길긴 합니다...
그런데 꼭 읽엇쓰면 좋겟습니다.
한국인들은 일본 제국주의 식민통치를 당한 피 식민지인들이엇지만,,,제국주의에 대한 이해는 일천합니다.
노무현교 똥파리때들은 정치적인 목적으로 민족을 띠워 끊임없이 종자주의를 퍼트리긴합니다.
야들이 위안부에 환장하는 것은 표와 돈 때문이지.......
휴머니즘이나 양식, 역사나 이념 따위완 눈꼽만큼도 관계가 없습니다....
제국주의의 무엇이며 왜 그들의 지배가 그리도 좆 같은것인지에 대한 근본적인 고민 따윈 애시당초 부터 없고
식민 통치를 당햇기 때문에 죶이 되버린 민족적 자존심에 대한 본능적인 거부감이나
우리도 피해자다 악악거릴 수 잇는 가혹행위리스트 말고는 다른것은 생각하지 않지요..
일본을 사죄 하라며 위안부를 앞세워 악악거리는 이들을 딱 한껍딱만 파고 들어가면....
우리도 일본처럼 명치유신같은 걸 해서 대 제국을 만들어 보지 못한 그 흘러가 버린 시간에 대한 아쉬움만 독뱀 처럼 또아지 치고 잇지요.
이런자들의 민족과....위안부에는 눈꼽만큼도 공감되거나 동조되지 않습니다...
오히려 구역질만 나지요.
제국주의를 제대로 이해햇다면.....우리에게 너무나 자연스럽고 친근하고 가깝게 잇는 것들이 문득 정내미가 똑 떨어집니다.
민주주의, 자유, 휴머니즘, 시장의 자율, 이성, 합리성, 현대성, 문명, 문화.....등등등.....우리의 사고와 양식을 채워주엇던 것들이
전혀 다른 모습으로 보입니다......
그렇지 않다면....
제국주의에 대한 이해가 여전히 부족한 것입니다......더 공부하시바랍니다..
좋은 책을 읽고, 좋은 사람과 토론을 하시기 바랍니다..
유투브나 처 보고,,,,노무현교 똥파리 때들하고 어울리지 마시고.........응??
사람으로 태어 낫다면,,,,사람 처럼 살려고 노력하다 되지세요...
개 돼야쥐 쥐쇄끼들 처럼 굴다 되지면....누가 잿밥에 떡 하나 더 얹어 준답니까??
https://evonomics.com/free-market-genocide-the-real-history-of-trade/
What role should greed play in how we run the world? Should it rule us and shape all that we do?
I’d argue that we live under “greedocracy” disguised as a form of liberalism. Gussied-up as the only rational way, greed has become the guilt-free guiding star of global elites. But the grand narrative usually used to justify this world-shaping greed-is-good creed vigorously ignores salient history, and disingenuously suppresses data on greed’s present-day harms. This essay will walk you through why the “liberal world order’s” free markets are not really remotely in the business of maximizing flourishing—to rightly judge their track record requires reckoning with the greedocracy’s glossed-over genocides and hushed-up holocausts.
Consider how “rational optimist” Steven Pinker paints the history of trade in his billionaire-beloved good-news-bearing bible, The Better Angels of Our Nature (its “the most inspiring book I’ve ever read” gushed Bill Gates, the prominent predatory philanthropist). In it Pinker preaches thinking “like an economist” using “the theory of gentle commerce from classical liberalism,” under which trade becomes “more appealing than … war.” Rationally-enlightened leaders reasoned that your “trading partner suddenly becomes more valuable to you alive than dead.”
Compare that glorified life-affirming tradeoff to the views of a frontline practitioner of that so-called gentle commerce: “There can be no trade without war,” declared Jan Pieterzoon Coen of the Dutch East India Company(네델랜드 동인도 회사...세계 최초의 주식회사로 알려졋지만,,사실상은 제국의 지배조직).. That’s a quote from Amitav Ghosh’s The Nutmeg’s Curse (an eloquently alarming book about gigantic ideological gaps in climate crisis discourse). Unlike Pinker’s, Coen’s words weren’t abstract theorizing, and he concretely came to the opposite conclusion on the value of trading “partner” lives. He ordered a monopoly-securing massacre of the Banda Islanders. This involved 50 vessels, and 2,000 men (including 80 Japanese ronin, masterless samurai mercenaries) who displaced, “killed, captured, or enslaved” 90% of the 15,000 indigenous “trading partners.” This “almost total annihilation of the population of the Banda Islands [was] clearly a genocidal act” (concluded a 2012 paper in the Journal of Genocide Studies). The cursed spice of Ghosh’s title was so valuable that a handful of nutmegs “could buy a house or ship.” which sadly meant Coen’s gentle-commerce genocide made greedy profits even at the cost of 5,000 slaves per year (“labor” didn’t last long under gentle-commerce conditions).
Amitav Ghosh와 그의 책 The Nutmeg’s Curse.....그리고 Nutmeg..당시에는 반다제도에서만 생산됨..
Pinker isn’t wrong in reporting Enlightenment views(계몽주의자들의 견해). Economist Albert Hirschman, in The Passions and the Interests, an influential book on the long process of alchemizing the once-deadly vice of avarice into plainly-rational “self-interest” during the rise of early capitalism, confirms there was “much talk… about the douceur of commerce.” Douceur translates to “sweetness, softness, calm, and gentleness… the antonym of violence.” Hirschman and Pinker cite a long list of Enlightenment luminaries, for instance, Kant(칸트) in 1795 wrote that “The spirit of commerce … can not exist side-by-side with war.” Pinker concurs, “commercial powers …tended to favor trade over conquest.”
Albert Hirschman
But this majestic myth-making of modernity—the Enlightenment as a triumph of rationality and humanism—must not be allowed to mask that the Age of Reason ran parallel to and often justified the vast violent plunder of imperial economics (now often euphemistically called “free trade”).
그러나 근대성을 만든 이 장엄한 신화-합리성과 인본주의의 승리로서의 계몽주의-는 이성의 시대가 제국주의 경제학의 광대한 폭력적 약탈과 병존하고 종종 정당화되었다는 것을 가리게 허용해서는 않된다(이 제국주의 경제학의 폭력적인 약탈은 지금은 완곡하게 '자유무역'이라고 불리기도 한다).
--)) 이 문장안에 들어갈 것은 다 들어가 잇습니다....
그동안.....현대성, 계몽주의, 이성, 휴머니즘,...더 나아가 민주주의, 자유, 따위의 개념은 사회 발전의 추동력으로 이해되어 왓습니다.....
