recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : interdependency   6

Andrew Yang is the most radical 2020 candidate
"Going all the way back to the Roman republic, the owners of wealth have repeatedly sought to maximize their share of the common weal at the expense of those who work for them, leading to periodic crises as the plebes rise up and demand a fairer share. We may be in another such moment. Sanders's theory of political change revolves around a political revolution — a citizenry mobilized by a champion of conviction who wins a sweeping majority to enact his transformative agenda. Warren's theory of political change is less clearly articulated, but her solutions aim to build lasting support by giving a vast array of workers and small businesspeople a stake in a more competitive and less oligopolistic economy. But both imagine a world still anchored by work, and getting workers a fair share.

If that world is passing away, then we ought to be facing the happy problem Marx described, where "society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind." But the rub has always been who that "society" actually is. If a productive interdependency is going to be replaced by an outright dependency, then even if that dependency is as benevolently administered as Yang hopes it might be, we face the prospects of a more profound social revolution than he has bargained for."
politics  californianIdeology  technopoly  andrewyang  technosolutionism  elections  policy  2019  2020  society  wealth  berniesanders  elizabethwarren  karlmarx  interdependency  dependency  universalbasicincome  revolution  radicalism  via:ayjay 
april 2019 by robertogreco
From Trump to Merkel: how the world is divided between fear and openness | Ulrich Speck | Opinion | The Guardian
"Two major concepts define the political struggle in the west today. One can be termed “globalism”, which is currently most prominently represented by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. The other is “territorialism”, a view that the very likely Republican candidate for the US elections in November, Donald Trump, represents.

At the core of the debate is the meaning of borders: should they be porous or tightly controlled? Are they mainly an obstacle to the free and productive flow of ideas, people, goods and information and should therefore be largely dismantled? Or are massive borders welcome and indispensable as a protection against all kinds of real or perceived threats such as competition and terrorism?

For globalists such as Merkel, interconnectedness is a good thing because it is what drives progress towards more prosperity and freedom everywhere. For territorialists such as Trump, interconnectedness is mainly a threat. What is good and healthy is attributed to the natives and what is dangerous comes from outside: unfair Chinese competition, dangerous Mexican immigrants and Middle Eastern terrorists.

Globalists want to manage the cross-border streams and minimise the disruptive character of borders to maximise the gains from connected markets and societies. Of course those streams have to be managed and this is why governance cannot any more be limited to the national territory. Governments need to co-operate and set up regional and global institutions; they need to set rules and make sure that these rules are upheld. Globalists argue among themselves about how to police the wider spaces but not about the principle.

Territorialists, by contrast, don’t believe in international and transnational institutions – they believe in national strength and power. Donald Trump wants to invest in the US military so that it’s “so big and strong and so great” that “nobody’s going to mess with us”. The world outside the borders is anarchical and dangerous and the way to deal with threats is to fight them by using force. “Bomb the shit out of Isis,” Trump said. Allies are not an asset, they are a burden because they are free riders, cheating on America’s taxpayers: “We can no longer defend all of these countries,” he said, citing Japan, South Korea and Germany.

The man who may be the next US president also proposed closing off parts of the internet so terrorists could not use to recruit. The territorialist’s answer to the abuse of freedom and openness is to use force abroad and to disrupt the flow of people or information. Trump wants to build “the greatest wall that you’ve ever seen” on the US-Mexican border, to keep illegal immigrants out.

Territorialists believe they can prosper economically even while interrupting, diminishing and shutting cross-border flows. Jobs must be brought back, free trade agreement renegotiated because they are unfair to Americans. US companies such as Ford must be punished for investing abroad. Apple should build its “damned computers” in the US and not in China. Countries such as China, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam and India are “ripping us off” and need to be punished.

Trump is, rhetorically, the most aggressive politician of this sort, but he’s far from alone. US commentators have blamed the Republican party for capitulating to populists for years, allowing Trump to harvest what others have planted. And Europe has its own share of territorialists, who share many of Trump’s views. Marine Le Pen in France, leader of the Front National, stands a good chance of winning the first round of next year’s French presidential elections. Then there’s Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary, who rose to international prominence by making the case for “illiberal democracy” and for his determination to respond to the refugee crisis solely by building massive fences. Territorialism is a form of populism: simple, inconsistent answers to complex challenges, based on the politics of fear. Territorialists divide the world into friends and foes; they attribute everything positive to the natives and everything negative to those beyond the borders.

