The left are bad at winning.

We are already in a globalist regime ran by both media and corporate conglomerates. This is the case regardless of who is in power, surely.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
this is where you lost me. global regime implies there's a king of the world, a supreme leader running a single world government dictating laws on a global basis. that's clearly not what you're talking about, right?
Could be, but I get the feeling there could also be, in effect, a globally coordinated governmental agenda without there being a single ruler. Not quite sure how it could work, but, speculatively, my mind goes to whoever has the most economic pull.

Not sure how that could be quantified, or if it can even possibly boil down to a single person.

But yeah I can see how global regime isn;t the best term for what I'm talking about. I just mean a sort of cartel between nations or governmental bodies that, in effect, enact a certain globalism in their coordinated policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo

constant escape

winter withered, warm
We are already in a globalist regime ran by both media and corporate conglomerates. This is the case regardless of who is in power, surely.
This is kinda what I;m trying to get at, just not sure how to reconcile this with the appearance of separate ruling bodies with conflicting interests.

Perhaps its a bit reductive, but I do tend to speculate about, if was in a position where I could channel trillions of dollars toward this or that end, what could I do to preserve that position?

And yeah Im inclined to think that, in terms of brute financial power and all the ways that can undermine and effectively steer policymaking, those with the highest degrees of power are private parties, who would seem to benefit from establishing a global reach. And if nudging policies in this and that governmental body can expedite such a spread, then consider it done, no?
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
But then another factor to consider is just the cognitive ability of those who oversee or direct the expenditure of vast sums of money. I;ve made this point before: I really doubt they have the ability to process the scope of their own power.

Perhaps they can afford an all-star team of consultants and advisors, but I would also imagine such delegation requires trust that may be rare at such heights.

And yeah theres the temptation to view such a tier of humans as being almost inhuman, in terms of what they must be willing to do to keep the arrangement of power as it is.

The basic dichotomy appears to be such: there is either a group of humans who are willfully and intentionally overseeing the development of the global economy - more broadly the global system - or else there is not.

If there is not, to what degree can we consider such developments to be autopoietic, self-determining through a kind of stochastic trial and error? Liable to experience massive hiccups here, major peaks there, but ultimately learning.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
No, it literally means they don't win. Sanders didn't in the US, Corbyn got the boot here. With the latter, I find it hard to imagine a different outcome. The Left don't win.
And do you think this has much to do with tapping into mass libidinal energies? Not just sexual per se, but also cravings for greatness, excellence, etc.
 

Leo

Well-known member
We are already in a globalist regime ran by both media and corporate conglomerates. This is the case regardless of who is in power, surely.

that's not a global regime, though. it's a number of independent entities with similar goals who tend to collaborate on ways to maximize their profits. there's no king of the world dictating global law.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
True, could just be a many-headed effort. But I still have the suspicion that of the many heads, one ultimately is better poised than the others - or at least will acquire a better position.

Not sure how well the tendencies of conglomeration translates from the domain of corporations to the domain of governments. That said, even if such a tendency is limited to the former, the effects of such consolidation of power surely vibrate through whatever governmental bodies find themselves subordinated to such corporate interests.

So maybe a global regime may take form (or as @slackk said has already taken form) wherein a plurality of official governmental bodies remain separate and even at odds with one another. It could be in the corporate domain that such global influence and power can traverse political, national, ideological lines and become consolidated.

But yeah, would "regime" be the best term for it? Not sure, but the point is that eventually the biggest pond will have a biggest fish, rather than a contest or interplay of similarly sized fishes.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I mean, a well engineered media empire can exploit the whole spectrum of political demographics, in terms of viewership, no? And yet we tend to hold such power in a category subordinated to that of official governmental power. I see little to no reason why the subordination can't be considered as being in the opposite direction.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
And do you think this has much to do with tapping into mass libidinal energies? Not just sexual per se, but also cravings for greatness, excellence, etc.
Yeah, I suspect so. I think the Right mobilises that kind of libidinal excitement. The left can do it as well, there was definitely a bit of collective euphoria around Corbyn at first - idk. Still thinking, feeling, this out. But the exciment of the Trump rallies, the HULK SMASH factor and identtifying with that seems like the point. Policy and pronouncements seems secondary in that arena.
 
that's not a global regime, though. it's a number of independent entities with similar goals who tend to collaborate on ways to maximize their profits. there's no king of the world dictating global law.

The economy is all that exists now. Companies are powerful enough that they can dismiss international law. Look at how Facebook can basically overthrow marginal governments.

Who is more powerful, the English government or Amazon? They don't opt into tax schemes and effectively implement below living wage sweatshop warehouses.

I think we're already there and the myth is actually the historical concept of government.
 

Leo

Well-known member
The economy is all that exists now. Companies are powerful enough that they can dismiss international law. Look at how Facebook can basically overthrow marginal governments.

Who is more powerful, the English government or Amazon? They don't opt into tax schemes and effectively implement below living wage sweatshop warehouses.

I think we're already there and the myth is actually the historical concept of government.

not the same thing, though. those powerful companies infringe on some aspects of society that align with their quest for profits, but they don't create laws, run courts, command a military or facilitate elections. there's a huge difference between Amazon et al being highly influential and Bezos being king of the world.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Not sure how nuanced an understanding of globalism we need in the case of these corporations. Would it just consist of any agenda involving markets across the globe?
 
It is a gradual erosion of workers rights, a blurring of trade borders (look at something like China's re-adoption of silk road routes or our current impasse at the Channel), the mass import of grey market internet goods that gradually erode the CE standard etc
 

Leo

Well-known member
Not sure how nuanced an understanding of globalism we need in the case of these corporations. Would it just consist of any agenda involving markets across the globe?

it comes down to your original imprecise wording: global regime. most of what you are accusing corporations of doing is correct and I'm pretty much in agreement with all those points, it's just that it does not equate to a global regime.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Probably a question you can't have an intelligent conversation about.
 
Top