하지만 하부구조(토태)인 자본주의의 모순이 더 이상 견딜수 없이 불겨저 나오면서....상부조직의 모든것에 대한 근본적인 의문에 생겻습니다.......
이런책을 꼭 읽어 보시기 바랍니다..
One reason this hushed-up history matters is that even today economic “rationality” and plunder often remain partners in crime. For all of Pinker’s elegant-stats-wielding elite-soothing sermons that “in fact a free market puts a premium on empathy,” there was little empathy, empirically evident, for the likes of the Banda Islanders. Or for many millions more lives ended or blighted by “gentle commerce” and “free trade,” which as we’ll see could materialize at your border in the form of a genocidal corporate army bent on “premium-empathy”-ing your way of life into your own blood-soaked dust.
Consider what classical-liberalism’s gentle-commerce blessings brought to the basic business of staving off starvation. As presented in Pinker’s brand of rigorous rationality, which seems to require boiling history’s byzantine complexities down to whatever sort of weak grasp can be gained by glancing at “the numbers.” Dispositive data should preferably be plotted on a now rhetorically powerful sexy chart or failing that, one should squeeze hyper-complex histories into spreadsheet-like tables with columns for nifty swift numerical comparisons. For instance, the Deadliest Disasters of All Time table on page 195 of Pinker’s Better Angels of Our Nature.
This lethal league table of tribulations has just two entries explicitly called “Famines.” At number two “Mao Zedong (mostly government-caused famine)” with 40,000,000 deaths, and at number 12 “British India (mostly preventable famine)” at 17,000,000 deaths. Pinker also provides figures adjusted for relative population growth, which makes the adjusted British-in-India famine number 35,000,000. That’s deadlier than World War I (15,000,000) and many-times more murderous than the Nazi holocaust (6,000,000). Pinker blames Mao’s “harebrained schemes” which he feels illustrate how “utopian leadership selects for monumental narcissism and ruthlessness.” But nowhere does Pinker note that, as I’ll show, those Brits-in-India famines were policy-driven and explicitly justified by liberal free market doctrine. These “enlightened” imperial policies were implemented by impeccably elegant elites selected for at least industrial-scale ruthlessness, if not also monumental statue-seeking narcissism. Surely such colossal crimes should weigh against “gentle commerce” in history’s moral scale?
Plus ‘Pinkering’ (rationally optimistic number-narrowed thinking) too easily hides how imperial “free market” policies contributed to the series of revolutions that culminated in Mao,(영국이 아편전쟁을 시작한 명분은 자유무역이엇습니다.....아편의 자유로운 거래를 통해....돈을 벌어야 한다는 것이엇지요.......핑커링은 마오쩌둥시대의 대규모죽음의 근원을 영국의 아편전쟁으로 거슬러 올라가 아편전쟁을 통해 중국의 아사을 줄이는 제도가 붕괴하엿고 이 아편전쟁은 아편의 자유무역을 내세운 전쟁이라는 점을 들어......자유무역이 엄청난 인명피해를 낸 것으로 설명 하엿습니다..........즉 자유무역은 제노사이드와 함께 한다는 것이지요)triggered by those paragon gentle-commerce programs known as the Opium Wars (1839-1860). Britain’s noble narco-capitalist armed forces wrecked China’s multi-millenia old social fabric, which centrally featured famine prevention infrastructure. This vast opulence-enabling opium operation was run by the most successful narcotics gang in history (these Brit nobles were O.G. drug kingpins). These sorts of intricately entangled causal interconnections are easily lost in neatly labeled “numbers” (under a risible ruse of rigor).
Historian Mike Davis reports Brit-ruled Indian famine deaths at 12 to 29 million, in his book Late Victorian Holocausts. He explicitly blames the “imposition of free-trade,” noting that these millions were killed “in the golden age of Liberal Capitalism.” The first public reports in February 1878 by journalist Robert Knight declared British officials were guilty of “multitudenous murder.”
역사학자 마이크 데이비스(미국)는 자신의 저서 '후기 빅토리아 시대의 홀로코스트'에서 영국이 통치하던 시절 인도의 기근으로 인한 사망자가 1200만 명에서 2900만 명에 이른다고 보고했다. 그는 이 수백만 명이 자유주의 자본주의의 황금기에 살해되었다는 점을 지적하면서 "자유 무역이 부과 한 학살이라 분명하게 비난했다. 1878년 2월 언론인 로버트 나이트에 의한 최초의 공개 보고서는 영국 관리들의 "다중 살인"에 대해 유죄을 선언했다.
Applying Pinker’s scaling factor To Davis’s figures, we get the equivalent to 24 to 58 million 20th-century-scaled deaths (four to ten times the size of the Nazi holocaust). During all this the decorously dining Downton-Abbey set exported grain to world markets as millions starved. Market “efficiency,”(시장의 효율성) then as now, means allocating resources to whomever pays most. But fear not, noble Brits acted quickly to protect what mattered most to them— their beloved free market. They imposed the “Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877, outlawing private relief that might interfere with the “market-fixing of grain prices.”(배고파 굶어 죽는 사람에게 곡물을 주엇다면 이는 시장의 가격조정기능을 해치는 것이기 때문에 금지시켯다고 이해하면 됩니다........다시 한번 자유시장이 사람을 죽이는데 기여한 것입니다..) The only aid permitted was at horrifyingly harsh hard labor camps, such as in Madras, which offered fewer daily calories than Buchenwald. As Davis writes, while “Asia was starving the United States was harvesting the greatest wheat crop in world history… and in California’s Central valley worthless surplus wheat was burned”—malicious market morality in action. To understand the frame of mind of this enchanted circle of imperial overlords, consider that in 1874, those exemplary classical liberals at The Economist wrote that it was unwise to encourage “indolent Indians” to believe that “it is the duty of the Government to keep them alive.” Lord Salisbury, secretary of state for India, felt it was a mistake to spend “money to save a lot of black fellows.”
Many Brits weren’t nearly as callous as the glamorous imperial ghouls of their governing elite. As Shashi Tharoor(인도의 하원의원) notes in his book Inglorious Empire, a piece in The Times of London lamented that “the Viceroy(인도 관리 총독) had interposed to repress the impulses of charity.” And relief fund of “£820,000 was raised from millions of small contributions by individuals, schools, churches, and regiments throughout the British world.” Viceroy Lord Lytton, whose main qualification for governing India was that he was Queen Victoria’s favorite poet, called the fund a “complete nuisance.” Tharoor concludes that “the facts of British culpability even at the height of their ‘civilizing mission’ … are overwhelming” but often still glossed over.
