and he was raised in what is now Belgium. Back then, it was part of the expanding Prussian empire. At 24, he moved to Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he worked as an importer and manufacturer and did well for himself. On the side, he taught himself economics.

In 1891, hoping to end the depression in Argentina, Gesell published his first work, "Currency Reform as a Bridge to the Social State." He proposed a new kind of paper money that would have an expiration date. To avoid expiration, the bills would have to be periodically stamped for a fee. With no new stamp, they would become worthless. In this system, saving money would cost you money. Savings, in other words, would have a negative interest rate. Only by spending or investing it would you be able to avoid stamp fees.

Gesell called it "free money" (or Freigold) — "free" because he believed it would be freed from hoarding and also because it would encourage bankers to lend money without charging interest. The logic was this: If you're holding on to something that's dropping in value, you'll happily part with it — even if it means that it won't make you more money than you started with. It's like a game of hot potatoes. You want to pass it on. Gesell believed this would keep money whizzing through the system, preventing future depressions and increasing public prosperity.

It was a completely radical idea, especially during a time when nations were on the gold standard. That system latched money to the stable value of gold, which meant currency was a pretty safe place to store wealth. Gesell was saying he didn't want money to be like gold. He wanted it to be like most other objects, which decay and rust and go bad. Of course, many people hated this idea, especially people with a lot of money.

In 1899, Gesell began moving back and forth between Europe and Argentina, spreading the gospel of free money and writing extensively on other matters as well. He had a bunch of eccentric views, criticizing monogamous relationships and advocating free love. He lived in a vegetarian commune near Berlin for a time. He was a bohemian utopian who advocated for peace between nations. He was critical of big business and finance, but he believed in individual freedom and market competition. And he was a committed anti-racist. As fascism rose in Germany, Gesell would call the scapegoating of Jews for the nation's problems "a colossal injustice."

Wikimedia Commons

After World War I, Gesell watched Europe descend into political and economic chaos. In 1919, anarchist revolutionaries in Munich, Germany, took the helm of the short-lived Bavarian Republic, and they persuaded Gesell to become their finance minister. Led by pacifist poets and playwrights, it has been called "one of the strangest governments in the history of any country." Gesell began pursuing a program that included land reform, a basic income for women with children and, of course, stamped money. But the job lasted less than a week — ending after another group of revolutionaries, this time led by hard-line communists, overthrew the anarchist poets and playwrights. A year later, after the German government reasserted control, Gesell was tried for treason. But, successfully arguing that his only role and purpose was to rescue the Bavarian economy, he was acquitted after a one-day trial and went back to writing.

Free money becomes real money

For decades, money that expired unless stamped was mostly a theory. It took the Great Depression to make it a reality. As the economy went into a free-fall, people scrambled to find solutions. And in towns scattered throughout Europe and the United States, they found their solution in Gesell. The money reformer, who died in 1930 of pneumonia, would not live to see it.

In 1932, in the small town of Wörgl, Austria, a town leader, Michael Unterguggenberger, got Wörgl to issue stamped money as a way to combat skyrocketing unemployment and business closures. The town used it to pay the unemployed to do public works, and by all contemporary accounts, the system worked to lift the town out of misery.

The press dubbed it the "miracle of Wörgl," and it was one in a series of local experiments with stamped money. These experiments inspired many other struggling cities, like Hawarden, Iowa, and Anaheim, Calif., to do the same. It was around then that Gesell's work was finally published in English. With classical economics discredited by the prolonged depression and with leading economists scrambling to figure out what to do, many were inspired by Gesell. Among them were Irving Fisher and John Maynard Keynes, two of the most influential economists of the 20th century.

In 1933, Fisher wrote a short book inspired by Gesell's ideas called Stamp Scrip. Fisher was an economist at Yale University, and he's now somewhat unfairly remembered for making overly optimistic predictions before the crash of 1929. He lobbied Congress to institute stamped money to provide relief to a distressed America. U.S. senators introduced a bill (S. 5125) that would have issued a billion dollars of stamped money to be distributed nationally. But it did not end up becoming law. Perhaps that's because that year was already seeing huge changes, with newly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt implementing the New Deal and taking the U.S. off the gold standard.

Keynes, in 1936, dedicated five pages to Gesell in a concluding chapter of his magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. While critiquing some of Gesell's overall theory, Keynes concluded, "The idea behind stamped money is sound."

Why do we care about this now?

After World War II, the industrialized world entered a remarkable period of economic growth. And central banks, now off a rigid gold standard, played a greater role in managing money to ease the ups and downs of the market. Negative-interest money lost its allure, and Gesell was mostly forgotten.

But the world's central banks are now thinking about how to keep money moving again. When the economy enters a downturn, they usually cut interest rates to encourage spending. But interest rates are already close to zero, which could be a huge problem in another recession. For a long time, economists believed rates couldn't go negative for a simple reason: If saving in places like a bank costs people money, they will instead just hoard cash, which won't cost them money. Cash becomes a roadblock to economic stimulus. One way around this is higher inflation, which devalues or "taxes" money in real terms, but central banks like the Fed have been showing that they have much less power to increase inflation than previously thought.

Central banks in Europe and Japan have been experimenting with teeny-tiny negative interest rates as a way to stimulate the economy, but the issue still remains that people will start hoarding cash if rates go significantly negative. It's why serious economic thinkers consider Gesell relevant again.

In our technological age, a Gesellian system of unhoardable cash wouldn't actually have to involve stamping paper bills for a fee. It could involve high-tech physical cash, such as magnetic strips that allow the government to impose a "Gesell tax" on holding cash, as one economist proposed some years ago. Harvard University's Kenneth Rogoff has been advocating we get rid of paper money altogether and move almost completely to a system of electronic cash. He believes it could give central banks the power to impose negative interest rates deep enough to rescue our economy from future recessions. In all of this, Gesell was a pioneer.

Silvio Gesell has been called everything from a "libertarian socialist" to an "anarchist" to a "free spirit" to a "crank." John Maynard Keynes had a much more affectionate term for him: a "strange, unduly neglected prophet."

[popscenery]

Passion Pit, »Take a Walk«

by Jessica Doyle

In the summer of 2010, when I took a leave of absence from my PhD program, my dissertation was a helpless non-thing without a subject. In December 2018, I officially got my PhD, because my dissertation was done: written, revised, defended, revised again, approved, copied, formatted, distributed, carefully archived, accepted as an actual work of scholarship. It is arguably my most important professional accomplishment of the decade, and also arguably entirely inconsequential. The claim that 90 percent of academic papers go uncited is mostly untrue, but it is true for my dissertation, and I have the gaping void of a Google Scholar search return to prove it.

Trust me: as bitter and self-deprecating post-graduate students might be about their research (see previous paragraph), none of us start out planning to write something inconsequential. Certainly the subject of my dissertation was not inconsequential at all. “Take a Walk” is not my favorite song of the past decade, but it is the song that kept reminding me that the topic was worth writing about.

My dissertation examined what makes starting and maintaining a business easier or harder for Latino entrepreneurs in different American cities. Take Miami as an example, where 47% of all businesses are Latino-owned. That’s much higher than the national average (12 percent) and higher than the percentage in other cities with large Latino populations: New York, Los Angeles, Houston. So what’s so special about Miami? Is it because the Cuban population that arrived in the 1960s were often landowners or merchants fleeing Castro, and made wealth-building a priority in their new city? Is it the geographic proximity to Latin America and the Caribbean? Is starting a business in Miami easier than elsewhere? Is it something about Miami’s economy in general, or Florida’s? Finally (and more to the point), if policy-makers in another city wanted to put in policies that would help local Latino entrepreneurs flourish, what would Miami’s example offer as guidance?

To make a 295-page story short: it is much easier to turn immigrants into successful business owners if they come to the country with business experience and/or capital already at hand; and if the local immigrant population doesn’t start with those advantages, then policy-makers should focus on providing business education and access to financing, especially the latter. Latino immigrants in the United States who want to start businesses are more likely than native-born white entrepreneurs to use their own cash (which takes a while to accumulate), credit cards (which charge higher interest rates than do bank loans), or loans from family or friends (which means that loved ones, rather than banks with larger cushions, bear the risks). I’d say read the whole dissertation, but in all frankness you’d be better off checking out the research being published by the Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative, including this report. (It’s more concise and their data is more robust than mine was.)

This all assumes, of course, that you want to encourage Latinos, or other immigrants, or anyone at all, to start their own business. A lot of us--including me; including Michael Angelakos, the artist behind Passion Pit--have immigrant entrepreneurs in our family lineage. In interviews to promote the album Gossamer, Angelakos described “Take a Walk,” the lead single, as about different members of his family. The first verse’s portrait is a classic rags-to-riches, grateful-to-be-in-America immigrant story: I love this country dearly / I can feel the ladder clearly. But in the second verse, the story shifts to a new narrator, and so does the tone: I watch my little children / Play some board game in the kitchen / And I sit and pray they never feel my strife. The final narrator is eventually undone...

I think I borrowed just too much We had taxes, we had bills We had a lifestyle to front

...yet still insists on his participation in the American dream:

Tomorrow you'll cook dinner For the neighbors and their kids We can rip apart those socialists And all their damn taxes You see, I am no criminal I'm down on both bad knees I'm just too much a coward To admit when I'm in need

Apparently at one point a Fox News reporter failed to hear the irony, and asked Angelakos if the song was anti-socialist. But Angelakos told MTV News, “It's about very specific family members, the male hierarchy, and how the men in my family have always dealt with money.... All these men were very conservative; socially very liberal but for some reason, they all came here for capitalism, and they all ended up kind of being prey to capitalism.” He told a different interviewer, “These are all true stories; this is my grandfather and so on.”

Angelakos’s ambivalence is understandable. (Several of the pieces that greeted “Take a Walk” identified it as a direct reponse to the 2008 financial crisis, an interpretation he rejected.) The idea that anyone can come to the United States, start a business, and work their way to financial security and political freedom is an old one--the history of immigrants employing at higher rates than native-born Americans goes as far back as the Census Bureau has been keeping track of such things. But even for the successful it has its costs. The narrators of “Take a Walk” are estranged from their families, anxious about their ability to keep wealth. The theme of risk runs through the song. No one worries about getting fired; they have market investments, business partners, endless complaints about taxes (as one might if one has to pay both ends of the Social Security and Medicare taxes single-handedly.) The risk allows the narrators to make comfortable lives for themselves and their family, and yet Angelakos isn’t convinced, looking back, that they were better off.

Historically, if you were running for any sort of higher political office in the United States and were from a major party, you made sure to say nice things about small businesses and entrepreneurship, especially the immigrant kind. To some degree this is still true: Elizabeth Warren’s campaign platform includes a Small Business Equity Fund that would give grants to minority entrepreneurs. That said, I’m not sure the current dominant political energy on either the American left or right favors small businesses, who tend to hate tariffs. If you read the Green New Deal resolution, though it calls for a more equitable distribution of available financing to such smaller-scale lenders as community banks and credit unions, a lot of what it wants it can only get at a certain scale. It’s easier for a larger company to retool its supply chains to lower environmental costs than it is for ten small businesses to do the same. It’s easier for a firm with a thousand employees to absorb the cost of any one employee needing a higher wage to make rent, or a longer maternity leave, or extended absences due to illness, than it is for a firm with five.

And Music Tumblr in particular can be forgiven for not thinking highly of entrepreneurship. Most creative people--artists, musicians, writers--end up as entrepreneurs simply because decent-paying employment in those fields has never been easy to find. (In 2017, Angelakos spoke of dealing with venture capitalists and deciding to run his mental-health-focused initiative, Wishart, as a combination of for-profit and non-profit.) But no loan officer with a nickel’s worth of sense would approve a loan to enter a market so saturated that marginal revenue is typically zero or close enough, or where thousands if not millions of people seem thoroughly committed to proving themselves, in Samuel Johnson’s eyes, blockheads. Upon hearing, “You can do what you love, but the market won’t reward you,” a lot of people will reply, “To hell with markets, then.”

It all comes down to how you feel about risk. For a long time the dominant American thinking was that higher risk was the price entrepreneurs paid to have the chance to succeed on their own terms. (There’s an ongoing debate in the immigrant-entrepreneurship academic literature about whether any one particular group of entrepreneurs is “pushed” into entrepreneurship--as in, they only start businesses as the best of a bad set of money-making options--or “pulled,” starting businesses because they want to.) More recently has emerged the critique that not all experiences of risk are created equal, and that in championing immigrant or minority entrepreneurship we offload risk onto those people with smaller financial or even emotional cushions. The heightened experience of risk, and its attendant anxiety and feeling of constant scarcity, may be what Angelakos meant when he described his relatives as “kind of being prey to capitalism.”

