Jump to content
noskich

Distopije i utopije (u filmu, knjizevnosti, filozofiji i stvarnom zivotu)

Recommended Posts

noskich
Posted (edited)

Blokiran prethodni video, evo ga opet:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmQX_UD59g0

 

Carne Ross was a career diplomat who believed western democracy could save us all. But after the Iraq war he became disillusioned and resigned. This film traces Carne's worldwide quest to find a better way of doing things - from a farming collective in Spain, to Occupy Wall Street to Rojava in war-torn Syria - as he makes the epic journey from government insider to anarchist.

Edited by noskich

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

Covek koji je duboko zasao u zecju rupu distopije u kojoj zivimo:

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

 

In his view, the only solution to prevent such abuse in the future was that "a majority of individuals declares or acts as if it wants nothing from government, declares it will look after its own welfare and interests" or, specifically, if "a majority finds the moral courage and the internal fortitude to reject the something-for-nothing con game and replace it by voluntary associations, voluntary communes, or local rule and decentralized societies."

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

https://www.portalnovosti.com/paolo-magelli-bez-utopije-nema-postojanja

 

Paolo Magelli: Bez utopije nema postojanja

Pad Berlinskog zida, koji je na epohalan način trebao osloboditi ljude, stvorio je enormnu tragediju bez kraja. Njemački pisac Heiner Müller rekao je dva mjeseca prije pada da sloboda ne znači veći broj jogurta u samoposluzi i da će zbog takve slobode biti uništeno sve ono dobro što je socijalizam učinio

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/buddhist-economics/?utm_content=buffer5ea6d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Buddhist Economics: How to Stop Prioritizing Consumption Over People and Creativity
“Work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.”
 
The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give a man a chance to utilize and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centeredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To organize work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.
 
[The modern Western economist] is used to measuring the “standard of living” by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is “better off” than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption.
Edited by noskich

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

Malo na temu ispranih mozgova:

 

Događa se ozbiljna regresija ljudskog mozga

http://www.danas.rs/kultura.11.html?news_id=360567&title=Doga%C4%91a+se+ozbiljna+regresija+ljudskog+mozga

 

Liberalni kapitalizam vrlo je promišljen, radi na duge staze. Postupno ljudsku vrstu pretvara u poluautomatizirana bića koja sve teže uspijevaju suvislo konverzirati, jer gube sposobnost složenije promišljati kako sebe, tako i svijet u koji su “okovani”. Ako samo usporedimo kulturu danas s onim što se u umjetnosti, i ne samo u umjetnosti, događalo početkom 20. stoljeća, vidjet ćemo opće osiromašenje ideja, pojednostavljivanje misaonog i kreativnog procesa, nedostatak bunta i inovativnosti. Od 1900. do sredine stoljeća sve je prštalo od akcije i ideja. Mislilo se, znalo se govoriti, znalo se formulirati misao. Što je ovo danas? Jedno flah vrijeme, plitko i osiromašeno. Događa se ozbiljna regresija ljudskog mozga. Ne znam više ni da li je to zabrinjavajuće. Doduše, možda je pogrešno oslanjati se na prošla vremena, možda ćemo se za sto godina početi i fizički mijenjati. Možda će nam se glave smanjiti, a prsti postati duži. Možda tako treba biti. No, teško je suočiti se s takvom hakslijevskom budućnošću. Već većini postaje sve teže voditi sadržajne razgovore, rečenice su sve kraće, sve jednostavnije i površnije. I to, ta simplifikacija života, reflektira se, logično, i na umjetnost.

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

https://www.facebook.com/davidgraeberspeaks/photos/a.599614013463662.1073741827.599608860130844/1446428932115495/?type=3&theater

 

There is no better way to ensure people are not politically active or aware than to have them working, commuting to work, or preparing for work every moment of the day. Sacrificing so many of one’s waking hours to the gods of productivity ensures no one has access to outside perspectives that would enable them to notice – for instance – that organizing life this way ultimately decreases productivity. As a result of this neoliberal obsession with stamping out alternative perspectives, since the financial collapse of 2008, we have been left in the bizarre situation where it's plain to everyone that capitalism doesn’t work, but it’s almost impossible for anyone to imagine anything else. The war against the imagination is the only one the capitalists have actually managed to win.

