PROUTLY collapsing
March 31, 2008 4:07 AM Subscribe
"This author says, things are going to get much worse fast – maybe in just two or three years. In his new book, Collapse, Jared Diamond says that the traditional values which sustained America for the past 200 years are simply not going to work anymore, and Americans will have to change their mindset and adopt new, more selfless values. Americans celebrated capitalism, but capitalism is not working anymore, and it is time to develop a new economic model. Americans celebrated individualism, but there is too much individual suffering. Individualism needs to be replaced by thinking for the collective welfare.
We need to feel the pain of our brothers and sisters without health care, without pension, without job, and without a home due to bankruptcy. The value of nationalism is outdated and completely racist and isolationist. It is time to replace nationalism with the concept of universalism – the idea that all people are brothers and sisters, free to move and settle anywhere on this earth without restrictions. Universalism means, we are one human family and one human culture. We are not to make racist distinctions based on external appearances and differences in language or dress. If Americans begin to make fundamental changes in their thinking and thereafter in their lifestyles, the economic collapse can conceivably be avoided." But Sale says that they won’t make these changes in time. It means that collapse of Empire is inevitable."
I found this screed a bit more realistically supported by links and articles than the Swedish Pirate party one, but if you don't want to read the whole thing - VERY LONG - try the footnote links to articles. Disclaimer: I'm not for or against what the author is recommending as a solution but found the analysis fascinating.
We need to feel the pain of our brothers and sisters without health care, without pension, without job, and without a home due to bankruptcy. The value of nationalism is outdated and completely racist and isolationist. It is time to replace nationalism with the concept of universalism – the idea that all people are brothers and sisters, free to move and settle anywhere on this earth without restrictions. Universalism means, we are one human family and one human culture. We are not to make racist distinctions based on external appearances and differences in language or dress. If Americans begin to make fundamental changes in their thinking and thereafter in their lifestyles, the economic collapse can conceivably be avoided." But Sale says that they won’t make these changes in time. It means that collapse of Empire is inevitable."
I found this screed a bit more realistically supported by links and articles than the Swedish Pirate party one, but if you don't want to read the whole thing - VERY LONG - try the footnote links to articles. Disclaimer: I'm not for or against what the author is recommending as a solution but found the analysis fascinating.
This post was deleted for the following reason: screeds are rarely good posts for mefi and long unattributed pullquotes are worse. -- jessamyn
So the guy lost a lot of weight eating at Subway. Now we let him write books?
posted by Eideteker at 4:33 AM on March 31, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by Eideteker at 4:33 AM on March 31, 2008 [4 favorites]
So the guy lost a lot of weight eating at Subway. Now we let him write books?
And cranky fucking books. Someone get that guy a sandwich.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:37 AM on March 31, 2008
And cranky fucking books. Someone get that guy a sandwich.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:37 AM on March 31, 2008
upon a rapid scan of your paragraph, I thought that the link under "this author says" would be this one. Interesting stuff anyway, thanks.
posted by nicolin at 4:39 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by nicolin at 4:39 AM on March 31, 2008
Ah perhaps I should put the title of the article etc
Fall of the American Empire and the Rise of a New Economy
Written by Garda Ghista
Sunday, 30 March 2008
I. Proof of Empire
II. Proof of Collapse
III. Rise of a New Economy
posted by infini at 4:49 AM on March 31, 2008
Fall of the American Empire and the Rise of a New Economy
Written by Garda Ghista
Sunday, 30 March 2008
I. Proof of Empire
II. Proof of Collapse
III. Rise of a New Economy
posted by infini at 4:49 AM on March 31, 2008
This, again, falls under the category of "tell me something I didn't already know," and in the immortal words of Ignatius J. Reilly, let all those who are opposed scream "COMUNISS!"
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:51 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:51 AM on March 31, 2008
While other nations realize it full well, Americans do not want to accept that the United States dominates the world through military power.
Perhaps the author failed to notice that there are way more McDonalds franchises worldwide than American military bases. And that in most parts of the world, local commericial broadcasts of American TV, films, and music are much more noticeable than VOA propoganda. Hell, I would be willing to bet that Starbucks has more employees based in foreign countries than the CIA.
America dominates the world through its economic and cultural might.
On the other hand, the American empire ruled by military power may be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely, McDonalds, Starbucks and Hollywood would do a better job at extending the American empire there than what its military is presently doing.
posted by three blind mice at 5:01 AM on March 31, 2008
Perhaps the author failed to notice that there are way more McDonalds franchises worldwide than American military bases. And that in most parts of the world, local commericial broadcasts of American TV, films, and music are much more noticeable than VOA propoganda. Hell, I would be willing to bet that Starbucks has more employees based in foreign countries than the CIA.
America dominates the world through its economic and cultural might.
On the other hand, the American empire ruled by military power may be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely, McDonalds, Starbucks and Hollywood would do a better job at extending the American empire there than what its military is presently doing.
posted by three blind mice at 5:01 AM on March 31, 2008
Wow. That article is shit. I largely agree with point he is trying to make but the sheer crapness makes me doubt my position.
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 AM on March 31, 2008
While I agree in principle with the linked articles general premise, IMHO the tone of the article doesn't motivate me to read the entire thing. Its pointless to drone on and on and on about how America is a soulless, imperialist, indigenous-peoples-crushing, militant, expansionist, greedy-resource-wasting empire. It may be true, and we should learn things from history, but (again, IMHO) its a waste of time to rehash all of that when our primary focus should be to concentrate all our energy on actually solving the problems facing us.
Reminds me of UFO nuts who may have some legitimate facts, but ramble on wrapped up in so many paranoid theories that any credibility they had is out the window.
Reminds me of anarchists and anti-corporation demonstrators who may have legitimate grievances but lose all credibility yelling and screaming and setting things on fire.
Reminds me of environmentalists who could easily and quickly present clear and concise factual data, but lose all credibility because they'd rather ram whaling ships,etc.
Point I'm trying to make: We (all nations) have made mistakes. Lets stop wasting so much energy rehashing the past,and actually start working together on real, tangible, produce able results. Unlike the mostly localized disasters of the past, the problems facing us in the near future will only be overcome with global-teamwork.
Less noise, more signal.
Less fluff, more substance,
Less talk, more action (results).
posted by jmnugent at 5:12 AM on March 31, 2008
Reminds me of UFO nuts who may have some legitimate facts, but ramble on wrapped up in so many paranoid theories that any credibility they had is out the window.
Reminds me of anarchists and anti-corporation demonstrators who may have legitimate grievances but lose all credibility yelling and screaming and setting things on fire.
Reminds me of environmentalists who could easily and quickly present clear and concise factual data, but lose all credibility because they'd rather ram whaling ships,etc.
Point I'm trying to make: We (all nations) have made mistakes. Lets stop wasting so much energy rehashing the past,and actually start working together on real, tangible, produce able results. Unlike the mostly localized disasters of the past, the problems facing us in the near future will only be overcome with global-teamwork.
Less noise, more signal.
Less fluff, more substance,
Less talk, more action (results).
posted by jmnugent at 5:12 AM on March 31, 2008
On the other hand, the American empire ruled by military power may be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Don't forget cell phone companies. Can someone please explain to me why they are using CDMA instead of GSM? What. The. Fuck?
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 5:13 AM on March 31, 2008
Don't forget cell phone companies. Can someone please explain to me why they are using CDMA instead of GSM? What. The. Fuck?
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 5:13 AM on March 31, 2008
Haha. I have to say, for the first time in a long time reading Metafilter, the comments this morning are cracking my shit up.
posted by tgrundke at 5:15 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by tgrundke at 5:15 AM on March 31, 2008
Not going to happen. You can wish for it as much as you want, but modern empires don't fall that quickly.
America still has a coupla hundred years in it.
posted by seanyboy at 5:17 AM on March 31, 2008
America still has a coupla hundred years in it.
posted by seanyboy at 5:17 AM on March 31, 2008
This is a HIGHLY simplistic, biased interpretation of Collapse. In fact, I am almost positive that the OP hasn't actually read the book, which deserves much better than this crap post.
posted by waraw at 5:23 AM on March 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by waraw at 5:23 AM on March 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
Reality: It's not just the USA, nation-states as primary global actors are on their way down; the economies of scale that made them appealing are diminishing. Not that global influence is a zero-sum game of course.
Snark: I think I wrote an essay like this in high school. Actually I think I wrote this essay in high school...
posted by Skorgu at 5:25 AM on March 31, 2008
Snark: I think I wrote an essay like this in high school. Actually I think I wrote this essay in high school...
posted by Skorgu at 5:25 AM on March 31, 2008
America dominates the world through its economic and cultural might with its mighty penis.