I personally agree with that critique, and would throw in that the general perception of Latino immigrants as not-entrepreneurial denies them a road to acceptance (or bourgeois respectability, if you prefer) that their Swedish, German, Jewish, Italian, and more recently Korean predecessors have been able to walk. That was why I wanted to write about Latino entrepreneurship in the first place, and why I ended up writing about North Carolina’s Latino Community Credit Union and associated initiatives as a promising case study. But I would caution against crossing the line from wanting to reduce risk for vulnerable minorities to regarding asking them to bear any kind of risk as imperialist and offensive. Risk can’t be eliminated altogether, and there are costs to scaling risk to higher levels of human activity and trying to diffuse it. A small business committed to a bad idea does a lot less damage than a government policy committed to a bad idea, even if the latter is more equitable in the range and number of people it effects.

Writing a dissertation is a humbling process. I’ve never written and recorded a song, but I imagine that process humbles too. (When “Take a Walk” came out Angelakos was not shy about disliking it, though he seems to have grown fonder of it as time goes on: “I like that it’s so uncharacteristic of me,” he said in 2017.) You work and work and work, all the while knowing you have no control over how your audience will hear your message, or if there will even be an audience. You can never be sure that you read enough, or chose the right method of analysis, or treated your subjects with sufficient respect. You’ll never know if you’re actually on the side of the angels. If the “angels” are metaphorical--if you don’t actually believe in a god, or God, whose love is greater than your human tendency to error and self-deception and treachery--then the risk is even higher. And yet, without that risk, how would you ever be able to say anything worth saying?

[workersolidarity]

One thing that should unite the left more than ever is that we're all being fucked over capitalism in general. Especially if you live in a culture that is built on commodification and capitalism, and to break through the lies that we have told and try to do good by leftism is noble and it betters humanity the more leftism rises.

I would hope. But just like the early 1930's, were at a junction of history. Neoliberal Capitalism could easily degrade into more Nationalism and the continued rise of Fascism.

Or trend could go towards the Socialist Left.

The part that worries me is how the Ruling Class has such a brutally tight grip on Western culture. They've been so effective in their propaganda over the years that it's now acceptable to read Mein Kampf and try to "understand Hitler".

You walk into many public libraries and book stores and easily find a copy of Mein Kampf or an awfully generous biography of Goebbels.

But good luck trying to find a copy of Foundations of Leninism or Dialectical and Historical Materialism anywhere besides the internet.

Somehow the Bourgeoisie have convinced the public that, yeah, Fascism is bad, but it's okay to be a little Fascist-curious.

But Stalin, oh my Lord! Now that guy is completely and utterly unacceptable to read or try understanding! He's "worse than Hitler" and "killed more people in the Soviet Union than Hitler did in the Holocaust" are refrains I hear all the time.

Nevermind that the entire Anti-Stalin/Anti-Communism paradigm is based on out-and-out lies. Nevermind that a little Independent research debunks any and all claims of Stalin's supposed crimes. Doesn't matter!

Even among other Socialists you'll hear the same tired lies, most of which can be traced to Trotsky (somehow he's an acceptable Socialist but not Stalin), or from Krushchev's "Secret Speech", and some of the lies come directly out of fictional literature from the Cold War Era! Yet, even so-called "Leftists", "Socialists", and "Anarchists" who question anything their Government says about any other topic, disbelieve the Corporate Media on topics of War, but swallow without question these baseless lies about Stalin and the Soviet Union.

This is such a remarkable stranglehold on a narrative of Revisionist History, I'm stunned whenever someone actually questions it.

Consider some other well worn lies that people swallow hook-line-and-sinker.

A. America won the war against Fascism

Nevermind the fact that the US didn't even enter the European Front until the tide had turned. Ask any Westerner and they'll tell you it was the US that defeated the Nazis and Fascism, and liberated the Concentration camps.

B. America entered World War II to defend "Freedom" (whatever that means), to Liberate the Jews, to defeat Fascism and Nazism, and to defend "Western Values" (another meaningless refrain repeated without thought everywhere in the Western world).

Again, completely ignoring the fact that the US didn't even enter the War until the Red Army was marching on Berlin. Nevermind, that the US was only interested in preventing a Europe united under Socialism. Nevermind that any Holocaust survivor remembers like it was yesterday exactly who Liberated them from the Concentration camps; and Earth to America! It wasn't us!

These are just the most obvious examples of how the Bourgeois of the Western Imperialist Powers have a complete stranglehold on the Narratives that even most Leftists still believe.

You're allowed to question anything in America. As long as that anything isn't the Historical Revisionism of the Second World War or the Anti-Stalin Paradigm.

So for me, the question becomes, how exactly do we educate the Proletariat in Western Nations if we can't even get them to believe that Stalin didn't kill 60 million Soviet Citizens (out of 100 million total) and the Soviet Union wasn't an Totalitarian dictatorship that was essentially the same as Nazi Germany?

I mean, how do you build Socialism when the Bourgeoisie have convinced the world that the only example of Socialism to have ever existed wasn't actually Socialist but was instead akin to Fascism?

And now even the word "Socialism" is being debased by Liberals and Social Democrats to mean something completely different from what it is? If prominent Politicians and Political figures are allowed to go around claiming Sweden is a Socialist country, then how do you ever convince people that this not only isn't true, but real Socialism looks like the Boogieman of Nation States the Soviet Union?

How do we reclaim Socialism from the Capitalists and Liberals? Better yet, how can we reclaim Socialism with scaring off Working Class when they have disinformation coming, not only from their enemies, but also from the Petty-Bourgois Political figures who've convinced them they're on their side?

We're essentially battling multiple disinformation campaigns coming from all sides. How can we blame the Working Class for being confused by all this?

And this is how the Bourgeois Class of today operates. They allow Liberals to reclaim Socialism without challenging it all that much because they see how this will only add to the confusion and divisions of the Working Class; essentially assuring enough confusion to keep a genuine Revolutionary Proletariat from forming.

Which leads me back to the beginning. Things can go either way right now. But with Liberals being so distrusted and no adding to the difficulties facing Communists in building a genuinely Revolutionary Working Class, I see Workers facing a much easier path towards Fascism than I do Socialism.

I don't know what to do other than educate people as best I can, involve myself in local Socialist Organizations as I already do, and just hope that something profound changes in the radicalization process for Workers.

We need to build a broad infrastructure on the Socialist Left that can bring diverse viewpoints that share a unified vision for Revolution together. This has to include a network of Revolutionary Socialist media productions such as podcasts, radio shows, websites and news sources, as well as a network of Socialist Organizations and Parties; basically some type of connecting Infrastructure that as it grows and matures, could eventually lead to a unified Vanguard Party that will hopefully be able by then to be dominated by Marxist-Leninists while slowly shedding it's more Right Wing and Opportunist wings of the Party.

That's the only way I can visualize an actual path towards Revolution. Any goal less than that is doomed to fail. That should be clear to everyone after Venezuela and Bolivia this year.

So yeah, again I've gone way way over the top in response to a comment, but this is the most important issue facing the Socialist Movement. I have some hope, I do. Just not a whole hell of a lot.

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Your post on Bernie has me a little confused. Do you consider yourself a strict democrat, leftist, socialist or anything else? To me at least, it seems odd that you dislike Bernie for not being an “actual democrate” when Clinton is pretty right wing.

So I dislike boxes. They’re restrictive. I vote for who I like in terms of policy and who I think will perform best once in office. I’m a democrat, sure. I have leftist ideals but a realistic/pragmatic approach to things. I understand that we all wish to burn things down but that’s not how things work sadly. So let’s be realistic about getting shit done. Guillotine memes don’t feed the starving and they don’t end white supremacy. I’m a uh, let’s call it a north american socialist (no one running is an actual, by the books, definition of socialist, but that’s neither here nor there). 

Since people on this site apparently need to dissect my political beliefs, here you go: 

I believe we should have free healthcare; I believe that university education should be heavily subsidized (free would be great, but let’s start with at least making it subsidized and work from there); I think we should have universal basic income; I believe we should spend more on public infrastructure because our roads and bridges are falling apart; I believe we should have accessible, reliable public transit and an improved public transit network that works at municipal, state and national levels; I believe election days should be national holidays so everyone can vote; I believe gerrymandering is a curse upon our democratic system; I believe that we should spend more on public education at a K-12 level; I believe in subsidized and/or free after school care especially for the economically struggling; I believe we should have stronger anti-hate crime laws; I believe dental and mental health care should be covered anytime we talk about health care coverage; I believe in reparations; I believe we should start our own Truth and Reconciliation process for both slavery and the genocide against the Native Americans; I believe that we should try and address class and wealth disparity but that won’t solve racism, sexism, homophobia etc.; I believe we need electoral reform; I believe we need to do more for climate change but that the Green New Deal is empty in terms of actual things to implement in terms of policy - anyway those who wrote it admitted it was more of an economic plan than a climate one; I believe we need to tax the wealthy including all those pesky millionaires with three houses and wives who were investigated for tax fraud as well as the billionaires — 

I can go on. 

Of those running I currently like Castro, Harris, Warren. I really wish Stacy Abrams was running but she’s not. I think she’d be the best. I’m not a fan of Biden, Sanders, Gabbard (I mean, can we really call her a democrat?), Steyer, Yang. I’m neutral on Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, and Booker. I don’t know if that clarifies anything for you. Also, this is liable to change as we move forward through the primaries. 

And Clinton isn’t right wing. Calling her that continues the lie that she and the GOP are two sides/same coin which isn’t true. It’s a harmful position to perpetuate. There’s been a ton of stuff written on that so I’m not going to put it all in here. But I recommend starting with an analysis of her voting record - it’s on point with Sanders, if that’s your bar, on almost everything with some differences, the notable ones being Iraq (she was for, he was against) and gun control (she is for, he is generally against - his record is really dodgy on that).

I believe all politicians are up for grabs when it comes to legitimate critiques. But there’s a difference in saying “I disagree with her arguments for why she voted for Iraq” and calling her right wing. One is a legitimate critique, the other is hyperbolic and untrue. I also believe in understanding the context of the time in which many policy decisions were made. She, and Sanders, have been in politics for over 20 years. There are going to be decisions made in 1992 that we can look back on and go: Oh boy that was Yikes. But at the time, that wouldn’t have been so clear cut. No one has all the answers. No one is perfect. Purity politics isn’t the solution to our social ills. 

Anyway, some things HRC has supported, or accomplished, includes but is not limited to: 

The ACA - which was huge at the time. I cannot emphasize this enough. It was Ground Breaking. I think younger folk either don’t remember, or aren’t aware, of what a game changer this was. Indeed, it’s because of the ACA that the many Americans are even open to the conversation around medicare for all/any sort of more socialist health coverage. 

On a personal note, as a child of a single, poor working mom in the 90s this is the reason I had any sort of healthcare. Without it, we’d have been fucked. 

This is also one of the things that sent the GOP into a fucking TIZZY about HRC and why they started their 30 year long smear campaign against her which has influenced a lot of the more recent leftist rhetoric on her. 

Indeed, she was an early leader in expanding healthcare coverage in the early 90s and continued to be throughout her career. 

Leadership with SCHIP which which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children. 

I know we all wish we could have Instant Health Care For All but small steps is how you get these things. It’s incredibly complicated and difficult to set up health care systems and programs. They’re large, they become unwieldly, they’re expensive to fund, and they’re difficult to pass through congress. It’s useful to be able to point to precedents. 

She founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families

Supported and championed the Violence Against Women Act

Adoption and Safe Families Act (she was a supporter of it and helped champion it through) 

One of the leaders of the development of the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act 

Supported the Pediatric Research Equity Act - improving health and pharmaceutical access for children 

START treaty - an attempt to begin regulating the amount of nukes Russia and the US have which, even if one wishes we could snap fingers and get rid of them all, one must admit isn’t a bad thing. 

Negotiated ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in 2012 - again, regardless of views on Israel, Hamas and Palestine - having people stop fighting for a time isn’t a bad thing. The hope was it would lead to more productive, long term peace talks etc. but that sadly didn’t pan out. 

Copenhagen Climate Change Accord - one of the chief negotiators 

Etc. etc. she has 25 years of things to list but none of these things are right wing. One can disagree with her foreign policy approach, or think she didn’t push hard enough on health care, or that she came late to the table on LGBTQ issues, but that doesn’t make her right wing. I have right winger-s in the family and they’d all love to see Clinton dead. I know what the right wing looks like and it’s not her. 

