Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us | Paul Verhaeghe We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces. But over decades of research and therapeutic practice, I have become convinced that economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities. Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If you’re reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others. There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. It’s important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you’ve got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges.
Neo-liberal capture of the policy making process in Europe Mainstream macroeconomics has mounted a range of arguments over the years to argue against any discretionary involvement by governments or regulators in the economy. The claim is always that the ‘market’ will self regulate and weed out bad players and produce the best outcomes with the least resources each period of activity. Various fancy terms are introduced into textbooks that make these arguments seem to have scientific weight. It called on the European Commission (which is just about to change Presidency) “to tackle the persistent over-representation of corporate interests in European Commission ‘expert groups'”. ALTER-EU was formed in 2005. Two interesting research papers released by the group are: 1. 2. The 2009 Report examined the role of so-called ‘Expert Groups’, which are formed by the European Commission as consultancies to advise it on policy. Expert Groups play a significant role in the development of European legislation both through the Parliament and the Council. 1. 2.
Esclavage salarié Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. L'expression « esclavage salarié » vient de l’anglais wage slavery. C'est un concept qui cherche à définir la situation des salariés qui ont légalement (de jure) accepté un emploi et se sont ainsi soumis à l'autorité de l'employeur, mais qui, dans la pratique (de facto) seraient des esclaves. L'esclavage salarié suppose l'idée que le choix entre travailler pour un patron et mourir de faim, ne constitue aucunement un choix libre. Cela relève plutôt d'une aliénation, purement établie par l'homme (« de l'homme sur l'homme ») et fondée à sa base sur une relation d'asservissement. En tant que concept, dans une société capitaliste[modifier | modifier le code] L'esclavage salarié en tant que concept est une critique du capitalisme, lorsqu'une minorité de personnes contrôle tous les moyens de production (le capital). En tant que condition de classe[modifier | modifier le code] Pour Marx, cette situation de classe repose sur :
Wage Slavery Quote: "It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and to highlight similarities between owning and employing a person." You're attacking a literal interpretation of a figurative comparison. So of course, no one literally means to say that wage laborers are actually slaves in every sense of the word. It's merely a comparison of many similarities -- one of which is not the accruement of wages, obviously... Again, you are focusing on obvious differences between the two, while ignoring many intriguing similarities. You say wage laborers can easily do something else if they don't like their wages, yet it's often the case that there exists a lack of feasible alternatives for very low-skilled workers, such that they have very little options to choose from. Of course if you "agree" to sell your labor, you aren't a slave. I don't think anti-wage-slavery implies some notion of entitlement of compensation. In conclusion:
Der Mythos der freien Presse Warum die Mainstreammedien “Mainstream” sind Foto: jeanbaptisteparis / Flickr / CC Der hier vorgestellte Artikel datiert bereits aus dem Jahr 1997 (Originaltitel: What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream), und war ursprünglich ein Vortrag, den Noam Chomsky im Juli des betreffenden Jahres im Z Media Institute hielt. Allerdings ist der Artikel, der sich mit der inneren Struktur der amerikanischen Medienlandschaft auseinandersetzt, auch für den Zustand der europäischen Presse relevant, und hat (leider) nichts von seiner Aktualität eingebüßt – im Gegenteil. Chomsky zeigt einmal mehr auf, warum unsere Leitmedien kein Gralshüter der Demokratie mehr sein können. Von Noam Chomsky Ich schreibe unter anderem deshalb über die Medien, weil ich mich für das intellektuelle Klima insgesamt interessiere und weil die Medien der Bestandteil dieses Klimas sind, der am leichtesten zu untersuchen ist. Das sind drei wichtige Informationsquellen, wenn wir etwas über die Natur der Medien erfahren wollen.
Corporate power has turned Britain into a corrupt state | Seumas Milne If you're under attack, create a diversion. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have been floundering as the spectre of Westminster sleaze has returned to haunt them. Four years after the MPs' expenses scandal engulfed British politics, yet another alleged scam has been exposed. First a Tory MP and then a clutch of greedy peers were caught on camera apparently agreeing to take cash from journalists posing as representatives of foreign companies. "Make that £12,000 a month," grinned Jack Cunningham, Tony Blair's former "enforcer". Cameron and Clegg had promised to deal with parliamentary influence-peddling, and done nothing about it. The contemptuous class cynicism of the coalition leaders' response takes some beating. Even Conservative MPs were embarrassed at the crude chicanery of it. The truth is that parliamentary sleaze merchants are small fry in the corporate lobbying game. But lobbying doesn't begin to cover the extent of corporate influence. That's before you get to the politicians.
