Slashdot Mirror
'The Language of Capitalism Isn't Just Annoying, It's Dangerous' (theoutline.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: When General Motors laid off more than 6,000 workers days after Thanksgiving, John Patrick Leary, the author of the new book Keywords: The New Language of Capitalism, tweeted out part of GM CEO Mary Barra's statement. "The actions we are taking today continue our transformation to be highly agile, resilient, and profitable, while giving us the flexibility to invest in the future," she said. Leary added a line of commentary to of Barra's statement: "Language was pronounced dead at the scene." Why should we pay attention to the particular words used to describe, and justify, the regularly scheduled "disruptions" of late capitalism? Published this month by Haymarket Books, Leary's Keywords explores the regime of late-capitalist language: a set of ubiquitous modern terms, drawn from the corporate world and the business press, that he argues promulgate values friendly to corporations (hierarchy, competitiveness, the unquestioning embrace of new technologies) over those friendly to human beings (democracy, solidarity, and scrutiny of new technologies' impact on people and the planet).
These words narrow our conceptual horizons -- they "manacle our imagination," Leary writes -- making it more difficult to conceive alternative ways of organizing our economy and society. We are encouraged by powerful "thought leaders" and corporate executives to accept it as the language of common sense or "normal reality." When we understand and deploy such language to describe our own lives, we're seen as good workers; when we fail to do so, we're implicitly threatened with economic obsolescence. After all, if you're not conversant in "innovation" or "collaboration," how can you expect to thrive in this brave new economy? [...] Calling our current economic system "late capitalism" suggests that, despite our gleaming buzzwords and technologies, what we're living through is just the next iteration of an old system of global capitalism. In other words, he writes, "cheer up: things have always been terrible!" What is new, Leary says, quoting Marxist economic historian Ernest Mandel, is our "belief in the omnipotence of technology" and in experts. He also claims that capitalism is expanding at an unprecedented rate into previously uncommodified geographical, cultural, and spiritual realms.
These words narrow our conceptual horizons -- they "manacle our imagination," Leary writes -- making it more difficult to conceive alternative ways of organizing our economy and society. We are encouraged by powerful "thought leaders" and corporate executives to accept it as the language of common sense or "normal reality." When we understand and deploy such language to describe our own lives, we're seen as good workers; when we fail to do so, we're implicitly threatened with economic obsolescence. After all, if you're not conversant in "innovation" or "collaboration," how can you expect to thrive in this brave new economy? [...] Calling our current economic system "late capitalism" suggests that, despite our gleaming buzzwords and technologies, what we're living through is just the next iteration of an old system of global capitalism. In other words, he writes, "cheer up: things have always been terrible!" What is new, Leary says, quoting Marxist economic historian Ernest Mandel, is our "belief in the omnipotence of technology" and in experts. He also claims that capitalism is expanding at an unprecedented rate into previously uncommodified geographical, cultural, and spiritual realms.
The Yellow Vests seem to disagree with you that France is doing fine. But true enough that US interference in other countries is a big factor in our refugee "crisis." Look at how we made of mess of Honduras recently.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Hmmm...you mean like Nicaragua? Daniel Ortega, that paradigm of left wing-nut populism, is currently throwing opponents into jail and refuses to allow the people to unelect him. Last we heard, the U.S. hasn't had squat to do with Nicaragua for several decades during which he became Dear Leader, stopped being Dear Leader, and now is Dear Leader again...for life...which may not be long for him.
Cuba has had an exemplary left wing-nut government for many years...still sucks. Try starting a political party there and see what Castro's goons (they are still there after he went all stiff and incommunicado) do to you.
Last we checked, the Central American gangs were winning the drug war, and they won't brook any opposition to their loving rule. Yep, those countries should be breaking out into Left Wing Heaven any day now.
I recall reading a study that looked at flowery language in quarterly reports. The authors found that the more flowery language that was used, the more the company was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of investors to hide looming issues. I would suggest using this to plan your investment strategies.
But think about all the extra money he would make from royalties from the book. A lot of people will pay top dollar to reinforce their views against capitalism.
The biggest problem is that I am not sure if I am being sarcastic or not.
Any conflicts you might have are probably based on the differences between unfettered and controlled capitalism. Capitalism in it's purist form is suicidal. What is surprising is that more people don't realize that an economy based on greed needs some control over that greed. Since greed lies along a spectrum, from people who are altruistic, to people who can and do kill other humans to secure wealth in their sociopathic level of greed. Some want it all.
It also tends toward the common mistake of humans that they don't understand simple math. Pure capitalism will attempt to accumulate all other money, especially in it's corporatism mutant form. The simple math is an equation. If the corporation has no customers, or almost no one can afford to buy their products - it makes no money. If all of the potential customers are out of work because " The actions we are taking today continue our transformation to be highly agile, resilient, and profitable, while giving us the flexibility to invest in the future.." as the lady said, they miss the profitable part.