Things she supports that make actual, real right wing people (like my great grandfather and my uncle’s sister) hate her: 

She supports and advocates for two weeks of paid family and medical leave at a minimum of 2/3s wage replacement rate 

She supports expanding social security 

You know, she believes in climate change and has worked to reduce carbon emissions, pushed for climate change accords, encouraged renewable energy, and ending tax subsidies for oil companies

clearly things a right wing person would do /sorry sarcasm I just can’t take it too seriously when people call her right wing

She supports immigration reform with full path to citizenship 

She supports the naturalization of around 9 million lawful permanent residents in the United States who are eligible to become U.S. citizens

She’s pro-choice and believes abortion is basic health care

Sorry how do people think she’s right wing again? 

She supports making it illegal for pharmacists to refuse to provide access to emergency contraception

When she was Sec. of State she wanted the US to join the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

She supports the Disability Integration Act, which requires states and insurance companies to provide people with disabilities who need long term care the choice to receive care at home instead of solely in institutions and nursing facilities

She’s obviously pro-gun control and was the first candidate in 2016 to produce an extensive position paper on guns and gun violence

She supports voting rights and advocates for changes in national voter access laws, including automatically registering American citizens to vote at age 18 and mandating 20 days of early voting in all states

She has criticized laws passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures that do not permit student IDs at polling places, place limits on early voting, and eliminate same-day voter registration

She had one of the most thorough mental health care plans that I have ever seen in a presidential nominee. 

It goes on. I again - I don’t get how people can look at this and think her right wing. I sure don’t agree with everything she’s done and every position she’s taken, but she’s not right wing. Good lord my people. 

There’s a lot many people have to thank her for and they’re unaware of it. Tumblr and twitter aren’t ideal places to form and consume political points. 

As a note, I work in the civil service in Canada (am a dual citizen), I’m very familiar with how large socialized programs work and how difficult it is to implement them. There are never any quick and clean solutions. 

And on that note - I’m done for the time being. I hope this answers your question. 

Required civic duty reminder: Everyone vote in the primaries and vote in 2020. Also - no politician is perfect, no politician is going to align 100% with your views and nor should they because you know, we live in a democracy. Do your homework, get off of tumblr and twitter, and make sure you vote! 

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

At a campaign event in southeastern Iowa in December, a graduate student named Charlotte Moser was waiting to ask Sen. Elizabeth Warren a question. As we sat and talked in a crowded union hall before the event began, Charlotte told me she felt a little guilty that it wasn’t about Warren’s plans or policies. But what she really wanted to know, she said, was how Warren coped with sexism on the campaign trail. “She’s faced a lot of that recently — being called elitist and unlikable and angry,” she said.

The previous day, a similar version of Charlotte’s question had cropped up at another town hall, when a middle-aged woman named Kris stood and asked Warren why “so many Americans would rather see a man with a tie” in the Oval Office. And the candidate got another twist on the same query a few hours after I talked to Charlotte, at another event in a neighboring town overlooking the Mississippi River. This time, it was from a reporter in a scrum who wanted to know why Warren thought sexism was such a preoccupation for the voters who had come hear her speak.

In both cases, Warren had an answer that amounted to this: It shouldn’t be. “I think a lot of the world changed after 2016,” she told Kris, going on to describe the flood of women’s protests in the days after President Trump’s inauguration and the wave of women elected to state legislatures and Congress in 2017 and 2018. “And I think in 2020, women are stepping up, friends of women are stepping up, and this is when we’re going to make it happen.”

It was a practiced response to a question that can turn into a trap for female candidates, even when it’s asked with the best of intentions. During the Democratic debate last week, Warren disputed on national television what she says Sen. Bernie Sanders told her in a private meeting in 2018: A woman couldn’t defeat Trump. Sanders denies ever saying this, but when asked about the exchange by a moderator, Warren used it as a moment to attack doubts about women’s electability. “Look at the men on this stage: Collectively, they have lost 10 elections,” she said. “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.”

Studies do show that when female candidates run for Congress, they win at about the same rate as men. That doesn’t mean the playing field is level — the women who win are generally more qualified than their male counterparts, and perhaps held to a higher standard by voters — but what often gets lost in the debate over electability is just how adept women are at responding to sexism in politics, whether it’s from their opponents, voters or the media. Still, it’s hard to know what will reassure voters whose fears mostly seem to be grounded in one specific election, and one specific candidate — 2016 and Donald Trump.

That tension is something I’ve been rolling around in my head ever since I got back from Iowa, because it’s hard to figure out how gender is shaping a race while it’s unfolding. What I saw in Iowa was far from an overwhelming consensus that Warren was doomed to fail. Nor was it especially reminiscent of the “you go girl!” excitement of the 2016 election. Instead, voters were grappling with a conundrum that felt very familiar to me: How do you acknowledge the reality of the challenges that women face without going too far and contributing to the forces that keep them from winning?

On the one hand, there’s evidence that in the last few years, voters are increasingly likely to identify gender discrimination as a major reason women are not elected to top positions. And people who study gender and politics still argue that voters’ biases remain a real barrier for women who run for office. But those factors don’t necessarily determine the fate of Warren or any other female candidates. Women win elections all the time. And there is a clear risk that if these doubts are given too much weight, concerns around a female candidate’s electability will become a self-defeating cycle where even the people who are most excited about the prospect of a female president are too afraid to vote for one.

On the campaign trail, Warren brings up her gender in subtle ways, like when she was fired from her job as a teacher after getting pregnant. But she still frequently gets questions from voters and reporters about how she navigates sexism in politics.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

“I thought Hillary would be our first woman president. I wanted her to be,” said Chris Moore, 70, at a town hall in a brightly lit school gymnasium as snow started to fall outside. It wasn’t her first time seeing Warren speak, and she told me that of all the Democratic candidates, she thought Warren would probably make the best president. “I guess the question is, is she electable?”

I asked Moore what she thought might harm Warren’s chances. “I hope being a woman isn’t a negative,” she said. “But it could be an issue for some people — maybe not for Democrats, but we need to attract independents in order to win.”

This was something weighing on many of the voters I spoke with. When the conversation touched on Warren’s gender, it seemed difficult for them to not at least briefly contemplate a future in which another woman went up against Trump and lost. Part of the trouble may be that while men’s failed presidential runs have become routine, Hillary Clinton’s loss was entirely novel and therefore harder for voters to move past. But some also recognized their own role in that process, and said they’re trying to resist the temptation to look to the past for clues about which candidate to support.

“Look, I get that people are afraid about what happens if Trump wins again — we’ve got to beat him,” said Matt Falduto, 48, who had brought his daughters to a Warren town hall on a chilly Sunday morning. “But you can’t let those fears make you second-guess your instincts about which candidate is the best.”

Few of the voters I talked to in December had fully committed to a candidate, and a month later, the race in Iowa still looks like a free-for-all. And as I moved through bunting-adorned elementary schools and knelt next to voters on the floor of a sandwich shop turned rally space, it was clear that anxiety about sexism was only one part of the equation. For some, Warren was too liberal; others thought she wasn’t liberal enough. I heard worries about whether she’d be able to connect with voters of color or people who were less educated. But this year’s election also seemed to be a reckoning of sorts for many voters who were struggling with how to wrap their heads around the reality of sexism in politics and figure out what — if anything — it should mean for their vote.

On the campaign trail, Warren doesn’t talk much about what it would mean to be the first female president. Instead, she brings up her gender in subtler ways, like when she talks about being fired from her job as a teacher when she got pregnant. Her affect is folksy and down-to-earth — she jokes about her snap decision to go to law school but delicately skirts her decades as a professor at Harvard Law School. When I saw her in Iowa, she was in the midst of an attempt to pivot away from the health care debate she’d found herself mired in and back to the bread and butter of her candidacy: her pitch to voters that economic populism and an anti-corruption agenda are what’s needed to beat Trump in 2020.

In some ways, being a woman could help her make that pitch. Research has shown that elected women are generally perceived to be more honest than their male counterparts, which could give Warren’s anti-corruption message extra heft. And there are other reasons to think that Warren should be more appealing to primary voters than her rivals at the top of the field, who are white, male and either gunning to be the first octogenarian president or the youngest to ever be elected.

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted in November found that 83 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they would be enthusiastic about voting for a female candidate — substantially higher than any other type of candidate mentioned in the poll, including someone under 40 (62 percent), a white man (53 percent), and someone over 70 (31 percent). In surveys conducted recently, Democrats say they favor female candidates over male candidates, all else being equal.

Democrats are enthusiastic about a woman candidate

Responses to a November 2019 NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll of Democrats asking whether they would be enthusiastic about candidates with the following qualities

Type Percent A woman 83%

–

Someone who is gay or lesbian 69

–

Someone under 40 62

–

A white man 53

–

A socialist 37

–

A business executive 34

–

Someone over 70 31

–

From a survey of 453 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents conducted Nov. 11 to Nov. 15, 2019.

Source: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist

But there are also signs that in the aftermath of the 2016 election, voters are more cynical about women’s chances in the presidential arena — and especially against Trump. Surveys of Democratic voters by the left-leaning group Avalanche Strategy, for instance, have found that Warren is most popular when respondents are given the ability to pick a presidential candidate without having to worry whether they’ll beat Trump. In follow-up interviews, many of those would-be Warren supporters said the negative impact of gender was a big part of their calculus. Other polls have found that while most Democrats say they are comfortable with a female president, they think their friends and neighbors might be more reluctant to support a woman.

It’s not clear that these fears are entirely baseless. A survey conducted by The New York Times in October found, for instance, that Warren performed worse than Sanders or Biden in head-to-head matchups against Trump in key battleground states — a pattern that can also be seen in head-to-head national polls. Admittedly, Warren’s liberal views are a confounding factor. In that New York Times survey, 52 percent of voters who said they’d vote for Biden but not Warren in a matchup against Trump (Sanders wasn’t part of the equation) said it was because she’s too far to the left. But 41 percent also agreed with the statement that women who run for president “just aren’t that likable.” Those groups represent only a fraction of the electorate.1 But in a close election, they could make a difference.

Democrats think others wouldn’t support a female president

Responses to October 2019 Morning Consult/Politico poll of Democrats answering “Yes, definitely” to the following questions

Question Percent Do you think you are ready for a female president? 71%

–

Do you think America is ready for a female president? 57

–

Do you think your neighbors are ready for a female president? 31

–

From an online survey of 736 Democrats conducted Oct. 25 to Oct. 28, 2019.

Source: Morning Consult/Politico

Whether it’s helpful to dwell on these fears or emphasize the barriers female presidential candidates face is up for debate, even among the people who spend their lives studying gender and politics. After I got back from Iowa, I called Kathleen Dolan, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, to get her take on how much gender bias really seemed to be hurting Warren. She told me she found the media’s focus on it exasperating. “I would give my eye teeth for a process where no reporter asks questions about what it’s like to be a woman in politics, how they deal with sexism, whether a woman can win,” she said. “Then we’d have a genuine sense of whether voters are actually worried about this.”

But other researchers have argued that sexism is probably hurting Warren and the other female candidates. Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, concluded from a recent survey experiment that sexist views are fairly widespread among voters — particularly male voters — and many of those voters are less motivated to support a female candidate. “Eventually, we will get to a point where enough women have run for president that it’s entirely unremarkable,” he said. “But we’re not at that point yet, and I think the Democrats will probably lose some votes if they nominate a woman.” I asked Cassino how much of a difference it could make, compared to other factors that voters care about like age, ideology or political experience. “Could those lost votes be offset by a million other factors?” he said. “Absolutely. If it’s a choice between a worse male candidate and a better female candidate, you still want the woman. But it’s a calculation.”

The trouble is that weighing those trade-offs is hard to do in hindsight, and nearly impossible to do in real time. Case in point: Nearly four years later, political scientists are still trying to figure out exactly how much of an impact sexism had in the 2016 election. The consensus among most of the experts I’ve spoken with is that sexism does seem to have moderately helped Trump and hurt Clinton — but seeing the attacks on Clinton may also have galvanized some of her supporters. And all of this might not tell us much about how a different woman, with different policies, in a different year, would fare.

Warren speaking at a town hall event in Des Moines, Iowa, just days after the January debate.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

In Iowa, some of Warren’s supporters told me they were trying to resist the urge to compare this year’s crop of female candidates to Clinton. “I really hope people don’t assume that all women who run for office are kind of cut from the same cloth,” said Robin Flattery, 31. It would be a mistake, Flattery added, to allow Warren’s gender to obscure the aspects of her biography and candidacy that are very different from Clinton’s — her working-class roots, her unapologetic progressivism or the fact that she hasn’t weathered decades of scandal and controversy.

