Daily Archives: June 2, 2023

Does mass increase when nearing the speed of light? – Big Think

Posted: June 2, 2023 at 8:18 pm

No matter who you are, where you are, or how quickly youre moving, the laws of physics will appear exactly the same to you as they will to any other observer in the Universe. This concept that the laws of physics dont change as you move from one location to another or one moment to the next is known as the principle of relativity, and it goes all the way back not to Einstein, but even farther: to at least the time of Galileo. If you exert a force on an object, it will accelerate (i.e., change its momentum), and the amount of its acceleration is directly related to the force on the object divided by its mass. In terms of an equation, this is Newtons famous F = ma: force equals mass times acceleration.

But when we discovered particles that moved close to the speed of light, suddenly a contradiction emerged. If you exert too large of a force on a small mass, and forces cause acceleration, then it should be possible to accelerate a massive object to reach or even exceed the speed of light! This isnt possible, of course, and it was Einsteins relativity that gave us a way out. It was commonly explained by what we call relativistic mass, or the notion that as you got closer to the speed of light, the mass of an object increased, so the same force would cause a smaller acceleration, preventing you from ever reaching the speed of light. But is this relativistic mass interpretation correct? Only kind of. Heres the science of why.

Schematic animation of a continuous beam of light being dispersed by a prism. If you had ultraviolet and infrared eyes, youd be able to see that ultraviolet light bends even more than the violet/blue light, while the infrared light would remain less bent than the red light does. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but different wavelengths of light travel at different speeds through a medium.

The first thing its vital to understand is that the principle of relativity, no matter how quickly youre moving or where youre located, is still always true: the laws of physics really are the same for everyone, regardless of where youre located or when youre making that measurement. The thing that Einstein knew (that both Newton and Galileo had no way of knowing) was this: the speed of light in a vacuum must be exactly the same for everyone. This is a tremendous realization that runs counter to our intuition about the world.

Imagine youve got a car that can travel at 100 kilometers per hour (62 mph). Imagine, attached to that car, youve got a cannon that can accelerate a cannonball from rest to that exact same speed: 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour). Now, imagine your car is moving and you fire that cannonball, but you can control which way the cannon is pointed.

As shown in an episode of Mythbusters, a projectile fired backward from a forward-moving vehicle at the exact same speed will appear to fall directly down at rest; the velocity of the truck and the exit velocity from the cannon exactly cancel each other out in this take.

This is what we commonly experience and also lines up with what we expect. And this is also experimentally true, at least, for the non-relativistic world. But if we replaced that cannon with a flashlight instead, the story would be very different. You can take a car, a train, a plane, or a rocket, traveling at whatever speed you like, and shine a flashlight from it in any direction you like.

That flashlight will emit photons at the speed of light, or 299,792,458 m/s, and those photons will always travel at that same exact speed.

That speed that the photons travel at will be the same as ever, the speed of light, not only from your perspective, but from the perspective of anyone looking on. The only difference that anyone will see, dependent on how fast both you (the emitter) and they (the observer) are moving, is in the wavelength of that light: redder (longer-wavelength) if youre mutually moving away from each other, bluer (shorter-wavelength) if youre moving mutually toward each other.

An object moving close to the speed of light that emits light will have the light that it emits appear shifted dependent on the location of an observer. Someone on the left will see the source moving away from it, and hence the light will be redshifted; someone to the right of the source will see it blueshifted, or shifted to higher frequencies, as the source moves toward it.

This was the key realization that Einstein had when he was devising his original theory of Special Relativity. He tried to imagine what light which he knew to be an electromagnetic wave would look like to someone who was following that wave at speeds that were close to the speed of light.

Although we dont often think of it in these terms, the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave means:

This was cemented in the 1860s and 1870s, in the aftermath of the work of James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations are still sufficient to govern the entirety of classical electromagnetism. You use this technology daily: every time an antenna picks up a signal, that signal arises from the charged particles in that antenna moving in response to those electromagnetic waves.

Light is nothing more than an electromagnetic wave, with in-phase oscillating electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to the direction of lights propagation. The shorter the wavelength, the more energetic the photon, but the more susceptible it is to changes in the speed of light through a medium.

Einstein tried to think of what it would be like to follow this wave from behind, with an observer watching electric and magnetic fields oscillate in front of them. But, of course, this never occurs. No matter who you are, where you are, when you are, or how quickly youre moving, you and everyone else always sees light move at exactly the same speed: the speed of light.

