Home
by Filipenko Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:26 pmDa, "na ljude" 
Kapitalizam 101
- Posts : 22555
Join date : 2014-12-01
- Korisnik
- Posts : 4670
Join date : 2015-02-17
Mindfulness Is a Capitalist Scam
In Ronald E Purser's new book McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became The New Capitalist Spirituality, he describes how mindfulness has become the $1.1 billion dollar buzzword of the wellness industry and, as the blurb reads, "how corporations, governments and the military have co-opted it as a technique for social control and self-pacification".
- Korisnik
- Posts : 4670
Join date : 2015-02-17
Ovaj Kiyosaki iz YT ormara počeo da mi iskače. Uvek vrh diskusija u komentarima.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftBeTIDv8Vg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftBeTIDv8Vg
- Korisnik
- Posts : 4670
Join date : 2015-02-17
- Activision Blizzard, publisher of hit games Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush moved €5bn to companies in Bermuda and Barbados between 2013-2017, documents reveal.
- The company is currently under investigation by tax authorities in the UK, Sweden and France over alleged transfer pricing irregularities and is is facing a potential bill of over $1.1bn in back taxes and penalties.
- In the United States, Activision Blizzard has recently settled a transfer pricing dispute with tax authorities for $345m.
- The multinational company has a complex structure with subsidiaries in a number of tax havens including Malta, the Netherlands, Barbados and Bermuda.
Conclusions and recommendations
Activision Blizzard has a highly complex corporate structure, which involves subsidiaries in Malta, the Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda and Barbados. When analysing the money flows around these companies, it seems clear that these structures are designed to minimise taxation on the profits made by Activision Blizzard outside of the United States.
The company says it is now seeking to engage with tax authorities to see what the appropriate amount of profit and tax is in the countries where they operate. However, given that the company has told investors that it will “vigorously defend” large claims for back taxes being made by the Swedish and French tax authorities, it would suggest that what Activision sees as appropriate may not match the expectations of those working in various tax authorities.
Whatever new structures and policies the company may put in place in the future, their accounts demonstrate that up until now billions of dollars were moved into a company with an address in Bermuda which appear to be entirely untaxed. It is possible that if we were able to access the accounts of the company in Barbados and Malta, billions more going untaxed would also be revealed.
It seems that revenue authorities around the world are finally taking action over the tax avoidance activities of Activision Blizzard. However, the relatively small amounts of taxes being sought by the UK tax authority highlights the difficulties of administrative action. To end these practices will also require a more robust policy response.
The use of royalty payments to move billions in profits to offshore tax havens is common in the digital sector. The UK government has tried to introduce rules to deal with these schemes, however, these new rules are known to be ineffective because of the way in which a number of tax haven jurisdictions are exempt from them.
The case of Activision Blizzard is just another example demonstrating the need for governments to introduce more effective measures to deal with royalty-based tax avoidance schemes. In the UK this means changing legislation to make sure that royalty payments made to companies in jurisdictions where the UK has a tax treaty are included in the charge to income tax.
https://www.taxwatchuk.org/activision_blizzard_tax_avoidance/
Napalm vol.2.
- Guest
neloš monbio
Killer Clowns
30th July 2019
Why are so many nations now led by extravagant buffoons? Because the nature of capitalism has changed.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 26th July 2019
Seven years ago the brilliant impressionist Rory Bremner complained that politicians had become so boring that few of them were worth mimicking: “They’re quite homogenous and dull these days … It’s as if character is seen as a liability.” Today, his profession has the opposite problem: however extreme satire becomes, it struggles to keep pace with reality. The political sphere, so dull and grey a few years ago, is now populated by preposterous exhibitionists.
This trend is not confined to the UK – everywhere the killer clowns are taking over. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro, Scott Morrison, Rodrigo Duterte, Matteo Salvini, Recep Erdogan, Viktor Orban and a host of other ludicrous strongmen – or weakmen as they so often turn out to be – dominate nations that would once have laughed them off stage. The question is why? Why are the deathly technocrats who held sway almost everywhere a few years ago giving way to extravagant buffoons?
Social media, which is an incubator of absurdity, is certainly part of the story. But while there has been plenty of good work investigating the means, there has been surprisingly little thinking about the ends. Why are the ultra-rich, who until recently used their money and newspapers to promote charisma-free politicians, now funding this circus? Why would capital wish to be represented by middle managers one moment and jesters the next?
The reason, I believe, is that the nature of capitalism has changed. The dominant force of the 1990s and early 2000s – corporate power – demanded technocratic government. It wanted people who could simultaneously run a competent, secure state and protect profits from democratic change. In 2012, when Rory Bremner made his complaint, power was already shifting to a different place, but politics had not caught up.
