emeraldglass
6'1" Gymmaxed Moroccan
Staff
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2022
- Posts
- 9,920
- Reputation
- 16,447
Take a look at this thread I wrote to understand the complexities of modern power dynamics.
Because most of the people here have the attention span of a baby, I've summarized the key points below. However, I strongly advise you to read the entire text.
These days, control and power are complicated issues. The modern world has various sorts of empires and imperialism than it had in the past. There exist a variety of empires, including private sector, shareholder, oligarchical, debt-ridden, and private sector empires, all of which overlap and interact.
There are spheres of influence that operate like soft empires. Vanguard and BlackRock are examples of these new, somewhat opaque forms of empire. At the same time, they can all be occupying the same geographical areas, and in certain situations, in fact, most of the time, the governments in those areas are comparatively modest or subordinate administrative structures. The government suggests nodes in a larger power network. While it's not the same everywhere, in the West at least, it is.
So what I mean is, in the global South, in the developing world, in some Muslim countries, this phenomenon is less pronounced. However, this is largely because these areas have not yet been absorbed into the global power networks or integrated into the virtual territory of these other empires. So national governments in those parts of the world still, are able to exercise some degree of sovereignty. But that's likely to change very soon with a pivot to the global South.
In fact, BRICS and the redirection of the global economy toward the global South entail the integration of the Southern Hemisphere into the intersecting private sector power networks, essentially the empires. This poses an extraordinarily complicated challenge and it renders everything that we previously thought about liberation movements, you know, independence movements, revolutions, and so on. It renders all of that completely obsolete.
In the context of modern power dynamics, all of these conceptions have become overly simplified. Today, you must defend your sovereignty in several realms simultaneously against the dominance of multiple other imperial powers, undefined imperial powers. I mean, you can declare your independence, or a theocratic government, or whatever, but what meaning would those declarations have? What genuine independence would you have if you remained tied in this broad interlocking system of power networks, when your economy was based within the shared territory of multiple empires?
I mean, look at what those powers did to the Syriza government in Greece, for instance. Listen to Giannis Varoufakis talking about the IMF and the European Central Bank and how Greece's banks were threatened with a total cutoff of credit and liquidity. Or when Manuel Zelaya in Honduras was toppled in a coup because he wanted to raise the minimum wage. And what used to be the old United Fruit Company, now Chiquita Brands International, they supported the coup with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. And then after the coup, they paid lobbyists to make sure that the coup was legal and constitutional. Then the IMF opened the tap for massive loans to the country.
You may also look at what's going on in Russia right now. You know, there are just so many examples. No node in the network has independence or sovereignty, and it cannot make decisions on its own. Independence is not something that can simply be declared. It's something that has to be built up over time, and it's primarily an economic endeavor, not a political one. You must develop the ability to withdraw yourself from the network, which requires not just self-sufficiency but also the ability to reject external coercion.
Russia worked on it, and they began to take it seriously after Crimea, which is why they can even function now under sanctions. The UAE has also been working on this for a long time and has taken it very seriously, and they are doing quite well. This demands extremely skillful maneuvering inside your existing imperial power networks, counterbalancing interests secretly and strategically, and attempting to strengthen your own authority without threatening or conflicting with others.
It requires a coldly objective assessment of your position in the networks, an assessment of your resources and your impact on everyone else's interests. No revolution is going to achieve that for you, no jihad, no declaration of independence, no declaration of or the enactment of the Sharia. Those types of things are all at this point empty gestures that will not suddenly make you viable and sovereign. And again, there's just too many examples to go through to prove that.
You know, in my opinion, the most overlooked component of all of this is the people and their failure to identify private sector power as the biggest and major controlling force in their life, which needs to be brought to accountability. In my opinion, the entire focus of political activism, organizing, and so on should transfer from the government to the private sector. You must understand that no matter what state structure or government system you have, leadership, policymaking, and governance are all determined by the highest ranks of influential people in society, the people we call the elite, the people who tie and untie, the people who connect and disconnect, the movers and shakers.