Why, one wonders, aren’t these famines rightly called Imperial Holocausts? British Holocausts? Free Market Holocausts? Liberal Holocausts? Corporate Holocausts? Capitalist Holocausts?
사람들은 의아해 할 것이다..........왜 이런 기근을 '제국의 홀로코스트', '영국의 홀로코스트' 자유 시장 홀로코스트" 자유 홀로코스트? 기업 홀로코스트? 자본주의 홀로코스트? 라고 정확하게 불려야 하지 않나??
Readers repelled by linking that term to much-lauded much-laundered liberalism, should recall that ‘holocaust’ means any mass destruction. It derives from the Greek for a wholly burnt sacrificial offering (hence many Jews use the term Shoah —catastrophe — which lacks godly links).
In his history of the global food system, Animal, Vegetable, Junk, Mark Bittman notes that free-market loving classical liberals lorded it over a 3,000% increase in the Indian famine rate—from less than one famine per century to one every three years. Explicitly invoking the name of rational free market efficiency, Brits violently disrupted ancient practices of storing local food reserves which had for centuries enabled Indian elites to discharge duties to feed their poor in times of famine. And ruthlessly increased British taxation had eviscerated the peasantries purchasing power (Tharoor calls this “the culmination of two centuries of colonial cruelty”).
마크 비트먼은 Animal, Vegetable, Junk: A History of Food, from Sustainable to Suicidal, 에서 자유시장을 사랑하는 고전적 자유주의자들이 인도의 기근율을 3,000퍼센트 이상 증가시켰다고 지적햇다. 세기당 1건 미만의 기근에서 3년마다 1건의 기근으로 증가한 것이다. 분명하게 "합리적인 자유 시장 효율성"의 이름으로, 영국인들은 수세기 동안 인도 엘리트들이 기근의 시기에 가난한 사람들을 먹여살리는 의무를 이행할 수 있게 해준 각 지역의 식량를 저장하는 고대 관행을 폭압적으로 파괴 시켯다. 그리고 무자비하게 증가한 영국의 세금은 농민들의 구매력을 제거했다(타루어는 이것을 '2세기의 식민지 잔혹성의 정점'이라고 불럿다).
----꼭 같은 설명을 아편전쟁 이후의 중국에서도 햇습니다...그들은 자유무역 시장의 효율성이란 이름으로 중국의 궁휼제도를 아작을 햇습니다......중국 대륙에서 대규모 아사자가 나오게 한 것이지요...
중국은 아편 전쟁 부터 모택통의 중국 혁명까지를 치욕의 1 세기라고 합니다..
Mark Bittman
Of course, these stupendous century-spanning imperial sins had contemporary critics. For instance, Thomas Paine of American revolution-launching pamphlet fame, wrote that “the naked and untutored Indian, is less Savage than…King of Britain.” His incendiary ink-fire inflamed the colonial settlers against the “crowned ruffians” of royalty that ruthlessly ruled such that “every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression.” Paine skewered the supposed divine right of kings, by calling William the Conqueror(정복왕 윌리엄) “a French bastard landing with an armed banditti …[to] establish himself king against the consent of the natives.” Lets skip the ire-raising ironies of Paine promoting a genocidal invasion without securing the consent of American natives, to focus on his divine debunking of royal rights:( 하하하....토마스 페인에 대한 논쟁은 코넬 웨스트와 리처드 울프의 대담을 참조 하시기 바랍니다) he concludes that William the Conqueror was “in plain terms a very paltry rascally original—[whose claim to kingship] certainly hath no divinity in it.”
Paine was disgusted by the “horrid cruelties exercised by Britain in the East Indies — How thousands perished by artificial famine.” His moral reflex here is laudable, but his numbers are a thousand times too small, and he got the guilty party slightly wrong: as Horace Walpole, son of a British Prime Minister wrote “We have murdered, deposed, plundered, usurped—nay, what think you of the famine in Bengal, in which three millions perished, being caused by a monopoly of the provisions by the servants of the East India Company”-동인도 회사--회사라고 번역이 되지만 조선총독부 같은 것로 이해해야 합니다 ). Don’t forget Boston’s totemic tea-tossing was of East India Company shipments. Sadly, Paine’s deep political desire that such decorous dastardliness should “never, never be forgotten” has failed to hold up. Did your schools teach this history? That the private army of a corporation (twice the size of the king’s) killed millions to enforce “free trade” and “gentle commerce”? 기업의 사병(왕의 병사들의 두 배)이 '자유무역'과 '신사적인 상업'을 시행하기 위해 수백만 명을 죽였다..
Readers tempted to shake their heads at all this monumental moral ignorance and nakedly nasty nonchalance, while feeling assured that our Pinker-reading elite would never allow anything like any of the above to happen today should consider the global Covid immunization situation. Our greed-is-rational elite are again putting profits above saving lives by not lifting vaccine patent restrictions (Pinker’s pal Gates has played a leading far from philanthropic role in this). Millions of avoidable mostly-distant-dark-skinned deaths are again being offered for sacrifice on the altar of the almighty liberal god of greed. This horrific fiasco has been dubbed “vaccine apartheid” by many Global South advocates, including World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, because of how deeply under-protected non-white poor nations remain.
To be fair, we should note that those jolly jodhpur-clad classy Brits weren’t quite being racist in today’s sense. They were equally elegantly evil on an industrially deadly scale to their Irish neighbors. Davis writes “India like Ireland before it had become a Utilitarian laboratory where millions of lives were wagered against dogmatic faith in omnipotent markets.”
Regarding the Irish famine, that cherished champion of classical liberalism John Stuart Mill wrote that “The Irish are indolent, unenterprising,” he feared “it may require a hundred thousand armed men to make the Irish people submit to the common destiny of working in order to live” (a position lately lampooned as: Let them eat liberty). Don’t forget Mill was for decades employed by the looting-Lords of the East India Company before entering Parliament as a Liberal. In case you haven’t kept track of the Irish Famine details, a million perished, two million fled, and Ireland’s population took 170 years to recover (achieved pre-famine levels only in 2021).
--)js-mill에 대한 해석도 각가지입니다...그의 저서 "자유론"과 연결하여 자유주의자 라고 쉽게 말 하는가 하면, 그의 사상의 실질적 내용이 사회주의엿다는 주장도 잇습니다...
