As this rather wretched and exhausting year comes to a close, I looked back at my list from 2019 and laughed sadly at my optimistic plans to read more in 2020. Perhaps I did when you count news, analysis, etc. online, but in terms of books it was disastrously minimal. However, the books I did read offered brilliant insights or just fascinating bits of knowledge. So, in no real order:
Continue reading “My 2020 Reading List”
The first time I heard the term historical amnesia, it was in relation to a discussion about American exceptionalism and the masses “forgetting” the more bothersome parts of their history of involvement (ironically, I can’t recall the specific source or case I first came across). But, rereading Noam Chomsky’s On Anarchism (again, ironically because at the time I read it, I did so without any real focus or retention), the now seemingly obvious opposite is also true: that the true victories and battles fought by the masses themselves are also victim to this international blank slate.
Continue reading “Historical Amnesia Goes Both Ways”
Constant weariness, a lack of productivity, and general self-loathing has created a cycle resulting in a drought of posting this past month that I simply can’t justify, so let’s attempt to overcome that by breaking in the door to dispel some myths perpetuated by utter fools about socialism and the Australian Labor Party. Just like how the American circus calls Joe Biden and Kamala Harris radical Marxists, if only our leaders were as based as the propagandistic media believes they are.
Continue reading “Is Labor Socialist? I Wish”
Reading Sacha Molitorisz’s Net Privacy: How We Can Be Free in an Age of Surveillance, I have appreciated the background and philosophical backing for protecting privacy. In particular, the relational approach to privacy he describes I think is a brilliant way to expand the scope of what actually constitutes privacy as an individual and societal concern. However, there have been a few points that I do not agree with or wish were explored more; as young as it is, the role blockchain technology has and could play in ensuring net privacy is not even mentioned once. Instead, the chapter I am currently reading speaks of regulation and legislation, talking about the privacy of individuals and society but then falling back on the State or global institutions to uphold it – a tad problematic.
Continue reading “Governments Can’t Self-Regulate Surveillance”
My current read is Net Privacy: How We Can Be Free in an Age of Surveillance, written by Sacha Molitorisz, which is unexpectedly intensely philosophical in its approach. At little over the halfway mark, whilst it seemingly hasn’t answered the question posed by the subtitle, it has still been a fascinating book that I would recommend. Although I do intend on writing a piece on it relating to the commodification of data and privacy, here I want to jump on a bit of a tangent. Molitorisz references Immanuel Kant a number of times, and it is one reference to “rational beings” that I am homing in on.
Because in the modern world, Kant’s rational beings are seemingly dwindling.
Continue reading “Loss of Rationality: Kant, Consumerism, and Democracy”
In the past week, both the Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald, the Murdoch and Costello duo enveloping Australia’s media landscape, did hit pieces on Friendlyjordies. This resulted in a number of things, the most ironic being the skyrocket of attention someone can get from being on the front page of a national paper. But for all the transparently hostile spin towards Jordan, there is one criticism I saw in the online response to these pieces that I thought worth noting: Friendlyjordies is not the be all and end all of political thought.
Continue reading “Go Beyond Friendlyjordies”
I am reading Globalization and Its Discontents (damn Americanisation’s), the updated version with the advent of Donald Trump, written by Joseph E. Stiglitz. In it he describes how globalisation has seemingly failed the world, producing discontents with the system. In the 2002 edition, it was mostly the developing world that suffered, but more recently developed countries have increasingly opposed globalisation. Stiglitz argued this is due to gross mismanagement, but as he admits later, even well managed globalisation results in “losers” in the system.
Continue reading “Globalisation Conveniently Works When People Lose”
There is a contradiction in the way the proponents of capitalism approach the concept of the “zero-sum game”, the notion that wealth created or owned in one place must come at the expense of others. This conversation has taken many different forms, from the power of the British Empire on a global scale to national debates over the merits of immigration and welfare. But one on side of the debate, there appears to be a glaring inconsistency in their logic.
Continue reading “The Contradiction of the Zero-Sum Game”
I am once more late to the party of outrage and debate on this topic, but recently there was social upheaval over the name of a cheese brand. With or without prior context, you can probably guess who took which side and what arguments were used for or against the pending change. But I just want to make a quick point, mostly to call out a frequently recurring criticism about the motives of corporations to instead smack them back down with an entirely separate criticism. Sorry to upset some people, but Coon cheese – the cheese of contention – is capitalist.
Continue reading “The Cheese Is Capitalist”
Random short rant in response to a comment I saw underneath an Advance Australia post.
“Black Lives Matter are in fact promoting a ‘racial divide’ and perpetuating racism. The left thrive on division.”
So the post claims. Below in the comments, a response not only highlights some people’s ignorance of the Black Lives Matter movement (or any “leftist” movement, whatever that means), but, seemingly without self-awareness of any kind, advocates rather totalitarian methods of combatting them. As the post title suggests, it is, ironically, an attack on free speech.
Continue reading “What About Free Speech?”