Consequences of the economic crisis in figures in 2011

[Philippe Schutt]

Liberalism "promises" that it is the system which ensures the fastest evolution, therefore the most innovation and the most material comfort. It is clear that the other systems have not obtained comparable results.
This at least in the field of production.
In terms of consumption, even if the advertising pushes to consume, the customer remains free to do so or not.
What I find when I go to buy my barrel of laundry or my booze is that people buy any overpriced chemical shit and often 2 carts, 1 is not enough. They stuff themselves with purchases like pigs, until they have slammed all their pay. Where does their money come from they do not care, if it is the same debt, and if it puts their kids in the mud in 20 years still ditto and if the end of the month will be difficult ditto too. What matters is stuffing yourself now!
So I find it very good that they are in shit now, and even I would say that it is not enough. And don't bother looking for a scapegoat, system or whatever ...

[sen-no-sen]

Liberalism "promises" that it is the system which ensures the fastest evolution, therefore the most innovation and the most material comfort. It is clear that the other systems have not obtained comparable results.

ultra-liberalism is only the umpteenth update of a concept which underlies all the others:"economic exponentialism".
Capitalism and communism are only the opposite sides of this same structure.

In terms of consumption, even if the advertising pushes to consume, the customer remains free to do so or not.

It is however a very difficult exercise, because it is necessary to live well with its time, a fortiori when one with children.
We exchange via a computer and the internet, which implies a purchase of equipment, a contract with an operator etc ... all his needs did not exist in the past, and we can not for deprived all of its technological advances, didn't it?

They stuff themselves with purchases like pigs, until they have slammed all their pay. Where does their money come from they do not care, if it is the same debt, and if it puts their kids in the mud in 20 years still ditto and if the end of the month will be difficult ditto too.

I would not generalize these kinds of situations to all citizens, because there are an increasing number of people who have trouble finishing the end of the month.
The accumulation of goods de facto leads to an increase in needs, this forward race leaves many people on the sidelines, this is also ultra-liberalism.
On the other hand, when the dogma is based on unrestrained consumption it is in itself quite logical that the faithful indulge in it.

Advertising, TV, reality TV, are there to put citizens to sleep and keep them in an intellectual torpor, and for the rest, politicians of one extreme as of the other take care to show only the superficial part problems.

So I find it very good that they are in shit now, and even I would say that it is not enough. And don't bother looking for a scapegoat, system or whatever ...

I assure you you will be, and I too, very soon in shit, and you may see that there is not a scapegoat, but an active minority taking advantage of the generalized anomie!

[Ahmed]

Philippe Schutt you write:

Liberalism "promises" that it is the system which ensures the fastest evolution, therefore the most innovation and the most material comfort. It is clear that the other systems have not obtained comparable results.

It is true, but for the benefit of a very small percentage of the population and at the cost of the destruction of nature which will therefore cause a formidable regression. The concept of sustainable development is precisely a gri-gri intended to hide this contradiction.

Further:

They stuff themselves with purchases like pigs ...

Yes, like others with legal or illegal drugs and for the same reason: overcoming their discomfort, was at the cost of a vicious circle ...
In an unbalanced world (but has it ever been?) Is a fully satisfied individual normal?

sen-no-sen you write:

Capitalism and communism are only the opposite sides of this same structure.

Your statement seems to me to confuse the reader, I would put it another way: "Private capitalism and state capitalism were opposed on the ground of international rivalries but participated in exactly the same mechanism".

Further:

... you may see that there is not a scapegoat, but an active minority taking advantage of the generalized anomie!

Certainly, but the minority that shoots the chestnuts from the fire is itself dominated by domination ... which is a norm *!

* If you prefer, the value is imposed against the values.

[sen-no-sen]

sen-no-sen you write:

Capitalism and communism are only the opposite sides of this same structure.

Your statement seems to me to confuse the reader, I would put it another way: "Private capitalism and state capitalism were opposed on the ground of international rivalries but participated in exactly the same mechanism".

Yes if you want, it's the same thing.
When we go back to the source of communism and capitalism we see that despite their apparent differences, its ideologies are based on the same will ... and the same belief: the will to dominate through messianism. ( It was also the spearhead of Nazism ...)

Certainly, but the minority that shoots the chestnuts from the fire is itself dominated by domination ... which is a norm *!

Can you develop, if you want?

[Ahmed]

The idea is taken from a quote from Marx (whose origin I do not know, sorry) and which explains that if domination applies from the top to the bottom of the social scale, the dominant themselves do not escape this domination by themselves since their actions do not that reflect it.
In short, everyone is subject to domination, but for some, it's still more comfortable!

[sen-no-sen]

The idea is taken from a quote from Marx (whose origin I do not know, sorry) and which explains that if domination applies from the top to the bottom of the social scale, the dominant themselves do not escape this domination by themselves since their actions do not that reflect it.
In short, everyone is subject to domination, but for some, it's still more comfortable!

It is indeed much, much more comfortable for certain!
While some gut on the battlefield, others sip champagne while watching the news ...

If indeed the mechanism of domination operates on all individuals, it is clear that at a high level there are "agreements" which strongly limit the violence that this can take for the most deprived populations!

[Philippe Schutt]

The destruction of nature is a habit taken at a time when this was not yet a big problem, regardless of the economic system.
It is up to politicians (from the people) to set the framework in which the economic system works and the protection of nature is part of this framework.
Accusing a system is the best way to hide your face. We are not implicated and nobody is. All victims! It is obliterated that the system only reflects the greed of the population.

[sen-no-sen]

Accusing a system is the best way to hide your face. We are not implicated and nobody is. All victims! It is obliterated that the system only reflects the greed of the population.

Of course!
Nobody said that the population was not an integral part of the system!
If the totalitarian economic system has been so successful, it is precisely because it is based on the tacit agreement of the populations.
Guilt therefore rests on its entirety, in proportion to the degree of participation.

[bamboo]

If the totalitarian economic system has been so successful, it is precisely because it is based on the tacit agreement of the populations.

The agreement is not tacit but explicit: it is always the one who promises the most purchasing power who wins, never the one who asks to make efforts.

[Ahmed]

The question is complex and I do not pretend to be able to answer in a few lines.

The destruction of nature is not a simple matter of habit, it is inherent in the process of valorization and the propaganda about its protection (sic!) Is only one way to confuse the cards.

If politics emanate from the people, it is not they whom they represent; it is a simple spectacular and illusory interface between the great economic interests and the citizens.

To stick to the “greed” of the population is to confuse the consequence with the real cause.