오늘날 자유나 민주주의 보수등의 단어가 얼마가 각자의 편의에 따라 지 멋대로 사용되고 잇는지는..생각해 보시기 바랍니다.
서초동의 노무현교 미친개들이 민주주의자들입니까??....광화문의 할레루야 태극기 부대들이 자유주의자들입니까??
편의적인 선택적 사용 보다는 좀더 내용에 충실햇쓰면 좋겟습니다..
밀이 사회주의자 엿다는 견해는 지나치게 왜곡되어 사용되는 자유, 보수 등에 어의에 대한 반말정도로 생각하면 되겟습니다.
And, lest we forget, European elites also starved their own poor in the process of internal colonization enclosing the commons.
황태연....전 동국대학 교수
이 사람은 3당 연합과 내각제 개헌을 주장 하여...djp 연합의 이론적 기초를 제공햇습니다.
그때 이 사람이 들고나온 개념이 내부식민지 엿습니다...한국의 전라도가 내부식민지라는 주장이엇고
당연히 경상도 + 수구 꼴통들의 강력한 반발이 잇엇습니다.
이 사람의 저서를 두고 한 토론회에서...내부식민지 라는 단어 자체를 처음 들어 본다...는 상대가 잇엇습니다.
황태연 왈.......그러면 더 공부하고 나서 나와 토론 하라............고 무시해 버렷습니다.
요즘에야 이런식의 자극적인 토론이 아니면 사람들이 안 보지요...하지만 당시에는 이런 토론자세는 매우 파격적인
것이 엇습니다..
그 상대가 정말 내부식민지란 단어를 처음 들어 봣다면......공부부족이 맞지요...
이런 토론자는 섭외 되지 말앗써야 햇습니다.
당시의 기준으로 김대중 + 전라도 는 진보로 일방적으로 인식되엇지요....지금 되 돌아 보면 진짜 웃기는 개 소리엿지만,
이 사람의 이런 주장 또한 매우 진보적인 주장으로 읽혓습니다...
황태연은 아관파천을 아관망명, 갑오경장을 갑오왜란 이라 불러야 한다고 주장하는 사람입니다
주변 도서관에 가서 관련책을 찾아 보시기 바랍니다...검나 두껍지만 내용은 별거 아닙니다...
철쩌한 왕조주의자,, 또는 극단적인 종자주의자적 시각에서 서술된 책입니다..
기껏해야 민족주의자로 정도로 보면 될 사람입니다.......
하지만 공부하는 민족주의자라면 쓸때가 잇습니다
공부하지도 않고 누군가 던저준 구호에만 환장하는 것들이 문제지요..
-내과 죠국기다............취지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ
그 시대가 그럽니다...
이런자도 꼼짝없이 진보주의자도 인식되던 시대엿고....다른소리도 그렇게 믿엇지요.
어둠은 항상 빛을 이겨 왓습니다...빛은 가끔씩 찬란하게 반짝이는 것이 역사입니다.
Public lands used for collective benefit (enabling a “Golden Age” for European peasants) were privatized. This was part of the vast organized political effort to create and naturalize economic liberalism and emerging capitalism.(즉 영국의 인크로우저 운동을 경제적 자유주의, 자본주의을 만들기 위한 거대한 정치적 노력으로 본 것입니다........여기서 칼 폴라니가 언급되지 않은다면.......죶구멍 없는 여자.......... As economic anthropologist Karl Polanyi(어김없이 나왓지요??) writes in The Great Transformation “the people of the countryside were pauperized” in “a revolution of the rich against the poor.” From 1500 to 1700 real wages fell 70%, starvation became common, and life expectancy fell from 43 to the low 30s (hitting 25 in the urban squalor of Blake’s “dark Satanic Mills,” he didn’t but could just as well have meant John Stuart). Polanyi provides extensive evidence that “There is nothing natural about laissez-faire free markets.” (다시 한번 칼 폴라니의 주장을 정리해 봅시다...............자유시장 따위는 과거에도 없엇고, 지금도 없고, 또 앞으로도 없다....................땅땅땅..............외워 이 씨발놈드라..)
이 비됴에서 노엄 촘스키도 같은 말을 햇습니다.
((미국의 힘이 약해진 이유는 미국의 내부의 문제에 잇쓰며...미국은 기능하지 않는 사회라는 것인데
자본주의 시장 따위는 애초 부터 없는 것이고...이런것은 존재 한다 하더라고 그 자체로는 몇분도 견디지 못 한다는 것입니다.
그 어떤 행태의 자본주의도 국가가 관여 되어 잇는 국가 자본주의의 특징을 갖고 잇고
미국이 약해진 이유는
지난 40년동안 미국의 국가자본주의의 국가의 힘은 1%의 때부자와, 기업들만 위해 작동햇다는 것이고
그 댓가로 미국 사회가 붕괴되엇다는 것입니다..)))
Here we must re-examine a view dear to many Pinker-parroting pious liberals and greedocrats alike, who feel certain that their own unbridled greed is just inalienably at the very heart of human nature. Polanyi debunks this as an anthropologically and historically ignorant self-serving projection. Many cultures have been studied that are not organized around unbridled individual greed (and there is no evidence of any of them having extraterrestrial origins). In sharp contrast to Enlightened European liberalism, Polanyi says ”as a rule, the individual in primitive society is not threatened with starvation unless the community as a whole is.”(유럽의 계몽주의적 자유주의에 대비하여 칼 폴라니는 -전반적으로 원시 사회의 개인은 공동체 전체가 위협받는 경우가 아니라면 기아에 위협받지 않앗다"고 말하며 역사에서의 예를 열거하엿다) He cites three examples, South Africa’s Kaffirs (for whom “destitution is impossible: whosoever needs assistance receives it unquestioningly”), Canada’s Kwakitul tribe (“No Kwakitul ever ran the slightest risk of going hungry”) and pre Brit-blighted India.(영국 식민통치 이전의 인도) “Under almost every and any type of social organization up to about the beginning of 16th century Europe” a principle for freedom from starvation prevailed. Sadly the logic of “smashing up social structures in order to extract labor” under threat of starvation became standard “civilized” liberal market practice (as violently imposed in Ireland and India and many places beyond).
"16세기 초 까지의 거의 모든 형태의 사회조직에서는 굶주림으로부터의 해방이란 원리가 지배적인 것이었다. 슬프게도 노동을 추출하기 위해 사회 구조를 분쇄하는 논리는(자본주의로 이해 하면 됩니다) 기아의 위협 속에서 "문명화 된"자유주의 시장 관행의 표준이 되엇다(아일랜드와 인도 및 그 밖의 많은 지역에서 이런것은 폭력적으로 부과되엇다).
