Comments

1

tnstaec wrote (edited )

It's more about class, but race is a factor. If you're in some sort of professional position you're an "expat". If you're in a labor position you're not. The distinction is really supposed to be about duration of stay in a given country, but who do you think has and easier time leaving the host country?

EDIT: Really, we should say it's about country of origin rather than race. African-Americans or Asian Britons would universally be categorized as expat. Someone coming from a South American, African or Asian country would be far less likely to be called so.

3

tnstaec wrote

The Kim dynasty is falling apart under its own weight and self-destructive behavior. I give the current dictator another decade or so. As for what comes next, well... possibly a military bureaucracy would take over and reform the system to look more like China or Myanmar. Or maybe the regime would collapse entirely. In either scenario it becomes very likely that the North is reintegrated into the capitalist world order. I get the sense that if the North is "liberated" it will basically become an almost slavery level of capitalist exploitation by Southern companies. What little labor organzing even exists in the South will be torn apart by pro- and anti-"immigrant" in-fighting (as is usually the case around the world).

At least the Korean peninsula being nuked off the face of the planet is relatively less likely.

5

tnstaec wrote

It's mostly being pushed by corporate interests under false pretenses. There's enough food in the world for everyone; it's inefficient distribution under capitalism that starves people. Even the discourse around the science is being intentionally muddied by Monsanto, Cargill, Syngenta, etc. Might be a reasonable technology for a sensible society to pursue, but not this one.

4

tnstaec wrote

The problem is that it works too well. If it didn't, it wouldn't have taken over the world so completely. For a system to successfully replace it, participation in it must be more compelling than capitalism. And as we know, capitalism has some nasty tricks up it's sleeve to keep everyone in line.

13

tnstaec wrote (edited )

To be honest, I'm surprised to hear that there's still a movement to speak of. At this point I get about the same reaction to a Zeitgeist reference as I would to rage comics, I can haz cheezburger, or some other dated meme.

More substantially: Zeitgeist always struck me as a mishmash of unrelated theories. The first documentary included the Christ Myth Theory (which is not widely accepted by most historians, theological or secular), questions the official story of 9/11 (also not widely accepted, largely just because it's a taboo position, but also often done from a credulous, conspiracy theory perspective) and techno-utopianism (more accepted, but different proposals vary in acceptability).

In short, pretty naive and poorly-informed ideas; the kind that would seem profound (and did to many) upon first hearing, but aren't actually very well-thought out. Stoner-type speculation, in other words. But now that I know these guys are still around, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and allow that their theories have matured and developed sophisticated reasoning to support them.

EDIT: I checked out their website, and in fact their theories have matured and developed coherence. They clearly discovered systems theory, which is still lacking in most anarchist thought. I'm largely in agreement with their analysis of some of the problems facing humanity, but their proposals for dealing them still seem hazy. Their focus is mostly on economics and the environment, but they apparently don't have a lot to say about society. And I'm still not on board with the "post-scarcity" concept (admittedly I haven't read that Bookchin book). Overall I would say that they're making a noble effort, but I'm not at all convinced that there aren't already more workable approaches available.