quote:
quote:
quote:
The middle class is expanding such that there won't be anyone else soon.
I'm pretty sure I can almost agree, but I think that's exaggeration, really.
I don't think it's exaggeration. I'm only talking about locally, in first-world countries. It's not a reality, people aren't actually
becoming middle class, but they believe they are, and that's what matters. It's a cultural/ideological shift rather than an economic one (the 'new' middle classes don't have any meaningful stake in the means of production, they're just indoctrinated so as to believe they have an ideological stake).
quote:
Right-ish direction? Care to clarify, I could almost equally believe you meant to the right of the political spectrum or the "correct" way.
'Correct' (as in 'better'). Again, in the first world. I just mean the result of stuff like feminism slowly seeping into the collective understanding of things, combined with (although I realise this partly stems from that < ) a semi-acceptance, culturally, of absolute relativism (not that I agree with it).
In more concrete terms: women are better paid and are more likely to be in powerful positions than 20 years ago, people are less likely to be overtly racist, positive discrimination is fairly widely practised etc.. Not that I think much has changed below the surface, but it's movement at least.
quote:
pragmatism says "to change the current system, we must show people a better alternative, because most people are sheep and either need to be shown the greener grass to graze on or forced into the pen by the yap of the dog."
I disagree. I believe people act correctly when they're free from being shown grass and the yaps of dogs. I'd rather attack that which is making them behave incorrectly than try to show them how to behave (because I can't tell them, for the same reason that I wouldn't be able to speak fluent french after reading a french dictionary).
quote:
In a personal case, I'm (generally) an egalitarian, a pacifist and liberal, so I'm not expecting to be in the mood to carpet bomb whole populations for the next couple of hundred years at least. Using violence to try and "improve" people's lives almost seems like a paradox to me anyway and would undermine any progress that might be made, so that leaves the carrot.
I'm not a pacifist. Or rather, ideally I am but I surrender to pragmatism here. I'm quite happy for violence to be used in order to clear the way for progress. Partly in response to the naturalised (and thus somewhat invisible) violence embedded in the current systems (from our military exploits to our treatment of the second and third worlds to the existence of a judicial system and police force to the prevalence of misogyny and commodification etc. in our cultural forms). I firmly believe that pacifism cannot win against an ideology prepared to use violence. But aside from all that I can accept some short term moral-wrong in order to put things right.
So I disagree with that stuff about paradoxes. There's no paradox. Sticky situation, yes, but just a choice and I would happily choose to destroy that which is currently doing violence with the intention that after that occurs, no violence is done. Destroy that with an interest in ongoing violence. I see that as akin to self defence - to me, defending onseself with force is morally wrong, but I would always choose to do it because my intention is to end the violence.
quote:
I'm sure with the meteoric rise of China and India, not to mention other other areas that, not many decades ago were seen as "3rd World" (hell, still are by some, but that's another story) the rich will find (are finding) it increasingly difficult to maintain their stranglehold. Again
China's quite definitively second world, and that's important. India, arguably solidly third world but altered by its relationship with the British Empire. I don't think either are typically third world. Those labels are a bit meaningless anyway since the old of the cold war - or at least need some re-alignment. India's handling itself quite well at the moment - for once a country is actually thinking about its' long term future and particularly its farmers. They're still making what money they are by doing the menial tasks of the first world, though. China is a special case and one so complex it's not going to make a good example of anything, really.
When I talk about the third world I really mean countries like (in terms of standard of living etc.) most central African countries.
I don't see the economic struggle as important in the same way you do. I don't see it as desirable for second and third world countries to 'get where we are' because they can't get to where we are economically without getting to where we are culturally and ideologically (one of the things which makes China so complex - there seems to be a belief in the western media that China desires this). All these countries are fighting an uphill battle against out trade regulations etc.. Like you imply, 'they''ll never get anything from 'us' unless it's to our advantage. ButI'm working on the assumption that they really don't want to get to where we are - /we/ just see it that way due to historicisation - they must want what we have because what we have tis the pinnacle of development thusfar. Arrogant, blind and hopefully wrong.
I've meandered all over the place and have no real point - just responding to stuff you've brought up.