--)) 한국의 자본주의도 폭력적으로 부과되엇다고 봅니다.
일제는 식민통치를 통해 자본주의를 강제 햇고,,,미국은 초꼴릿과 이데오르기로 자본주의를 강제햇습니다.
Importantly, Polanyi notes that this destruction of the material fabric of a peasantry’s way of life, to force them into capitalist labor, was first done to “white populations by white men” before being exported globally to(그들은 이런것을 경제 발전, 계몽화라고 말 햇지요) the benighted barbarians of distant dusky-maiden-laden lootable lands. The idea that letting the poor starve is just human nature took vast industrial-scale evil-evangelizing efforts to make the “creed of liberalism” feel like it was human nature itself.
이런쪽으로 좀더 체계적인 깊은 사고를 해 보고 싶은 사람들은 이 분의 책을 꼭 읽어 보시기 바랍니다.
어떤 사람은 이 사람의 죽음을 ...인류 지적자산이 사라졋다.......고 하엿습니다.
As Paine noted in his other smash-hit, The Rights of Man: “a great portion of mankind, in what are called civilized countries, are in a state of poverty and wretchedness, far below the condition of an Indian.” Classical liberal market-oriented “civilization” historically went hand-in-hand with making mass starvation amid plenty seem morally acceptable or like an unavoidable necessity. 1830s Britain saw “an almost miraculous increase in production accompanied by a near starvation of the masses.” Polayni calls Britain’s 1834 Poor Law Reform a “scientific cruelty” under which the prior “right to live was abolished” for the sake of the labor market. The threat of starvation was a “psychological torture coolly advocated and smoothly put into practice… as a means of oiling the wheels of the labor mills.”
페인이 또 다른 히트작 <인간의 권리>에서 말햇다, "문명화된 국가라고 불리는 인류의 많은 부분은 인도인의 보다 훨씬 낮은 빈곤과 비참한 상태에 있다." 고전적인 자유주의 시장 지향적인 문명은 많은 사람들이 도덕적으로 받아들일 수 있는 것처럼 보이거나 피할 수 없는 필요성처럼 보이는 풍요속의 대량 기아를 만드는 것과 역사적으로 밀접한 관련이 있었다. 1830년대 영국은 기적적인 생산 증가"를 보았다 그런데 이것은 "대중들을 거의 굶어죽게 만든 결과엿다. 폴라니는 영국의 1834년 빈민법 개혁을 노동시장을 위해 이전의 "살 권리"가 폐지된 "과학적 잔인성"이라고 보앗다. 굶주림의 위협은 '산뜻하게 옹호되고 부드럽게 실행되는 심리적 고문'이었다..... ... 이런것은 노동 공장의 바퀴에 기름을 바르는 수단이엇다..
--)일 하지 않는자...먹지도 마라......할렐루야...
땀 흘린 댓가???..........열씸히 일한 당신 떠나라????
아직도 이런 말이 아름답게 들립니까???????
기본소득에 반대하는 사람들이 전혀 엉뚱하게 칼 폴라니와 영국의 빈민법을 악용한다고 말씀드렷습니다.
시장에 환장한 수구 꼴통들이 전혀 정반대의 주장을 한 칼 폴라니의 빈민법에 대한 비판을 기본소득의 비판의 자료로
사용한다는 것은..............주의 주장의 복합성이라기 보다는 편의적인 선택성입니다..
이런짓은 하지 맙시다.....
노무현교 똥파리 쐣끼들도 아니고.....
Here, the concept of “conscience management” can illuminate. That’s just one of many important ideas in historian Priya Satia’s 2020 book Time’s Monster (on the role of historians in building the “ethical scripts” and elite-soothing grand narratives that enabled empire’s evil).
Priya Satia 와 그의 저서 Time’s Monster
Conscience management explains how “for the most part, empire was not the work of villains, but of people who believed they acted conscientiously.” Some (especially elites) were in it for “loot and adventure” but millions “sincerely believed they were in the business of spreading liberty.” Under that exquisitely engineered oxymoron ‘liberal imperialism’ the vast violence of colonialism was justified to bring the blessings of civilization to the savage races—they’ll thank us later. She rightly rejects today’s moral-balance-sheet-minded defenders of British occupation benefits as akin to saying “Hitler was horrible to Jews but, on the other hand, he built the autobahn.”
-히틀러는 유대인에겐 끔찍햇지만 그는 아오토반을 건설햇다.
박정희의 아우토반, 노무현의 아우토반 도 생각해 보시기 바랍니다..
그리고 누가 그들의 유대인이엿는지도...
-자살 따위로 목적을 이루려 하지 마라.....그딴것은 구닥다리 방식이다..........................노무현
Speaking of Hitler, many post WWII intellectuals and artists, of many stripes, have cast the Nazi holocaust as a “chasm in history,” as exemplified by Adorno’s(아도르노) declaration that “to write poetry after Auschwitz was barbaric.”(아우스비치 이후에도 시를 쓸 수 잇다면 그것은 야만이다....) But this serene studious sophistication sails on an ocean of ill-informed ink, premised on ignoring the prior gentlemanly genocides noted above. To cast Nazi atrocities as history-remaking exceptions requires an act of mindbogglingly-monumental collective amnesia, of industriously suppressing the centuries-long carnage of liberal imperialism.
그러나 이런 고요한 학구적인 정교함은 위에서 언급한 나찌의 홀로코스트 이전의 신사적 집단학살을 무시한 부족한 견문의 바다 위를 항해한 것이다. 나치의 잔학 행위를 역사를 다시쓰는 예외적인 것으로 던저 버리려면 수세기 동안 지속되어온 자유주의 제국주의의 대학살을 부지런히 억압하는, 놀랄 만큼 기념비적인 집단 기억상실이 필요하다.
Not to mention the role of liberal civilization’s own artists and intellectuals in creating the “ethical scripts” of empire. As Ghosh points out, Alfred Lord Tennyson, his era’s leading lyric poet, in 1849 wrote that nature’s “red in tooth and claw” battles would ensure the victory of a “crowning race” of European conquerors. That was a decade before Darwin’s The Descent of Man declared that “the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate… the savage races.” Darwin was a liberal and abolitionist, but these sorts of race-ranking, death-to-the-lesser-losers ideas were in Ghosh’s view “mere common sense [for] a great number of liberal progressive Westerners.”