But the biggest problem with territorialism is not polarisation, it is that the concept is deeply flawed. Territorialists suggest that people can have their cake and eat it: disrupt globalisation and stay rich, minimise investment in international affairs and alliances and remain safe and free. They take the huge gains in prosperity, security and freedom of the last decades for granted. They fail to understand that those gains depend on massive investments of nation states in international order, and that globalisation is based on open societies and increasingly easy cross-border flows of goods, people and information. In other words, if territorialism wins, globalisation is under threat.

Merkel thinks we are indeed at a crossroads; the refugee crisis is part of a larger challenge that she describes as “our rendezvous with globalisation”. For her, the key challenge is how to keep globalisation afloat in spite of increasing geopolitical conflicts and tensions. Merkel is one of the few western leaders who has lived in a country that was unfree, poor and isolated from the west by a wall and fences secured by mines. She was 35 years old when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. She knows what it means to be shut off from global flows, locked in a country by an insurmountable border. For Merkel, globalisation equals progress. Open spaces and increased interaction across borders are a good thing, as they unleash opportunity and secure freedom and prosperity at home. Globalisation is challenging, but on balance the gains are much bigger than the risks. Also, in a world of large economic regions such as the US and China, the space in which German politics operates cannot be limited to the German territory any more.

Open borders in Europe are “deeply in our interest”, she argues; no other country gains from those achievements “more than us” and needs them more “because of our geographical location”. But responsibilty goes beyond the shared European space: “In an open world we also have to take on more responsibility for what happens outside our European borders.” Open borders in Europe are under threat. The refugee crisis, driven by the war in Syria, is testing the Schengen system that was set up in 1995. It is unclear whether the system is going to survive this stress test and what a revival of borders means for the EU.

Governments are torn between the desire to protect the joint space created by European integration and the pressure from territorialist forces whose narrative often dominates the debate. If they want to retain the achievements of globalisation, centrist forces need to start pushing back. They need to start making a much stronger case for open borders and open societies."
globalism  territorialism  donaldtrump  angelamerkel  2016  politics  borders  interconnectedness  interdependency  ulrichspeck  globalization  provincialism  policy  us  europe  polarization  interconnected  interconnectivity 
march 2016 by robertogreco
Solidarity without Affect: The MLA Subconference Enters Its Second Year | Yasmin Nair
"Because each of them has dealt viscerally with how their individual universities engage or, rather, brutally disengage from their surrounding environments, they have no illusions about the transformative power of the university as an agent for positive change. Carpenter knows first-hand the tensions between the gentrifying power of Duke and the onslaught felt by residents of Durham; Strayer has been looking at Johns Hopkins’ role in the drone-making industry, and so on.


If we are to rethink the meaning of academic institutions and their material and conceptual presence in our lives, we have to consider the varying and often horrifically brutal roles they play in their built and unbuilt surroundings. Which will also mean going beyond arguing for and about wage labour or job security or the creation of more tenure lines, the issues that are most likely to capture the imagination of academics and their allies. Instead, we have to consider the university as simultaneously the site of great potential — as the committee put it to me, perhaps even as a transitional space that can engender radical thinking — and a site of enormous potential destruction.

This will also mean dispensing with some of the angry and embittered rhetoric hurled against the university as elitist and exclusionary because of what is often termed “inaccesible” and “jargon-filled” language and research. While those charges can sometimes stick, we tend to forget that they’re usually made, with ominous regularity, only against those disciplines like those of language and literature. Consider the fetishisation and even glamorisation of physics, for instance, a far more inscrutable field than poetry. As a result, over the last few decades, organisations like the MLA have grasped at straw after straw, aiming darts at an ever-moving target, imploring its graduates to resort to any number of survival techniques: Blog More! Blog Less! Learn Another Trade! Specialise!

But the results have been dire. Or, as the subconference’s description of the 2015 event puts it,
Living wages AND reduced labor time, healthcare, and accessible and affordable education must be understood as the conditions under which our mutual social aid and academic lives will thrive, rather than a cost that capital must bear. For far too long, those of us in higher education have been willing to make compromises that we thought would save us, compromises that translated into higher costs of tuition for students and families; compromises that led to decreased state and federal funding in favor of privatized dollars; compromises that immiserated low-wage workers to free up increasingly scarce resources; compromises that negatively impact the affordability and quality of higher education in order to improve the status of our brand for Wall Street, tech firms, and for an out-of-state and international student body. That zero-sum game has run its course and it has become increasingly clear that the high-stakes race for private dollars has been a loss for almost everyone who works and learns in higher education. Our struggle needs to be understood as capable of generating material and theoretical gains for us all, not less for the few through a misguided “race to the top.”

