Third World USA

[svart-hvitt]

All rhetoric aside, that article really is a rant, IMO. I've never been to Jakarta, but have spent time in Phnom Penh. You could easily make all the same gross characterizations and caricaturizations about it, and you would be just as wrong as Vltchek. Despite the broken streets, corruption, garbage and poverty, there is also life, re-emerging culture (no thanks to the Khmer Rouge) and a lot to love.

And since this is an audio forum, let us all recall that highly respected audio journalist, Michael Fremer, before we broadly assert that respect and popularity equates to the accuracy and quality of reporting. The internet does lead to a certain suspension of introspection and civility, and I've found that this forum seems to be one that defies the trend, and I hope we can keep it that way.

I find your post provoking. Let me explain.

In the article, Vltchek writes:

"But this whole country is wrapped in a duvet of lies and fabrications. Several years ago, when I was writing my big book about Indonesia (“Archipelago of Fear”, Pluto, UK), I spoke to several leading statisticians from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS), which is based in Montreal, Canada. I was told, on the record, that Indonesia does not have 245 million people as was commonly reported, but more than 300 million. However, all international and local statisticians are strongly discouraged from disclosing the real numbers. Why? Because those 60, or probably, millions of more people simply ‘do not exist’".

My understanding of Vltchek is that he wishes to talk for the voiceless, non-existing 60 millions and the majority of Indonesians who have nothing to thank their regime for. Taking the side of the weak against the evils of the strong is a virtue, not a sin.

Later, he writes:

"It is easy to accuse me of being anti-capitalist, or “anti-Indonesian regime” of thieves and of barefaced collaborators. But it is impossible to accuse me of not knowing the country and its capital city. I have literally been everywhere, covering every conflict here, for more than twenty years, witnessing the atrocities committed against the people, nature and the culture".

In the West, we have had modern writers that took the side of the weak, like Charles Dickens. Did he exaggerate to get his message through? Was he right to describe the filth of London and criticize the capitalists of industrial England?

So I am provoked by ASR members who attack the writer, Vltchek, instead of taking on the issue of corruption and plundering by an elite in developing countries. And so you act precisely as Vltchek describes you in his piece.

The thread title is "Third World USA". The thread was opened right after mid-term elections. So I read the OP as a means to focus on how developed countries are degenerating, becoming third-world countries right before our eyes.

 

[Jorj]

No one attacked him, we simply objected to his broad characterizations. It feels like an overall denigration, and negative in a non-constructive way. All developing countries have similar issues. I fail to see how his article elevates the discussion or illuminates a previously unrecognized set of facts.

I appreciate the redirection of the conversation in your last paragraph. Do you feel that we are actually degenerating, or is there something more insidious? My big concern is the ever-growing and ever-accelerating divide between the elites and the rest of us.

As a tempering mechanism, here is a link to one of my favorite Ted talks ever. https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_ignorant_about_the_world?language=en

 

[svart-hvitt]

No one attacked him, we simply objected to his broad characterizations. It feels like an overall denigration, and negative in a non-constructive way. All developing countries have similar issues. I fail to see how his article elevates the discussion or illuminates a previously unrecognized set of facts.

I appreciate the redirection of the conversation in your last paragraph. Do you feel that we are actually degenerating, or is there something more insidious? My big concern is the ever-growing and ever-accelerating divide between the elites and the rest of us.

As a tempering mechanism, here is a link to one of my favorite Ted talks ever. https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_ignorant_about_the_world?language=en

Regarding "degenerating": Just look at the development in the USA. Their leaders seem so disconnected from the people. In fact, during the last presidential election, the losing candidate labeled 1/4 of Americans "the basket of deplorables" with characterizations like "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic - Islamophobic - you name it".

And look at the intolerance in general, as evidenced by democratic elections. After Brexit referendum, many people who have themselves in high esteem, didn't accept the outcome. So they suggested that 50 year olds should be taken away their right to vote in elections, and the EU commission said that Britons didn't know what they were doing. In democracies you accept the outcome of elections, or there is no democracy anymore.

Other examples include Central Europe, Poland and Hungary. Democraticlly elected governments want to preserve the nation, their sovereignty, keep Christianity and focus on family values. This kind of politics are labeled undemocratic, fascist and worse by the media and the elite in Western Europe.

These attempts to reverse outcomes of democratic elections, divide and label people, stop debates and define, i.e. work out other countries' political agenda for them is something which deserves more focus.

The elite seem to want democracy when it suites them. And this division between our elite and the people is something which reminds us of the third-world order.

PS: Rösling is interesting. However, his statistics treats every individual on the globe equally, which means a reversal of living standards in the West can go on for decades while living standards for many more in developing countries increase a little - without his model understanding why we will have riots at the elections in the West in the meantime. So his model of the world is totally incapable of understanding how people in the West think. His model of the world is also a support for those who believe in triple-down economics. Without registering that a few hands keep most of the value, while you have some redistribution in developing countries and at the same time a reversal of living standards in the West. So Rösling is a good start for a debate on development, but hardly the definite answer.

 

[Sal1950]

The elite seem to want democracy when it suites them. And this division between our elite and the people is something which reminds us of the third-world order.

Extremely well thought out post, one of the best I've read on this site.

 

[andreasmaaan]

@svart-hvitt there are aspects of your post I agree with an aspects I don’t.

What do you mean by “the elite”?

 

[Jorj]

@svart-hvitt there are aspects of your post I agree with an aspects I don’t.

What do you mean by “the elite”?

I think the historical definition of 'elites' has been the 1% that controlled a disproportionate percentage of the world's wealth (however you define that).