There is one inescapable similarity between 2016 and 2020, though: the Republican opponent. And while the research doesn’t suggest that a majority of American voters simply won’t accept the idea of a female president — the fact that Clinton won nearly three million more votes than Trump is pretty good evidence to the contrary — it’s not hard to understand why some voters are worried about another woman going up against Trump. “I think the conversation would be different if the Democrats weren’t facing the prospect of a scorched-earth campaign by a president who’s willing to use sexism and what had previously been socially unacceptable language and attacks against a woman,” said Danny Hayes, a political science professor at George Washington University.

As Warren is fond of pointing out, of course, the world has changed since 2016. The Women’s March happened; the #MeToo movement happened; a historic number of women ran for office and won in 2018. The problem is that it’s not clear how much those changes help her. There was never much reason to believe that female voters would coalesce around Warren simply because she was a woman. Plus, a general electorate may be less inclined to get behind Warren’s particular brand of liberal politics.

So it’s worth thinking about the lessons we’ll take from Warren’s candidacy, not only if she wins the Democratic nomination — but also if she loses. The risks in failing to confront sexism in politics may seem obvious. And if nothing else, the spat between Warren and Sanders brought the issue into plain view, perhaps forcing more voters to grapple with it as the Iowa caucuses draw closer. But there’s also a danger, Dolan said, in taking for granted that it’s a decisive factor, particularly as women running for president becomes more routine. “Yes, we need to call out sexism when we see it,” she said. “But we also need to avoid the assumption that when a woman fails, it’s because she’s a woman.”

[scifigeneration]

What if we ran society not based on the market but on evidence?

by Spyros Samothrakis

Will it soon be possible to draw a blueprint of our future society? Viktoriya/Shutterstock.com

Following the successful Brexit campaign, Dominic Cummings – the then campaign director of Vote Leave – published a series of blog posts describing how the campaign was run and what his plans were for a successful civil service. The last of these posts was released on June 26 2019, just before he became the special advisor to the current prime minister, Boris Johnson. The idea this post resurrects is a promise in public policy that has died since the 1970s – the use of hard scientific (knowledge-based) methods to guide policy choices.

In what looks like to be Cumming’s version of public policy, an elite group of administrators trained in the disciplines of pure thought – mathematicians and philosophers – would run society based on evidence. Collected data points would be used to create a machine simulation (often called the model). Policy makers would then be able to test the simulations with hypothetical policies (“what if drugs were legal?”) and, according to the results, adjust public policy.

A complete cybernetic version of economic policy was advocated, but not practised, in the Soviet Union by the likes of nobel-prize winning economist Leonid Kantorovich and mathematician and computer scientist Victor Glushkov. They hypothesised the possibility of taking things a step further – getting the machines to identify what actions to take to reach optimal outcomes. That is, policy makers would need to decide what they are looking to achieve (“maximise the production of butter”) and machines would come up with the the policy of how to allocate resources to achieve this.

Outside the Soviet Union, this kind of thinking was actually enacted with Project Cybersyn, an effort put together by management consultant Stafford Beer in the 1970s for the government of Chile under the then president, Salvador Allende to help manage the economy (the project was dismantled following the coup by General Augusto Pinochet).

Though Cybersyn was never fully operational, it was rushed into use so as to help break one of the biggest anti-government strikes, which was instigated by a right-wing union. Beer’s vision is far more decentralised and democratic than its Soviet counterpart, but it still falls within the same line of thought.

As you will have gauged by now, the cybernetic vision tends to be securely located on the left of the political spectrum.

The market

Sitting on the opposite side of the cybernetic vision, one will find the fathers of modern liberal economics, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek. Their arguments, taken more broadly, consider the cybernetic dream impossible from a computational perspective, either due to not being able to model the world efficiently, or not having appropriate signals to evaluate the quality of solutions.

They argued that another mechanism that exists inside the real world (in their case, the market) needs to do the heavy lifting, by providing a signal – which, in the case of goods and services, is prices. For them, a good policy is not one that lays out what steps need to be taken towards a solution, but focuses more on setting a “game” of sorts with the right incentives and punishments. This basically just leaves room for one real public policy which can be summed up as “privatise everything, create a competitive arena, let the market sort the problems out”.

Leaving all real policy decisions to the market has been a very traditional (post-1980s at least) right-wing idea. This raises the question as to why someone advising the current UK government is even discussing concepts that are not purely market-driven. In his latest post, Cummings laments the inability of the British state to do serious modelling. This seems a superb contradiction – shouldn’t the market be able to solve everything?

It is worth mentioning that conceptions of planning methods differ a lot across individual thinkers – there are even advocates of socialist markets on the left. Though there is a clear left-right divide, in terms of actual party politics it seems that the idea of some planning has been partially accepted (somewhat grudgingly) by the historical right for some time.

Market signals. Tony Stock/Shutterstock.com

AI and public policy

So, does the progress in AI and (the concurrent) massive increase in computational power and availability of data allow us to circumvent the liberal arguments? I would say yes, but only partially. One can easily envision a solution where the latest AI methods are used to affect policy directly. It’s quite plausible that one could plan and re-plan millions of products and services on a daily basis, find the optimal set of actions to help tackle social ills and generally push for an overall brighter future.

This isn’t, however, trivial – delivering causal models to drive simulations is extremely hard, requires significant expertise, and can only be done in a limited capacity. On top of this, current AI methods lack a concept of “common sense”. A model created with a specific task in mind might be able to optimise for said task, but is prone to generating unwanted side effects. For example, an AI-optimised factory that aims to optimise production will do so without care for the environment.

But the mother of all problems in AI is that a lot of the more modern probabilistic planning algorithms are not stable without excessive human tuning, due to a number of reasons that are beyond the scope of this article. In practice, this means that outside straightforward, traditional planning (such as linear programming), getting value from modern AI requires significant human expertise. At the moment this sits mostly within private AI research labs and some university departments. Any serious attempt to create a cybernetic state would need both significant human resources to be moved towards the project and some further algorithmic breakthroughs.

Unfortunately, current AI deployments in public policy do not adhere to the ideas above. It seems that AI is mostly deployed only for simple predictive tasks (“will person X will commit crime Y in the future?”). For this reason, public bodies are finding this technology increasingly useless. But technological innovations almost always experience a series of failures before they find their pace, so hopefully AI will eventually be implemented properly.

Back to Brexit

What does Brexit have to do with any of this? My understanding is that Brexit (according to Cummings) is needed in order to help disrupt the civil service enough so as to allow it to be rebuilt. It would then be possible to deploy serious AI public policy solutions (which is another name for scientific planning). So the British state would be deploying projects that can model the future, with machines or civil servants probing the model for golden paths.

What is truly surprising, in my view, is that such proposals don’t come from the broad political left (though there are, of course, extremely interesting takes on the topic of scientific planning) – but from the right. This might imply the use of AI to hasten the free-market agenda by asking questions like “what is the best propaganda to produce in order to get everyone on board with increasing state pension age to 95, privatising every public service and getting people to accept a ban on immigration?”.

All this AI talk might be a red herring – the more traditional right-wing Brexit party policies are simply an intensification of a deregulation agenda, though again the signals are mixed. Alternatively, it might be the case that there is a split between One Nation Conservatives and free marketeers across the board.

It’s hard to imagine the EU allowing for direct planning (it goes against most of the principles of the internal market), but it’s equally hard to envision post-Brexit Britain doing the same. Most institutions see the market as the only legitimate form of organisation.

But some cracks in the consensus seem to be appearing. Perhaps we may end up in a position where actively planning using AI towards a “good society” is actively pursued.

About The Author:

Spyros Samothrakis is a Lecturer in Analytics and Data Science at the University of Essex

This article is republished from our content partners over at The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

[stoweboyd]

An End To Predictions, A Call For Revolution

I think it is very hard to make predictions about 2019 because there are so many wildcards. Or, as Buckminster Fuller said,

We have a hard time getting out of the way of something we can’t see coming.

Instead of specific predictions -- like Trump being impeached and convicted, or Google buying Slack -- I will discuss a few trends, more generally.

I have left aside the churning whirlwind of technological advance, such as the rise of AI, and the host of technologies that form what many are calling the fourth industrial revolution. Those are creating a foundational acceleration underlying the world's economies, a disruptive and destabilizing force, acting like a current in deep seas. If you are sailing in the same direction as the current, it is a great help, but if you seek to head a different way the current will slow and deflect your efforts. Most importantly, the current is outside of our control: we have to fight it, sail with it, or stay on land.

Polarization and Populism

There is a deep cultural movement that is leading to tectonic shifts across society, manifesting itself in polarization and populism, on the historic right and left. So across the world we are witnessing the rise of populists, like the far right parties in Europe and Trump's rise in the US, but at the same time we are experiencing a transition away from conventional left-of-center parties contending with conventional right-of-center parties, as demonstrated by the rise of Macron's En Marche in France, and the the surge of interest in social democratic ideas in the US Democratic party, as typified by Bernie Sanders and Alex Ocasio-Cortez.

One way to think of this is a growing disillusionment with the left-versus-right polarity of the post-WWII era, and a shift to an up-versus-down dynamic, where the poor, working class, and middle class -- the precariat -- realize that the game is rigged by the elite against the interests of everyone else.

Far-right politicians will attempt to leverage fear of immigrants and xenophobia to back away from liberal immigration laws and international treaties that regulate the international movement of people. Brexit is in part motivated by these desires, and if Brexit is concluded it will be an outgrowth more of anti-immigrant culltural bias than supposed desires for economic sovereignty and self-determination.

In the US, metropolitan elites continue to think that the 'left-behinds' in flyover county are misguided bumpkins voting against their own best interests, rather than seeing that the neoliberal flat-world free trade regime of the past 30 years played havoc with the heartland's economic health and future, and neither the GOP or the Democrats really paid much attention. Witness Hilary skipping the rust belt states in the final months of the 2016 election, and what that led to.

These are global trends, but they will manifest differently across the world, and in distinctly local fashion in different locales.

I believe Macron has lost his way, and since he has no deep party system to help him he will fail to make the changes that he believed he had a mandate to do. Instead, it turns out that only the metropolitan elite and business sector is with him. Will a reformulated socialist party regain control, or will the far right inherit the ashes of his term? Will a socialist populism arise from the Yellow Vests, or is a far-right populism the likely outcome? Make your bets.

In the US, the GOP is facing the defection of suburban white women and large numbers of college-educated men: are there enough far-right and disenfranchised left-behind Republicans to continue as a meaningful party, once the dust cloud around Trump settles? I don't think so. (Note: Trump will either resign, be impeached and convicted, or wither in madness: he can't possibly be reelected.)

Also note that the separatist movement in Catalonia is a manifestation of populism -- in this case the desire of people living in Catalonia (principally Catalans) to be able to secede from Spain. Their motives are many: desire for economic and legal controls, desire for independence from Spain (a historically fraught reltaionship), and relief from paying more taxes to Spain than they get in return. Does Spain have the right to deny them their right to self-government, simply because they were annexed a long, long time ago? We'll see.

Capitalism and Gigantism

A second deep cultural movement is playing out in the West: a growing distrust of unfettered capitalism and the economic inequality it has engendered over the past 30 years, along with concern with the most obvious economic manifestation of today's capitalism: the rise of gigantic monopolistic corporations, like the tech giants and major multinationals in finance, manufacturing, media, agriculture, pharma and health care, and other industries.

This slops into the growing concerns about climate and ecological change, but is principally grounded in the precarity built into modern economic life: the broken social contract in the relationship between worker and employer, and the disinterest in modern governments to close the gap through either regulation of employers or through taxation and redistribution of wealth.

Note: I think of climate change as being critically important -- another area of broken promises by governments -- but it has to be an aspect of resolution of other issues, principally unfettered capitalism. Regulation, trade agreements, and taxation are all needed here, and immediately. We can't confront 'climate change' without embracing a litany of economic actions, all at once. Yes, I know: we only have a decade.

I expect that a discussion of new laws and regulations will be prominent in 2019, such as the national movements for higher minimum wages, medicare for all, portable benefits for freelancers and contract employees, prohibitions against anti-union tactics, and the banning of forced arbitration for employees in many instances, such as sexual harassment cases.

The surge of unionism in media is one example of counter-capitalist collective action, and I expect it will spread into many other 'white collar' and 'no collar' jobs, as the tide turns toward regulation of business instead of self-regulation.

As just one manifestation, consider the fall from grace of Facebook in 2018, as a consequence of its exploitation of data arising from its services. But this controversy is actually about the duopoly of ad revenues it shares with Google, which is a story of gigantism and the lack of regulatory oversight by the world's governments.

