I transfer here the answer of
Obamot which followed a message I had sent on the Ukraine war feed:
Ahmed wrote:
Perhaps if we don't talk about anthropotechnics, it's because that's not the subject?
Yes, I tripped over the carpet a bit, but in the end not so much since you say that the war is its “paroxysmal” exacerbation? Besides, how many “real” journalists would be able to write an intelligent story about it?Ahmed wrote:
2) I think that we can begin to see things a little clearly if we reason on two successive levels. First on that of geostrategy. It is a fairly limited tool, which can only answer certain questions and whose use is certainly currently being abused, but which is suitable for a rough first approach. There is a shift in the center of power, from Europe (in the broad sense) to the Pacific zone. However, there is a rule that minor conflicts take place at the periphery: this was well illustrated by the long series of armed conflicts of the Cold War. Going to the peripheral zone means we have to suffer this kind of inconvenience (sic).
In principle, this should be a minor conflict, but if we understand you correctly between the lines, it is not...Ahmed wrote:
3) However, this does not explain the root of the problem, even if it has the inestimable advantage of allowing endless commentary on all the marvelous facets of the foreign policies of each of the stakeholders...
Isn't this a big gap to cut short the reflection on this problem - of shifting the geopolitical center of gravity towards the East - or an elegant way to make us understand it without having to go and dive into a complexification from which it would be difficult to escape unscathed. Anyway, that's what I'm trying to understand by “not thinking myself” (it seems that since Kant: “we couldn't anymore”?) There I would say that on the contrary, I would like to hear an explanation on this “anthropotechnical drift from the West to the East”, since thus formulated, it is paradoxically more a matter of magnetic attraction than of warlike confrontation. (which would prove how fake it is), but no one has your equal in telling us what is fake, why and how it fits.Ahmed wrote:
4) The other plan is more complex (I would have warned you, don't come complaining!). On the one hand, any system always goes to the end of its possibilities, as Bertrand Méheust liked to write, but there inevitably comes a moment when the circumstances which made it operational disappear, either spontaneously, or in the case which interests us. because he himself brought about this change by the mere fact of his development.
In terms of going all the way, what the Russians wanted from the EU was more rapprochement than conflict, they had previously worked extensively in this direction for decades, with regular sticks in the wheels... Geostrategic question, it was therefore quite clever (but hideous and unsustainable) to force the completion of the possible towards war (which will only postpone a rapprochement until later, when the hypocrisy of bipolar stigmatization , will have moved us away from the war...) between neighbors are we not condemned to get along according to Méheust?Ahmed wrote:
5) The sprinkling of substitute liquidity had made it possible for a long time (and more and more) to simulate the operation of part of the "normal" mechanism of production of abstract value which is seized up, but the threat of "peak All" limits the usual strategy of headlong rush and renders it obsolete. The economy cannot be reduced to a simple rivalry between competitors, that would be too limited a vision: it is in fact a war against the living (in the broadest sense, therefore including against humans). It must be admitted that the sometimes very ambiguous benefits of technology are only appreciable because their negative sides are carefully externalized (which also promotes conflict).
If one agrees, by an unusual gymnastics of the mind, to consider that any expenditure of energy conceals a potential violence, then one will understand that war is only a paroxysmal form of the economy and that it fully finds its place when the usual economy finds itself in a deadlock situation: this is the case with tectonics, which can often release its power by fairly continuous, small-scale shifts, but in the presence of obstacles, it accumulates tensions which are released suddenly and very brutally.