The policies that were supposed to promote enterprise – slashing taxes for the rich, ripping down public protections, destroying trade unions – instead stimulated a powerful spiral of patrimonial wealth accumulation. The largest fortunes are now made not through entrepreneurial brilliance but through inheritance, monopoly and rent-seeking: securing exclusive control of crucial assets, such as land and buildings, privatised utilities and intellectual property, and assembling service monopolies such as trading hubs, software and social media platforms, then charging user fees far higher than the costs of production and delivery. In Russia, people who enrich themselves this way are called oligarchs. But this is not a Russian phenomenon, it is a global one. Corporate power still exists, but today it is overlain by – and is mutating into – oligarchic power.
What the oligarchs want is not the same as what the old corporations wanted. In the words of their favoured theorist Stephen Bannon, they seek the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” Chaos is the profit multiplier for the disaster capitalism on which the new billionaires thrive. Every rupture is used to seize more of the assets on which our lives depend. The chaos of an undeliverable Brexit, the repeated meltdowns and shutdowns of government under Trump: these are the kind of deconstructions Bannon foresaw. As institutions, rules and democratic oversight implode, the oligarchs extend their wealth and power at our expense.
The killer clowns offer the oligarchs something else too: distraction and deflection. While the kleptocrats fleece us, we are urged to look elsewhere. We are mesmerised by buffoons, who encourage us to channel the anger that should be reserved for billionaires towards immigrants, women, Jews, Muslims, people of colour and other imaginary enemies and customary scapegoats. Just as it was in the 1930s, the new demagoguery is a con, a revolt against the impacts of capital, financed by capitalists.
The oligarch’s interests always lie offshore: in tax havens and secrecy regimes. Paradoxically, these interests are best promoted by nationalists and nativists. The politicians who most loudly proclaim their patriotism and defence of sovereignty are always the first to sell their nations down the river. It is no coincidence that most of the newspapers promoting the nativist agenda, whipping up hatred against immigrants and thundering about sovereignty, are owned by billionaire tax exiles, living offshore.
As economic life has been offshored, so has political life. The political rules that are supposed to prevent foreign money from funding domestic politics have collapsed. The main beneficiaries are the self-proclaimed defenders of sovereignty, who rise to power with the help of social media ads bought by persons unknown, and thinktanks and lobbyists that refuse to reveal their funders. A recent essay by the academics Reijer Hendrikse and Rodrigo Fernandez argues that offshore finance involves “the rampant unbundling and commercialisation of state sovereignty” and the shifting of power into a secretive, extraterritorial legal space, beyond the control of any state. In this offshore world, they contend, “financialised and hypermobile global capital effectively is the state.”
Today’s billionaires are the real citizens of nowhere. They fantasise, like the plutocrats in Ayn Rand’s terrible novel Atlas Shrugged, about further escape. Look at the “seasteading” venture funded by Paypal’s founder Peter Thiel, that sought to build artificial islands in the middle of the ocean, whose citizens could enact a libertarian fantasy of escape from the state, its laws, regulations and taxes, and from organised labour. Scarcely a month goes by without a billionaire raising the prospect of leaving the Earth altogether, and colonising space pods or other planets.
Those whose identity is offshore seek only to travel further offshore. To them, the nation state is both facilitator and encumbrance, source of wealth and imposer of tax, pool of cheap labour and seething mass of ungrateful plebs, from whom they must flee, leaving the wretched earthlings to their well-deserved fate.
Defending ourselves from these disasters means taxing oligarchy to oblivion. It’s easy to get hooked up on discussions about what tax level maximises the generation of revenue. There are endless arguments about the Laffer curve, that purports to show where this level lies. But these discussions overlook something crucial: raising revenue is only one of the purposes of tax. Another is breaking the spiral of patrimonial wealth accumulation.
Breaking this spiral is a democratic necessity: otherwise the oligarchs, as we have seen, come to dominate national and international life. The spiral does not stop by itself: only government action can do it. This is one of the reasons why, during the 1940s, the top rate of income tax in the US rose to 94%, and in the UK to 98%. A fair society requires periodic corrections on this scale. But these days the steepest taxes would be better aimed at accumulated unearned wealth.
Of course, the offshore world the billionaires have created makes such bold policies extremely difficult: this, after all, is one of its purposes. But at least we know what the aim should be, and can begin to see the scale of the challenge. To fight something, first we need to understand it.
- Posts : 713
Join date : 2015-08-30
Monbiot je odlican ovde, ali ovakvih tekstova smo se vec nacitali dovoljno. Ono sto meni nedostaje su tekstovi gde se trazi konkretna radikalna akcija.