We should anticipate a forceful swinging of the pendulum in the opposite direction, which could even lead to the breakup of large corporations -- like Google, Amazon, Microsoft and counterparts in other non-tech sectors -- into smaller, more focused companies with the intent of decreasing their power, their amassing of capital, and opening the playing field to smaller competitors. Note that in the very near term acquisitions by the giants leading to market consolidation in many industries may continue at the blinding pace we're seen in recent years, but in a year or two -- if regulatory opposition to bigness becomes entrenched as I believe it may -- we may see a major decline in such acquisitions. So predicting the acquisition of Slack by one of the internet giants might make sense now, but may be blocked in 2020.

Moving from 'Normal' Organizations to 'Revolutionary' Organizations

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. | Steven Hawking

Hawking sets context for what I have been calling a 'movement' since 2005 or so, the movement to drive a transition from 'normal' industrial-era organizations that are role-centered, closed, slow-and-tight, hierarchical, and backwards-focused to 'revolutionary' post-industrial-era organizations that are human-centered, open, fast-and-loose, heterarchical, and forwards-focused. Like other movements, this work revolution is defined by the dynamics of opposing forces. On one side, we have those who explicitly or implicitly uphold the principles and cultural foundations of 'normalcy', and who actively or passive-aggressively oppose those, on the other side, who advocate revolutionary change in work culture, practices, and values.

I've picked the terms 'normal' and 'revolutionary' with intention. Specifically, I have borrowed them from Thomas Kuhn's central arguments in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a work that laid out the analogous dynamics in scientific revolutions.

Kuhn argued that there is a cyclic form to science, where the work of a generation of scientist in any given field establishes a paradigm around which research and discourse are centered, like Newtonian physics. It started with various incoherent notions of motion (the pre-paradigm phase), but the central premises of gravity, and Newton's laws of motion led to the development of a second phase, where 'normal' science began, and the dominant paradigm structured the science for a considerable period of time, establishing consensus on terminology, methods, and the sorts of experiments that might lead to increased insights1.

Over time, normal science may lead to anomalies in findings -- unexpected results from experiments, questions that can't be answered -- and these can lead to questioning the old paradigm as its weaknesses are apparent. This can lead to crisis, and that can spark a paradigm shift, like quantum physics as an alternative to Newton's.

The crisis and the shift are not necessarily smooth, and there is often active disagreement and contention between the advocates of the previous, 'normal' paradigm, and the revolutionaries pushing for the new paradigm. This can lead to breaks in the scientific discipline, with huge controversies and great antagonism, since the reputations and livelihoods of the scientists are at stake.

At some point, the crisis ends, usually as a result of the establishment of a new paradigm, which eventually becomes 'normal' mainstream science, with new methods, terminology, and established approaches for experimentation.

We are at a time of such a crisis, although it's not in the traditional realm of science, per se. The crisis is in the world of business, and it is really predicated on scientific revolutions in several areas that impinge on business, namely cognitive science, behavioral economics, social psychology, and related fields. (And in the background behind the soft incursion of these revelatory social science findings, we can feel the looming hard technologies of the fourth industrial revolution.)

In the past few decades enormous advances have been made in our understanding of how people perceive the world and their relationships to others, how we reason (or don't), how people 'make decisions', how productive teams 'work', and how cultural norms impact our behavior. However, very little of this science has reached the C-suite. Consider, as only one example, the persistent problems related to diversity and the foundational issues of cognitive bias. However, few in leadership are educated in these issues, and no coherent new paradigm of organizational theory and practice has yet fully emerged.

At present, we are left with the strange dichotomy of entrepreneurial capitalism -- with capital growth and shareholder value as the highest aims -- and the independent considerations of making the world a better place, making the workplace more equitable, just, and less precarious, and attempting to construct the world of work so that people can achieve greater autonomy, meaning, and purpose in their lives, and not just a paycheck. These cross forces define a growing area of tension in the discourse about the future of work, the transformation of the 21st century business, and how to balance the desires of the many sorts of people holding stakes in these companies.

At the same time, we see growing interest in the principle that a revolution is business operations is needed to confront and overcome a long list of 'anomalies' in business and the economic sphere. The combination of increased economic pressures in a sped-up, global marketplace and the desire for greater stability and purpose for everyone at work leads to some broad trends that could stand as a proxy for the 'revolution' in organizational theory and practice:

Human-centered not role-centered. We lose a great deal when we limit people to only thinking about or acting on a limited set of activities in business. A machine press operator can have a brilliant insight that saves the copy millions, and a field sales lead can come back from a meeting with a customer suggestion for a breakthrough new product. But not if they are punished for stepping outside the painted lines on the floor. People can be larger than their job descriptions, if we let them.

Open not closed models of thinking and operations. This means a 'yes, and' mindset, where we consider alternatives rather than rejecting them because they are novel. This means activity rooting out systemic anti-creative and anti-curiosity patterns in business dogma. It means embracing Von Foester's Empirical Imperative: Always act to increase the set of possibilities.

Fast-and-loose not slow-and-tight operations. Agile, flexible, and adaptive methods of organizing, cooperating, and leading are needed. A less bureaucratic management style would increase innovation, and lead to building business operations around experiments rather than only well-established processes.

Heterarchical not hierarchical operations. The bronze age rule of kings, supposedly selected by the gods and legitimized by their personal charisma has led to terrible results, with narcissistic sociopaths all too often calling the shots. The occasional Steve Jobs or Yves Chouinard does not disprove the problems inherent to top-down-only organizations, especially in a time of great change and uncertainty. Organizational structure is another means to the ends that companies are created to effect, and serves as a powerful barrier to change when treated as sacred and inviolable.

Forward-focused, not tradition-bound. We need to adopt a new paradigm for business, one that explicitly breaks with a great deal of what passes for conventional wisdom, organized around new science, new forms of social connection, and leveraging the possibilities in the points made above. And science is not standing still, so we must incorporate new understanding into our work and the operations of business.

This is predicated upon stating -- explicitly -- that a revolution is necessary, and that a long list of practices and principles will need to be identified as problematic and rooted out. This is exactly what I founded Work Futures to do, as a research and educational institute, and in 2019 I intend to push hard to advance that agenda.

This revolution has started, but the we are in the early days of what will eventually -- decades from now, perhaps -- be a wholesale recasting of business. But the world of work cannot be changed independently of the larger world. It is one part of a larger set of changes that envelope and animate it.

The larger societal and economic trends touched on in the previous sections -- Polarization and Populism, Capitalism and Gigantism, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution -- are imparting enormous stress on the human sphere. And, as a result, it is very hard to predict what will happen in 2019. However, I believe that by 2023 a great deal of the revolution -- this transition from the 'normal' to a 'revolutionary' form of business -- will have become more clear, as the new paradigm becomes more well-defined, and as the larger world shifts to internalize new approaches to the tectonic forces at work, at all scales.

I reposted the fourth section of this essay as a piece all by itself: Moving from 'Normal' Organizations to 'Revolutionary' Organizations.

Paraphrased from Wikipedia. ↩︎

[levyfiles]

People be saying “Yay! Finally the boys have their own channel! They are rescued from the evil buzzfeed corporation UwU!” as if (1) “”corporations”” aren’t like, a totally normal and common thing in society, (2) this “evil corporation” didn’t provide them with the platform, audience and funding the boys needed in the first place, and (3) Ryan and Shane didn’t voluntarily put in job applications to work at buzzfeed, and instead were kidnapped by masked assassins............

Ahh, nonnybabe, you raise some really great points here about the near malicious vibe that intermingles with the celebration of the success of fellas like the Try Guys and our favourite Ghoul Boys aimed at this faceless company called Buzzfeed. 

Now, while I do understand the masses’ innate distrust for corporations in general, especially when they’re run by people who are reprehensible, outrageously wealthy and uncaring about social inequality, I think it’s time for me to address something about this particular perspective because Buzzfeed  If we can just solve this issue together by allowing me to lay down some facts I know about Buzzfeed so we can all stop playing like we don’t have to do our own research.

Brace yourselves, this is gonna get long.

The very founder of Buzzfeed Jonah Peretti (brother of our beloved Chelsea Peretti from B99) is an ICON. Jewish and raised by a black woman, he grew up to work to establish the famous Huffington Post and at the same damn time sought to make a website that would track viral content. What made Buzzfeed actually blow up was the start of the website covering news that no other news source wanted to gather or cover because it was entirely too politically left.

Putting that aside for now (brace yourself because i’m coming back to that especially), what put Jonah on the map as a guy not to mess with was the very controversial and Brilliant move on his part to throw shade at Nike. All the way back in 2001, Nike held this campaign amid their open storm of using young children in impoverished countries to build their shoes for people to be able to order shoes with their own custom insignia stitched into the shoe. Jonah ordered a pair and asked that his say “SWEATSHOP’ on the side. Here’s the full easy to read story. Please read it and that’ll give an idea of where the founder of Buzzfeed was coming from when he began to craft the face and image of Buzzfeed as it was growing.

So already Jonah Peretti is known worldwide as that one leftist, socialist guy stirring up trouble. The number of times, websites like 4chan and disgusting subreddits have been after his ass to assassinate his character which, I’ll be honest, is really easy to do when you start telling angry straight cis white boys on the internet that some dude running a viral news website wants to support socialism, charities, and worse still, non white creators.

Here is a full memo that Jonah sent across the company back in 2015.

Here is an update he sent in 2017 about their mission statement to support and help a diverse crowd of young creators start and grow.

Here is an editorial published about Jonah’s frustration with the state of media last year (Note: He aims an attack at actual corporations like Google and Facebook)

Now here’s the deal that bothers me most about the trend of hating Buzzfeed, the sentiment comes from two different sources. The first source is Buzzfeed’s videos about LGBT perspectives, feminist perspectives and surprise!surprise non-white perspectives in general. The result can be seen in many of the youtube comments of these videos. Anti-sjws, alt-right, neutral white boys all have their two cents to put in as to why hearing about anything rather than the white North american perspective hurts their feelings.

I remember once seeing a video of Pewdiepie where he happened to glance, just glance at a cast shot of an As/Is video in one of his meme reviews. He took one look at Real Actual Living Human Beings in this video and he said the words, and I quote “I get diversity, but Buzzfeed is taking it too far.” This was a group of women and a trans man standing together just laughing and posing, all of different nationalities and sexualities and the first thought out of that guy’s mouth was how what he was looking at was ‘too diverse’. If that doesn’t send a message about the way a lot of the straight white male population of the internet looks at Buzzfeed and talks about it, I don’t know how best to explain this otherwise.

The Second source of ire from anti-buzzfeed posts comes from the long list of Why I Left Buzzfeed videos. This one is really complicated because it requires a person to understand how media companies work, external ad revenue, and creative copyright. As someone who has followed many media agencies due to enjoying talents, variety shows, international pop/music, and internet creators, I know that it’s absurd that Buzzfeed’s main detractor has been individuals who are extremely creative making the mistake of signing on with a massive media agency to get a jumpstart expecting to own all of their content they come up with and post under Buzzfeed’s name. Note that I use the word jumpstart. If people go in to Buzzfeed as a job looking to live the life of a youtuber, they’re in for a nasty surprise. The amount of content you’re expected to generate is on par with working at any production company especially one whose M.O. is current viral content and it is entirely anyone’s perogative to leave the company they work for and much like nonny said in their missive, Buzzfeed’s money goes toward funding, providing a platform, advertising, and merchandising all of which any creative on the street needs to work years and years to get. Buzzfeed as a company encourages their employees to work hard and consistently create and if their ideas hit the big time, they blow up. In order to preserve their branding and avoid incidents with fans, the employees are kept at a distance from their fans. This is the same sort of policy that goes with nearly any other agency out there (in fact most agencies are even stricter). Having such a huge company churning out viral video after viral video enough that they attract the minds of people like Ryan Bergara or Shane Madej (or name your favourite buzzfeeder) who manage to make the one thing that puts them in the position they’re in now, is immensely beautiful.

Basically, I feel you, nonnyb. While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people unsubscribing to Buzzfeed Blue after the BFU Network went live, I feel really icky about the weird unfounded hatred people have for the company where these guys as adults looking to make stuff they care about, chose to work and still work with. They’ve got a platform and it’s still with Buzzfeed, they have a lot of fun making the stuff they do and they’re given free reign to go all out.

So maybe next time you wanna go out for blood because you wanna stick it to the man, stick it to when Buzzfeed leaves Youtube lol

[arcticdementor]

The emergence of liberal democracies is associated with ideals of liberty and equality that may seem self-evident and irreversible. But these ideals are far more fragile than we believe. Their success in the 20th century depended on unique technological conditions that may prove ephemeral.

In the second decade of the 21st century, liberalism has begun to lose credibility. Questions about the ability of liberal democracy to provide for the middle class have grown louder; politics have grown more tribal; and in more and more countries, leaders are showing a penchant for demagoguery and autocracy. The causes of this political shift are complex, but they appear to be intertwined with current technological developments. The technology that favored democracy is changing, and as artificial intelligence develops, it might change further.