It is this last point that I saw in the process of materializing for ten years... Thinking perhaps a little naively that things would eventually work out, but that was without counting on the "until- endianness” of the parties involved. And more particularly from the West, since according to the Western propagandist narrative (“we are on the right track as a democracy, much more advanced than dictatorships, and much more responsible for the outcome of things”) ...and therefore if we are to believe this speech, it was the Westerners who had to see it coming, give guarantees to Russia, to give it time to reach a higher maturity in its quest for its own maturation democratic state. Quite the opposite happened...Ahmed wrote:
6) The current tropism towards “strong” and very right-wing regimes (in an open form or in a more hypocritical way) which suddenly find themselves trivialized and legitimized is only the transposition to politics of this new state of affairs. I had already described this easily foreseeable evolution a long time ago. Another manifestation of this is the enthusiasm aroused by the programs of the various nations for rearmament, I will not insist on this.
The transposition, the one that is debating and that is divisive so far even in this forum, is the paradoxical reversal of roles between right and left! The former having improvised, forced to become the guarantors of certain values of the latter, which the latter betrayed after being enticed by a kind of “social liberalism” somewhat modeled on the Germanic model, but leaving the door open open to economic and financial liberalism, and to all-out speculation (after letting the wolves into the sheepfold!)
This created a stir in a forum “rather on the left” who found himself accused (wrongly) of having gone to the other extreme. Which seems totally unfounded to me in view of the above... And it seems to leave everyone a little hungry, some having lost their minds... (troubled period that was coming, just as I had announced at Remundo at the very beginning of the year)!
***************************************************** ***************************************************** ***************************************************** *********************************
I pass on the first paragraph to answer the second.
2) I can not comment on the degree of seriousness of these events, all I can say is that we must carefully avoid reading between the lines and be satisfied with what is stated positively. So, normally it should remain peripheral, but unforeseeable circumstances can change an initial trajectory...
3) The drift observed results from the differentiated state of the various economies. Although it would be inappropriate to distinguish stricto sensu an "old" capitalism from a "young" capitalism, it should be noted that the methods of its operation differ according to this temporal criterion and that the old industrial nations accumulate a certain number of handicaps which limit its performance, not that the most recent are exempt from it, but the latter still have a greater margin of maneuver, if only in terms of physical resources and especially the ability to control the population. This, I repeat, does not mean that basically the crisis situation is not global, but that particular modalities induce noticeably different situations at a time T (and can thus lead to erroneous analyses).
4) On this point, it is going a little hastily by presupposing the good faith of
poutine, because the latter is in no way inferior in terms of bad faith to its American competitors. Let's say rather that the two parties use all the subterfuges to advance their pawns. As for invoking
B. Meheust, still it would be necessary to do it wisely and not to extrapolate unduly: it is easier to argue with your neighbors than with distant strangers...
But here we fall back into the journalistic rut...
5) It is a gross misunderstanding of what I wrote to reduce it to the single issue of "West versus Russia". This conflict suits many governments despite the inconveniences it generates (it hides, by accentuating it, the previous crisis situation and provides a certain way out in rearmament). In an absolutely general way, it is absolutely necessary to have an enemy, because it is easier to unite a people against something or someone than for a common positive cause. The USSR had long held this essential role for the West and especially for the USA (the converse being of course true); from this point of view, the new Russia takes up this attribution...
6) This last paragraph is important. If we oppose the right and the left, we cannot hope to understand anything, since it is precisely this false antagonism which is the keystone of political systems and their mystifying character (no conspiracy there- inside!). Right and left are the two sides of the system and the different positions can be the fact of one or the other party depending on the time (as I mentioned a little while ago), as long as they perpetuate their opposition . This alternation of convictions is a sign both of the desire (not necessarily conscious) to distort the judgment of voters and offers the attentive observer confirmation of the irrelevant nature of this apparent duality.
As suggested
F.Fukuyama in his end of History, representative democracy represents the ultimate in a prosperous economy and as he imagined that the vocation of the economy was to eventually spread universal prosperity, he had no doubts about the generalization of this mode of government. What followed, of course, proved this propaganda work wrong. In periods of difficulty, all economies are forced to resort to interventionist measures (which is not equivalent to dictatorship). If we examine situations that are no longer cyclical, but structural, we understand the attraction for "muscular" forms of governance. But I will have the opportunity to develop this last point.