-- David Graeber in "Revolutions in Reverse"

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

Share this post


Link to post
miki.bg

Večerati sam… u svetu hiperkompeticije

 

 

Da li je život u kome se ljudi „sami kuglaju“, sami jedu, sami vežbaju, sami odlaze na koncerte i sami žive naš konačni cilj? Rekao bih da jeste. Prosečna veličina domaćinstva opada sa rastom dohotka. Ne samo da bogatije zemlje imaju niže (ili negativne) stope rasta stanovništva, već su im i domaćinstva manja. Konačni cilj je da živimo u svetu u kome će svako domaćinstvo činiti jedna osoba. Danska, Norveška i Nemačka su taj cilj gotovo ostvarile: prosečna veličina njihovih domaćinstava je 2,2 (Senegal i Mali imaju prosečna domaćinstva sa 9,1 i 9,5 članova). Japan ostvaruje viziju društva ultrakompeticije i usamljenosti.

 

Ne treba da nas iznenađuju takvi ishodi. Život u zajednici sa drugima uvek je imao određene ekonomske prednosti: troškovi su manji kada se podele; deca su nam potrebna da nam pomažu u starosti, a supružnici da plaćaju deo računa. Ali sa rastom prihoda i udela radno angažovanog stanovništva možemo priuštiti sebi skuplje komunalije i osigurati prijatnu starost u udobnom staračkom domu (kakve danas svuda reklamiraju). Naša deca (ako ih imamo) nalaziće se previše daleko, tamo gde ih odnesu hiperkompeticija i ponuda poslova, da bi se starala o nama.

 

Biti sam, to je naša želja ali i odgovor na svet kompeticije, komodifikacije i rastućeg dohotka. To novi svet u nastanku ne čini distopijom. Biće to Utopija, ali sa neobičnim obrtom:

 

„To neće biti planetarni koncentracioni logor, jer u njemu neće biti zverstava. Neće izgledati umobolno, jer će sve biti uređeno, a sjaj metala i stakla će sakriti sve tragove ljudskih strasti. Nećemo imati šta da izgubimo, niti dobijemo. Naši najdublji instinkti i najskrivenije strasti biće analizirani, publikovani i eksploatisani. Nagrada će biti ispunjenje svih želja. A najveći luksuz u tom društvu tehničke nužnosti biće bonus bespredmetnog revolta i osmeha pokornosti“ (Jacques Ellul, Tehnološko društvo, 1954).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/seven-sins-of-our-system-of-forced-education/

 

Seven Sins of Our System of Forced Education

1. Denial of liberty on the basis of age.

In my system of values, and in that long endorsed by democratic thinkers, it is wrong to deny anyone liberty without just cause. To incarcerate an adult we must prove, in a court of law, that the person has committed a crime or is a serious threat to herself or others. Yet we incarcerate children and teenagers in school just because of their age. This is the most blatant of the sins of forced education.

2. Fostering of shame, on the one hand, and hubris, on the other.

It is not easy to force people to do what they do not want to do. We no longer use the cane, as schoolmasters once did, but instead rely on a system of incessant testing, grading, and ranking of children compared with their peers. We thereby tap into and distort the human emotional systems of shame and pride to motivate children to do the work. Children are made to feel ashamed if they perform worse than their peers and pride if they perform better. Shame leads some to drop out, psychologically, from the educational endeavor and to become class clowns (not too bad), or bullies (bad), or drug abusers and dealers (very bad). Those made to feel excessive pride from the shallow accomplishments that earn them A's and honors may become arrogant, disdainful of the common lot who don't do so well on tests; disdainful, therefore, of democratic values and processes (and this may be the worst effect of all).