…

In the 20th century, the masses revolted against exploitation and sought to translate their vital role in the economy into political power. Now the masses fear irrelevance, and they are frantic to use their remaining political power before it is too late. Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump may therefore demonstrate a trajectory opposite to that of traditional socialist revolutions. The Russian, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions were made by people who were vital to the economy but lacked political power; in 2016, Trump and Brexit were supported by many people who still enjoyed political power but feared they were losing their economic worth. Perhaps in the 21st century, populist revolts will be staged not against an economic elite that exploits people but against an economic elite that does not need them anymore. This may well be a losing battle. It is much harder to struggle against irrelevance than against exploitation.

…

All of this leads to one very important conclusion: The automation revolution will not consist of a single watershed event, after which the job market will settle into some new equilibrium. Rather, it will be a cascade of ever bigger disruptions. Old jobs will disappear and new jobs will emerge, but the new jobs will also rapidly change and vanish. People will need to retrain and reinvent themselves not just once, but many times.

Just as in the 20th century governments established massive education systems for young people, in the 21st century they will need to establish massive reeducation systems for adults. But will that be enough? Change is always stressful, and the hectic world of the early 21st century has produced a global epidemic of stress. As job volatility increases, will people be able to cope? By 2050, a useless class might emerge, the result not only of a shortage of jobs or a lack of relevant education but also of insufficient mental stamina to continue learning new skills.

…

Imagine, for instance, that the current regime in North Korea gained a more advanced version of this sort of technology in the future. North Koreans might be required to wear a biometric bracelet that monitors everything they do and say, as well as their blood pressure and brain activity. Using the growing understanding of the human brain and drawing on the immense powers of machine learning, the North Korean government might eventually be able to gauge what each and every citizen is thinking at each and every moment. If a North Korean looked at a picture of Kim Jong Un and the biometric sensors picked up telltale signs of anger (higher blood pressure, increased activity in the amygdala), that person could be in the gulag the next day.

And yet such hard-edged tactics may not prove necessary, at least much of the time. A facade of free choice and free voting may remain in place in some countries, even as the public exerts less and less actual control. To be sure, attempts to manipulate voters’ feelings are not new. But once somebody (whether in San Francisco or Beijing or Moscow) gains the technological ability to manipulate the human heart—reliably, cheaply, and at scale—democratic politics will mutate into an emotional puppet show.

…

However, artificial intelligence may soon swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. AI makes it possible to process enormous amounts of information centrally. In fact, it might make centralized systems far more efficient than diffuse systems, because machine learning works better when the machine has more information to analyze. If you disregard all privacy concerns and concentrate all the information relating to a billion people in one database, you’ll wind up with much better algorithms than if you respect individual privacy and have in your database only partial information on a million people. An authoritarian government that orders all its citizens to have their DNA sequenced and to share their medical data with some central authority would gain an immense advantage in genetics and medical research over societies in which medical data are strictly private. The main handicap of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century—the desire to concentrate all information and power in one place—may become their decisive advantage in the 21st century.

New technologies will continue to emerge, of course, and some of them may encourage the distribution rather than the concentration of information and power. Blockchain technology, and the use of cryptocurrencies enabled by it, is currently touted as a possible counterweight to centralized power. But blockchain technology is still in the embryonic stage, and we don’t yet know whether it will indeed counterbalance the centralizing tendencies of AI. Remember that the Internet, too, was hyped in its early days as a libertarian panacea that would free people from all centralized systems—but is now poised to make centralized authority more powerful than ever.

…

Humans are used to thinking about life as a drama of decision making. Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism see the individual as an autonomous agent constantly making choices about the world. Works of art—be they Shakespeare plays, Jane Austen novels, or cheesy Hollywood comedies—usually revolve around the hero having to make some crucial decision. To be or not to be? To listen to my wife and kill King Duncan, or listen to my conscience and spare him? To marry Mr. Collins or Mr. Darcy? Christian and Muslim theology similarly focus on the drama of decision making, arguing that everlasting salvation depends on making the right choice.

What will happen to this view of life as we rely on AI to make ever more decisions for us? Even now we trust Netflix to recommend movies and Spotify to pick music we’ll like. But why should AI’s helpfulness stop there?

Every year millions of college students need to decide what to study. This is a very important and difficult decision, made under pressure from parents, friends, and professors who have varying interests and opinions. It is also influenced by students’ own individual fears and fantasies, which are themselves shaped by movies, novels, and advertising campaigns. Complicating matters, a given student does not really know what it takes to succeed in a given profession, and doesn’t necessarily have a realistic sense of his or her own strengths and weaknesses.

It’s not so hard to see how AI could one day make better decisions than we do about careers, and perhaps even about relationships. But once we begin to count on AI to decide what to study, where to work, and whom to date or even marry, human life will cease to be a drama of decision making, and our conception of life will need to change. Democratic elections and free markets might cease to make sense. So might most religions and works of art. Imagine Anna Karenina taking out her smartphone and asking Siri whether she should stay married to Karenin or elope with the dashing Count Vronsky. Or imagine your favorite Shakespeare play with all the crucial decisions made by a Google algorithm. Hamlet and Macbeth would have much more comfortable lives, but what kind of lives would those be? Do we have models for making sense of such lives?

…

Nationalization of data by governments could offer one solution; it would certainly curb the power of big corporations. But history suggests that we are not necessarily better off in the hands of overmighty governments. So we had better call upon our scientists, our philosophers, our lawyers, and even our poets to turn their attention to this big question: How do you regulate the ownership of data?

Currently, humans risk becoming similar to domesticated animals. We have bred docile cows that produce enormous amounts of milk but are otherwise far inferior to their wild ancestors. They are less agile, less curious, and less resourceful. We are now creating tame humans who produce enormous amounts of data and function as efficient chips in a huge data-processing mechanism, but they hardly maximize their human potential. If we are not careful, we will end up with downgraded humans misusing upgraded computers to wreak havoc on themselves and on the world.

[thepacificationofhumanity-blog]

STEP OUT OF YOUR BOX AND ENJOY THE FREE READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here is just a small sample of the book's tone, flavor and focus. You will be hearing a lot about the Echo Chamber in the coming days! THE ECHO CHAMBER The above described groups known now as "cultural bullies" can only thrive in a vacuum. In order for them to make their ideologies seem feasible they develop "safe zones." (Heard that term lately?) These "safe zones" are not safe for you; they are safe for their ideology. These "safe zones" are a place for their 23 unchallenged ideas to fester. These incubators for baby ideologues are known by many sociologists as "echo chambers." This is a figurative place where the only voices that will be spoken and heard openly are the voices of people who perpetuate the same party lines. The only people the echo chamber's inhabitants ever hear from are the voices of those people who think like they do and subscribe to their same belief systems. In these "echo chambers" ideas are safe from challenge and reality. It is a place where favored notions are enhanced and never refuted. Ideologues enjoy these chambers for the faux validation they receive as people of like mind regurgitate exaggerated and unsubstantiated notions of utopia. (Like a cult.) In this safe place, the Echo Chamber ideals can be championed without scrutiny. The application of critical thought is never applied. The echo chamber is "in the Box" thinking personified. By operating in the dark quarantine of the chamber ideas are safe from challenge and doubt. They are safe from the light of scrutiny. In the chamber these ideological pathogens can fester in the minds of its inhabitants until an immunity to counter perspectives can be developed. Their seclusion allows the indoctrination process to fully develop as its carriers prepare to spread their agenda outward. In the chamber the birthing of the pseudo intellectual develops and they are raised up to be self righteous cultural bullies. In essence these chambers allow for a foundation of thought to solidify before ever being tested or proven. Since there is no dissent in the chamber, there is no doubt, only validation. It is comparable to science without research; nothing but theory and no way to be proven wrong. Ironically enough the ideals that develop in the chamber become beliefs before they can even be improved upon. It's like bad cement made without all the right elements and proportions. It may seem strong but when the 24 realities of the world and life itself apply pressure the notions crumble. These untested ideas often fail in catastrophic ways for the individual naive enough to have been co-opted into the cult structure. The chamber allows for half baked ideas to seem very solid. The residents of the chamber are able to seemingly strengthen their resolve in regards to their beliefs simply by the support and validation they receive from other members. This lack of scrutiny is what makes them "feel" overly righteous in their beliefs. The pathetic part is that it makes them feel more intelligent and more informed then they are. The truth is that their quarantine has denied them the real growth potential of their ideas, the strength that scrutiny might have contributed. In science an idea must be tested and validated; most often by people who don't believe in the theory. The echo chamber guards against these counter perspectives just like a cult. Politically, the chamber is a way to protect the party line and a major reason why cults of all kind separate themselves from the ideas of others. (Next time you watch a National Party Convention step back and just watch the members swirl in their little chamber of self righteousness.) Outside influences are very carefully vetted to make sure they will not "contaminate" the chamber with conflicting information. (Next time you're in a conversation about politics or on a college campus step back and just watch the members play out their mental masturbations of self reassurance.) Perhaps you'll see this occur at your job. In many of these groups there is a vetting process for those who are allowed to speak. The approval process is not a way to determine experience; the process is only concerned in proving that participants are "Like Minded." The chamber is a means of preserving the self-deception of the inhabitants. These "Echo Chambers" are a serious 25 intellectual problem in the world today. The Wiki defines the media version of the echo chamber as follows: "an echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed or otherwise underrepresented." I hope that this definition scares you a little but I'd rather it disturb you. The concept of the echo chamber was originally popularized in the late 90's but due to the media's complicity in the problem they have squashed the insight lest they be found out. These echo chambers are overly represented in our modern lives. They are becoming a major problem for any group with opposing insights. Ideological clashes are now growing in number due to the increased frequency of social exchanges now taking place. The chamber has become too large to vet the inhabitants and they are now being confronted with the impossibility of their own delusions. As alluded to above, the two most favored breeding grounds for the echo chamber are the college campus and the mainstream media on both sides. Large exposure or the "number of views" is not necessary; as the chamber also exists in the form of letters, emails, texting, page posts, word of mouth and good old fashioned leaflet propaganda. If one group were to control a country's information and data, the entire country could very easily become a Petri dish of these untested contagions. The Echo Chamber is a form of mental and emotional segregation. Its existence weakens the notion of individuality to the point of irrelevance: It is socialistic. A brief example might be a group of people who claim to be racially tolerant yet live in a guarded and gated community where they restrict who can enter and even who might be able to live there. The community organization is a place where tolerance works unless you are on 26 their undesirable list. People in these communities may even believe that there is less crime than is reported because they are not subjected to real world threats. No one in the community would suggest the locked gate is a form of segregation. The people living in that type of community may have even convinced themselves that they have no racial bias, yet they are quick to lock their car doors when they leave their compounds. The darker side I want to be clear here that these Echo Chamber groups can also be very extreme organizations ranging from the KKK to ISIS. Yes even terrorist groups operate in an echo chamber, they must. Their segregation is how they can come to believe such insane notions like modern day Jihad and that beheadings are beneficial to their cause. Their echo chambers have allowed them to remain 1500 years in the past! In fact these terrorist cults are a perfect example of how to get a group of people to follow you "blindly." Cut your members off from all media except your own, use intimidation, burn the other peoples' books, kill anyone who voices a contrary opinion or theory and repeat your ideology over and over again. Demand that your members repeat your ideology from memory or DIE! (Sound familiar?) Reward compliance and suggest a moral high ground or eternal place for the righteous in this life and the next. (Not sure how 72 virgins is paradise, but that is what they have been sold and that is what they have bought.) Adjust the gain Perhaps the scariest thing about these echo chamber groups is that once a person is ac-"cult"-urated into the group the newly embraced "groupie" experiences acceptance and regular validation for their allegiance and subjectification. From a behavioral standpoint this a reward process that continually reinforces allegiance; constantly strengthening the bond. This 27 behavioral conditioning becomes subconscious, meaning that the conditioned subject does not have to be conscious of their shift in loyalty or belief. Subjects of the chamber who start pressuring others to join the club or to get in lock step are venerated and moved to a higher level in the group's status. This creates a competition to convince and convert: A human pyramid scheme. This is the very same mechanism in place in the major political parties in the U.S. and elsewhere. For all these reasons I use the term "Cult-ural Bullies." It is a cult like culture that is developing in the mainstream of America right now; right in front of your eyes. Today's internet trolls are the modern version of how cultish groups of the past spread their agendas. They are the same cult groupies that once lined airport terminals around the world and knocked on your front door. Now they man computer terminals where they push their beliefs from their mother's sofas all the way to the halls of justice. They peck at large groups looking to find unsure travelers whose only desire is to feel a part of something good and right. In a cult-like fashion, some of these modern day cultural groups even require your financial commitment to prove you really support them; sometimes before you are allowed to enter the chamber. This coercion phenomenon is both a byproduct and end product of a democratic socialistic ideology where the group is more important than the individual. This is the opposite of what a free country is founded upon. These cultural bully groups are in your life right now and you often enter their echo chambers without knowing it. You know you're in one when suddenly you are harshly criticized for a statement that seems honest, forthright or middle of the road. Facts and reality are usually a shock to the inhabitant's systems so they respond with a "fight or flight" type of panic reaction. 28 They use harsh language and labeling to make you feel bad for the way you think about a subject (sometimes just because you think). The inhabitants of the echo chamber are not used to people who don't agree with them and they will see your disagreement as rude. They will interpret your challenge to their beliefs as you personally attacking them. When you are not in concert with their agendas, they attack you to protect their fragile emotionally-based beliefs which have been previously untested and unchallenged. They name-call, use personal attribute attacks, emotional segregation, emotional abandonment and, when they lose the logic argument based on facts they quickly brand anyone in disagreement with unrealistic and even irrational maxims. Their natural reflex is to see you as the "stupid one" because you don't agree with all the other people in their chambers. They can rarely stand alone. They cast you out of their little world, out of their echo chamber and un-friend you; not to get rid of you, but to protect their ideology. After their inner-sanctum is breached, they then quickly huddle together in their little covens and attack you when you are not there because they can't defend their ideology with logic. They create a consensus judgment of you and because there are no objections to their rants, they see themselves as the righteous victors. Does any of this seem familiar? Is it clique-ing yet? When I was a child they had another name for homogenized groups like the above; a name which seems to have been conveniently removed from the popular social lexicon; they were called "cliques!" A group of kids bullying a single child on the playground are a clique. They are most certainly a group of bullies with a clearly defined culture. 29 I would like to point out that no cult has ever developed without first being a clique or without having an echo chamber. Two of the largest cliques in American society today are the Democratic and Republican parties. Are you a member? No! Libertarian or an "Independent" maybe? Why? Because the other ones are so ------ (Insert hate speech maxim here). You're being manipulated by their all or nothing language; by words that polarize and even by mild forms of coercion (if you're not with us you're uncaring or stupid). All the various sides of today's media are complicit in the formation of these groups. Every boardroom and conference room is a smaller version of an echo chamber; the more secret it is, the more cultish and the more intellectually limited. Helping you resolve these manipulations and pressures for your own clarity is a major goal of this book and a hope of this author. I really don't care what side you are on. I prefer you be an individual and have no side at all, but unfortunately siding up is an act of human nature (explained later). I want you to give these groups the one thing that scares them the most; your right to your free speech and your original thinking without being afraid of their phony childish reprisals. I want to emancipate you from their bondage and control. From the book The Pacification of Humanity; Exposing the Ideological Contagions The Pacification of Humanity: Exposing the Ideological Contagions," is not a book about politics, its a book about the affect of politics on your life! thepacificationofhumanity.com This is the Copyright protected content of Books for your Head Publishing and the author Emmanuel S. John.

