Altermondialisten en libcoms op hilarische wijze vernederd in Nairobi

[C2C]

1. Terwijl de Bilderberger groep en nog wat van dat soort 'liberale communisten' op het Wereld Economisch Forum in Davos vergadert over zichzelf en over andere wereldproblemen, houden de andersglobalistjes traditiegetrouw hun Wereld Sociaal Forum ergens in een ontwikkelingsland.

2. Dit jaar in Nairobi, Kenia. Aldaar kwamen tienduizenden van deze weldoorvoede burgerkinderen uit het Westen samengevlogen in jumbojets om wat te zagen over zichzelf en over de arme mensen in de derde wereld. Ze kwamen samen in het luxueuze, in een koloniale sfeer badende Windsor Hotel (vijf sterren), alwaar ze dagelijks een opulente maaltijd en snacks verorberen, aan US$7 per stuk. Ook voor deelname aan deze Armoede-top moest zwaar geld op tafel gelegd worden.

3. En dan nu de derde realiteit: buiten de hekken die de vadsige altermondialisten scheiden van de werkelijkheid, stond al een paar dagen lang een horde straatkinderen te bedelen. In een fantastische samenloop van omstandigheden heeft deze bende vandaag het Windsor overvallen en in een orgie van sarcasme al de heerlijke snacks van de andersglobalisten gestolen en terplekke verorberd. De gemiddelde Keniaan verdient minder dan US$2 per dag; het gemiddelde straatkind stelt het met een eurocent of drie.

Street kids raid poverty summit
Dozens of street children have invaded a five-star hotel food tent and feasted on meals meant for sale at the World Social Forum in Kenya's capital.

De legendarische ongrijpbaarheid, intelligentie, creativiteit en spitsvondigheid die straatkinderen zo kenmerkt heeft symbolisch de bourgeoisie vernederd. Schoner kan niet...


In een briljant en zeer invloedrijk tekstje heeft de magistrale Slavoj Zizek al eerder deze hilarische verhoudingen beschreven.

De moeite waard om even helemaal te lezen.

Nobody has to be vile
Slavoj Zizek
Since 2001, Davos and Porto Alegre have been the twin cities of globalisation: Davos, the exclusive Swiss resort where the global elite of managers, statesmen and media personalities meets for the World Economic Forum under heavy police protection, trying to convince us (and themselves) that globalisation is its own best remedy; Porto Alegre, the subtropical Brazilian city where the counter-elite of the anti-globalisation movement meets, trying to convince us (and themselves) that capitalist globalisation is not our inevitable fate – that, as the official slogan puts it, ‘another world is possible.’ It seems, however, that the Porto Alegre reunions have somehow lost their impetus – we have heard less and less about them over the past couple of years. Where did the bright stars of Porto Alegre go?

Some of them, at least, moved to Davos. The tone of the Davos meetings is now predominantly set by the group of entrepreneurs who ironically refer to themselves as ‘liberal communists’ and who no longer accept the opposition between Davos and Porto Alegre: their claim is that we can have the global capitalist cake (thrive as entrepreneurs) and eat it (endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility, ecological concern etc). There is no need for Porto Alegre: instead, Davos can become Porto Davos.

So who are these liberal communists? The usual suspects: Bill Gates and George Soros, the CEOs of Google, IBM, Intel, eBay, as well as court-philosophers like Thomas Friedman. The true conservatives today, they argue, are not only the old right, with its ridiculous belief in authority, order and parochial patriotism, but also the old left, with its war against capitalism: both fight their shadow-theatre battles in disregard of the new realities. The signifier of this new reality in the liberal communist Newspeak is ‘smart’. Being smart means being dynamic and nomadic, and against centralised bureaucracy; believing in dialogue and co-operation as against central authority; in flexibility as against routine; culture and knowledge as against industrial production; in spontaneous interaction and autopoiesis as against fixed hierarchy.

Bill Gates is the icon of what he has called ‘frictionless capitalism’, the post-industrial society and the ‘end of labour’. Software is winning over hardware and the young nerd over the old manager in his black suit. In the new company headquarters, there is little external discipline; former hackers dominate the scene, working long hours, enjoying free drinks in green surroundings. The underlying notion here is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan, an ex-hacker, who has taken over and dressed himself up as a respectable chairman.