I believe that the consensus now is that the 1% has changed to the 1/10-of-1%, and as a category they own 13% of the world's wealth all by themselves. Global Inequality Metrics

It's not all doom and gloom, as the numbers of those living below the 'poor' threshold has continued to shrink.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think the historical definition of 'elites' has been the 1% that controlled a disproportionate percentage of the world's wealth (however you define that).

I believe that the consensus now is that the 1% has changed to the 1/10-of-1%, and as a category they own 13% of the world's wealth all by themselves. Global Inequality Metrics

It's not all doom and gloom, as the numbers of those living below the 'poor' threshold has continued to shrink.

That's how I'd tend to define it too (i.e. economically).

Though based on the attributions he makes to them, I suspect that @svart-hvitt's definition is rather different.

 

[RayDunzl]

It's not all doom and gloom, as the numbers of those living below the 'poor' threshold has continued to shrink.

Number or percentage of total population?

 

[svart-hvitt]

@svart-hvitt there are aspects of your post I agree with an aspects I don’t.

What do you mean by “the elite”?

«Elite» is less concrete than say «soundstage imaging»...

I guess «elite» may be those who have the ability to define and support the names:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names

Another insight into «elite» may be Orwells’s, cfr. «Animal Farm» and «Nineteen Eighty-Four».

One definition that covers all cases across ages doesn’t exist.

This is social debating. Not physics

 

[Jorj]

Number or percentage of total population?

Per the link I provided, all numbers are percentages of total population. Of course, if you accept the assertion by the previous quoted author, those numbers are highly suspect and manipulated by these selfsame 'elites' for their own nefarious purposes.

 

[andreasmaaan]

«Elite» is less concrete than say «soundstage imaging»...

I guess «elite» may be those who have the ability to define and support the names:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names

Another insight into «elite» may be Orwells’s, cfr. «Animal Farm» and «Nineteen Eighty-Four».

One definition that covers all cases across ages doesn’t exist.

This is social debating. Not physics

No need to be scientifically precise. But surely you would acknowledge that the concept of "elite" is rooted in power and/or money, right?

 

[andreasmaaan]

If we look at Western democracies, those with the highest incomes (an imperfect but reasonably indicative measure corresponding with "elite") tend to vote for more conservative parties, while those with lower incomes tend to vote for parties with more liberal policies.

Take the US for example (source: PEW):

Of course, this is just one measure, and there's slightly more to it than income. But I find the charge of "elite" against those with "liberal" or "progressive" positions (the kinds of positions you seem to be complaining about @svart-hvitt) to be little more than a slander.

In other words, I can sympathise with your grievances, but find your characterisation to be disingenuous.

 

[Thomas savage]

You need to recognise who your giving power to, the word ‘elite ‘ ? Don’t give yourself away so easy.

And, if you do , you only have yourself to blame. Honestly,don’t piss your happiness away playing someone else’s game , a game that ultimately you don’t need to play..

 

[watchnerd]

Regarding "degenerating":
The elite seem to want democracy when it suites them. And this division between our elite and the people is something which reminds us of the third-world order.

This has been true of democracies/republics since Alkibiades, the Roman Republic, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, The Teapot Dome Scandal, etc, etc.

Nothing new here, folks.

 

[svart-hvitt]

If we look at Western democracies, those with the highest incomes (an imperfect but reasonably indicative measure corresponding with "elite") tend to vote for more conservative parties, while those with lower incomes tend to vote for parties with more liberal policies.

Take the US for example (source: PEW):

View attachment 17679

Of course, this is just one measure, and there's slightly more to it than income. But I find the charge of "elite" against those with "liberal" or "progressive" positions (the kinds of positions you seem to be complaining about @svart-hvitt) to be little more than a slander.

In other words, I can sympathise with your grievances, but find your characterisation to be disingenuous.

I am not sure I get what you mean.

The modern elite are those of «progressive» and «liberal» positions. Did you understand me differently?

You need to evaluate this in an historical context, though. Liberal doesn’t mean the same in 2018 as in 1918.

That’s why I recommend reading books on this issue. Spend some time on it. Understanding neoliberals’ hijacking of our «names», definitions and thus world view cannot be explained Twitter-like.

 

[svart-hvitt]

This has been true of democracies/republics since Alkibiades, the Roman Republic, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, The Teapot Dome Scandal, etc, etc.

Nothing new here, folks.

True.

My point is one should learn from history so you don’t end up defending a plundering elite against deplorables or 60 million non-existing people.

 

[svart-hvitt]

No need to be scientifically precise. But surely you would acknowledge that the concept of "elite" is rooted in power and/or money, right?

Yes, elite has to do with power!

 

[Thomas savage]

This has been true of democracies/republics since Alkibiades, the Roman Republic, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, The Teapot Dome Scandal, etc, etc.

Nothing new here, folks.

Humans are humans, we are fools if we think we are any different. Mind your stake.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I am not sure I get what you mean.

The modern elite are those of «progressive» and «liberal» positions. Did you understand me differently?

You need to evaluate this in an historical context, though. Liberal doesn’t mean the same in 2018 as in 1918.

That’s why I recommend reading books on this issue. Spend some time on it. Understanding neoliberals’ hijacking of our «names», definitions and thus world view cannot be explained Twitter-like.

Hmmm, I'm now not sure either of us understands each other here.

I'm saying that "elite" is about power/money. We don't need to define it scientifically to get at its basic meaning.

There are at least as many members of the elite (the wealthy and powerful) whose politics are "conservative" as there are members of the elite whose politics are "progressive" or "liberal" (in the modern sense of those words, yes).

Therefore I object to the term being applied selectively as you have done.

 

[Thomas savage]

True.

My point is one should learn from history so you don’t end up defending a plundering elite against deplorables or 60 million non-existing people.

One man’s defence is worth little or nothing so really no matter how qualified one might feel, it’s only indulgence.