That's why it's called predictive analysis...Originally Posted by Dayuhan
That's part of it, but that's mostly driven by Brazil, China, India, etc. But none of them are no more committed to maintaining the Western capitalist system any more than the US was committed to maintaining the European colonial system. How that transfer of power will proceed remains to be seen, if it ever comes to pass.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Rewording what I said and using it as a reply is not productive communication.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
And those "specific local governance conditions" exist within a larger and specific international context of global capitalism. The Middle East is not experiencing any pan-Arab nationalist revolution as was seen in the final decades of European imperialism or a religious revolution like in Iran or Afghanistan. The revolutions are attributable to exposed elites vulnerable to the political, economic, and cultural forces of globalism. This does not imply that some magical hand is flying around the world tipping over tin-pot dictatorships -- the people are harnessing the ideas, technologies, and material powers to enact revolution. This is a direct consequence of the global regime in place.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Another word for speculation.
They're committed to joining and profiting from the global economy. Many others in the developing world are doing the same with equal or greater success, though being smaller they get less attention. I see nothing revolutionary about that... evolution perhaps, but not revolution.
The revolutions are attributable to to exposed elites hung on their own corruption, ineptness, and ossified social structures, and to increasingly frustrated populaces who want more. The Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan elites didn't inspire revolt because they were exposed to the forces of "global capitalism", they inspired revolt because they sucked at governing. That's nothing unusual: dictatorships tend to lose their mojo over time, and eventually the rot goes terminal and the people take to the streets. Not all that different from Paris in 1789 when you get right down to it. The hypothetical connection to "global capitalism" seems strained well beyond the breaking point.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Yep. And there's entire professions dedicated to it so your condescension towards speculation is very much irrelevant to this discussion.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
So long as they are powerless to change the conditions to better suit their interests. The world looks different when you're on top of it.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
That's what I said... "exposed elites...," "the people harnessing the ideas, et.al...," So what "more" do the people want and from where do they draw their enablers, motivations, and ideals? What ideological language are they speaking? Are they speaking the language of nationalism or Islamism? No, they are speaking the language of liberalism, democracy, and human rights. These things were not suddenly invented in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
I did not say exposure to global capitalism "inspired" revolution in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. I stated that the elites were vulnerable to the "political, economic, and cultural forces" of global capitalism. The elites did not necessarily "suck" at governing -- they did what governments are designed to do: maintained the privileges of those in control of it. But that position is not tenable in the international context of democracy, liberalization, modernization, and human rights. So a Tunisian lit himself on fire because he was tired of being beat up by the police -- what was the system in place that compelled him into that situation, and what alternatives exist? Did the Tunisian mob invent democracy? Liberalism?Originally Posted by Dayuhan
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
I think American Pride's understanding of the cause of revolution can be expressed quite succinctly: "The Man is keeping me down." "The Man" in this case is the 1% who are the leaders of Western Capitalism (whatever that is). While this may be true, it is rather unenlightening because of its generality.
A few days back this post by Bill Moore appeared on the Musa Qala thread. I think that the first quoted line, replacing the place name (Helmand) with just about any other place name where reaction to the status quo is occurring or has occurred, captures American Pride's desired causal nexus much better than some appeal to a global movement against the current forces of Western Capitalism.
The Tip O'Neil quote that is the subject of this post says about as much on the causes of revolts and other popular upraising and outcries as the historical evidence of such events seems to support.
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
Yes, fortune-tellers abound. Whether or not there's much point in listening to those who claim the ability to predict the future is another story, unless there's some concrete reason to believe that they actually can. Speculation may be entertaining but it makes a poor basis for policy, and I don't see a great deal that's analytical about it... especially when, as is so often the case, it derives primarily from ideologically driven preconceptions.
They're tired of being kicked around and they perceive vulnerability on the part of those doing the kicking. I see no connection to "the forces of global capitalism". These are local events driven by local issues.
They did it badly and they failed at it, ergo they sucked at it.
Revolts against aging, vulnerable despots have occurred ever since aging, vulnerable despots appeared as a feature of human social organization. I see no special connection to these "forces of global capitalism".
Last edited by Dayuhan; 01-20-2012 at 12:01 AM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Bookmarks