That has always been the case, and it always will be the case in every culture, system, and location, because it is just a reality of human society. Some people wield a greater influence than others, and this is true today in the West, the East, the global South, the global North, and the Muslim world. And those people, as well as the institutions that represent them, must be brought into the focus of activism, lobbying, campaigning, and pressure in order to make them accountable and responsive to the public.
That is the power of the private sector, and private sector power is imbedded in networks of workers, consumers, and other stakeholders. However, when those networks of consumers, workers, and stakeholders are inactive, complacent, dormant, or distracted, private sector power is allowed to operate independently, selfishly, and with sovereignty because no one is paying attention and everyone is preoccupied with the official power dynamics rather than the real existing power dynamics.
In other words, they are preoccupied with the government while entirely ignoring the powers that overshadow governments, despite the fact that there are several ways in which the people can influence the private sector more than the government. They have you focusing on the least important and least meaningful aspect of the power structure, and ironically, they have you directing your rage and resentment at governments while frequently celebrating, the very oligarchs, billionaires, brand names, and corporations that the government is serving against your interests.
I mean, you'll look up to people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others. You'll adore these people while despising the politicians who serve them. And you occasionally despise them because they do their bidding, but your rage is seldom focused toward those who are obeyed. That doesn't make sense, does it? So the connection between the public and business must be fundamentally changed and this alone, I believe, could get you far closer to having a nation with actual sovereignty and independence.
However, it demands public awareness and participation, as well as changing the relationship between the private sector and the population.
Because most of the people here have the attention span of a baby, I've summarized the key points below. However, I strongly advise you to read the entire text.
- In the modern world, empires of various forms, such as private sector, shareholder, oligarchical, and debt-ridden empires, overlap and interact.
- Soft empires operate like spheres of influence, with organizations like Vanguard and BlackRock reflecting invisible kinds of empire.
- Governments in certain regions are often subordinate to bigger power networks, particularly in the West.
- Due to limited integration into global power networks, sovereignty is feasible in the global South, developing world, and some Muslim countries. But it will change in the future.
- The integration of the Southern Hemisphere into private sector power networks provides a difficult problem, making traditional ideas of independence and freedom outdated.
- To defend sovereignty, requires simultaneous efforts against multiple imperial powers, forcing a move from basic concepts to a more sophisticated understanding of power dynamics.
- Declarations of independence or governments lose substance if they are linked in vast interwoven power networks without economic might.
- Examples such as Greece's Syriza government demonstrate the challenges in achieving full goverment and economic independence within global power networks.
- Building independence is an economical endeavor that needs smart maneuvering, balancing interests, and strategically solidifying control within existing power networks.
- Political action should move its attention away from governments and toward the private sector, acknowledging prominent individuals and organizations as important governing influences.
- People's failure to identify and hold private sector power accountable permits it to function without supervision and with sovereignty.
- Transforming the partnership between the public and private sectors, improving public knowledge, and promoting involvement from everyone could result in a nation with genuine sovereignty and independence.
These days, control and power are complicated issues. The modern world has various sorts of empires and imperialism than it had in the past. There exist a variety of empires, including private sector, shareholder, oligarchical, debt-ridden, and private sector empires, all of which overlap and interact.
There are spheres of influence that operate like soft empires. Vanguard and BlackRock are examples of these new, somewhat opaque forms of empire. At the same time, they can all be occupying the same geographical areas, and in certain situations, in fact, most of the time, the governments in those areas are comparatively modest or subordinate administrative structures. The government suggests nodes in a larger power network. While it's not the same everywhere, in the West at least, it is.
So what I mean is, in the global South, in the developing world, in some Muslim countries, this phenomenon is less pronounced. However, this is largely because these areas have not yet been absorbed into the global power networks or integrated into the virtual territory of these other empires. So national governments in those parts of the world still, are able to exercise some degree of sovereignty. But that's likely to change very soon with a pivot to the global South.
In fact, BRICS and the redirection of the global economy toward the global South entail the integration of the Southern Hemisphere into the intersecting private sector power networks, essentially the empires. This poses an extraordinarily complicated challenge and it renders everything that we previously thought about liberation movements, you know, independence movements, revolutions, and so on. It renders all of that completely obsolete.