It's all well and good to make money. A lot of it is fine. I loves me my money. But in today's corporatism/capitalism world, it appears that some folks think you can make money without having any customers. Or by demanding first world prices at the some time as demanding third world wages.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I don't know what it's gonna be replaced by, but capitalism in its actual sense is already dead. The key features are in many areas already gone or on the way out, with competition and the demand side as the decider of the "best" product being two of the most important parts that are already gone or pretty much gone in most areas.
Where they still exist, capitalism still works pretty well. Where they don't, well, it's been replaced by a corporate dictate of products and prices.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"GM is adjusting to the transition from internal combustion engines to electric; it's not one manager or one company, it's the entire industry. Some product lines and manufacturing facilities are obsolescent. Society will move on."
While this is true, it's not insightful. It's misleading.
Sure the "entire industry" is transitioning, hopefully, but the entire industry isn't failing while doing so. Other companies aren't laying off due to obsolesce, in fact there's no evidence that the transition has produced obsolesce at all. Look where GM has laid off, does closing down EV lines look like something a company would do because EV transition has made facilities obsolete?
Democracy is vital to keeping power in check.
This does not appear to be the case.
It still allows the elite to collude and, say, form effectively a bi-partisan" one party system out of it. Or allows a bunch of parties that collude to throw up a "cordon sanitaire" to keep the popular ("populist") voice out of it. Or allows a guy to get himself elected president, then president-for-life. Say the guy who said that "democracy is like a train; you get off when you get where you want to be." (US, various countries in Europe, Turkey(!); other obvious references would be to Russia and, amazingly, the EU with its toothless EP and its many unelected EU-commissars, sitting on top of ostensibly "democratic" countries.)
That is, democracy by and of itself is not sufficient, for it can itself be subborned. You have not shown it is necessary either. Eg. with a vigorous king who regularly chops heads off of his uppity barons so the rest'll keep their heads down (and who otherwise doesn't do much more than give barons jobs to do) you might have decent checks on power as well. Barbaric, yes. Effective, that also. No democracy, yet functional checks on power.
Because the awfulness is disinformed people like you who do not want to learn but are easily manipulated, not refugees looking to stay alive.
Read: The "progressives" like their labour cheap and don't like nay-sayers.
This is a 70s era sociology department trick: If you agree with it, it's true. If you disagree, it's "relative", or the sayers are "disinformed", or what-have-you. Most of the "progressive" "discussion" consists of criticaster character assassination. I see you, too, lack actual arguments. If I were unkind I might surmise you're a liberal arts grad.
Before you continue your character assassination spree, I don't particularly think a big wall is the ultimate answer. Nor is welcoming as many "refugees" as possible. I'm in Europe and my plan would include buying a big chunk of land south of the mediteranean sea, and sending all asylum seekers, refugees, illegal immigrants, together with our "we must do something!" do-gooders there. "We'll do the security (for now), and if you want to know how to do something, ask and we'll gladly tell. We might even pay for the initial outlay of materials. But actually doing the thing is up to you. Now go build yourself a country."
If we could build a physical barrier could keep your kind of willful ignorance out then I'd help build it myself.
I don't agree that disagreeing with the party line constitutes "wilful ignorance". If you think you know better, show us. Merely claiming you know better makes you an acolyte, not a teacher.
Please note: I do not claim to know better, but I do make an effort to show. Somehow I expect that all that'll do is enrage you. Now, if so, why is that?
of the episode of South Park it came from. Randi Marsh didn't care until it was his job, then he was furious and joined the chorus of "They took our jerbs".
This is why we need to push real solutions to the problem. There are a ton of out of work construction workers seeing Mexican and South American immigrants doing the jobs they used to do. Just like there's a mountain of out of work tech workers seeing their jobs go to H1-Bs. Workers in America need to learn solidarity. They need to understand that if you make a living by working you are a member of the working class no matter what color your collar.
If us techies don't start doing that then the blue collar guys are going to get tricked into voting for folks that'll screw us all over. Maybe "tricked" is the wrong word. If they've been abandoned what's the point of caring if the elites in Silicon Valley get screwed? That's where the concept of "stigginit" comes from. Where you're just lashing out.
What's frustrating is that in 2018 we should be able to see these things for what they are: common tactics by our ruling class used to divide and conquer the working class. Race, religion, collar color, wedge issues. Over and over again we see the same pattern. We even have numerous examples of the ruling class talking about how they're going to create issues to separate us (go google the history of how abortion became a political issue in America sometime).
