10 May 2016

Millennials hate capitalism and greed

The Blog


In a May 1st article appearing at the Center for a Stateless Society website, anti-statist writer Kevin Carson explains why Millennials tend to respond positively to the term "socialism" in poll results. Capitalism gets a much more negative reaction.


This is especially relevant now as people wonder why the "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders was able to go toe-to-toe with corporate backed Hillary Clinton for Democratic Party nomination as President of the United States. It happened despite many Americans (likely older generations) despising anything called "socialism" and assuming it to be solely the work of North Korea or Joseph Stalin.

Carson explained that the Millennial generation is distressed by the greed and oppression brought about by modern corporate capitalism. Many young people are familiar with the ideas of academics who try to explain just how disfiguring and tyrannical current capitalism is. Rampant capitalism is is actually coercing even the capitalists' favorite bogeyman - the regulatory state - just for its own profit.

Alluding to sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein's theory (read all our coverage of Wallerstein) of the expansion of capitalism across the world, Carson writes that Millennials have got it right if they associate capitalism with greed and power rather than freedom:
Historical capitalism began five or six centuries ago, not with free markets, but with the conquest of the free towns by the absolute states and the mass expropriation of peasants from their traditional rights to the land by the landed oligarchy, and continued with the colonial conquest of most of the world outside Europe. Since then capital has continued to rely heavily on the state to socialize its operating costs, erect barriers to competition, and enforce illegitimate title to all the land and natural resources engrossed in previous centuries. This history of conquest, robbery and enslavement is in the basic genetic code of contemporary corporate capitalism.
Some writers have tried to explain away Millennials' positive views of socialism with the condescending assertion they are "confused" about dictionary definitions. Carson dismissed this assertion as "dumb" and devoid of any comprehension of history.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Labour's anti-State of Israel scandal

The Blog


The L'Ordre blog based at Beliefnet comments on the recent so-called anti-Semitism scandal creating controversy in British politics.


This anti-Semitism scandal relates to comments by Labour Party members about Israel, and the view that Israel is responsible for conflict in the Middle East. Not tolerating this view, some MPs within the Opposition are responding with vicious rhetoric against anyone - including all British Muslims - who consider Israel guilty of war crimes in the Middle East.

From the blog on Saturday:
To ban boycotts and stifle criticism of Israel in Britain’s democracy... would be against diversity... and will destabilize British society, even creating escalating violence in coming decades. It is also likely that the Muslim population will then grow in even greater isolation from politics, while believers in “democracy” shrink, during such a period. Faith in democracy will be lost, and, once censored and prohibited from the democratic Opposition, youths will be more likely to choose the path of violence rather than debate.
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/lordre/2016/05/cracks-in-british-society-due-to-israel-or-muslims.html#Gca07CAUijpLO2PE.99
The post notes the views of Security Studies scholars that countering extremism depends more on making people feel included and making the political process work rather than excluding, ostracizing and banning minorities for their feelings about political issues. In view of this, the idea that extremism is to be countered by suspensions, bans and other crackdowns on anti-Israel views in the Labour Party is "the worst move ever".

In fact, the post argues for opposite measures to be taken, compared with what the Labour Party seems to be doing now. "Allow the minorities to find expression, give them a greater platform in Britain and a role in governing the country", the blog says.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

6 May 2016

Govt can make you unlock your phone

The Blog


Noting the arrival of "biometric" authentication methods on smartphones, Garrison Center Director Thomas L. Knapp argues it "comes with a cost".


The focus here is on using one's fingerprint to unlock one's phone. Considering rulings in Virginia and California that you can be "forced to put your finger on the phone to unlock it", the technology is being used as an excuse for US authorities to violate the Constitution in new ways.

As explained by Knapp, "Giving the police access to your phone is no different than telling them about every call you made". This goes against the strong components of the law that prevent you from "testifying against yourself, which you cannot constitutionally be required to do."

The state is normally limited in when and how it can coerce individuals to incriminate themselves. For example, "If the door is locked, they can break it down, but you don’t have to unlock it for them. If they find your hidden compartment full of evidence, they find it. But you don’t have to show them where it is, or even tell them that it exists."

What will you do about the increasing use of biometric data, when you know you can be coerced to unlock your property using it? For now, Knapp advises you need to "secure your phone with a long and complex pass code, not with your fingerprint."


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Featured

Kimberly Guilfoyle Accusations Aren’t Really a “Scandal”

Donor Eric Deters describes a “pay to play” arrangement with US president Donald Trump’s friends/family circle in which he fully participate...

Follow Me on Twitter