I find these words, and the general politics of the Subconference, to be more bracing than what I’ve encountered in academic organising so far. An expansive view of what the university truly means, both in its potential and its ability to damage, is preferable to the kind of shop-worn, shoddy, and often clumsy attempt at solidarity that now pervades, for instance, much of the organising that unions are apt to do within universities, organising that smells more of the fervent desire to collect more dues than to bring about change. 1

It’s a brand new world, this, where academics finally agree to stand in solidarity with the workers who keep their enterprise running, hopefully in terms shorn of the usual affective talk about the sheer saltiness and heroism of “ordinary workers” that is cringe-inducing, counterproductive, condescending, and anti-intellectual. The Subconference committee members I spoke to are able to hold and put forth the contradictions presented by the university and see them through to their ends, logical or not.  This might, as the members put it, mean the end of the university entirely or as we know it, or it might mean that it becomes a transitional or permanent space that opens up the resources it hoards so avariciously, like library holdings and knowledge production, and returns them to the cities and towns that help sustain such exclusionary systems, with nothing offered in return."
academia  highered  highereducation  2015  labor  solidarity  via:audreywatters  education  economics  interconnectedness  interdependency  privatization  capitalism  militarism  colleges  universities  yasminnair  interconnected  interconnectivity 
january 2015 by robertogreco
Margaret J. Wheatley: Bringing Schools Back to Life
"We speak so easily these days of systems -- systems thinking, systems change, connectivity, networks. Yet in my experience, we really don't know what these terms mean, or their implications for our work. We don't yet know how to act or think about this new interconnected world of systems we've created. Those of us educated in Western culture learned to think and manage a world that was anything but systemic or interconnected. It was a world of separations and clear boundaries: boxes described jobs, lines charted relationships and accountabilities, roles and policies described the limits of what each individual did and who we wanted them to be. Western culture became very skilled at describing the world with these strange, unnatural separations."
hierarchy  deschooling  unschooling  systems  organizations  leadership  lcproject  1999  margaretwheatley  administration  tcsnmy  change  schools  education  community  rules  mindset  interdependency  meaning  meaningmaking  disruption  disruptiveinnovation  behavior  management  cv  chaos  autonomy  engagement  resistance  systemschange  life  collegiality  networks  livingnetworks  charterschools 
december 2011 by robertogreco
Sheena Iyengar on the art of choosing | Video on TED.com
"Sheena Iyengar studies how we make choices -- and how we feel about the choices we make. At TEDGlobal, she talks about both trivial choices (Coke v. Pepsi) and profound ones, and shares her groundbreaking research that has uncovered some surprising attitudes about our decisions."
choices  choice  economics  culture  psychology  motivation  sheenaiyengar  via:carwaiseto  ted  social  preferences  research  self  success  independence  collaboration  interdependence  interdependency  tcsnmy  learning  options  identity 
july 2010 by robertogreco
The School of Life : On Mutuality
"Mutuality rather than independence is the chief characteristic of human life, whatever we'd like to believe. Many prefer to see human life as one long competitive struggle for dominance. Philosopher Edmund Burke, Darwin's champion Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest") and Ayn Rand (high priestess of the American idea of rugged individualism) are among those who characterise human life in terms of the struggle between individuals for the spoils of humanity. Science is increasingly contradicting this view: rather than being a species of arch individualists, we are the social ape. We live in larger, more complex groups than our closest cousins, collaborating with friends and strangers thanks to our nuanced social brain. Indeed, we use other people's brains to navigate the world: to acquire skills and practices, and to access knowledge systems of long-dead strangers. We call this "culture"."

[via: http://twitter.com/cervus/statuses/17735266663 ]
human  relationships  sociology  social  culture  tcsnmy  conversation  connectivism  connectedness  interdependency  knowledgesystems  systems  humanity  mutuality  brain  collaboration  lcproject  strangers  internet  web  online  technium  darwin  edmundburke  herbertspencer  aynrand  individualism  toshare  competition  cooperation  independence  theschooloflife  charlesdarwin 
july 2010 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read