(F'reals: The US doesn't dominate anything. For a few generations, the rest of the world has sought--sometimes eagerly, sometimes ambivalently--American culture and products. When the rest of the world stops wanting us (or at least tolerating us), we'll see just how much we dominate.)
That article looks like a dog's breakfast of platitudes and stabtastic rants. But in a good way.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:31 AM on March 31, 2008
(F'reals: The US doesn't dominate anything. For a few generations, the rest of the world has sought--sometimes eagerly, sometimes ambivalently--American culture and products. When the rest of the world stops wanting us (or at least tolerating us), we'll see just how much we dominate.)
That article looks like a dog's breakfast of platitudes and stabtastic rants. But in a good way.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:31 AM on March 31, 2008
Having many bases around the world doesn't make the US an Empire - with the obvious exceptions, these bases have no authority or influence in the states where they reside. Nor does selling a lot of coffee or cola or films give you an Empire. If selling your products to country A made A part of your Empire, then the US would be part of the Chinese Empire, and would have been a province of Japan for quite a large chunk of the last century.
The US does not resemble ancient Rome. The best ancient parallel I can think of offhand is the period of Athenian pre-eminence within the Hellenic world: but even that's not a really good comparison - the modern situation is unique and unparalleled, and deserves to be examined with fresh eyes.
So can we drop the 'Empire' stuff? Please?
posted by Phanx at 5:40 AM on March 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
The US does not resemble ancient Rome. The best ancient parallel I can think of offhand is the period of Athenian pre-eminence within the Hellenic world: but even that's not a really good comparison - the modern situation is unique and unparalleled, and deserves to be examined with fresh eyes.
So can we drop the 'Empire' stuff? Please?
posted by Phanx at 5:40 AM on March 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
Those ads on the side are really interesting. Much better than on the sites I normally read.
"The new game in Somalia is to call your enemy a terrorist in hope that America will destroy him for you."
"Today's American policy failure has three components: injustice towards Eritrea, double-standards in Ethiopia, and total failure in Somalia."
I wish I regularly saw ads that critical of American policies in my newspaper. You'd think with our vaunted "freedom of speech/ freedom of the press" that would happen, but not in my experience.
Wasn't Eritrea in Bush's list of the "coalition of the willing?"
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2008
"The new game in Somalia is to call your enemy a terrorist in hope that America will destroy him for you."
"Today's American policy failure has three components: injustice towards Eritrea, double-standards in Ethiopia, and total failure in Somalia."
I wish I regularly saw ads that critical of American policies in my newspaper. You'd think with our vaunted "freedom of speech/ freedom of the press" that would happen, but not in my experience.
Wasn't Eritrea in Bush's list of the "coalition of the willing?"
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2008
I just got put on the no-fly list, didn't I?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
Having many bases around the world doesn't make the US an Empire - with the obvious exceptions, these bases have no authority or influence in the states where they reside.
Two words - Saudi Arabia. Need any more?
So if Cuba asked nicely, the US would just pack up and leave Guantanamo?
And, of course, reciprocity. Can't wait to see the Saudi naval base in Chesapeake Bay.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2008
Two words - Saudi Arabia. Need any more?
So if Cuba asked nicely, the US would just pack up and leave Guantanamo?
And, of course, reciprocity. Can't wait to see the Saudi naval base in Chesapeake Bay.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2008
Senator Incitatus D-NY disputes the premise of your screed.
Also, she would like some oats.
posted by felix betachat at 5:57 AM on March 31, 2008
Also, she would like some oats.
posted by felix betachat at 5:57 AM on March 31, 2008
His new book Collapse that came out in 1995.
posted by smackfu at 6:04 AM on March 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 6:04 AM on March 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
US bases reflect US power and global reach alright, Codger - but that's not an Empire. Guantanamo Bay actually illustrates the point well - is Cuba a province of the US Empire?
In case it's not clear, by saying it has no Empire I mean to praise the US, not belittle it.
posted by Phanx at 6:10 AM on March 31, 2008
In case it's not clear, by saying it has no Empire I mean to praise the US, not belittle it.
posted by Phanx at 6:10 AM on March 31, 2008
As one global population fighting for moral economic justice, we can fight the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF, defy their so-called laws, and if necessary be ready to go to prison during that fight! We must speak out in protest in order to end the economic domination of these capitalist institutions. The Battle of Seattle was the first step, when more than 1600 organizations from 90 countries on every continent came to protest trade liberalization. They understood the suffering that WTO leaves in its wake! We need to create a massive global second step – leaving a footprint so deep that it cannot be removed.