고쉬의 견해에의하면 , 다윈은 자유주의적이고 노예제 폐지론자였지만, 이런 종류의 인종 순위, 약육강식의 사상은 많은 자유주의적이며 진보적인 서구인들에겐 단지 상식이엇다...
Such license to kill en-mass for profit goes back to another rational Enlightenment hero, Francis Bacon, who in An Advertisement Touching on Holy War, concludes it is both lawful and godly “for any nation that is policed and civil [to].. cut from the face of the Earth” those who are not.
이익을 위해 대량 살상을 할수 잇는 면허는 또 다른 합리적인 계몽주의의 영웅 인 프란시스 베이컨 (Francis Bacon)에게 돌아 간다. 프란시스 베이컨 (Francis Bacon)은 An Advertisement Touching on Holy War, 에서-----이후 해석 불가......이것이 베이컨의 이성, 과학, 기술에 대한 인식을 빈정거린 것일텐데.....
The point here isn’t to judgmentally impose our moral norms retrospectively, rather it is to consider the magnificent ambient amnesia necessary for the educated today to feel that Nazi atrocities were unthinkable exceptions for civilized art-loving European elites, rather than a centuries-long pattern that was coming home to roost. A pattern long celebrated in “civilized” literature and the arts, for instance Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 hymn to empire, exhorting imperialists to “send forth the best ye breed” to take up the “White Man’s burden” and “serve your captive’s need.” Captives lyrically painted as “your new-caught sullen people, half devil, half child.” He was awarded one of his “civilization’s” highest honors, the Nobel Prize in literature, in 1907 for the “virility” of such ideas. And don’t forget that shortly before the allied intelligentsia exerted itself to express an inability to grasp Hitler’s “history-rupturing” horrors, that lion of liberalism, Winston Churchill in 1943 enacted policies that starved another 3 million Indians.
키플링은 그러한 사상의 '정력'을 인정받아 1907년에 '문명사상'의 최고 영예인 노벨 문학상을 수상했다. 그런데 연합국의 지식인들이 히틀러의 '역사적 파멸'의 공포를 이해하지 못하는 무능함을 보이려고 쌩똥을 쏴던 바로 직전인 1943년, 자유주의의 수호신 윈스턴 처칠은 또 다른 300만 명의 인도인을 굶기는 정책을 제정했다는 사실을 잊지 마라.
All this matters because as Satia rightly fears, “the historical sensibility that enabled imperialism is still intact.” I’d add that that sensibility’s most dangerous disguise now goes under cover of the grand narrative of neoliberal globalization’s free-market growth supposedly lifting the poor out of poverty. This is Pinker-approved, let-the-market-decide, free market economic doctrine—whereby elite greed is alchemized into awesomely being what’s best for everyone, and especially the poor. Meanwhile, in reality, this form of greed-excusing economics systematically underweights the preferences, rights, and even lives of the planet’s poor.
Consider what lurks in savvy-sounding jargon like economic rationality and “efficiency.” As a leaked memo signed by the sadly-still-influential former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers revealed: “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable.” Since “measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings … a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages.” ----경제적인 이성, 효율성이 다 이런식이다는 것이지요.
자신의 문 앞에 잇는 쓰레기를 싹 쓸어 옆집 문 앞으로 치워 버리는 방식이....경제학적 효율성입니다.
특히 명망잇는 서구 경제학자(경제학이란 어차피 미국의 학문이고)들의 사고는.....증말 끔찍하지요..
This sort of “rational” economics is riddled with systematic anti-poor biases. A view seconded by the spiciest Federal Reserve footnote ever, in 2021 long-time Fed economist Jeremy Rudd wrote of his “deeper concern that the primary role of mainstream economics… is to provide an apologetics for a criminally oppressive, unsustainable, and unjust social order.”
주류 경제학의 주된 역할은 범죄적으로 억압적이고 지속 불가능하며 부당한 사회 질서에 대한 옹호론을 제공하는 것이다."
He noted that did “not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Governors or the staff of the Federal Reserve System.”
Scandalously few economists actually address poverty in their work (research from the International Monetary Fund found only 1.4% of papers in the top 10 economics journals focused on poverty). Unless this kind of impeccable economic rationality and “efficiency” is explicitly countered, it structurally adds to the burdens of the poor—Summers-style standard economic ‘logic’ sees the loss of earnings of one American as equivalent to the lost earnings of 265 Barundians (using the ratio of national gross domestic product per capita as a proxy for typical earnings in each economy). However rational and “efficient” that looks in your Pinker-approved think-like-an-economist [liberal-loot-orama] calculus, it is clearly contrary to basic morality and to any semblance of resource justice.
The most seductive and super-poisonous flavor of this greed-washing is preached under liberal-beloved “win-win” rubric whereby elite-fattening market-greed is sold as lifting millions out of poverty. As Phillipe Alston, ex- UN Special Rapporteur on Poverty has written, this rhetoric has really been used to redefine “the public good as helping the rich get richer.” Far from being one of the “greatest human achievements” this “win win” narrative has been a “convenient alibi” for guilt-free greed. 필립 앨스턴, 전 유엔 빈곤 특별서기관이 쓴 것처럼, 이 윈-윈 이다는 미사여구는 정말로 '부자들이 더 부유해지도록 돕는 공공선'을 재정의하는 데 사용되어 왔다. 이 '윈 윈' 이야기는 '가장 위대한 인간의 업적' 중 하나이기는 커녕 죄의식 없는 탐욕에 대한 '편리한 알리바이'가 되어 왔다.
Why exactly should every gain for the poor require gains for the rich? I find it appalling that many greedy growth fans feel they are simply deferring to the objective facts while their data-driven Pinkering gospels hide how markets actually allocate the vast bulk of the global economy’s gains and resources to precisely the opposite of poverty-alleviation. Only 5% of global GDP growth gets to the poorest 60% of people (95% adds to the comforts of the unpoor, and even within that it’s heavily top-skewed to the Top 1-10%). Do those numbers pass a basic ethical sniff test? Should we celebrate a trickle-down pace so slow that it means 8 generations of sweatshop toil till your descendants rise above a disgustingly low poverty line? While for each of those generations the bulk of the planet’s resources are win-win-ed away into rich wallets?
By the way many misunderstand what that disgustingly low official poverty line means. It is a P.P.P $1.90 a day, which means it is adjusted for purchasing power parity. So as best as can be estimated, like living on ~$700 a year in the US now—one nineteenth the official US poverty line. And surely countless sins lurk in data built on the idea that making 10 cents more, for a total of $2 per day ($730 per year) warrants being classified as having “escaped” extreme poverty.