3. Interference with the development of cooperation and nurturance.

We are an intensely social species, designed for cooperation. Children naturally want to help their friends, and even in school they find ways to do so. But our competition-based system of ranking and grading students works against the cooperative drive. Too much help given by one student to another is cheating. Helping others may even hurt the helper, by raising the grading curve and lowering the helper's position on it. Some of those students who most strongly buy into school understand this well; they become ruthless achievers. Moreover, as I have argued in previous posts (see especially Sept. 24, 2008), the forced age segregation that occurs in school itself promotes competition and bullying and inhibits the development of nurturance. Throughout human history, children and adolescents have learned to be caring and helpful through their interactions with younger children. The age-graded school system deprives them of such opportunities.

4. Interference with the development of personal responsibility and self-direction.

A theme of the entire series of essays in this blog is that children are biologically predisposed to take responsibility for their own education (for an introduction, see July 16, 2008, post). They play and explore in ways that allow them to learn about the social and physical world around them. They think about their own future and take steps to prepare themselves for it. By confining children to school and to other adult-directed settings, and by filling their time with assignments, we deprive them of the opportunities and time they need to assume such responsibility. Moreover, the implicit and sometimes explicit message of our forced schooling system is: "If you do what you are told to do in school, everything will work out well for you." Children who buy into that may stop taking responsibility for their own education. They may assume falsely that someone else has figured out what they need to know to become successful adults, so they don't have to think about it. If their life doesn't work out so well, they take the attitude of a victim: "My school (or parents or society) failed me, and that's why my life is all screwed up."

5. Linking of learning with fear, loathing, and drudgery.

For many students, school generates intense anxiety associated with learning. Students who are just learning to read and are a little slower than the rest feel anxious about reading in front of others. Tests generate anxiety in almost everyone who takes them seriously. Threats of failure and the shame associated with failure generate enormous anxiety in some. I have found in my college teaching of statistics that a high percentage of students, even at my rather elite university, suffer from math anxiety, apparently because of the humiliation they have experienced pertaining to math in school. A fundamental psychological principle is that anxiety inhibits learning. Learning occurs best in a playful state, and anxiety inhibits playfulness. The forced nature of schooling turns learning into work. Teachers even call it work: "You must do your work before you can play." So learning, which children biologically crave, becomes toil--something to be avoided whenever possible.

6. Inhibition of critical thinking.

Presumably, one of the great general goals of education is the promotion of critical thinking. But despite all the lip service that educators devote to that goal, most students--including most "honors students"--learn to avoid thinking critically about their schoolwork. They learn that their job in school is to get high marks on tests and that critical thinking only wastes time and interferes. To get a good grade, you need to figure out what the teacher wants you to say and then say it. I've heard that sentiment expressed countless times by college students as well as by high-school students, in discussions held outside the classroom. I've devoted a lot of effort toward promoting critical thinking at the college level; I've developed a system of teaching designed to promote it, written articles about it, and given many talks about it at conferences on teaching. I'll devote a future post or two in this blog to the topic. But, truth be told, the grading system, which is the chief motivator in our system of education, is a powerful force against honest debate and critical thinking in the classroom. In a system in which we teachers do the grading, few students are going to criticize or even question the ideas we offer; and if we try to induce criticism by grading for it, we generate false criticism.

7. Reduction in diversity of skills, knowledge, and ways of thinking.

By forcing all schoolchildren through the same standard curriculum, we reduce their opportunities to follow alternative pathways. The school curriculum represents a tiny subset of the skills and knowledge that are important to our society. In this day and age, nobody can learn more than a sliver of all there is to know. Why force everyone to learn the same sliver? When children are free--as I have observed at the Sudbury Valley School and others have observed with unschoolers--they take new, diverse, and unpredicted paths. They develop passionate interests, work diligently to become experts in the realms that fascinate them, and then find ways of making a living by pursuing their interests. Students forced through the standard curriculum have much less time to pursue their own interests, and many learn well the lesson that their own interests don't really count; what counts is what's measured on the schools' tests. Some get over that, but too many do not.
--------------

Share this post


Link to post
noskich

Zasto nema razlike u odijevanju izmedju drzavnog kapitalizma - boljshevizma i plutokratije:

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×