In the context of modern power dynamics, all of these conceptions have become overly simplified. Today, you must defend your sovereignty in several realms simultaneously against the dominance of multiple other imperial powers, undefined imperial powers. I mean, you can declare your independence, or a theocratic government, or whatever, but what meaning would those declarations have? What genuine independence would you have if you remained tied in this broad interlocking system of power networks, when your economy was based within the shared territory of multiple empires?
I mean, look at what those powers did to the Syriza government in Greece, for instance. Listen to Giannis Varoufakis talking about the IMF and the European Central Bank and how Greece's banks were threatened with a total cutoff of credit and liquidity. Or when Manuel Zelaya in Honduras was toppled in a coup because he wanted to raise the minimum wage. And what used to be the old United Fruit Company, now Chiquita Brands International, they supported the coup with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. And then after the coup, they paid lobbyists to make sure that the coup was legal and constitutional. Then the IMF opened the tap for massive loans to the country.
You may also look at what's going on in Russia right now. You know, there are just so many examples. No node in the network has independence or sovereignty, and it cannot make decisions on its own. Independence is not something that can simply be declared. It's something that has to be built up over time, and it's primarily an economic endeavor, not a political one. You must develop the ability to withdraw yourself from the network, which requires not just self-sufficiency but also the ability to reject external coercion.
Russia worked on it, and they began to take it seriously after Crimea, which is why they can even function now under sanctions. The UAE has also been working on this for a long time and has taken it very seriously, and they are doing quite well. This demands extremely skillful maneuvering inside your existing imperial power networks, counterbalancing interests secretly and strategically, and attempting to strengthen your own authority without threatening or conflicting with others.
It requires a coldly objective assessment of your position in the networks, an assessment of your resources and your impact on everyone else's interests. No revolution is going to achieve that for you, no jihad, no declaration of independence, no declaration of or the enactment of the Sharia. Those types of things are all at this point empty gestures that will not suddenly make you viable and sovereign. And again, there's just too many examples to go through to prove that.
You know, in my opinion, the most overlooked component of all of this is the people and their failure to identify private sector power as the biggest and major controlling force in their life, which needs to be brought to accountability. In my opinion, the entire focus of political activism, organizing, and so on should transfer from the government to the private sector. You must understand that no matter what state structure or government system you have, leadership, policymaking, and governance are all determined by the highest ranks of influential people in society, the people we call the elite, the people who tie and untie, the people who connect and disconnect, the movers and shakers.
That has always been the case, and it always will be the case in every culture, system, and location, because it is just a reality of human society. Some people wield a greater influence than others, and this is true today in the West, the East, the global South, the global North, and the Muslim world. And those people, as well as the institutions that represent them, must be brought into the focus of activism, lobbying, campaigning, and pressure in order to make them accountable and responsive to the public.
That is the power of the private sector, and private sector power is imbedded in networks of workers, consumers, and other stakeholders. However, when those networks of consumers, workers, and stakeholders are inactive, complacent, dormant, or distracted, private sector power is allowed to operate independently, selfishly, and with sovereignty because no one is paying attention and everyone is preoccupied with the official power dynamics rather than the real existing power dynamics.
In other words, they are preoccupied with the government while entirely ignoring the powers that overshadow governments, despite the fact that there are several ways in which the people can influence the private sector more than the government. They have you focusing on the least important and least meaningful aspect of the power structure, and ironically, they have you directing your rage and resentment at governments while frequently celebrating, the very oligarchs, billionaires, brand names, and corporations that the government is serving against your interests.
I mean, you'll look up to people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others. You'll adore these people while despising the politicians who serve them. And you occasionally despise them because they do their bidding, but your rage is seldom focused toward those who are obeyed. That doesn't make sense, does it? So the connection between the public and business must be fundamentally changed and this alone, I believe, could get you far closer to having a nation with actual sovereignty and independence.
However, it demands public awareness and participation, as well as changing the relationship between the private sector and the population.
@bishōnenmaxxer @Skywalker @Betterthanher @BigJimsWornOutTires @JuicyCircleSack @NationalWarrior
Last edited:
