world we live preview

[eclectron]

Educational video by Gabriel Rabhi on money, debt, crisis, unemployment, democracy and the environment (a little bit of environment)
We should all learn in school what is presented in this video.
There are sometimes some inaccuracies but overall I find the work done very well done, given the scale.
Someone has at least had the merit of synthesizing all these subjects in a didactic way and in addition to leaving some clues for the future.

Almost 2 hours is a bit long but in several stages, it works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syAkdb_TDyo

There is a short version (not seen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKX76J7j9os

[Ahmed]

I took the time to watch the first video and, if we put aside a certain spelling laxity, here is what basically inspires me.

The history of the "invention" of money is singularly simplistic and grossly false, at least by omission; the question of exchanges without money, then with money does not take into account the essential, which is the transition from an exchange of concrete wealth (qualitative *) to a system in which concrete wealth is no more than the pretext for the accumulation of abstract (quantitative) wealth.
On the essence of the matter, the author, like many similar documents, tries to present the financial mechanisms to the general public in a theatrical aspect, claiming to "reveal" the foundations of an extraordinary scheme, while , if it is quite clear that many abuses slip into this process, these abuses in no way explain the principal perversity of this functioning and that the idea of ​​an economy freed from its determinisms is nonsense.
If the consequences of the power of money are generally well seen, albeit in an equivocal way (he speaks of environmental damage, a sign of anthropocentrist continuity), his conclusions are oversimplified, which clearly show that 'he is incapable of situating himself outside the categories of what he condemns. On the question of democracy, I quote "guaranteed by the state" (without laughing!), He invokes as people likely to "shake up" the established order by "enlightening" the (so few) citizens, also characters questionable that Soral, Zemmour, Dieudonne and a few others, all eminently counter productive references!
The identification of responsibility for the (real) oligarchy in the establishment and maintenance of the system is an annoying shortcut and a dishonesty which veils the fact that those who lead are themselves only agents obeying common determinisms, that drive us all to varying degrees.

No, these are not SELs, UKs that he does not bother to analyze, which will undermine the economy as we know it and suffer it; it is not the drawing of people's representatives that will suffice to establish a true democracy ...

* If an individual exchanges potatoes for shoes, it is because the quality of these products is not intended to satisfy the same needs: everyone has an interest in procuring what they lack on an equal basis. On the contrary, exchange in a capitalist context is only of interest (this is the case to say!) If, at the end of the exchange, the initial sum committed in the production of goods makes it possible to recover a higher sum. Hence the need for growth. This simple fact also explains the extraordinary growth of the financial industry which is now alone capable of increasing the enormous mass of capital, which the physical industry can no longer achieve.

[eclectron]

if we put aside a certain spelling laxity

This is a good introduction, recurrent in your home, promoting exchange and dialogue: pointing the finger at the faults of others, breaches of the rules ...
With such a spirit, very French and very academic, to point out the negative in the other, rather than the positive in the work accomplished, no wonder that nothing is moving in this sclerotic society.

Perfection will never be in this world, you have to accept being wrong to undertake.
Go hi!

[Ahmed]

The idea of ​​money creation "ex nihilo" which seems so shocking Gabriel Rabhi is not false, however it is only one possible form of exposure of this concept and one can legitimately present it quite differently, for example in the form of a trusted third party (the bank) which guarantees a debt (a commitment to repayment later) and which, for this service, is remunerated by a fraction of this debt (interest), nothing extraordinary in there ... It does not explain at any time that the role of Credit has radically changed from the medium of real activity to the only possibility of achieving the functional condition of capitalism: the increase in the mass of abstract wealth.
By focusing on this particular point, the author exempts himself from the trouble of analyzing the real causes which make that the economy is, in essence, the cause of the progressive destruction of living conditions on earth ...