We need to bring the WB and IMF to their knees!
Really now? "The Battle of Seattle?" It consistently amazes me that people can actually take things like this seriously. I don't think it's controversial that the US is kind of in a bad way at the moment. It's slightly more controversial--though perhaps incontrovertible--that the next ten years are going to see a dramatic change in the way America relates to the rest of the world. I second Devils Rancher: "Tell me something I didn't already know."
But more than the sin of obviousness, the author commits the sin of not actually making any real suggestions. We need to climb out of these two economic boxes – one called capitalism and the other called communism – and step outside into the fresh open air of new visions of economic and social understandings that will bring real benefit to the people. Why not just say this and have done with it? It contributes just about as much to the conversation.
posted by valkyryn at 6:18 AM on March 31, 2008
We need to bring the WB and IMF to their knees!
Really now? "The Battle of Seattle?" It consistently amazes me that people can actually take things like this seriously. I don't think it's controversial that the US is kind of in a bad way at the moment. It's slightly more controversial--though perhaps incontrovertible--that the next ten years are going to see a dramatic change in the way America relates to the rest of the world. I second Devils Rancher: "Tell me something I didn't already know."
But more than the sin of obviousness, the author commits the sin of not actually making any real suggestions. We need to climb out of these two economic boxes – one called capitalism and the other called communism – and step outside into the fresh open air of new visions of economic and social understandings that will bring real benefit to the people. Why not just say this and have done with it? It contributes just about as much to the conversation.
posted by valkyryn at 6:18 AM on March 31, 2008
So, who do you think is going to be the new World Superpower after this?
posted by hadjiboy at 6:19 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by hadjiboy at 6:19 AM on March 31, 2008
His new book Collapse that came out in 1995.
Just what I came here to say.
This is a HIGHLY simplistic, biased interpretation of Collapse. In fact, I am almost positive that the OP hasn't actually read the book, which deserves much better than this crap post.
And this.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 AM on March 31, 2008
Just what I came here to say.
This is a HIGHLY simplistic, biased interpretation of Collapse. In fact, I am almost positive that the OP hasn't actually read the book, which deserves much better than this crap post.
And this.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 AM on March 31, 2008
His new book Collapse that came out in 1995.
Don't know where you got this from, are you just exaggerating for effect? Wikipedia and Amazon both say 2005, which doesn't really count as new certainly.
posted by biffa at 6:29 AM on March 31, 2008
Don't know where you got this from, are you just exaggerating for effect? Wikipedia and Amazon both say 2005, which doesn't really count as new certainly.
posted by biffa at 6:29 AM on March 31, 2008
Yeah, 2005.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:39 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:39 AM on March 31, 2008
Yep, I was too hasty in my quoting. Not new, but not 13 years old either. Still, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:44 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:44 AM on March 31, 2008
Americans celebrated capitalism, but capitalism is not working anymore, and it is time to develop a new economic model.
Capitalism is not working anymore? Did anyone tell China, or Google, and the oil companies?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:57 AM on March 31, 2008
Capitalism is not working anymore? Did anyone tell China, or Google, and the oil companies?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:57 AM on March 31, 2008
I don't really understand the OP. Who's saying what? It's a mass of what I think are quotes from somebody, mixed with editorial comments, but it's not clear which are which.
The first sentence name-drops Jared Diamond, but from what I can tell, he's not the one who's actually going all doom-and-gloom on America; it's somebody else who's using his book as evidence. At the end of the second paragraph, we have "But Sale says that they won’t make these changes in time." Who is Sale? I clicked on the first link, and 'this author' is somebody named Garda Ghista, not Diamond, and not Sale.
Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee this morning, but I'm not following. My first reading had me believing that Jared Diamond was the one saying that America is going to collapse -- which would be pretty significant, since he kind of wrote the book on the topic. But on rereading and looking at the link, I don't get who this person is who's writing about the Imminent Death of America, or why I should care what they think / how is it any different from the multitude of claims in that vein that haven't panned out.