- Guest
imate još 12 dana to da rešite
- Posts : 713
Join date : 2015-08-30
Gargantua wrote:u kom smeru?
Pa u smeru recimo dogadjaja u Hong Kongu ili razmisljanje na temu kako bi se onih 99% najbolje politicki organizovalo da zaista efektivno udari na milijardere i sistem kojim manipulisu.
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
Mr. Moonlight wrote:imate još 12 dana to da rešite
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Korisnik
- Posts : 4670
Join date : 2015-02-17
andurile, što posećuješ burundi samo dok si tamo u izgnanstvu
- Guest
CAPITALOCENE & Planetary Justice
The crisis we are experiencing is not the failure of a species, it’s the failure of a system.
This is the story of an alternative interpretive model which sees the Anthropocene as a biased
discourse which blames victims and is a weak landmark for the new green movement.
Jason W. Moore
- Spoiler:
For everyone who isn’t a climate denialist, there’s an easy answer
to the question: humanity. Who, in their right mind, would challenge the
idea that climate change is anthropogenic (made by humans)? Are we not
living in the Anthropocene: the Age of Man as geological force?
Well, yes and no. It turns out that saying “Humans did it!” may obscure
as much as it clarifies. A world of political difference lies between saying
“Humans did it!” — and saying “Some humans did it!” Radical thinkers
and climate justice activists have begun to question a starkly egalitarian
distribution of historical responsibility for climate change in a system
committed to a sharply unequal distribution of wealth and power. From
this standpoint, the phrase anthropogenic climate change is a special brand
of blaming the victims of exploitation, violence, and poverty. A more
nearly accurate alternative? Ours is an era of capitalogenic climate crisis.
Capitalogenic: “made by capital.” Like its sibling, Capitalocene, it can
sound awkward when spoken. That doesn’t have much to do with the
word, however — it’s because under bourgeois hegemony we are taught
to view with suspicion any language that names the system. But naming
the system, the form of oppression, and logic of exploitation is what
emancipatory social movements always do. Justice movements unfold
through new ideas and new languages. The power to name an injustice
channels thought and strategy, something dramatically underscored by
labor, anti-colonial, and feminist movements across the long twentieth
century. In this respect, mainstream environmentalism since 1968 — the
“environmentalism of the rich” (Peter Dauvergne) — has been a complete
disaster. The “ecological footprint” directs our attention to individual,
market-oriented consumption. The Anthropocene (and before that,
Spaceship Earth) tells us that planetary crisis is more or less a natural
consequence of human nature — as if today’s climate crisis is a matter of
humans being humans, just as snakes will be snakes and zebras will be
zebras. The truth is more nuanced, identifiable, and actionable: we are
living in the Capitalocene, the Age of Capital. We know — historically and
in the present crisis — who is responsible for the climate crisis. They have
names and addresses, starting with the eight richest men in the world
with more wealth than the bottom 3.6 billion humans.
What is the Capitalocene? Let me begin by saying what the Capitalocene
is not. It is not a substitute for geology. And it is not an argument that
says an economic system drives planetary crisis — although economics
are crucial. It is a way of understanding capitalism as a connective geographical
and patterned historical system. In this view, the Capitalocene
is a geopoetics for making sense of capitalism as a world-ecology of power
and re/production in the web of life.
We’ll dig into the Capitalocene in just a moment. First, let’s get clear
on the Anthropocene, of which there are two. One is the Geological Anthropocene.
This is the concern of geologists and earth system scientists.
Their primary concern is golden spikes: key markers in the stratigraphic
layer that identify geological eras. In the case of the Anthropocene, these
spikes are generally recognized as plastics, chicken bones and nuclear
waste. (Such is the contribution of capitalism to geological history!) Alternatively,
and perceptively, the biogeographers Simon Lewis and Mark
Maslin argue that 1610 marks the dawn of the Geological Anthropocene.
Deemed the “Orbis Spike”, the period between 1492 and 1610 witnessed
not only the Columbian Invasion. The ensuing genocide in the Americas
led to forest regrowth and a rapid CO2 drawdown by 1550, contributing to
some of the Little Ice Age’s coldest decades (c. 1300-1850). The Geological
Anthropocene is therefore a deliberate abstraction of historical relations
in order to clarify the biogeographical relations of humans (as species)
and the biosphere. That’s entirely reasonable. The Capitalocene thesis is
not an argument about geological history.
It’s an argument about geohistory — something that includes biogeological
changes as fundamental to human histories of power and production.
Here, the Capitalocene confronts a second Anthropocene: the
Popular Anthropocene. This second Anthropocene encompasses a much
wider discussion in the humanities and social sciences. It’s a conversation
about the historical development, and contemporary realities, of
planetary crisis. There’s no neat and tidy separation, and many earth
system scientists have been happy to shift from the Geological to the
Popular Anthropocene, and then back again!
For the Popular Anthropocene, the problem is Man and Nature — a
problem that contains more than a little gender bias, as Kate Raworth
makes clear when she quips that we’re living the Manthropocene. This
Anthropocene presents a model of planetary crisis that is anything but
new. It reincarnates a cosmology of Humanity and Nature that goes back
in some ways to 1492 — and in others to Thomas Malthus in the eighteenth
century. This is the narrative of Humanity doing terrible things to
Nature. And driving those terrible things is, as ever, the spectre of overpopulation
— an idea that has consistently justified the violent oppression
of women and peoples of color.
You might notice that I’ve capitalized those words Humanity and Nature.
That’s because these are not mere words, but abstractions that have
been taken as real by empires, modernizing states, and capitalists in order
to cheapen human and extra-human natures of every kind. Historically,
most human beings have been practically excluded from membership
in Humanity. In the history of capitalism, there has been little room in
the Anthropos for anyone not white, male, and bourgeois. From 1492, the
super-rich and their imperial allies dispossessed peoples of color, Indigenous
Peoples, and virtually all women of their Humanity, and assigned
to Nature — the better they could be transformed into profit-making
opportunities. The upshot is that the cosmology of Man and Nature in
the Popular Anthropocene is not only a faulty analytic, but implicated
in practical histories of domination. When the Popular Anthropocene
refuses name capitalogenic climate change, it fails to see that the problem
is not Man and Nature, but certain men committed to the profitable domination
and destruction of most humans and the rest of nature.
The Popular Anthropocene’s insinuation that all humans did it, then,
is clearly not the case. The American and western European share of CO2
emissions between 1850 and 2012 is three times greater than China’s.
Even this doesn’t go far enough. Such national accounting is akin to
individualizing responsibility for the climate crisis. It doesn’t consider
the centrality of American and western European capital in global industrialization
since 1945. Since the 1990s, for example, China’s emissions
have overwhelmingly served European and American export markets,
and for decades were underwritten by massive foreign investment.
There’s a global system of power and capital that’s always hungry for
more Cheap Nature, which since the 1970s has meant sharply widening
class inequality. Consider the United States, the world-historical leader
in carbonizing the atmosphere. To allocate equal responsibility for global
warming to all Americans is a grand erasure. The U.S. was, from the
beginning, an apartheid-style republic based on genocide and dispossession
and slavery. Certain Americans are responsible for US emissions:
the owners of capital, plantations and slaves (or today’s private prisons),
factories and banks.
The Capitalocene argument therefore rejects anthropocentric flattening
— “We have met the enemy and he is us” (as in Walt Kelly’s iconic 1970
Earth Day poster) — along with economic reductionism. To be sure, capitalism
is a system of endless capital accumulation. But the Capitalocene
thesis says that to understand planetary crisis today, we need to look at
capitalism as a world-ecology of power, production, and reproduction.
In this perspective, the “social” moments of modern class rule, white supremacy,
and patriarchy are intimately connected with environmental
projects aimed at endless capital accumulation. Essentially, the great
innovation of capitalism, from its origins after 1492, was to invent the
practice of appropriating Nature. That Nature was not just an idea but a
territorial and cultural reality that encaged and policed women, colonized
peoples, and extra-human webs of life. Because webs of life resist the
standardization, acceleration, and homogenization of capitalist profit-
maximization, capitalism has never been narrowly economic; cultural
domination and political force have made possible the capitalogenic
devastation of human and extra-human natures at every turn.
Why 1492 and not 1850 or 1945? There’s no question that the Anthropocene’s
famous “hockey stick” charts indicate major inflection points
for carbonization and other movements at these points, especially the
latter. These are representations of consequences, however, not the causes
of planetary crisis. The Capitalocene thesis pursues analyses that link
such consequences to the longer histories of class rule, racism and sexism,
all of which form, in the modern sense, after 1492.
By the sixteenth century, we see a rupture in how scientists, capitalists,
and imperial strategists understood planetary reality. In medieval
Europe, humans and the rest of nature were understood in hierarchical
terms, like the Great Chain of Being. But there was no strict separation
between human relations and the rest of nature. Words such as nature,
civilization, savagery and society only realized their modern meaning in
the English language between 1550 and 1650. This was, not coincidentally,
the era of England’s capitalist agricultural revolution, the modern coal
mining revolution, the invasion of Ireland (1541). This cultural shift didn’t
happen in isolation in the Anglosphere — there were cognate movements
underway in other western European languages at around the same time
too, as the Atlantic world underwent a capitalist shift. This radical break
with the old ways of knowing reality, previously holistic (but still hierarchical)
gave way to the dualism of Civilization and Savagery.