Liberal communists are top executives reviving the spirit of contest or, to put it the other way round, countercultural geeks who have taken over big corporations. Their dogma is a new, postmodernised version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: the market and social responsibility are not opposites, but can be reunited for mutual benefit. As Friedman puts it, nobody has to be vile in order to do business these days; collaboration with employees, dialogue with customers, respect for the environment, transparency of deals – these are the keys to success. Olivier Malnuit recently drew up the liberal communist’s ten commandments in the French magazine Technikart:

1. You shall give everything away free (free access, no copyright); just charge for the additional services, which will make you rich.

2. You shall change the world, not just sell things.

3. You shall be sharing, aware of social responsibility.

4. You shall be creative: focus on design, new technologies and science.

5. You shall tell all: have no secrets, endorse and practise the cult of transparency and the free flow of information; all humanity should collaborate and interact.

6. You shall not work: have no fixed 9 to 5 job, but engage in smart, dynamic, flexible communication.

7. You shall return to school: engage in permanent education.

8. You shall act as an enzyme: work not only for the market, but trigger new forms of social collaboration.

9. You shall die poor: return your wealth to those who need it, since you have more than you can ever spend.

10. You shall be the state: companies should be in partnership with the state.

Liberal communists are pragmatic; they hate a doctrinaire approach. There is no exploited working class today, only concrete problems to be solved: starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women, religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa (liberal communists love a humanitarian crisis; it brings out the best in them), instead of engaging in anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should get together and work out the best way of solving the problem, engage people, governments and business in a common enterprise, start moving things instead of relying on centralised state help, approach the crisis in a creative and unconventional way.

Liberal communists like to point out that the decision of some large international corporations to ignore apartheid rules within their companies was as important as the direct political struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Abolishing segregation within the company, paying blacks and whites the same salary for the same job etc: this was a perfect instance of the overlap between the struggle for political freedom and business interests, since the same companies can now thrive in post-apartheid South Africa.

Liberal communists love May 1968. What an explosion of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! Those who were old enough were themselves protesting and fighting on the streets: now they have changed in order to change the world, to revolutionise our lives for real. Didn’t Marx say that all political upheavals were unimportant compared to the invention of the steam engine? And would Marx not have said today: what are all the protests against global capitalism in comparison with the internet?

Above all, liberal communists are true citizens of the world – good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalism and irresponsible greedy capitalist corporations. They see the ‘deeper causes’ of today’s problems: mass poverty and hopelessness breed fundamentalist terror. Their goal is not to earn money, but to change the world (and, as a by-product, make even more money). Bill Gates is already the single greatest benefactor in the history of humanity, displaying his love for his neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for education, the fight against hunger and malaria etc. The catch is that before you can give all this away you have to take it (or, as the liberal communists would put it, create it). In order to help people, the justification goes, you must have the means to do so, and experience – that is, recognition of the dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches – teaches us that private enterprise is by far the most effective way. By regulating their business, taxing them excessively, the state is undermining the official goal of its own activity (to make life better for the majority, to help those in need).

Liberal communists do not want to be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to have deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion and for spirituality, for non-confessional meditation (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadows brain science, that the power of meditation can be measured scientifically). Their motto is social responsibility and gratitude: they are the first to admit that society has been incredibly good to them, allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth, so they feel that it is their duty to give something back to society and help people. This beneficence is what makes business success worthwhile.

This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Remember Andrew Carnegie, who employed a private army to suppress organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth for educational, cultural and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he had a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give away with one hand what they grabbed with the other.

There is a chocolate-flavoured laxative available on the shelves of US stores which is publicised with the paradoxical injunction: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! – i.e. eat more of something that itself causes constipation. The structure of the chocolate laxative can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape; it is what makes a figure like Soros so objectionable. He stands for ruthless financial exploitation combined with its counter-agent, humanitarian worry about the catastrophic social consequences of the unbridled market economy. Soros’s daily routine is a lie embodied: half of his working time is devoted to financial speculation, the other half to ‘humanitarian’ activities (financing cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countries, writing essays and books) which work against the effects of his own speculations. The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like the two faces of Soros: on the one hand, a cruel businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at a virtual monopoly; on the other, the great philanthropist who makes a point of saying: ‘What does it serve to have computers if people do not have enough to eat?’