I'm not trying to be harsh, but if you're going to write an FPP that's basically "famous person x says controversial thing y!" or even "person you've never heard of z says controversial thing y!", it helps to clearly introduce who the claimant is.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:00 AM on March 31, 2008
The first sentence name-drops Jared Diamond, but from what I can tell, he's not the one who's actually going all doom-and-gloom on America; it's somebody else who's using his book as evidence. At the end of the second paragraph, we have "But Sale says that they won’t make these changes in time." Who is Sale? I clicked on the first link, and 'this author' is somebody named Garda Ghista, not Diamond, and not Sale.
Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee this morning, but I'm not following. My first reading had me believing that Jared Diamond was the one saying that America is going to collapse -- which would be pretty significant, since he kind of wrote the book on the topic. But on rereading and looking at the link, I don't get who this person is who's writing about the Imminent Death of America, or why I should care what they think / how is it any different from the multitude of claims in that vein that haven't panned out.
I'm not trying to be harsh, but if you're going to write an FPP that's basically "famous person x says controversial thing y!" or even "person you've never heard of z says controversial thing y!", it helps to clearly introduce who the claimant is.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:00 AM on March 31, 2008
The piece ought to consider what insights are at present being offered by evolutionary theory.
*rolls eyes* Oh come on, evolutionary theory was used to justify all kinds of bullshit in the past (Social Darwinism). There is no reason to structure our society around any facet of evolution. Science describes how things are, not how they should be. And evolutionary psychology is pretty bogus.
Perhaps the author failed to notice that there are way more McDonalds franchises worldwide than American military bases.
And yet, there are more Chinese restaurants in the U.S. then there are McDonalds. So what does that say? I'd say it points out that cultural influence is not the same thing as actual "dominance". Just because someone eats at McDonalds and listens to M.C. Hammer does not mean they are going to support U.S. Policy any more then eating General Tso's chicken is going to make you support oppression in Tibet.
posted by delmoi at 7:44 AM on March 31, 2008
*rolls eyes* Oh come on, evolutionary theory was used to justify all kinds of bullshit in the past (Social Darwinism). There is no reason to structure our society around any facet of evolution. Science describes how things are, not how they should be. And evolutionary psychology is pretty bogus.
Perhaps the author failed to notice that there are way more McDonalds franchises worldwide than American military bases.
And yet, there are more Chinese restaurants in the U.S. then there are McDonalds. So what does that say? I'd say it points out that cultural influence is not the same thing as actual "dominance". Just because someone eats at McDonalds and listens to M.C. Hammer does not mean they are going to support U.S. Policy any more then eating General Tso's chicken is going to make you support oppression in Tibet.
posted by delmoi at 7:44 AM on March 31, 2008
The way this FPP is written is one of the best examples of why "this guy" posts (where we have no idea who we're about to encounter when we click the link b/c someone likes surprises or thinks something is waaaaay more obvious than it may actually be) kinda get under my skin even when I'm predisposed to being interested in the subject matter.
The article itself is a bit overdramatic and yet dry at the same time. Makes me think of crimson matzo.
The ideas being discussed, however, really float my boat. Tasty, tasty Universalism.
(I maybe should have had breakfast)
posted by batmonkey at 7:47 AM on March 31, 2008
The article itself is a bit overdramatic and yet dry at the same time. Makes me think of crimson matzo.
The ideas being discussed, however, really float my boat. Tasty, tasty Universalism.
(I maybe should have had breakfast)
posted by batmonkey at 7:47 AM on March 31, 2008
try this how many KNOWN military bases does the US have worldwide? How many people in the military are stationed at those bases? Can you name the country with just about one million people that has just become home to a very large US military base? and on and on.
we justify what we are doiing by saying that we are "benign."
posted by Postroad at 7:49 AM on March 31, 2008
we justify what we are doiing by saying that we are "benign."
posted by Postroad at 7:49 AM on March 31, 2008
What means it "PROUTLY"?
I am not to knowing this acronymism. For to explain in English language, I offer great sex explosion unto you.
Most expectantly gratification,
Yours.
posted by Mister_A at 7:53 AM on March 31, 2008
I am not to knowing this acronymism. For to explain in English language, I offer great sex explosion unto you.
Most expectantly gratification,
Yours.
posted by Mister_A at 7:53 AM on March 31, 2008
Just because someone eats at McDonalds and listens to M.C. Hammer does not mean they are going to support U.S. Policy any more then eating General Tso's chicken is going to make you support oppression in Tibet.