Wherever and whenever European ships disembarked soldiers,
priests, and merchants, they immediately encountered “savages.” In the
Middle Ages, the word meant strong and fierce; now it signified the antonym
of civilization. Savages inhabited something called wilderness,
and it was the task of the civilized conquers to Christianize and to Improve.
Wilderness in these years was often known as “waste” — and in
the colonies, it justified laying waste so that such lands and its savage
inhabitants might be put to work cheaply. The binary code of Civilization
and Savagery constitutes a pivotal operating system for modernity, one
premised on dispossessing human beings of their humanity. Such dispossession
— which occurred not once but many times over — was the
fate meted out to indigenous peoples, to the Irish, to virtually all women,
to African slaves, to colonial peoples around the world. It’s this capitalist
geoculture that reproduces an extraordinary cheapening of life and work,
essential to every great world economic boom but also violent, degrading,
and self-exhausting.
The language of Society and Nature is therefore not just the language
of the bourgeois-colonial revolution in its widest sense, but also a praxis
of alienation, every bit as fundamental to capitalism hegemony as the
alienation of modern labor relations. Society and Nature fetishize the essential
alienated relations of violence and domination under capitalism.
Marx’s account of commodity fetishism, through which workers come to
perceive the fruits of their labor as an alien power looming over them is
obviously central. There’s another form of alienation that goes along with
this commodity fetishism. This is civilizational fetishism. That alienation
isn’t between “humans and nature.” It’s a project of some humans
— white, bourgeois, male during the rise of capitalism — to cheapen most
humans and our fellow life-forms. If commodity fetishism is a fundamental
antagonism of capital and the proletariat, civilizational fetishism is the
world-historical antagonism between capital and the biotariat (Stephen
Collis) — the forms of life, living and dead, that provide the unpaid work/
energy that makes capitalism possible. Civilizational fetishism teaches
us to think the relation between capitalism and the web of life as a relation
between objects, rather than an internalizing and externalizing
relation of environment-making. Everything that Marx says about commodity
fetishism was prefigured — both logically and historically — by
a series of civilizational fetishes, with the line between Civilization and
Savagery its geocultural pivot. The rise of capitalism did not invent wagework;
it invented the modern proletariat within an ever more audacious
project of putting natures of every kind to work for free or low cost: the
biotariat. Like commodity fetishism, civilization fetishism was —- and
remains —- not just an idea but a praxis and a rationality of world domination.
Since 1492, this line — between Civilized and the Savage — has
shaped modern life and power, production and reproduction. Reinvented
in every era of capitalism, it is now being reasserted in a powerful way —
as resurgent authorian populists militarize and secure borders against
the “infestations” of refugees driven by the late Capitalocene’s trinity of
endless war, racialized dispossession, and climate crises.
1492 marked not only a geocultural shift, but also a biogeographical
transition unprecedented in human history. The Columbian Invasion
began a geohistorical reunification of Pangea, the supercontinent that
drifted apart 175 million years earlier. This modern Pangea would, in the
eyes of Europe’s bankers, kings, and nobles, serve as a virtually limitless
storehouse of Cheap labor, food, energy, and raw materials. It’s here, in
the Atlantic zone of modern Pangea, that capitalism and today’s planetary
crisis originated. In the three centuries that followed, capitalism’s
triple helix of empire, capital, and science made possible the greatest
and most rapid land/labor transformation in human history. Only the
genesis of settled agriculture at the dawn of the Holocene, some 12,000
years ago, rivals early capitalism’s ecological revolution. Centuries before
Newcomen and Watt’s steam engines, European bankers, planters, industrialists,
merchants, and empires transformed planetary labor/life/land
relations on a scale and at a speed an order of magnitude greater than
anything seen before. From Brazil to the Andes to the Baltic, forests were
mowed down, coercive labor systems imposed on Africans, indigenous
peoples and Slavs, and indispensable supplies of Cheap food, timber, and
silver shipped to the centers of wealth and power. Meanwhile, women in
Europe — not to mention in the colonies! — were subjected to a coercive
labor regime more ruthless than anything known under feudalism. Women
were ejected from Civilization, their lives and labor tightly policed and
redefined as “non-work” (Silvia Federici): precisely because “women’s
work” belonged to the sphere of Nature.
The story of planetary crisis is typically told through the lens of “the”
Industrial Revolution. No one questions that successive industrializations
have coincided with major inflection points of resource use and
toxification. (But industrialization long predates the nineteenth century!)