@ Eclectron: I would point out to you that this is only an introductory remark and that, as announced, I am focusing all my attention on the substance of what is on display and that I would have given a positive review, even with a lot no more mistakes, if the content of the comments had justified it. Except I see nothing here but the umpteenth version of a hackneyed speech, such as we find for example in the muddy theory of the "Zeitgeist" ...

[sen-no-sen]

The documentary is pretty well done ... graphically speaking.
For the rest, the basic analysis remains quite subjective and naive and refers somewhat (even if this is not clearly explicit) to recent movements such as "night standing", "the indignant", and more broadly to what some call it "dissent".
It is on this last point that the analysis takes water, and I agree with the opinion Ahmed on this subject.
The "dissidence" of the net as presented in the documentary, smokes just as much by its work of "re-information" (sic!) The public than the traditional media, therefore have little to imagine that if its last came to power, society would be dominated by the same determinisms and the same quirks as currently ...

[eclectron]

Ahmed et sen-no-sen, we do not have the same way of approaching the thing.
You stop on the detail without going further and grasp what might be interesting in what is presented. It is this attitude of sniper and not of builder, that I deplore.

1) I do not endorse all this dissidence from the net presented in the video either, however that does not mean that these people presented have nothing interesting to say, sometimes. You have to filter.

2) we must also take this as an illustration of the fact that the mainstream media, dependent on the system in place, self-censor themselves by serving a conventional discourse perpetuating the said system.

Conclusion: the net can allow the expression of an innovative speech, that's all that I remember from this passage of the video.
I do not remember that he presented people for certain all the time sulfurous, for others from time to time sulfurous and finally others never sulfurous.
See I am less demanding than you, I prefer to focus on the good and leave the bad aside.

Nobody has spoken about it but it doesn't matter whether G Rabhi is qualified, rightly or wrongly, as far right, I don't care, what matters is whether the speech presented is fair or not, on the merits.
So the spelling we fight the c ... ..lles

If the speech is false, we say where and we explain.
Not with words stuffed like "determinisms" where everyone puts what they want in it. Mine are not necessarily those of the neighbor. You have to explain to be intelligible.

If the speech is incomplete, we complete and we do not simply say it is incomplete, it does not matter to the reader, if not more confusion.
This is what I expected from your comments.

Kind regards.

[Ahmed]

You will believe me or not, but I would also like things to be simpler and, if that were the case, I would only use simple words to explain it (although I doubt that it would then be necessary, since everyone would understand spontaneously! ).

If you want to find something "good" in this kind of document, it is always in the same place that you have to look: the critical part, in its phenomenal aspects (excluding the reservations that I expressed previously); I would make the same comment on this as for "Home" or "Zeitgeist" and many others ... Unfortunately, the causes of the phenomena are treated in a truncated and inaccurate way which increases the confusion of readers instead of enlightening them , as the authors claim to do. In particular, explicitly or not (as is the case here), is often referred to as a conspiratorial nebula * responsible for all that is exposed. Another point, which follows from the previous one, would be that it would be enough to thwart this conspiracy for everything to become "normal" again. This to the detriment of a true analysis which would take into account what I call "the determinisms", things which cannot be apprehended spontaneously since they work, by nature, outside our immediate consciousness. You will find numerous illustrations of this in the writings of Laborit, in terms of biological determinisms or in Marx as regards socio-economic determinisms or even in Roddier for thermodynamic determinisms ...

* Not in "Home" and other analogues since it is the only moral causality which is then advanced as explanatory cause. In this type of simplistic explanation, it would suffice to give up greed or hybris to restore a disturbed order.

[sen-no-sen]

If the speech is false, we say where and we explain.

Be careful, I am not saying that the speech is false, I would rather speak of naivete.
This does not prevent that the informative aspect of this documentary can constitute an interesting educational support, but it has its limits.
As for the author's supposed acquaintance with this or that part of the left or the right, we "don't give a damn about it" as you say, that is not the question.

Not with words stuffed like "determinisms" where everyone puts what they want in it. Mine are not necessarily those of the neighbor. You have to explain to be intelligible.

By determinisms we must understand - and this is quite easily verifiable in history - that certain mechanisms at work in nature reproduce systematically whatever the scale.
So even by breaking free from the financial oligarchy, the new replacement system would quickly introduce new predation mechanisms (case of Communism).
The economy is not just a simple tool used to finance goods and services,economics is a process.
One could even say that the economy is an entity acting for the advent of the new era.
It is therefore quite naive to believe that changing a few rules would be enough to get rid of our misfortunes, as is the case in the discourse on renewable energies.

[lilian07]

Hello,
Well seen sen-no-sen, me what I deplore precisely, it is as soon as there is a human activity there is 'non determinism' therefore an unstable and perverted system in the long term. The economy being the best example and this popularization shows very well the mechanisms of '' perversion '' at stake.
As the whole economic system is a virtuous 'mathematical' process, it is always failing with bodies such as banks and other economic agents. Popularization can also show that this system is essential to human activities and that it is inseparable from an activity when one leaves the wild life of "hunter-gatherer" ... I would say that it is in the In the image of man, the problem is that the economy of "infinite" growth amplifies the capacities to draw on finite resources, which brings with it its end in this process. The economy will certainly evolve with the scarcity of energies, unfortunately not the needs of humanity (see the new systems of sharing, carpooling, uberisation, crowfouding ...).
I also join electron on the importance of focusing on simple things that often allow a better understanding of phenomena. Simplicity also has the advantage of focusing and prioritizing the essentials of a problem but often difficult to obtain depending on each person's vision and sensitivity.

[Ahmed]

"focusing on simple things" is precisely what consumerism manages to lead us to; it invites immediate and effortless understanding, which is in accordance with its interests. A perfect illustration of this is the "selection of the reader's digest", a pre-chewed and harmless digest, which should suffice to satisfy (and therefore limit) the curiosity of the general public.

Lilian07, your reading grid is the exact opposite of mine! The prevailing economism easily explains that the economy can appear to be a basic historical datum *; that the theoretical "beauty" of the system can be altered by the moral weakness of men: is it not the soup that the most critical fraction of those who speak willingly in the name of all (like the "appalled economists" serve us) , Mélanchon and many others)?
A closer study of realities that are difficult to grasp in their subtle complexities (things do not appear as they are) shows that the name "economy" covers very different and above all, historically anachronistic facts; the error lies in our propensity to project into the past mechanisms which are only recently at work with regard to history, but which seem to us to have existed from all eternity if we relate it to our personal experience, necessarily limited. This rather natural tendency is encouraged by the media, since it reinforces the validity of the system by naturalizing it: how could we rebel against what would be part of our essence?
In reality, this is a fable and the economy becomes what it is from the moment when it no longer serves only indirectly the needs of men, but the achievement of an absurd purpose which is the infinite increase of the accumulation of abstract value. From this simple point flows everything else and the so-called immorality of men is completely useless to explain the tragic consequences which follow from it (Adam Smith ** was very clear on this last point (I quote from memory and on the substance): "the prosperity of men does not depend on individual virtue, but on the contrary on the selfishness of each one, who by pursuing his personal interest contributes to satisfy common needs at best "). Naturally, this fine optimism was invalidated in the course of events ...
Of course it is the men who are ultimately responsible, but everything passes as if the "system" had an independent existence, in the sense that it presents itself as a fetish, as stated Marxthe reason is that individually it is impossible to abstain from it, only the option remains to conform to it, thus each one is an agent of the system and not an actor; it is in this sense that we can speak of determinism.
The difference of point of view (and not opinion!) Between Sen-no-sen and myself, is that it takes place within the framework of a more general global determinism and that I prefer to restrict my field of investigation to the capitalist period, which is only a particular phase of application and functioning of these determinisms.

* As in earlier times theological considerations were evidently imposed ...
** Moralist and pioneer economist of the free market ...