51–60 of 106 posts
I wonder how much of the authoritarian tendencies of the government of certain countries (e.g. Russia, China, Iran) is driven by a desire to maintain the stability and control presumably needed to resist hostile actions by the US empire that ironically professes freedom and democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Admittedly, I'm not someone who is very knowledgeable on the subject, but that is not what I got from the article at all. My read on it was that the US needs to be more diplomatic instead of forceful, and try to reach some sensible cooperation with China. That doesn't strike me as doing nothing? Also, as a non American, the "we're not special" narrative does resonate with me. American rhetoric is so often full of imp…
> My read on it was that the US needs to be more diplomatic instead of forceful, and try to reach some sensible cooperation with China. Cooperation is useful when both actors are acting in good faith, and where both actors want something that is acceptable or tolerable to the other side. What are the motivations and goals of the CCP? Are they tolerable to the US (and the rest of the world)? Should there be accommodat…
https://web.archive.org/web/20210926093923/https://www.econo...
This trick no longer seems to work on The Economist. Any alternative?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the USA (re-)definition of the word, yes.
He refers to himself as an anarchist, first and foremost. He has what would be seen as very “liberal” as in “progressive” views in US political terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I do wonder to what extent his views are based on a possibly over-optimistic view of the world's potential They definitely are. Chomsky should forever be respected for his work in linguistics, his work on the media and his research into US power. Manufacturing consent was published in 1988 and it is more relevant then ever. His personal political views are however completely unrealistic and ignore human nature…
Are you familiar with Rutger Bregman and his book Humankind? That gives a fresh perspective into humanity. One that I believe to be true. We're just too deep into the illusion of evilness, that's mandatory for status quo.
There is an undeniable percentage of egotistical maniacs, psychopaths and narcissists in the human population. This ensures conflict will always be a part of human societies.
I wonder how much of the authoritarian tendencies of the government of certain countries (e.g. Russia, China, Iran) is driven by a desire to maintain the stability and control presumably needed to resist hostile actions by the US empire that ironically professes freedom and democracy.
Authoritarian tendencies existed well before the US came to power. The best defence against the US 'empire' is to avoid authoritarian tendencies.
Or, consider Saudi Arabia, which has a monarchy. They are on very friendly terms with the US.
I've just listed two examples out of many that can be easily found by anyone who is interested to know.
I wonder how much of the authoritarian tendencies of the government of certain countries (e.g. Russia, China, Iran) is driven by a desire to maintain the stability and control presumably needed to resist hostile actions by the US empire that ironically professes freedom and democracy.
Authoritarian tendencies existed well before the US came to power. The best defence against the US 'empire' is to avoid authoritarian tendencies.
I wonder how much of the authoritarian tendencies of the government of certain countries (e.g. Russia, China, Iran) is driven by a desire to maintain the stability and control presumably needed to resist hostile actions by the US empire that ironically professes freedom and democracy.
Authoritarian tendencies existed well before the US came to power. The best defence against the US 'empire' is to avoid authoritarian tendencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you familiar with Rutger Bregman and his book Humankind? That gives a fresh perspective into humanity. One that I believe to be true. We're just too deep into the illusion of evilness, that's mandatory for status quo.
Nature from the cellular level up is comprised out of struggles between parties. There is always a war in every level of biology. There is an undeniable percentage of egotistical maniacs, psychopaths and narcissists in the human population. This ensures conflict will always be a part of human societies.
You assert this with no proof, when asked if you have read a book which presents a case for a different viewpoint: that there is (also) cooperation and interdependence.
It is, to me, so obviously absurd to state that humans - who invented cities, fire brigades, line dancing, and symphony orchestras - are defined by struggle and warfare. It's just nonsense. "We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower." - Marcus Aurelius.
> There is an undeniable percentage of egotistical maniacs, psychopaths and narcissists in the human population.
True. But first of all, where do they come from? Are they born as such? And second of all, should they define our societies? There are many ways in which people, who are neither psychopaths nor narcissists, are forced to act in self-serving ways simply because there is no alternative in this culture. And there are many ways of dealing with them that do not involve building everything on mistrust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So given that all states are based on coercive violence, how does that lead you to act?
Nice try, but I see the huge difference between something like " don't rape people, or we all agreed you should be locked up " and " don't mention the Tiananmen square massacre, or the unaccountable rulers will lock you up for endangering their power, or hurt your family if they can't punish you directly "