To explain the origins of planetary crisis to technological transformations,
however, is a powerful reductionism. Britain’s Industrial Revolution,
for example, owed everything to Cheap cotton, to the unpaid work
of generations of indigenous peoples who co-produced a variety of cotton
suitable for machine production (G. hirsutum), to the genocides and dispossessions
of the Cherokees and others in the American South, to the
cotton gin which magnified labor productivity fifty-fold, to the enslaved
Africans who worked in the cotton fields. Nor was English industrialization
possible without the previous century’s oppressive gender-fertility
revolution that subjected women’s care and reproductive capacities to
capital’s demographic imperatives.
These snapshots of capitalism’s history tell us that this peculiar system
has always depended on frontiers of Cheap Natures — uncommodified
natures whose work can be appropriated for free or low cost through
violence, cultural domination, and markets. Such frontiers have been
crucial because capitalism is the most prodigiously wasteful system
ever created. This explains capitalism’s extraordinary extroversion. To
survive, it has had to enclose the planet simultaneously as a source of
Cheap Nature, and as a planetary waste dump. Both frontiers, which
allow for radical cost-reduction and therefore profit-maximization, are
now closing. On the one hand, Cheapness is a relationship subject to
exhaustion – workers and peasants revolt and resist, mines are depleted,
soil fertility eroded. On the other hand, capitalism’s enclosure of the
planetary atmosphere and other commons for its wastes has crossed a
critical threshold. Epochal climate change is the most dramatic expression
of this tipping point, where we find global toxification increasingly
destabilizing capitalism’s epochal achievements, its Cheap Food regime
above all. These two strategies, Cheap Nature and Cheap Waste, are increasingly
exhausted, as the geography of life-making and profit-taking
enter a morbid phase. The climate crisis is — as Naomi Klein reminds
us — changing everything. Capitalism’s world-ecology is undergoing an
epochal inversion — or better, implosion — as natures stop being cheap
and starting mounting ever-more effective resistance. Webs of life everywhere
are challenging capital’s cost-reduction strategies, and become a
cost-maximizing reality for capital. Climate change (but not only climate
change) makes everything more expensive for capital — and more dangerous
for the rest of us.
This is the end of Cheap Nature. That’s a huge problem for capitalism,
built on the praxis of cheapening: cheapening in the sense of price, but
also cheapening in the sense of cultural domination. The first is a form
of political economy, whilst the other is the cultural domination that revolves
around imperial hegemony, racism and sexism. Among the most
central problems of planetary justice today is to forge a strategy that links
justice across and through these two moments. Consider that the most
violent and deadly biophysical results of this toxification and economic
stagnation are now visited upon those populations most consistently
designated as Nature since 1492: women, neo-colonial populations, peoples
of color.
This is a dire situation for everyone on planet Earth. But there are
grounds for hope. A key lesson I’ve drawn from studying climate history
over the past 2,000 years is this: ruling classes have rarely survived
climate shifts. The collapse of Roman power in the West coincided with
the Dark Ages Cold Period (c. 400-750). The crisis of feudalism occurred
in century or so after the arrival of the Little Ice Age (c. 1300-1850). Early
capitalism’s most serious political crises — until the mid-twentieth century
— coincided with the most severe decades of the Little Ice Age in the
seventeenth century. Climate determines nothing, but climate changes
are woven into the fabric of production, reproduction, governance, culture...
in short, everything! To be sure, the climate changes that are now
unfolding will be bigger than anything we’ve seen over past 12,000 years.
“Business as usual” — systems of class rule and production and the all
rest — never survive major climate shifts. The end of the Holocene and
dawn of the Geological Anthropocene may therefore be welcomed as a
moment of epochal political possibility — the end of the Capitalocene.
To be sure, capitalism continues. But it’s a dead man walking. What
needs to happen now is radical change that links decarburization,
democratization, decommodification. This will have to turn the logic of
the Green New Deal inside-out. Such a radical vision will take the GND’s
crucial linkage of economic justice, social provision, and environmental
sustainability in the direction of de-commodifying housing, transportation,
care, and education — and ensuring food and climate justice by
de-linking agriculture from the tyranny of capitalist monocultures.
It’s precisely this radical impulse that is at the heart of the world-ecology
conversation. That conversation is defined by a fundamental openness
to rethinking the old intellectual models — not least but not only
Society and Nature — and to encouraging a new dialogue of scholars,
artists, activists, and scientists that explores capitalism as an ecology
of power, production, and reproduction in the web of life. It’s a conversation
that insists: No politics of labor without nature, no politics of nature
without labor; that emphasizes Climate Justice is Reproductive Justice;
that challenges Climate Apartheid with Climate Abolitionism.