The data-driven discourse here is dominated by a diabolically bad framing of the main moral issue. Contrary to the Pinker-preached plutocrat-pampering perspective, the key question isn’t “Are things better now than before,” but rather “Is this the best we can do?” Indeed, are we even making a minimally decent effort to minimize suffering? As economic anthropologist Jason Hickel has pointed out, viewed from that angle, global poverty has never been worse. The world is richer now than ever, but we still don’t prioritize use of enough resources to end poverty. Only a small fraction of the world’s wealth would be needed to end “extreme poverty” (Hickel calculates 3.9% of global GDP, and Max Rosner of Our World in Data, in 2013 figure estimated $160 billion from a $70 trillion pie, or under 3%). Yet we let global markets “decide” to spend more each year on ice cream and face cream than that ($90 & $100 billion). How can it make ethical sense that markets “decide” to use 80% of arable land to fatten cattle while 150,000,000 kids are stunted by malnutrition and 1,900,000,000 humans (25% of everyone alive today) are more food insecure than rich-nation pets? The deep data-dazzled dumbness here is due to how GDP mixes luxuries and survival basics in the same monetary bucket, then “rationally” and “efficiently” sends resources to whoever pays most, thereby “objectively” prioritizing the whims of the wealthy. Whatever your political or moral leanings, if they don’t help you condemn and counter this, they may need an upgrade. They are in no coherent sense humane or enlightened.
The Pinker-preached faith that markets are in the business of maximizing flourishing often operates as fancy conscience management camouflage. As currently practiced, markets don’t distribute flourishing (or much of anything else) in an ethically sound way. Surely, the right thing to do is to always prevent avoidable suffering, before further enhancing rich lifestyles. By what logic can we square squandering resources on rich toys when so many obvious gains in basic suffering reduction are within relatively easy reach? While this isn’t quite as simple as redirecting financial resources from ice cream and face cream to poverty alleviation, it’s also not that much more difficult. Why are toys and trinkets for the world’s wealthy more important than food to prevent those 150,000,000 kids from being stunted? Surely much less flourishing arises from the incremental last 1% of billionaire bauble buying than would for example by educating the world’s hundreds of millions of kids who aren’t presently schooled. A 1% wealth tax on the $13 trillion of the world’s 3,000 billionaires (meaning they might have to make do with a smaller second superyacht) versus the vastly improved flourishing of 250,000,000 kids. Why is that a hard trade off if you really are interested in maximizing flourishing? By ignoring such noxious nightmares of distributional sins, neoliberalism operates like a nerdier form of imperialism (with extra-advanced emperor’s new-clothes tailoring courtesy of Pinkering pundits, in our era’s version of Kipling’s conscientious conquerors—“The Bright Man’s Burden”—cognitive supremacy (assessed by flimsy tests like SAT scores) grants divine rights to hugely disproportionate share of global resources, and control of how horribly slowly the not-so-bright looser-layers can gain.
To present a key puzzle pictorially, for the benefit of the the Pinker-reading data-driven rational optimist do-gooders: if globalization is really all about lifting billions out of poverty, why has the gap between the rich and poor nations basically never not been growing? In the deluge of dazzling data visualizations daily paraded, like that on the left below, why hasn’t the data plotted on the right gotten any attention? The chart shows GDP per capita, with the upper line for rich nations accelerating away from the lower line for poor nations. It is almost as if there was a plot against sharing the world’s resources more equitably.
왼쪽 그림은 흥미롭습니다.....어쩟던 세계의 극단적 빈곤이 전체적으로 줄어 들엇음을 알 수 잇습니다.
그런데 사하라 이남의 아프리카 국가들의 극단적 빈곤은 오히려 늘엇고...동아시아와 태평량 국가의 극단적 빈곤이 확 줄엇음을 알 수 잇습니다...이는 워낙히 인구가 많은 중국에서 워낙히 많은 빈곤을 추방한 탓 입니다.
그래서 ...통계학자들은 중국을 제외하여 별도로 분석을 합니다.
신 자유주의가 세계의 빈곤을 확 줄엇다...........이것이 틀린말은 아니지만 맞는 말도 아닙니다.
절대 빈곤을 줄인것은 맞습니다...그런데 중국을 제외 하면....신 자유주의 시장질서가 빈곤을 줄인것은 매우 미미합니다.
중국은 공산주의-중국식 사회주의 국가 입니다.....신 자유주의 따위완 근본적으로 거리가 먼 나라이지요.
입은 삐뜨라 졋써도 말은 바로 하라고 햇습니다..
중국의 사회주의가 세계의 절대 빈곤을 확 떨어뜨렷다....................이 말은 맞씁니다.
fact를 fact로 인정하는 버릇을 꼭 들이시기 바랍니다.........
이것 노력해야 합니다..
노무현교 똥파리때들은 왜 인간종이 아니냐면.....이런 노력을 하지 않기 때문에....영원히 똥파리때로 남는 것이지요..
-우리 교주님께옵써 청와대에서 받아 처 먹은 640만불은 생계를 위한 어쩔수 없는 범죄셧다...
-노무현의 가치를 우리사회가 보듬고 갈 100년 시민정신으로 키우겟다....
뭔 개소리들을 이리 죶 같이 씨불됩니까??
These lines document not a triumph, but a decades-long disgusting record of misallocation of resources that should be unacceptable and morally shocking. As Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has written: “Growth alone, without far more robust redistribution of wealth, would fail to effectively tackle poverty.” Indeed based on historic trends “it would take 200 years to eradicate poverty under a $5 a day line and would require a 173-fold increase in global GDP.” The current global economy is already busting biosphere boundaries—to ignore this and presume that the global economy can grow 170 times larger is plain science denial. There are remarkably twisted ironies in Pinkering rationalists choosing to ignore the basic facts of ecology and earth sciences.
올리비에 드 슈터(Olivier De Schutter) 유엔 극빈 및 인권 특별서기관은 "부의 강력한 재분배 없이는 성장만으로는 빈곤을 효과적으로 해결하지 못할 것"이라고 썼다. 실제로 역사의 추세에 따르면 하루 5달러 미만의 빈곤을 근절하는 데 200년이 걸릴 것이며 세계 GDP의 173배 증가가 필요할 것이다." 현재의 세계 경제는 이미 생물학적 한계를 허물고 있다. 세계 경제가 170배 더 성장할 수 있다고 가정하는 것은 명백한 과학의 부정이다.