According to liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: charity is part of the game, a humanitarian mask hiding the underlying economic exploitation. Developed countries are constantly ‘helping’ undeveloped ones (with aid, credits etc), and so avoiding the key issue: their complicity in and responsibility for the miserable situation of the Third World. As for the opposition between ‘smart’ and ‘non-smart’, outsourcing is the key notion. You export the (necessary) dark side of production – disciplined, hierarchical labour, ecological pollution – to ‘non-smart’ Third World locations (or invisible ones in the First World). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the entire working class to invisible Third World sweat shops.

We should have no illusions: liberal communists are the enemy of every true progressive struggle today. All other enemies – religious fundamentalists, terrorists, corrupt and inefficient state bureaucracies – depend on contingent local circumstances. Precisely because they want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global system, liberal communists are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the system. It may be necessary to enter into tactical alliances with liberal communists in order to fight racism, sexism and religious obscurantism, but it’s important to remember exactly what they are up to.

Etienne Balibar, in La Crainte des masses (1997), distinguishes the two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence in today’s capitalism: the objective (structural) violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the automatic creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the subjective violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) fundamentalisms. They may fight subjective violence, but liberal communists are the agents of the structural violence that creates the conditions for explosions of subjective violence. The same Soros who gives millions to fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to his financial speculations and in doing so created the conditions for the rise of the intolerance he denounces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/zize01_.html


Zoals de stalinistische partij-discipline het vereist, ben ik het volledig eens met Zizek wanneer hij (in andere teksten) stelt dat, nu Lenin en Marx de idolen van de kapitalisten zijn geworden, het hoog tijd is om staalhard stalinisme voor te staan. Dat is de enige weg die de progressieve krachten rest om de strijd tegen de libcoms en de andersglobalisten te winnen.

[C2C]

Allez, ik ben hier dus duidelijk den enige met gevoel voor humor.

Ofwel is die thread over de "Nieuwe Wereld Orde" ook bijzonder komisch en zit daar al het volk. Ik zal eens gaan zien.

[StevenNr1]

"Street kids raid poverty summit", pijnlijk.
Van uw Engels tekstje heb ik (sorry) enkel de eerste alinea's gelezen.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door C2C

1. Terwijl de Bilderberger groep en nog wat van dat soort 'liberale communisten' op het Wereld Economisch Forum in Davos vergadert over zichzelf en over andere wereldproblemen, houden de andersglobalistjes traditiegetrouw hun Wereld Sociaal Forum ergens in een ontwikkelingsland.

2. Dit jaar in Nairobi, Kenia. Aldaar kwamen tienduizenden van deze weldoorvoede burgerkinderen uit het Westen samengevlogen in jumbojets om wat te zagen over zichzelf en over de arme mensen in de derde wereld. Ze kwamen samen in het luxueuze, in een koloniale sfeer badende Windsor Hotel (vijf sterren), alwaar ze dagelijks een opulente maaltijd en snacks verorberen, aan US$7 per stuk. Ook voor deelname aan deze Armoede-top moest zwaar geld op tafel gelegd worden.

3. En dan nu de derde realiteit: buiten de hekken die de vadsige altermondialisten scheiden van de werkelijkheid, stond al een paar dagen lang een horde straatkinderen te bedelen. In een fantastische samenloop van omstandigheden heeft deze bende vandaag het Windsor overvallen en in een orgie van sarcasme al de heerlijke snacks van de andersglobalisten gestolen en terplekke verorberd. De gemiddelde Keniaan verdient minder dan US$2 per dag; het gemiddelde straatkind stelt het met een eurocent of drie.

Street kids raid poverty summit
Dozens of street children have invaded a five-star hotel food tent and feasted on meals meant for sale at the World Social Forum in Kenya's capital.

De legendarische ongrijpbaarheid, intelligentie, creativiteit en spitsvondigheid die straatkinderen zo kenmerkt heeft symbolisch de bourgeoisie vernederd. Schoner kan niet...


In een briljant en zeer invloedrijk tekstje heeft de magistrale Slavoj Zizek al eerder deze hilarische verhoudingen beschreven.

De moeite waard om even helemaal te lezen.