The Capitalocene is therefore not some new word to mock the Anthropocene.
It is an invitation to a conversation around how we might
dismantle, analytically and practically, the tyranny of Man and Nature.
It’s a way of making sense of the planetary inferno, emphasizing that the
climate crisis is a geohistorical shift that includes greenhouse gas molecules
but can’t be reduced to matters of parts per million. The climate
crisis is a geohistorical moment that systemically combines greenhouse
gas pollution with the climate class divide, class patriarchy, and climate
apartheid. The history of justice in the twenty-first century will turn on
how well we can identify these antagonisms and mutual interdependencies,
and how adeptly we can build political coalitions that transcend
these planetary contradictions.
https://www.academia.edu/39776872/The_Capitalocene_and_Planetary_Justice
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Jedna od najvecih gresaka danasnjeg kapitalizma (ne grehova, tu ima mnooooogo vecih, nego gresaka) je sto je prestao da placa intelektualce kako valja.
- Guest
То је зато што је капитализам интелектуално неодржив. Те као и свака друга популистичка шарена лажа на точкиће мрзи интелектуалце.
Сад, по интелектуалце је поприлично лоше што је капитализам схватио да је довољно моћан и да не мора више да их поткупљује. А што не мора да буде лоше in the long run, експлоатисани и обезвређени интелектуалац није више класа за себе, него може сасвим лепо да се удружи са остатком раје.
Сад, по интелектуалце је поприлично лоше што је капитализам схватио да је довољно моћан и да не мора више да их поткупљује. А што не мора да буде лоше in the long run, експлоатисани и обезвређени интелектуалац није више класа за себе, него може сасвим лепо да се удружи са остатком раје.
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
No Country wrote:То је зато што је капитализам интелектуално неодржив. Те као и свака друга популистичка шарена лажа на точкиће мрзи интелектуалце.
Сад, по интелектуалце је поприлично лоше што је капитализам схватио да је довољно моћан и да не мора више да их поткупљује. А што не мора да буде лоше in the long run, експлоатисани и обезвређени интелектуалац није више класа за себе, него може сасвим лепо да се удружи са остатком раје.
Pa i nije lose, nego moze lako da bude lose po kapitalizam. Naravno, ne moraju oni na vlasti da zadovoljavaju te ljude, mogu i da cine plezir vecini naroda i mirna Backa. Ali izgleda da ne mogu. Pa se onda hvataju za recimo nacionalizam. A nacionalizam u akutnoj formi ima ogranicen rok trajanja. Jer ili posle izvesnog vremena frizider pobedi televizor/internet ili odvede u neki mega rat.
- Posts : 4503
Join date : 2016-09-29
daj taj mega rat
_____
THE space age is upon us. Rockets are leaving our globe at
speeds unheard of only a few years ago, to orbit earth, moon, and
sun. People have visited the moon, we have sent space probes to
all but one of the planets, and words like "orbit" and "satellite" are
picked up by children in the nursery.
- Posts : 22555
Join date : 2014-12-01
KinderLad wrote:Jedna od najvecih gresaka danasnjeg kapitalizma (ne grehova, tu ima mnooooogo vecih, nego gresaka) je sto je prestao da placa intelektualce kako valja.
Realno, intelektualci su itekako preplaceni.
- Guest
Ах, ти си заборавио у којој су мери фрижидери, замрзивачи или рецимо патике... компатибилне са национализмом.KinderLad wrote:No Country wrote:То је зато што је капитализам интелектуално неодржив. Те као и свака друга популистичка шарена лажа на точкиће мрзи интелектуалце.
Сад, по интелектуалце је поприлично лоше што је капитализам схватио да је довољно моћан и да не мора више да их поткупљује. А што не мора да буде лоше in the long run, експлоатисани и обезвређени интелектуалац није више класа за себе, него може сасвим лепо да се удружи са остатком раје.
Pa i nije lose, nego moze lako da bude lose po kapitalizam. Naravno, ne moraju oni na vlasti da zadovoljavaju te ljude, mogu i da cine plezir vecini naroda i mirna Backa. Ali izgleda da ne mogu. Pa se onda hvataju za recimo nacionalizam. A nacionalizam u akutnoj formi ima ogranicen rok trajanja. Jer ili posle izvesnog vremena frizider pobedi televizor/internet ili odvede u neki mega rat.
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/lucic-to-je-nama-nasa-borba-dala-frizidera-stednjaka-regala/24776419.html
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 4503
Join date : 2016-09-29
_____
THE space age is upon us. Rockets are leaving our globe at
speeds unheard of only a few years ago, to orbit earth, moon, and
sun. People have visited the moon, we have sent space probes to
all but one of the planets, and words like "orbit" and "satellite" are
picked up by children in the nursery.