[rulystuff]

https://servicemeltdown.com/who-amongst-us-will-stand-on-the-tower/

New Post has been published on https://servicemeltdown.com/who-amongst-us-will-stand-on-the-tower/

WHO AMONGST US WILL STAND ON THE TOWER?

In ancient times, watchmen would stand on a tall stone tower always vigilant to the potential of an approaching danger. The role of the watchman, particularly at harvest time, was important to the survival of a community in agrarian societies. The watchman, in effect an early warning system, was called upon to sound an alarm which could prove crucial in thwarting an attack both from ravenous animals and from malefactors who would rather make off with a neighbor farmer’s fruits and vegetables than to labor and toil in their own fields. In times of war, the role of the watchman was critical in spying potential enemy threats to a town: if a threat appeared, the watchman would blow his horn and the townspeople would rally and prepare for battle. 

In Scripture, the symbolism of the watchman is profound. No less a figure than the 8th century B.C. prophet Isaiah – who prophesied the birth of Christ in Isaiah 7:14 – conveys God’s message to us, “I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest,” Isaiah 62:6. In 21st century America we all have a moral duty to serve as watchmen as the nation is presently besieged by enemy forces both foreign and domestic.

GLOBALIZATION: AN ANTI-DEMOCRATIC NIGHTMARE

The current demagoguery in the hands of globalists takes the ugly form that a citizen who believes in national borders and national priorities cannot be a good citizen – that he is a fascist some claim. We need to be reminded that the American revolution was a nationalist uprising which few would call fascist. The current sophistry in the hands of globalists belies that a citizen who is devoted to his homeland and who places the interests of his nation-state as the top priority can exist, at the same time, with a world view that is tolerant and respectful of those beyond his borders. Furthermore, to be respectful of global interests is not to suggest that those who can afford it should be forced to open their pocketbooks to fix all of the world’s ills. That suggestion is impudent and a sleight-of-hand by globalists whose own personal agendas for control stand to be upended by the rights and privileges of sovereign states. Simply stated, globalism is imperialism in sheep’s clothing. What other conclusion is there to be had when an international organization made up of unelected bureaucrats imposes its will on the citizens of member nations? That supranational organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Health Organization are anti-democratic is a statement of fact and not of ideology. The globalization conceit held by leaders in and out of government around the world and in the United States should sound an alarm to those who believe in the sanctity of democratic processes. Put simply, globalization and democracy are hardly fraternal twins. Globalists believe that globalization’s ugly side, lower wages, lost jobs, shuttered factories or devastated communities is the result of there not being enough global governance to channel all of the good that derives from globalization. And besides, globalists say, any discomfort is strictly temporary. As Mr. Pascal Lamy, former Director of the World Trade Organization said in a recent address, “The future lies with more globalization, not less…”

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM IS A TARGET FOR HOSTILE NATIONS

We have witnessed the onslaught visited upon our shores by the Chinese Communist Virus which at last count had extinguished the lives of two-hundred thousand innocent Americans and for which China takes no responsibility despite having its fingerprints all over the heinous act. Meanwhile, China’s propaganda machine is working full-throttle in our schools and universities. Over one hundred Confucius Institutes – incongruously named as Confucius was a man who preached humaneness – are now operating in our country for the ostensible purpose of disseminating Chinese language, history, and cultural instruction. Colleges have taken in huge sums of money over the years from the Communist regime with the proviso that all discussion and instruction toe the Chinese propaganda line. In the end, that means subjects like the human right abuses of over a million Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, or the independence of Taiwan and Tibet are off limits. Only recently did the State Department deem the Institutes propaganda missions which means they will have to adhere to the same restrictions as diplomatic embassies. This action by the United States is welcome news but comes rather belatedly given that Li Changchun, a member of the Politburo, said back in 2009 that the Institutes “are an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” On the commercial front, China purloins roughly $225 billion, at the low end and as much as $600 billion at the high end, annually in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets from the United States. Militarily, America faces a serious threat in the South China Sea where it is being challenged by a territorially aggressive and technologically advanced Chinese Navy. Rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran pose further threats to peace and prosperity led as those regimes are by unbalanced tyrannical dictators.

AMERICA’S DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND BELIEFS ARE UNDER ATTACK FROM WITHIN

The nation has literally been set ablaze by malcontents who would rather settle their philosophical differences not with ballots but with bullets. On the whole, this is the most insidious threat to the democratic ideals of our nation as these forces amount to a fifth-column enemy which has infiltrated our schools, our courts, our churches, all manner of political institutions, and the media. The cultural relativism which now pervades our institutions suggests that no ethical or moral value is superior to any other and so as we see in our contemporary society anything goes:

The teaching of history, language, law, culture and science particularly in the early school grades is now subject to disinformation, myth, and propaganda like never before courtesy of the “knowledge elites” with their own less than charitable axes to grind.

The muzzling both figuratively as well as physically of opposing points of view via the corrosive and regressive practice of “cancel culture” on college campuses renders those institutions little more than very expensive echo chambers.

Looting and rioting is now seen by members of fringe groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa as a legitimate compensatory action to right perceived civil wrongs. Sadly, many local political leaders across the nation are either in league with the rioters or choose to look the other way.

Judicial activism which compels judges who feel it their duty to go beyond the law as written and to interpret it as they see fit countermands the judgment of elected legislators and sets up the courts as super-legislatures.

Sermonizing by certain church fathers on the ills of “white privilege,” wealth, and physical fences while abrogating their responsibility to convey the church’s catechism to their flocks does serious disservice to parishioners seeking spiritual and not political guidance.

Proselytizing by political leaders on the Left that Socialism is in the best interest of the nation. These same demagogues, of course, fail to mention that the socialist experiment has only led to environmental despoliation, starvation, the demise of entrepreneurial initiative, and the spread of a welfare mentality. Rest assured, proponents of Socialism are not able to cite one historical antecedent where the egoism and presumed “wisdom” of central know-it-alls were an able substitute for the actions of countless sovereign consumers and producers operating in a free-market society.

The societal maelstrom, if not gradual dissolution, we are experiencing in our nation is fueled first and foremost by media elites who have the power and the means to filter information and package it so that it satisfies their agenda objectives without regards to the truth or fact. The mainstream media monopolies in Los Angeles, New York and Washington set the table for what most unwary Americans consume as unvarnished factual “information.” Not to be outdone, the oligarchs who control social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose what content and what voices they will police so long as they are in keeping with their own preferences and biases.

WE MUST ALL BECOME WATCHMEN ON THE TOWER

The defense of America comes easily to those who are united by the uniquely American principles of liberty, democracy, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, individual choice, and the sanctity of private property. Citizens who fail to grasp these “self-evident” truths owe it to themselves to undertake self-study, if not self-examination, to reaffirm that the American Dream is indeed not a slogan but a unique experiment that can only be realized in our great nation. Now, more than at any other time in our history, Americans need to hone their critical thinking skills so as to question the sources, facts, data, and research thrown at them for the explicit purpose of besmirching the American Dream.

The assaults which threaten the constitutional, cultural, and democratic fabric of America demand that we as citizens stand watch day and night. We must all stand tall on the watch tower and sound the horn so as to rally our fellow citizens as we prepare for battle.

[theculturedmarxist]

The "no the Communist countries weren't living hell on earth you fucking idiot" starter pack.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-c1-black-russian-americans-20141119-story.html >The experience of African Americans who traveled to or settled in Russia was overwhelmingly positive, descendants said. In turn, they made valuable contributions to Soviet society, said Blakely, the professor. Agricultural specialists helped devise different uses for materials, such as rope made from hemp. They also helped develop plant species that were cheaper to cultivate. Their contributions provided a boost to the Soviet economy.

>Tynes, who was sent to various Soviet republics to teach people how to raise ducks and other waterfowl, became a nationally recognized expert on poultry. Golden helped develop a cotton industry in Uzbekistan. And the African Americans introduced Russians to blues and jazz.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html >When people ask me what it was like growing up behind the Iron Curtain in Hungary in the Seventies and Eighties, most expect to hear tales of secret police, bread queues and other nasty manifestations of life in a one-party state.

>They are invariably disappointed when I explain that the reality was quite different, and communist Hungary, far from being hell on earth, was in fact, rather a fun place to live.

>The communists provided everyone with guaranteed employment, good education and free healthcare. Violent crime was virtually non-existent.

>But perhaps the best thing of all was the overriding sense of camaraderie, a spirit lacking in my adopted Britain and, indeed, whenever I go back to Hungary today. People trusted one another, and what we had we shared.

https://libcom.org/history/black-bolshevik-autobiography-afro-american-communist >In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.

>During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility. It was on a Moscow streetcar. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”

>A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the car. It was a citizen’s arrest, the first l had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”

>What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. 1 was to see many of this kind of “meeting* during my stay in Russia.

>It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead. Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges. At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,* said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man*

>The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station. The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he’d said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).*

>We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter. “No,* said the commandant, “we’ll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/3342145?no-access=true >This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data for 123 countries (97 percent of the world's population). PQL variables included: 1) indicators of health, health services, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); 2) measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and 3) a composite PQL index. Capitalist countries fell across the entire range of economic development (measured by gross national product per capita), while the socialist countries appeared at the low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income levels. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL out-comes.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-06-07/local/me-10010_1_socialist-countries >Socialist countries out-performed capitalist countries in nearly every area, according to the study by Howard Waitzkin, UCI professor of medicine and social sciences, and Shirley Cereseto, professor emeritus of sociology at Cal State Long Beach. The study, which looked at infant and child death rates, life expectancy, the availability of doctors and nurses, nutrition, literacy and other educational factors, is in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

>The study did not include the United States or other high-income capitalist countries in the comparisons because there were no equivalent socialist countries, the researchers said.