De la servitude moderne Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. De la servitude moderne est un livre écrit en 2007 par Jean-François Brient[1]. En mai 2009, il bénéficie d'une adaptation cinématographique sous forme de film documentaire monté par Victor León Fuentes. Il est diffusé gratuitement dans plusieurs langues et sous plusieurs formats dans certains lieux alternatifs en France et en Amérique latine[2]. Synopsis[modifier | modifier le code] L’œuvre dénonce la condition d’esclave de l’homme moderne, et décrit le monde contemporain comme un « totalitarisme marchand ». La thèse défendue, correspond à l'idée que désormais, la dictature ne s'exerce plus par un homme. Mais, et c'est là où le film se rapproche du Discours de la servitude volontaire d'Étienne de La Boétie, si cette servitude perdure, s'il existe des maîtres c'est parce que les esclaves ont choisi de demeurer esclaves et non pas parce qu'il existe des maîtres. Fiche technique[modifier | modifier le code] Chapitres[modifier | modifier le code]
Bertrand Russell Russell led the British "revolt against idealism" in the early 20th century.[58] He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege, colleague G. E. Moore, and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein. He is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.[55] With A. N. Whitehead he wrote Principia Mathematica, an attempt to create a logical basis for mathematics. Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism[60][61] and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I.[62] Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.[63] In 1950 Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought Biography Early life and background Early career
Programmes | Power of Nightmares re-awakened The Power of Nightmares - first screened in Autumn 2004 and repeated last week on BBC Two - questions whether the threat of terrorism to the West is a politically driven fantasy and if al-Qaeda really is an organised network. The BBC has been inundated with correspondence, some critical much of it very positive. Viewers were invited to put their questions to the writer of the series, Adam Curtis. Here he responds to some of those correspondents, chosen to represent a broad selection of your questions. I know you have already been asked, but PLEASE, PLEASE, release the series on video or DVD Peter Grant, London The problem is that the films are full of archive film and music from a multitude of sources. But so many people have now asked for the series to be released in this form that I think it probably will happen. NOTE: News about the Power of Nightmares and in particular availability of a DVD or video will be published on this website. I have sat through your documentary tonight. No.
Our Economic Ruin Means Freedom for the Super-Rich by George Monbiot The model is dead; long live the model. Austerity programmes are extending the crises they were meant to solve, yet governments refuse to abandon them. The United Kingdom provides a powerful example. The cuts, the coalition promised, would hurt but work. They hurt all right – and have pushed us into a double-dip recession. This result was widely predicted. Two questions arise. Surely the corporate class and the super-rich – the only people the government will listen to – can see that these policies are destroying the markets on which their wealth relies? To understand this conundrum we should first understand that what is presented as an economic programme is in fact a political programme. Neoliberals claim that we are best served by maximising market freedom and minimising the role of the state. As Colin Crouch shows in The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism, the state and the market are not, as neoliberals insist, in perpetual conflict. So where is the economic elite?
Les habits neufs de l’esclavage 1L’esclavage, comme la traite des esclaves, a été une pratique soutenue, codifiée, instituée par les États. Puis, à partir de la fin du xviiie siècle, avec le développement d’une internationale abolitionniste transatlantique et les luttes des esclaves eux-mêmes, l’esclavage a été encadré, réglementé, pour être progressivement officiellement aboli. Enfin, l’esclavage a fait l’objet d’interdits internationaux, de sanctions pénales internes et apparemment d’une réprobation morale universelle. 2De fait, la loi abolit tel ou tel statut juridique et non telles ou telles conditions d’existence qui rendent possibles, sur tous les continents, l’apparition de formes historiques inédites d’exploitation du travail. 3Au fond, la question primordiale posée par les abolitions se résume en ces termes : comment envisager le passage de la coercition au travail libre ? 6Au demeurant, aux Antilles et à la Réunion, 1848 n’instaure pas cette rupture radicale proclamée par les manuels.