The tricks are all there out in the open, but nobody really seems to call them out on it. Bernie Sanders does I guess (he repeatedly tries to bring folks together) but not sure how far he's gonna get. They're already running adverts on TV against him and he hasn't even announced he's running for the primary...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ben and Jerry's used capitalism to sell mediocre ice cream to sheep willing to pay a higher price to feel good. Starbucks and Apple do the same thing. Apple and Microsoft used capitalism to take pre-existing ideas, repackage them, and sell the result. Apple wrapped them in a pretty package and sold them for more. Microsoft wrapped them in a brown-paper wrapper and sold lots. That is the nature of capitalism, find a consumer for your product. Not everyone wants to wait in line at Starbucks for mediocre, overpriced coffee.
Including banks in the 'too big to fail' comparison of capitalism is wrong. Banks were too big to fail because of the amount of capital they had, not because of their impact on capitalism itself. If Google or Facebook or Twitter failed tomorrow, we would all still move on. Because no one really needs Facebook or Twitter, and many of Google services exist in other forms or software such as Android is freely available.
It was a lie that GM and Chrysler were too big to fail, another company would have purchased them, renegotiated all of the union contracts, and not cost the American taxpayer one dime. The lie was told so politicians could benefit.
The breakup of Ma Bell was good because they owned technology no one else had. Google could be broken up into pieces, ads, tech, etc. But it isn't a matter of no one else having the tech, it's a matter of Google doing it 'better' and attracting more customers. Those subsidiaries would still have a perceived advantage, I'd still buy Android phones because IOS is a POS, in my opinion.
And no, I don't have a Google phone. Because they don't have a monopoly.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Well, copyright didnâ(TM)t exist anywhere until 1710, and then only in England. It didnt spread elsewhere for quite a while, with most of Europe adopting it in the mid 19th century, and the rest of the world (by force through colonialism and imperialism) until the 20th.
But creative works have existed since before written history. So if your contention is correct that creative works wonâ(TM)t be created and published without copyright, please let me know how you explain the existence of works that predate copyright.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Taking is just simple harvesting of a accumulation of resources. It's people and animals naturally do when they come across useful things.
Yes, I was just watching a cat try to take a piece of chicken from another cat. Very natural. Did not turnout well for him.
To maintain exclusive access requires Force to artificially maintained control
Of course it requires force to hold on to something which others wish to take by force. The cat defending its piece of chicken understood that very well. The question is which party is initiating the use of force.
Your use of the appeal to nature fallacy notwithstanding, it's asinine to suggest that the person holding on to what they already have is the one initiating force. It's almost as asinine as suggesting that the concept of ownership is somehow unnatural. Just ask the cats.
Taking is just simple harvesting of a accumulation of resources. It's people and animals naturally do when they come across useful things. also things tend to flow from where there's more to where there is less when allowed to follow natural courses. To hold onto something is to take it out the natural Flows In Cycles. To forcibly prevent natural harvesting of Resources by others that you would like to hold on to. That's the concept of ownership. To maintain exclusive access requires Force to artificially maintained control
If I were in a primitive state of nature, and I had just spent an hour gathering berries to eat by a stream in the sun for my lunch, I don't think it would be very nice (or "natural") for Oog, who spent the morning sleeping in the sun, to take my berries away from me. I wouldn't just hand them over, so Oog would have to initiate the takeover by force to take them from me (hitting me over the head, perhaps, with the thighbone of a deer). Which is when I would be forced to shoot Oog with my Glock 17.
To suggest that it is "natural" for someone to take from another when they come across useful things, and that to hold on to things that one has accumulated is somehow "unnatural", is to describe a world in which I have no desire to live naturally.
I believe that it is right and proper for me to seek to better my circumstances, by accumulating things which will make my circumstances better. And I believe that it is quite natural for me to retain that which I have accumulated for my own use. If I must use force to do so, then my use of force is natural.
There will always be those among us who will seek to better their position the easy way, taking by force or subterfuge that which others have worked to accumulate. I have no use for such people.
Explain to me how creative works can even be encouraged to exist without copyright. Let's say I write a book and spend 6 months on it. I think - all I have to do is sell 10,000 copies and I can afford to sit down and write another book. But no. The first guy who buys a copy starts selling copies of it for pennies and nobody buys it from me. I am broke and destitute and never write a book again. Copyright encourages competition - but only useful competition. Like encouraging there to be other authors out their writing their own books.
Says the poster, who types his response on a browser that is probably open source, on an OS that almost certainly has OSS components (including Windows, which is thought to have a BSD-based networking stack, and OS X, which has an open source kernel, and Android, which is basically Linux), to a web site that is run on open source software, whilest essentially eschewing their own copyright on the comment.
There are many more reasons to produce intellectual work than your extremely narrow-minded model, especially since the current copyright system is a grotesque and oppressive parody of the original intent. At this point, it pushes for computer systems to be crippled, causes the death of orphan works, attempts to destroy the public domain, is used to silence critical speech through DMCA takedowns, and nails down work essentially in perpetuity, which itself is usually built upon concepts, tropes and themes that are usually part of the public domain.
At this point, copyright is an active and direct threat to competition, both free and paid, and becoming worse all the time.