>While the quality of life appeared to increase with the wealth of the country, socialist or capitalist, the differences between the two categories were most "profound" in comparing the low-income countries, according to the report.

>Public health and education provided in the low-income socialist system "seem to overcome some of the grueling deprivations of poverty," according to the report. While wealthier capitalist countries have "enjoyed the fruits of public health and educational improvements," the poorer capitalist countries provide inadequate health and educational services, the report said.

>"Our findings indicate that countries with socialist political-economic systems can make great strides toward meeting basic human needs, even without extensive economic resources," Waitzkin and Cereseto wrote. "When much of the world's population suffers from disease, early death, malnutrition and illiteracy, these observations take on a meaning that goes beyond cold statistics."

[...]

>In interviews Friday, Waitzkin and Cereseto acknowledged that socialist countries have problems in other areas.

>"But they don't have starvation," said Cereseto, a retired professor who lives in Anaheim.

>The socialist countries demonstrate that "even under conditions of poverty, a national coherent plan to deal with public health and education can make a marked impact," Waitzkin said.

[...]

>Socialist countries in each level of development had infant mortality and child death rates two to three times lower than the corresponding capitalist countries, according to the study. Socialist countries consistently showed higher numbers of health professionals per capita than capitalist countries at equivalent economic levels.

>Waitzkin said he can only speculate as to why the socialist countries fared better, but believes that socialist countries consider health care "a basic human right. It is an issue of basic human entitlement," he said. They institute public health programs, immunizations, prenatal and perinatal care, provide proper sanitation and assure adequate nutrition, he said.

>"Their priorities are in that direction," Cereseto said. "The first thing a country does when it becomes socialist is improve the health care and education and feed the people. . . . There are other things they don't do well, but this is their goal, to feed their people and get them health care and education."

>The low-income capitalist countries "do atrociously" in those areas, Cereseto said. Even in the middle-income capitalist nations, there are huge gaps in the quality of life for the haves and have-nots, Waitzkin said.

>"Finding doctors and affording health care, all you have to do is go to Mexico or Africa to see this problem," he said. "There is a small population of very wealthy who are able to buy medical care but the rest do not have access to preventive or curative care, or basic things like sanitation and proper nutrition," Waitzkin said.

>Capitalist countries can learn from the study, the researchers said.

[...]

>One public health observer, who asked not to be named because he had not fully reviewed the study, agreed that socialist countries such as Cuba and North Korea tend to provide more uniform health and education services, while they suffer in production and wealth. But the observer questioned whether the study might be skewed by classifying the Soviet Union as upper-middle-income, because the country is more developed than many of the capitalist nations in the same category.

>Waitzkin and Cereseto foresee that their study will produce controversy, but said there is a dearth of hard data comparing socialism to capitalism.

>"One of the great problems in this country is assumptions made about capitalism and socialism are rhetorical and not based on evidence," Waitzkin said. "We hope to stimulate more data comparing, to move away from the rhetoric."

>Said Cereseto: "I know some don't like to hear that the socialist countries do anything good. And there are a lot of bad things. But to print only the bad things and avoid the good things puts into question our freedom of knowledge."

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/imf-loans-%E2%80%9Cstrongly-linked%E2%80%9D-to-tuberculosis

>The rapid spread of tuberculosis in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has been fuelled by the economic policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a new study has found.

>The Cambridge University-led study reveals that IMF loan programmes are "strongly associated" with large increases in tuberculosis incidence and deaths, costing tens of thousands of lives every year and producing hundreds of thousands of new tuberculosis cases.

>Researchers measured the relationship between tuberculosis and IMF loans in 21 countries in the region, dating back to the early 1990s. They found that countries subject to IMF programmes experienced a surge in tuberculosis death rates of at least 16.6% - equivalent to more than 100,000 additional deaths. Had countries not participated in the programmes, or been supported by other lenders, the rates would have declined by at least eight to 10%.

>IMF lending programmes demand that countries meet strict economic targets as a condition of the loans. Doctors have warned that these stipulations might lead to reduced government funding for health services such as hospitals and clinics, undermining the fight against diseases such as tuberculosis. This claim has never been supported with hard evidence until now.

>"This report suggests that the IMF has its priorities backwards," David Stuckler, a Cambridge sociologist who led the study, said. "If we really want to create sustainable economic growth, we need first to ensure that we have taken care of people's most basic health needs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

>Initially, the newly collectivized factories encountered various problems. CNT member Albert Pérez-Baró describes the initial economic confusion:

   After the first few days of euphoria, the workers returned to work and found themselves without responsible management. This resulted in the creation of workers' committees in factories, workshops and warehouses, which tried to resume production with all the problems that a transformation of this kind entailed. Owing to inadequate training and the sabotage of some of the technicians who remained many others had fled with the owners the workers' committees and other bodies that were improvised had to rely on the guidance of the unions.... Lacking training in economic matters, the union leaders, with more good will than success, began to issue directives that spread confusion in the factory committees and enormous chaos in production. This was aggravated by the fact that each union... gave different and often contradictory instruction.[14]

>In response to these problems, the Generalitat of Catalonia, backed by the CNT approved a decree on "Collectivization and Workers' Control" on 24 October 1936. Under this decree all firms with more than 100 workers were to be collectivized and those with 100 or less could be collectivized if a majority of workers agreed.[15][16][17] All collectivized enterprises were to join general industrial councils, which would be represented in a decentralized planning agency, the Economic Council of Catalonia. Representatives of the Generalitat would be appointed by the CNT to these regional councils.[18] The goal of this new form of organization would be to allow economic planning for civilian and military needs and stop the selfishness of more prosperous industries by using their profits to help others. However these plans for libertarian socialism based on trade unions was opposed by the socialists and communists who wanted a nationalized industry, as well as by unions which did not want to give up their profits to other businesses.[19] Another problem faced by the CNT was that while many collectivized firms were bankrupt, they refused to use the banks because the financial institutions were under the control of the socialist UGT. As a result of this, many were forced to seek government aid, appealing to Juan Peiró, the CNT minister of industry. Socialists and Communists in the government however, prevented Peiró from making any move which promoted collectivization.[20]

>After the initial disruption, the unions soon began an overall reorganization of all trades, closing down hundreds of smaller plants and focusing on those few better equipped ones, improving working conditions. In the region of Catalonia, more than seventy foundries were closed down, and production concentrated around twenty four larger foundries.[21] The CNT argued that the smaller plants were less efficient and secure. In Barcelona, 905 smaller beauty shops and barbershops were closed down, their equipment and workers being focused on 212 larger shops.[21]

>Although there were early issues with production in certain instances, however, Emma Goldman attested that industrial productivity doubled almost everywhere across the country, with agricultural yields increased "30-50%".[22]

>Anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. (The CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.)

>As Eddie Conlon wrote in a publication for the Workers' Solidarity Movement:

   If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. You were not allowed to employ workers. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.

   In agricultural terms the revolution occurred at a good time. Harvests that were gathered in and being sold off to make big profits for a few landowners were instead distributed to those in need. Doctors, bakers, barbers, etc. were given what they needed in return for their services. Where money was not abolished a 'family wage' was introduced so that payment was on the basis of need and not the number of hours worked.

   Production greatly increased. Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Modern scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. There was enough to feed the collectivists and the militias in their areas. Often there was enough for exchange with other collectives in the cities for machinery. In addition food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas.[23]

[beckylower]

My interest in the footnotes of history and lesser-known heroes have led me to a woman of whom I had not heard until I stumbled upon her in my research. American women owe Inez Milholland Boissevain a debt for the part she played in advancing the cause of women’s rights. Errant Vassar student, suffragette, labor lawyer, World War I correspondent, and public speaker, Inez packed more into her short life than most of us achieve in a lifetime.

Entrance to Vassar

Born in New York in 1886 to John and Jean Milholland, Inez’s parents were able to provide an intellectually and culturally stimulating environment for their three children. Her father started his working life as a reporter and editorial writer for the New York Tribune, but moved on to business ultimately heading a pneumatic mail tube company. Their financial situation was such that the family maintained homes in both New York and England. Inez spent much of her adolescence in London where she attended the Kensington High School for Girls. In the school’s progressive environment, the daughters of earls studied alongside shopkeepers’ children because class distinctions did not exist within its walls. Her application to Vassar was initially rejected, but after additional study at the Willard School for Girls in Berlin where she received an acceptable diploma, she returned home to the US for college.

At Vassar, Inez was involved in the college experience in every conceivable way. She was an outstanding athlete, playing basketball, tennis, golf, field hockey, and breaking a campus shot put record. In addition to sports, she was a member of several clubs, on the debate team, acted in college dramas, became involved in a children’s cause in the community, and was president of her junior class. This would have been more than enough for most young ladies, but an encounter during the summer between her sophomore and junior years changed her life.

Back in London, she met the notorious Emmeline Pankhurst and joined her Women’s Social and Political Union. Pankhurst and her suffragettes chained themselves to fences and refused to stand down in their demonstrations calling for women’s rights, especially the vote. When arrested and imprisoned, they went on hunger strikes and were force-fed by tubes rammed down their throats. When these tactics failed, they moved on to more violent means.

Inez brought this fervor back to the Vassar campus where her ideas and attendant activities were not well received by the administration. Her first volley over the bow of entrenched patriarchy was an article for the Vassar campus magazine describing her adventures with Mrs. Pankhurst and decrying the lackluster state of the American suffrage movement by comparison. Since suffrage was a taboo subject on the Vassar campus, Inez and those she attracted to the cause held an organizational meeting in a nearby cemetery. Attending were 40 students, 10 alumna, and suffrage proponents from the community and New York City. This was the beginning of the Vassar Votes for Women Club, which continued to meet off-campus under Inez’s leadership. While the Vassar website makes no mention of it, some sources say Inez was suspended from college at one point in her battle of wills with the college president, James Monroe Taylor who strictly forbade any discussion of suffrage on campus. One might conclude he was delighted to see the last of Miss Milholland when she graduated in 1909.

After graduation, Inez’s interests broadened to include the law and writing for the socialist journal, The Masses. Rejected by several Ivy League law schools, she was admitted by NYU where she graduated in 1912 and became a clerk in a NYC firm. In 1913, she defended labor leader Elizabeth Gurley Flynn who had been arrested during a textile strike. That same year, she made her most celebrated appearance in support of women’s suffrage by leading a massive Washington D.C. parade the day prior to Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration. Sitting astride a white horse, a crown upon her head,  and dressed in a flowing white cape, the beautiful young socialite turned activist must have been an awe inspiring sight. When a crowd drunken men attempted to impede the marchers’ progress, it is said she turned her horse on them and they scattered. That same year, she proposed to her future husband, Eugen Boissevain, whom she married later that year and with whom she maintained an open marriage as a believer in free love.

When war broke out in 1914 Inez, like so many of her colleagues, believed the US should stay out of the European conflict. To get a first hand look, she went to Europe on Henry Ford’s Peace Ship in 1915. She stayed on as a war correspondent until Italy kicked her out of the country due to her pacifist views. She returned to the US and took up the cause of women’s suffrage once more joining a national tour of the National Women’s Party. She drew large crowds wherever the tour stopped.

It was while on tour that Inez developed an infection from which she would not recover. As a suffer of pernicious anemia, her immune system must have been particularly weakened. She collapsed in Los Angeles on November 25, 1916 and was taken to a nearby hospital where she died. She was only 30 years old.

From an obituary:

“Beautiful and courageous, she embodied more than any other American woman the ideals of that part of womenkind whose eyes are on the future. She embodied all the things which make the Suffrage Movement something more than a fight to vote. She meant the determination of modern women to live a full free life, unhampered by tradition.” The Philadelphia Public Lodger at the time of her death

      The National Women’s Party proclaimed her a martyr to women’s rights, but her fame faded until today she is a rather obscure figure from a long ago movement. I suppose there is some cause for celebration in the fact that women now take the vote for granted. We tend to forget we once were second class citizens without personal or property rights, which is an indication of just how far we have come.

  Historical Fiction Featuring Suffragettes

          Resources

http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/alumni/inez-milholland.html

https://www.loc.gov/collections/women-of-protest/articles-and-essays/selected-leaders-of-the-national-womans-party/icon/

https://www.thoughtco.com/inez-milholland-boissevain-biography-3530528

https://time.com/4391874/the-society-girl-who-became-a-martyr-for-womens-suffrage/

https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmilholland.htm

http://inezmilholland.org/

https://americancivilwar.com/women/Womens_Suffrage/Inez_Milholland.html

  A Brief but Spectacular Life My interest in the footnotes of history and lesser-known heroes have led me to a woman of whom I had not heard until I stumbled upon her in my research.