- Guest
"Интелектуалци нису дигли ништа теже од оловке!"
Национализам није гадљив ни на аутомобиле. Хрватски документарац о ослобађању Вуковара тврди - Жак Клајн потврђује хрватској Милијани Балетић - да је шлаг на торти у ослобађању града било цмољење Аркана и екипе, када су кумили Хрвате да ми "барем допусте да се одвезу у својим скупим аудијима и мерџама".
- Нисмо им дали, наравни - рекао је Жак Клајн (а хрватска Милијана се закикотала) - већ су побегли као зечеви. Онда сам телефонирао мистеру Туђману, који је славио рођендан па испрва није хтео да се јави, али сам му рекао да имам поклон за њега. Он је напокон узео слушалицу а ја сам му рекао Хепи брдеј, мистер президент, ви хев џаст лебаретед Вуковар. И он се заплакао од среће.
Е да, интелектуалци и капитализам, мало сам отишао на странпутицу топнића, шта сам онк 'тео да кажем... Ах, да, да, плаћају се само наставници у хајскуловима: јер се ту по теоријама завере испирају мозгови и праве послушници. А на хуманистици се пушта деконструктивизам за шачицу филозофа и килавих американских ратких боживића, док су главни машинство и биогоија, због војне индустрије. Ово ми тврди Иван Мишковић Брка, Мало ми личи на Филипенка, па ме то штрецне мало-мало па ме штрецне, али човек се куне у петокраку да је то истина.
Национализам није гадљив ни на аутомобиле. Хрватски документарац о ослобађању Вуковара тврди - Жак Клајн потврђује хрватској Милијани Балетић - да је шлаг на торти у ослобађању града било цмољење Аркана и екипе, када су кумили Хрвате да ми "барем допусте да се одвезу у својим скупим аудијима и мерџама".
- Нисмо им дали, наравни - рекао је Жак Клајн (а хрватска Милијана се закикотала) - већ су побегли као зечеви. Онда сам телефонирао мистеру Туђману, који је славио рођендан па испрва није хтео да се јави, али сам му рекао да имам поклон за њега. Он је напокон узео слушалицу а ја сам му рекао Хепи брдеј, мистер президент, ви хев џаст лебаретед Вуковар. И он се заплакао од среће.
Е да, интелектуалци и капитализам, мало сам отишао на странпутицу топнића, шта сам онк 'тео да кажем... Ах, да, да, плаћају се само наставници у хајскуловима: јер се ту по теоријама завере испирају мозгови и праве послушници. А на хуманистици се пушта деконструктивизам за шачицу филозофа и килавих американских ратких боживића, док су главни машинство и биогоија, због војне индустрије. Ово ми тврди Иван Мишковић Брка, Мало ми личи на Филипенка, па ме то штрецне мало-мало па ме штрецне, али човек се куне у петокраку да је то истина.
Last edited by kud_genijalci on Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : 32 типфелера)
- Posts : 11623
Join date : 2018-03-03
Age : 36
Location : Hotline Rakovica
No Country wrote:
Ах, ти си заборавио у којој су мери фрижидери, замрзивачи или рецимо патике... компатибилне са национализмом.
A WC šolje, stone lampe i telefoni... kompatibilni sa demokratijom.
Ili to možda nisu prikazivali na rtv Kanadi.
_____
Sve čega ima na filmu, rekao sam, ima i na Zlatiboru.
~~~~~
Ne dajte da vas prevare! Sačuvajte svoje pojene!
- Posts : 713
Join date : 2015-08-30
Piketi se vraca na scenu u velikom stilu:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/09/thomas-pikettys-new-magnum-opus-published-on-thursday
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/09/thomas-pikettys-new-magnum-opus-published-on-thursday
- Korisnik
- Posts : 4670
Join date : 2015-02-17
I kamen bi pokvarili.
- Guest
sve što se piše i priča o tom slučaju je živi kurac, istina je mnogo gora
kome čovek može da prijavi išta po tom pitanju ja ne znam
jednom sam pomislio da vredi pričati insajderu, ali kada sam video kako su obradili određene teme o kouima sam kao niko i ništa znao 10x više od njih, onda sam bio u fazonu šta koji kurac jebi ga idem ja kod amera
kome čovek može da prijavi išta po tom pitanju ja ne znam
jednom sam pomislio da vredi pričati insajderu, ali kada sam video kako su obradili određene teme o kouima sam kao niko i ništa znao 10x više od njih, onda sam bio u fazonu šta koji kurac jebi ga idem ja kod amera
Similar topics