McDonalds (and to a somewhat lesser extent Mr. Hammer) are brands identified with America. American brands routinely attract political protests and anti-American boycotts. Protesting the treatment of Tibetan monks by boycotting chicken with cashew nuts would be a very subtle form of protest.
A positive view of American brands produces a positive view of America. Thanks to Starucks, for example, foreigners have been brainwashed to believe that America actually has a coffee culture.
posted by three blind mice at 8:05 AM on March 31, 2008
McDonalds (and to a somewhat lesser extent Mr. Hammer) are brands identified with America. American brands routinely attract political protests and anti-American boycotts. Protesting the treatment of Tibetan monks by boycotting chicken with cashew nuts would be a very subtle form of protest.
A positive view of American brands produces a positive view of America. Thanks to Starucks, for example, foreigners have been brainwashed to believe that America actually has a coffee culture.
posted by three blind mice at 8:05 AM on March 31, 2008
Don't know where you got this from, are you just exaggerating for effect?
The article called it a new book. I disagree! (Perhaps "latest book" would have been better.)
posted by smackfu at 8:08 AM on March 31, 2008
The article called it a new book. I disagree! (Perhaps "latest book" would have been better.)
posted by smackfu at 8:08 AM on March 31, 2008
Perhaps it's a Second Edition!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:21 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:21 AM on March 31, 2008
Long cat is looong, crap article is craaap.
This article, much like ones from Marxists and other heavy ideology people, is not really about the subject matter. The post could start off talking about Iraq, or a new book coming out, or any other subject that has the popular interest. The goal is to use that as a way to segue into a discussion of the ideology. This is why the article doesn't make much sense, it quickly descends into the jargon of the ideology.
The ideology in question is Prout, and from what I can skim, it appears to be a reheating of tired Marxist theory, which some odd spiritual malarkey added in for flavor. They also appear to have a hard on for hating financial institutions. Their primary means of affecting change appears to be massive walls of text, and selling books.
Has anyone else heard about Prout? A google search for it leads to page upon page of web pages that look like they are by the same people.
posted by zabuni at 8:21 AM on March 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
This article, much like ones from Marxists and other heavy ideology people, is not really about the subject matter. The post could start off talking about Iraq, or a new book coming out, or any other subject that has the popular interest. The goal is to use that as a way to segue into a discussion of the ideology. This is why the article doesn't make much sense, it quickly descends into the jargon of the ideology.
The ideology in question is Prout, and from what I can skim, it appears to be a reheating of tired Marxist theory, which some odd spiritual malarkey added in for flavor. They also appear to have a hard on for hating financial institutions. Their primary means of affecting change appears to be massive walls of text, and selling books.
Has anyone else heard about Prout? A google search for it leads to page upon page of web pages that look like they are by the same people.
posted by zabuni at 8:21 AM on March 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wait, nationalism is "outdated and completely isolationist and racist", but "regional, self-sufficient socio-economic units" are fine...? What the hell does this guy think nations are? "Locally produced basic commodities should be protected from competition with cheaper goods produced in other countries" -- what, exactly, justifies this other than nationalism and/or isolationism?
I'm all for greater collective responsibility, but this guy's argument sucks.
posted by vorfeed at 8:38 AM on March 31, 2008
I'm all for greater collective responsibility, but this guy's argument sucks.
posted by vorfeed at 8:38 AM on March 31, 2008
The ideology in question is Prout, and from what I can skim, it appears to be a reheating of tired Marxist theory
Wow, that site is seriously messed up! Are you sure that they still exist?
posted by The Light Fantastic at 8:40 AM on March 31, 2008
Wow, that site is seriously messed up! Are you sure that they still exist?
posted by The Light Fantastic at 8:40 AM on March 31, 2008
it appears to be a reheating of tired Marxist theory
Marxist, possibly; vulgar, certainly.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:46 AM on March 31, 2008
Marxist, possibly; vulgar, certainly.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:46 AM on March 31, 2008
Good Lord, that Prout FAQ sounds like it was written 50 years ago:
posted by octobersurprise at 9:02 AM on March 31, 2008
39. What are the three main factors required for successful cooperatives?Skimming the FAQ and website, to me the whole thing looks like something between a cult and a con.
A. Morality, strong supervision, and the wholehearted acceptance of the masses. When these factors were present, cooperatives have invariably met with success.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:02 AM on March 31, 2008
« Older Exiled from his Eden | The Greatest Show on Earth Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Postroad at 4:16 AM on March 31, 2008