Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kagus]

Or there's that CEO of Nestlé saying how people in developing countries don't understand the true value of clean drinking water; and the only way they'll be able to truly understand just how valuable this necessity of life is, is for Nestlé to be able to bottle and sell their own water to them.

So, really, it's a public service.

[Ulfarr]

Kind of speaks for itself. The big picture from the article however is that neoliberal ideas aren't just some obscure economic policy ideas relevant to banks and governments, it's a "lens" through which society is viewed: a paradigm. The language and abstractions of corporate markets are applied to literally every facet of life, and to do otherwise is viewed as you being a luddite or an apostate. for example, in neoliberalism, you view religion as a marketplace, so the lens is that individuals "freely decide" which religion they want to be based "maximizing the value that the choice delivers" to the individual for choosing that religion. Concepts like self-sacrifice for some greater good become unthinkable in a paradigm like this, so we almost go crazy thinking about people who sacrificed their life for some ideal (whether that's a nation or a religion or anything else), since they obviously didn't maximize their "market self value" like good honest right-thinkers: since all men are corporations, and what corporations do is maximize the value for their shareholders (which is yourself in the individual example) then self-sacrifice is clearly crazy-think. Machiavelli's The Prince is the basic life-guide for everyone from corporate chairmen down to kindergarten kids in this new paradigm.

Maybe the version of The Prince I 've read was altered (being a translation etc) but I'm certain it did account for the more abstract or sentimental concepts that people might value without demonizing them. Surprisingly, the only concept that the author seemed to hold in contempt was the whole "Gain power by any means necessary" and especially when said "means" was just blind violence.

There was at least one specific passage where his own advise to the "prince"  was <<to prefer a loyal ally even in the face of defeat>>.

[Reelya]

Maybe the version of The Prince I 've read was altered (being a translation etc) but I'm certain it did account for the more abstract or sentimental concepts that people might value without demonizing them. Surprisingly, the only concept that the author seemed to hold in contempt was the whole "Gain power by any means necessary" and especially when said "means" was just blind violence.

There was at least one specific passage where his own advise to the "prince"  was <<to prefer a loyal ally even in the face of defeat>>.

Those restrictions aren't necessarily any less selfish. "Gain power by any means necessary" is a bad strategy because it favors short-term success over long term success. Blind violence is ultimately bad because it squanders the very resource you're all fighting over.

And losing a battle now to keep an ally who will be useful in future battles, rather than throwing the ally under a bus for immediate gain, isn't any less self-motivated, it's just more prudent.

[Tack]

I was gonna make a statement about WW1 Germany, then realized they didn’t have any allies.
Hell, Italy and Japan were both on the French side in that one.

Edit: Obligatory mention to the Austro-Hungarians who managed to get their teeth kicked in by the rebels they started the whole war in order to pacify.

[Reelya]

I was gonna make a statement about WW1 Germany, then realized they didn’t have any allies.
Hell, Italy and Japan were both on the French side in that one.

You're forgetting the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. These were quite formidable allies, and a damn sight larger than modern Austria and Turkey. We tend to forget that, and see it as just Germany+Austria+Turkey and ask "what were they thinking, going against the world?". The WWI German side were in fact a decent chunk of the industrial world.

EDIT: we kinda blast the USA for coming in late, but it was pretty much a stalemate up to that point, and Russia had already quit the war, neutralizing the eastern front. The war in Europe was a stalemate, therefore neither side was completely foolish to try. France was screwed, England was depleted and Italy was a joke. Nobody actually managed to invade any of the three central powers. It came down to attrition. Without the fresh influx of American units there would not have been the one-sided armistice.

[MrRoboto75]

it favors short-term success over long term success.

Sounds perfect for a capitalist society then

[Tack]

I did forget the Ottomans, who frankly had their hands full just keeping the territory they had, and whose major claim to fame was “oh hey, the Brits are sitting their boats off this beach, we should fortify it” and “oh hey, they attacked where we fortified it”

Edit:

The war in Europe was a stalemate, therefore neither side was completely foolish to try. France was screwed, England was depleted and Italy was a joke. Nobody actually managed to invade any of the three central powers. It came down to attrition.

Not gonna understate the punching power the Americans brought to the field, but honestly i’d say it came entirely down to the manufacturing. Even if the Germans knew what the landships were, they couldn’t have squeezed a tank factory out of their population so late in the game- and tanks weren’t so much a game-changer as a game-over. The Germans had sapped the last of their materiel supply, the army was starving and morale was shot. Even with colonial troops they could have wandered through the Hindenburg line.

[Reelya]

I did forget the Ottomans, who frankly had their hands full just keeping the territory they had, and whose major claim to fame was “oh hey, the Brits are sitting their boats off this beach, we should fortify it” and “oh hey, they attacked where we fortified it”

EDIT: however, you have to consider what the Turk's war aims were. One of the factors they had was that Russia was threatening to occupy some of their territory to secure the straits out of the Black Sea into the Meditteranean, and this was before the war. The Turks actions in the war put significant strain on Russia, especially, and probably added to Russia's decisions to bow out of the war (and to sign the Treaty of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ceding some territory to the Turks). This can't be completely discounted as an important contribution the Turk's made to their other allies.

[Tack]

I’m gonna go ahead and bow to your knowledge of early modern history, ‘cos let’s be honest literally the only things I know about WW1 is what Dan Carlin has told me.

[Ulfarr]

And losing a battle now to keep an ally who will be useful in future battles, rather than throwing the ally under a bus for immediate gain, isn't any less self-motivated, it's just more prudent.

Yes, but survival after the defeat was not guaranteed. I'm not denying that it was because of self interest, I'm just saying it wasn't always and stricktly about maximazing  tangible profits/power as is commonly criticized for.

In a more peacefull enviroment, the above advise would be pretty much equal to "help your neighbor even if you won't win anything more than a slight chance to make the neighborhood a better place to live" .

[Reelya]

I know enough to google what else I need to know, nothing more. I'm no expert.

[Kagus]

Dammit, edited out the quote about all the Ottomans in France. I now cannot quote it for posteriority.

[Yoink]

Set an alarm half an hour earlier than usual in the hopes of being more on time... my bus was over half an hour late. :|

[Arcvasti]

Today, I have given my essay a title. The notable thing is that this is the first time I've titled an essay in nearly six years. Every other time I've forgotten it.

[scriver]

Title: Don't forget to title the essay this time