Nobody has to be vile
Slavoj Zizek
Since 2001, Davos and Porto Alegre have been the twin cities of globalisation: Davos, the exclusive Swiss resort where the global elite of managers, statesmen and media personalities meets for the World Economic Forum under heavy police protection, trying to convince us (and themselves) that globalisation is its own best remedy; Porto Alegre, the subtropical Brazilian city where the counter-elite of the anti-globalisation movement meets, trying to convince us (and themselves) that capitalist globalisation is not our inevitable fate – that, as the official slogan puts it, ‘another world is possible.’ It seems, however, that the Porto Alegre reunions have somehow lost their impetus – we have heard less and less about them over the past couple of years. Where did the bright stars of Porto Alegre go?

Some of them, at least, moved to Davos. The tone of the Davos meetings is now predominantly set by the group of entrepreneurs who ironically refer to themselves as ‘liberal communists’ and who no longer accept the opposition between Davos and Porto Alegre: their claim is that we can have the global capitalist cake (thrive as entrepreneurs) and eat it (endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility, ecological concern etc). There is no need for Porto Alegre: instead, Davos can become Porto Davos.

So who are these liberal communists? The usual suspects: Bill Gates and George Soros, the CEOs of Google, IBM, Intel, eBay, as well as court-philosophers like Thomas Friedman. The true conservatives today, they argue, are not only the old right, with its ridiculous belief in authority, order and parochial patriotism, but also the old left, with its war against capitalism: both fight their shadow-theatre battles in disregard of the new realities. The signifier of this new reality in the liberal communist Newspeak is ‘smart’. Being smart means being dynamic and nomadic, and against centralised bureaucracy; believing in dialogue and co-operation as against central authority; in flexibility as against routine; culture and knowledge as against industrial production; in spontaneous interaction and autopoiesis as against fixed hierarchy.

Bill Gates is the icon of what he has called ‘frictionless capitalism’, the post-industrial society and the ‘end of labour’. Software is winning over hardware and the young nerd over the old manager in his black suit. In the new company headquarters, there is little external discipline; former hackers dominate the scene, working long hours, enjoying free drinks in green surroundings. The underlying notion here is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan, an ex-hacker, who has taken over and dressed himself up as a respectable chairman.

Liberal communists are top executives reviving the spirit of contest or, to put it the other way round, countercultural geeks who have taken over big corporations. Their dogma is a new, postmodernised version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: the market and social responsibility are not opposites, but can be reunited for mutual benefit. As Friedman puts it, nobody has to be vile in order to do business these days; collaboration with employees, dialogue with customers, respect for the environment, transparency of deals – these are the keys to success. Olivier Malnuit recently drew up the liberal communist’s ten commandments in the French magazine Technikart:

1. You shall give everything away free (free access, no copyright); just charge for the additional services, which will make you rich.

2. You shall change the world, not just sell things.

3. You shall be sharing, aware of social responsibility.

4. You shall be creative: focus on design, new technologies and science.

5. You shall tell all: have no secrets, endorse and practise the cult of transparency and the free flow of information; all humanity should collaborate and interact.

6. You shall not work: have no fixed 9 to 5 job, but engage in smart, dynamic, flexible communication.

7. You shall return to school: engage in permanent education.

8. You shall act as an enzyme: work not only for the market, but trigger new forms of social collaboration.

9. You shall die poor: return your wealth to those who need it, since you have more than you can ever spend.

10. You shall be the state: companies should be in partnership with the state.

Liberal communists are pragmatic; they hate a doctrinaire approach. There is no exploited working class today, only concrete problems to be solved: starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women, religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa (liberal communists love a humanitarian crisis; it brings out the best in them), instead of engaging in anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should get together and work out the best way of solving the problem, engage people, governments and business in a common enterprise, start moving things instead of relying on centralised state help, approach the crisis in a creative and unconventional way.

Liberal communists like to point out that the decision of some large international corporations to ignore apartheid rules within their companies was as important as the direct political struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Abolishing segregation within the company, paying blacks and whites the same salary for the same job etc: this was a perfect instance of the overlap between the struggle for political freedom and business interests, since the same companies can now thrive in post-apartheid South Africa.

Liberal communists love May 1968. What an explosion of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! Those who were old enough were themselves protesting and fighting on the streets: now they have changed in order to change the world, to revolutionise our lives for real. Didn’t Marx say that all political upheavals were unimportant compared to the invention of the steam engine? And would Marx not have said today: what are all the protests against global capitalism in comparison with the internet?

Above all, liberal communists are true citizens of the world – good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalism and irresponsible greedy capitalist corporations. They see the ‘deeper causes’ of today’s problems: mass poverty and hopelessness breed fundamentalist terror. Their goal is not to earn money, but to change the world (and, as a by-product, make even more money). Bill Gates is already the single greatest benefactor in the history of humanity, displaying his love for his neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for education, the fight against hunger and malaria etc. The catch is that before you can give all this away you have to take it (or, as the liberal communists would put it, create it). In order to help people, the justification goes, you must have the means to do so, and experience – that is, recognition of the dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches – teaches us that private enterprise is by far the most effective way. By regulating their business, taxing them excessively, the state is undermining the official goal of its own activity (to make life better for the majority, to help those in need).

Liberal communists do not want to be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to have deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion and for spirituality, for non-confessional meditation (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadows brain science, that the power of meditation can be measured scientifically). Their motto is social responsibility and gratitude: they are the first to admit that society has been incredibly good to them, allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth, so they feel that it is their duty to give something back to society and help people. This beneficence is what makes business success worthwhile.

This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Remember Andrew Carnegie, who employed a private army to suppress organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth for educational, cultural and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he had a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give away with one hand what they grabbed with the other.

There is a chocolate-flavoured laxative available on the shelves of US stores which is publicised with the paradoxical injunction: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! – i.e. eat more of something that itself causes constipation. The structure of the chocolate laxative can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape; it is what makes a figure like Soros so objectionable. He stands for ruthless financial exploitation combined with its counter-agent, humanitarian worry about the catastrophic social consequences of the unbridled market economy. Soros’s daily routine is a lie embodied: half of his working time is devoted to financial speculation, the other half to ‘humanitarian’ activities (financing cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countries, writing essays and books) which work against the effects of his own speculations. The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like the two faces of Soros: on the one hand, a cruel businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at a virtual monopoly; on the other, the great philanthropist who makes a point of saying: ‘What does it serve to have computers if people do not have enough to eat?’

According to liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: charity is part of the game, a humanitarian mask hiding the underlying economic exploitation. Developed countries are constantly ‘helping’ undeveloped ones (with aid, credits etc), and so avoiding the key issue: their complicity in and responsibility for the miserable situation of the Third World. As for the opposition between ‘smart’ and ‘non-smart’, outsourcing is the key notion. You export the (necessary) dark side of production – disciplined, hierarchical labour, ecological pollution – to ‘non-smart’ Third World locations (or invisible ones in the First World). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the entire working class to invisible Third World sweat shops.

We should have no illusions: liberal communists are the enemy of every true progressive struggle today. All other enemies – religious fundamentalists, terrorists, corrupt and inefficient state bureaucracies – depend on contingent local circumstances. Precisely because they want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global system, liberal communists are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the system. It may be necessary to enter into tactical alliances with liberal communists in order to fight racism, sexism and religious obscurantism, but it’s important to remember exactly what they are up to.

Etienne Balibar, in La Crainte des masses (1997), distinguishes the two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence in today’s capitalism: the objective (structural) violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the automatic creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the subjective violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) fundamentalisms. They may fight subjective violence, but liberal communists are the agents of the structural violence that creates the conditions for explosions of subjective violence. The same Soros who gives millions to fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to his financial speculations and in doing so created the conditions for the rise of the intolerance he denounces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/zize01_.html


Zoals de stalinistische partij-discipline het vereist, ben ik het volledig eens met Zizek wanneer hij (in andere teksten) stelt dat, nu Lenin en Marx de idolen van de kapitalisten zijn geworden, het hoog tijd is om staalhard stalinisme voor te staan. Dat is de enige weg die de progressieve krachten rest om de strijd tegen de libcoms en de andersglobalisten te winnen.

Dit is ironisch, hoop ik . "Liberaal-commmunisten"?
En dan die laatste paragraaf over "staalhard stalinisme", you must be joking.

[Mamaloe]

Zeg, C2C, ik hoop wel dat je begrijpt dat die hele tekst van Zizek gewoon een en al sarcasme is t.o.v. van "liberale communisten" zoals Bill Gates?

Jij haalt deze tekst aan als een ondersteuning van je mening, maar wat Zizek bedoelt is net het tegenovergestelde! Hij wil er nu net op wijzen dat zelfs die zogenaamde "liberal communists" die miljoenen per jaar aan goede doelen uitgeven (zoals Bill Gates) de realiteit niet kunnen veranderen.

En die realiteit is: de grote kloof tussen arm en rijk die het kapitalisme creëert, of het nu in het tijdperk van Watt is of in het tijdperk van het Internet (zie het citaat van Marx, dat hij zeker niet toevallig gebruikt...)

En ja, ik heb heel veel van Zizek gelezen. Het is eigenlijk een schande dat de liberalen hem misbruiken omdat hij ooit per toeval presidentskandidaat was op een liberale lijst in Slovenië.

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mamaloe

Zeg, C2C, ik hoop wel dat je begrijpt dat die hele tekst van Zizek gewoon een en al sarcasme is t.o.v. van "liberale communisten" zoals Bill Gates?

Jij haalt deze tekst aan als een ondersteuning van je mening, maar wat Zizek bedoelt is net het tegenovergestelde! Hij wil er nu net op wijzen dat zelfs die zogenaamde "liberal communists" die miljoenen per jaar aan goede doelen uitgeven (zoals Bill Gates) de realiteit niet kunnen veranderen.

En die realiteit is: de grote kloof tussen arm en rijk die het kapitalisme creëert, of het nu in het tijdperk van Watt is of in het tijdperk van het Internet (zie het citaat van Marx, dat hij zeker niet toevallig gebruikt...)

En ja, ik heb heel veel van Zizek gelezen. Het is eigenlijk een schande dat de liberalen hem misbruiken omdat hij ooit per toeval presidentskandidaat was op een liberale lijst in Slovenië.

Inderdaad. De twee belangrijkste punten:

1) Zelfs de mensen die miljoenen per jaar geven kunnen de boel niet omdraaien. Want niet betekent dat ze moeten stoppen met geven, alle beetjes helpen.

2) Die antiglobalistische en andere soortgelijke groepen stellen niets voor en kunnen beter stoppen met hun waardeloos gedoe.

[Samsa]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mamaloe

Zeg, C2C, ik hoop wel dat je begrijpt dat die hele tekst van Zizek gewoon een en al sarcasme is t.o.v. van "liberale communisten" zoals Bill Gates?

Jij haalt deze tekst aan als een ondersteuning van je mening, maar wat Zizek bedoelt is net het tegenovergestelde! Hij wil er nu net op wijzen dat zelfs die zogenaamde "liberal communists" die miljoenen per jaar aan goede doelen uitgeven (zoals Bill Gates) de realiteit niet kunnen veranderen.

En die realiteit is: de grote kloof tussen arm en rijk die het kapitalisme creëert, of het nu in het tijdperk van Watt is of in het tijdperk van het Internet (zie het citaat van Marx, dat hij zeker niet toevallig gebruikt...)

En ja, ik heb heel veel van Zizek gelezen. Het is eigenlijk een schande dat de liberalen hem misbruiken omdat hij ooit per toeval presidentskandidaat was op een liberale lijst in Slovenië.

ik denk dat je C2C's bedoeling verkeerd hebt ingeschat. hij doet ook heel minachtend (en heel terecht) over die 'liberale communisten'

[eno2]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Antoon

Inderdaad. De twee belangrijkste punten:

1) Zelfs de mensen die miljoenen per jaar geven kunnen de boel niet omdraaien. Want niet betekent dat ze moeten stoppen met geven, alle beetjes helpen.

2) Die antiglobalistische en andere soortgelijke groepen stellen niets voor en kunnen beter stoppen met hun waardeloos gedoe.

Het andersglobalisme oefent een zware druk uit op elke politieke agenda en zal dat steeds succesvoller blijven doen, of de neoconnetjes dat nu willen erkennen of niet...

Steeds meer hoogst invloedrijke andersglobale personen nemen trouwens zowel aan beide toppen deel. Nairobi én Davos.

Moets je ook eens proberen, Antoon en C2C...

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eno2

Het andersglobalisme oefent een zware druk uit op elke politieke agenda en zal dat steeds succesvoller blijven doen, of de neoconnetjes dat nu willen erkennen of niet...

Steeds meer hoogst invloedrijke andersglobale personen nemen trouwens zowel aan beide toppen deel. Nairobi én Davos.

Moets je ook eens proberen, Antoon en C2C...

Dat een aantal onder hen hun drie eigen ambities waarmaken (macht, macht en macht), daar twijfel ik niet aan. Maar eens aan de macht doen ze precies hetzelfde als de rest.

Wanneer ik schreef over de lulligheid van hun gedoe dat moet worden afgeschaft, dan had ik het meer concreet over de frequente meetings in vijfsterrenhotels die zich bevinden middenin straatarme hongerlijders, en waar het resultaat niets meer is dan veel geld voor een snoepreisje te hebben uitgegeven. Ah ja, en strategie voor de eigen postjes te hebben besproken.

[eno2]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Antoon

Dat een aantal onder hen hun drie eigen ambities waarmaken (macht, macht en macht), daar twijfel ik niet aan. Maar eens aan de macht doen ze precies hetzelfde als de rest.

Wanneer ik schreef over de lulligheid van hun gedoe dat moet worden afgeschaft, dan had ik het meer concreet over de frequente meetings in vijfsterrenhotels die zich bevinden middenin straatarme hongerlijders, en waar het resultaat niets meer is dan veel geld voor een snoepreisje te hebben uitgegeven. Ah ja, en strategie voor de eigen postjes te hebben besproken.

Kan je ook nog aan iets anders doen dan ongeïnformeerd innuendo?
Andersglobalisme is een basisbeweging.
Dat die ook hun kopstukken hebben uit het establishment, zoals Nobelprijswinnaars en dergelijke, en zelfs politiekers in de hoogste functies, is geen argument tegen de basis, waar natuurlijk wel veel meer hongerlijders toe behoren.

Jouw kritiek is totaal lobsided en je weet het.

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eno2

Kan je ook nog aan iets anders doen dan ongeïnformeerd innuendo?
Andersglobalisme is een basisbeweging.
Dat die ook hun kopstukken hebben uit het establishment, zoals Nobelprijswinnaars en dergelijke, en zelfs politiekers in de hoogste functies, is geen argument tegen de basis, waar natuurlijk wel veel meer hongerlijders toe behoren.

Jouw kritiek is totaal lobsided en je weet het.

Niks te lobsided. Die beweging was in den beginnen eerbiedwaardig, hoewel ik zelfs dan reeds twijfels had over de echte motieven van aandachtzoekers als josé Bové bijvoorbeeld.

Maar vandaag is heel het verhaal samen te vatten in de tekst ter inleiding van deze thread. En die dure meetings in vijfsterrenhotels temidden van uitgehongerde mensen ( die blijkbaar geen lid zijn van de beweging ) is qua symboliek vrij pertinent.

[eno2]

Lobsided van twee kanten dan?
En wat zijn zijn echte motieven?
In de bak komen?

Veel van de uitgehongerden zijn lid van onze beweging.
Ze maken die beweging.
Dat kan je van de jouwe niet zeggen.
Neoconnetje.

[evilbu]

Het doet me een beetje denken aan die aflevering van South Park waarin een hele groep bekenden afzakt naar Costa Rica voor een benefietoptreden voor het regenwoud om zich goed te voelen, maar niet de moeite doet om ook dat regenwoud effectief te gaan bekijken.

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eno2

Veel van de uitgehongerden zijn lid van onze beweging.
Ze maken die beweging.

...maar dat soort 'leden' moeten wel van buiten de hekken toekijken hoe jullie binnen in een vijfsterrenhotel je dikke buiken volvreten met sandwichkes �* 7 euro stuk .

Laat me niet lachen, bende inefficiënte, hypocriete profiteurs.

[StevenNr1]

In het artikel lees ik nu nog net dat het beleid daarna is bijgestuurd, men heeft er dus wel rekening mee gehouden.

[Raven]

Woehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha

Doet me denken aan de anti-oorlogsbetoging door Belgische vredesactivistjes. Lekker wemelent in hun haat tegen het kapitalisme, komt daar toch enkele Kosovaren tegenbetogen zekers.

Laat dit lessen zijn voor de wereldverbeteraars uit België. Ze weten niet waarover ze praten, ze weten niet hoe het er in't echt aan toegaat. Als ze dan echt goed willen doen, dat ze zich bezig houden met de sociale toestanden van het eigen land (zoals armoede onder vlamingen, en bejaardenzorg)