If you are sincere in your concern for the world’s poor and haven’t encountered these facts before, you might consider finding alternative sources of information. Your education and media has failed you. It is not hard to refute the rational-optimist plutocrat-pampering narrative (but that has been too much effort for far too many journalists and pundits who prefer to sell you self-flattering soothing conscience-management fairy tales).
만약 세계의 가난한 사람들을 진심으로 걱정하고 있는데도 이런 사실들을 이전에 접해보지 않았다면, 다른 정보원을 찾는 것을 고려해 보아야 할것이다. 당신의 교육과 미디어는 당신을 망첫다. 합리적이고 낙관주의적인 금권주의자들의 애지중지하는 이야기를 반박하는 것은 어렵지 않다
In the Global South phrases like the “liberal world order” and “free trade” evoke these evident evils. Irish diplomat Conor Cruise O’Brien discovered that people in ex-colonies were often “sickened” by the word liberalism,(식민지 사람들은 종종 자유주의라는 단어에 의해 '병들었다'.................한인들에게 자유는 지뤌병이 맞지요...일제 강점기 36년동안 징용과 징병으로 끌려가 죽은 조선인들의 숫자와....해방후 한국전쟁이 터지기 까지 5년동안 얼마나 많은 사람들이 자유 라는 이름으로 죽엇는지 생각해 보세요.......4.3 제주, 대구 봉기, 여수 순천, 보도연맹.....문자그대로의 자유의 학살입니다.....이 글에서는 그 자유는 본시 부터 굶주림과 살상의 성격을 갖엇다고 이야기 하고 잇습니다). as Pankaj Mishra notes in a London Review of Books essay On Liberalism and Colonialism. They saw it as an “ingratiating moral mask which a toughly acquisitive society wears before the world it robs.”그들은 그것을 "강인하게 탐욕스러운 사회가 세상을 강탈하기 전에 쓰고 잇는 환심을 사기 위한 도덕적 가면"으로 보았다.) Mishra notes that such contradictions “haunted the rhetoric of liberalism from the beginning.”이러한 모순은 "처음부터 자유주의의 수사학과 붙어다니는 것이엇다." He quotes the Samuel Johnson quip, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of the negroes?”어떻게 흑인 운전사들 사이에서 자유를 향한 가장 큰 비명을 들을 수 있지?"= 내가 조국이다.....정신질환과 꼭 같은 것.
Two-hearted two-faced tensions have lurked in the term “liberal” from its beginnings. As historian Alexander Zevin excavates in his book Liberalism at Large: The World According to the Economist, thinkers like John Locke didn’t called themselves liberals. The first people to do so were Spanish activists focused on civil liberties in the aftermath of Napoleonic havoc. Later a uniquely British stream was added which centering economic liberties (typically deemed more important than minor details like democracy). That’s the laissez faire, “free market,” and “free trade” finance-focused ideology that The Economist magazine was founded in 1843 explicitly to promote, as it still does today (for a fast summary check out Zevin on a podcast called The Refined Sociopathy of The Economist). That British greed-driven component (aka greedocracy) has been central to both classical and neo-liberalism. But so far from universal are the norms of classical liberals that Mishra reports, Japanese and Chinese translators of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill had difficulty finding words for phrases like ‘legitimate self-interest’ that avoided the taint of morally reprehensible selfishness and dereliction of duty. Even the most liberal forms of Indian thought were “impregnated with the ideas of sharing, generosity, and compassion… dramatized by tropes from the Indian classics” as Christopher Bayly wrote in Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire. The late nineteenth century Bengali thinker Bal Gangadhar Tilak saw liberalism as a ‘system of duties’ in which “ethical conduct, not rational self-interest, came first.”
Contrast that with Hannah Arendt’s assessment in The Origins of Totalitarianism: the European imperative to ‘imperialize’ meant ‘to organize the nation for the looting of foreign territories and the permanent degradation of alien peoples” (extremely enlightening on lack on liberal enlightenment). As grand mufti Muhammad Abduh declared, “we Egyptians believed once in English liberalism and English sympathy; but we believe no longer for facts are stronger than words. Your liberalness we see plain is only for yourselves and your sympathy is that of the wolf for the lamb which he designs to eat.”
Western psychologists have finally cottoned onto the gross anthropological and empirical errors of presuming that experiments on undergrads on an Anglosphere college campus can shed light on human nature. They’ve coined the acronym W.E.I.R.D. for western, European, industrialized, rich, and democratic. Any economics or politics that casts gentle-commerce greed as just human nature is making a historically and anthropologically ignorant W.E.I.R.D.o sampling error (as Polanyi previously noted).
However glorious the glowing rhetoric of gentle-commerce growth gets, it is best understood as designed to protect and fatten the privileged. As American diplomat George Kennan put it in 1948, we have “50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population… Our task … is to maintain this position of disparity.” -미국은 세계 부의 50 %를 가지고 있지만 미국의 인구는 세계 인구의 6.3 %이다 ... 우리의 임무는 이 불균형의 유지하는 것입니다. ----현재 중국의 성장에 어쩔줄 몰라하는 미국의 지도층의 황당무개한 모습을 보면....이들의 이런 생각이 얼마나 병리적인지 알 수 잇습니다.....중국이 하는 그 어떤것도 그냥 넘어가지 않습니다.............마치 노무현교 쥐쇄끼들의 김건희 물어뜯기 처럼 질리고 악질적입니다..."Today the proportions differ and the ideology now engorges a grotesquely self-satisfied global elite, but neoliberalism enacts the continuation of Kennan’s greed-uber-alles priority. Beware what’s behind the decorous designs of the two-hearted and two-faced beast of liberalism.
George Kennan
Let’s help free market fans and rational optimists avoid (even unwittingly) behaving as badly as those elegant imperial moral monsters of (classical or neo)liberalism. Especially those avuncular avatars of avarice who have usurped the term “rational” to mean something utterly self-serving—their almighty and savage market god of greed isn’t alleviating poverty at anything like a morally acceptable pace. Until the justice-hampering biases baked into free markets are countered by more equitable and just values, economics must not be our main guide on major moral issues (like global poverty, or the climate crisis).
We must be ever vigilant against our own time’s monsters, like those elegant conscience-clearing doctrines that equate all progress with greedocrats graciously gobbling up more of the globe’s resources (strictly for the sake of the poor, of course). If you wish to see the good parts of liberalism’s gifts rescued, you’d better grasp and make amends for its ghastly track record. And best to pay much less heed to those accomplished plutocrat-pampering pundits that our corporate-courtier press loves to parade.
Having been enlightened by all this, what role should greed play in how we run the world?