But not everything about light is the same for all observers. The fact that the observed wavelength of light changes dependent on how the source and the observer are moving relative to one another means that a few other things about light must change as well.

This last part is critical for our understanding, because momentum is the key link between our old school, classical, Galilean-and-Newtonian way of thinking and our new, relativistically invariant way of thinking that came along with Einstein.

The size, wavelength, and temperature/energy scales that correspond to various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. You have to go to higher energies, and shorter wavelengths, to probe the smallest scales. Ultraviolet light is sufficient to ionize atoms, but as the Universe expands, light gets systematically shifted to lower temperatures and longer wavelengths.

Light, remember, ranges in energy tremendously, from gamma ray photons at the highest energies down through X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light (from violet to blue to green to yellow to orange to red), infrared light, microwave light, and finally radio light at the lowest energies. The higher your energy-per-photon, the shorter your wavelength, the higher your frequency, and the greater the amount of momentum that you carry; the lower your energy-per-photon, the longer your wavelength, the lower your frequency, and the smaller your momentum is.

Light can also, as Einstein himself demonstrated with his 1905 research into the photoelectric effect, transfer energy and momentum into matter: massive particles. If the only law we had was Newtons law the way were used to seeing it as force equals mass times acceleration (F= ma) light would be in trouble. With no mass inherent to photons, this equation wouldnt make any sense. But Newton himself didnt write F= ma like we often suppose, but rather that force is the time rate of change of momentum, or that applying a force causes a change in momentum over time.

The inside of the LHC, where protons pass each other at 299,792,455 m/s, just 3 m/s shy of the speed of light. Particle accelerators like the LHC consist of sections of accelerating cavities, where electric fields are applied to speed up the particles inside, as well as ring-bending portions, where magnetic fields are applied to direct the fast-moving particles toward either the next accelerating cavity or a collision point.

So, what does that mean momentum is? Although many physicists have their own definition, the one Ive always liked is, Its a measure of the quantity of your motion. If you imagine a dockyard, you can imagine running a number of things into that dock.

A large superyacht, MotorYacht GO, crashed into the Saint Maartens Yacht Club dock. The large amount of momentum in the yacht caused it to crash through wood, concrete, and even reinforced steel as it destroyed the dock. Momentum, for very large masses moving even at slow speeds, can be disastrous.

The problem is, going all the way back to Newton, that the force you exert on something is equal to a change in momentum over time. If you exert a force on an object for a certain duration, its going to change that objects momentum by a specific amount. This change doesnt depend on how fast an object is moving alone, but only by the quantity of motion it possesses: its momentum.

So what is it, then, that happens to an objects momentum when it gets close to the speed of light? Thats really what were trying to understand when we talk about force, momentum, acceleration, and velocity when we near the speed of light. If an object is moving at 50% the speed of light and it has a cannon thats capable of firing a projectile at 50% the speed of light, what will happen when both speeds point in the same direction?

You know you cant reach the speed of light for a massive object, so the naive thought that 50% the speed of light + 50% the speed of light = 100% the speed of light has to be wrong. But the force on that cannonball is going to change its momentum by exactly the same amount when fired from a relativistically-moving frame-of-reference as it will when fired from rest. If firing the cannonball from rest changes its momentum by a certain amount, leaving it with a speed thats 50% the speed of light, then firing it from a perspective where its already moving at 50% the speed of light must change its momentum by that same amount. Why, then, wouldnt its speed be 100% the speed of light?

A simulated relativistic journey toward the constellation of Orion at various speeds. As you move closer to the speed of light, not only does space appear distorted, but your distance to the stars appears contracted, and less time passes for you as you travel. StarStrider, a relativistic 3D planetarium program by FMJ-Software, was used to produce the Orion illustrations. You dont have to break the speed of light to travel 1,000+ light-years in less than 1,000 years, but thats only from your point of view.

Understanding the answer is the key to understanding relativity: its because the classical formula for momentum that momentum equals mass multiplied by velocity is only a non-relativistic approximation. In reality, you have to use the formula for relativistic momentum, which is a little bit different, and involves a factor that physicists call gamma (): the Lorentz factor, which increases the closer you move to the speed of light. For a fast-moving particle, momentum isnt just mass multiplied by velocity, but mass multiplied by velocity multiplied by gamma.

Travel the Universe with astrophysicist Ethan Siegel. Subscribers will get the newsletter every Saturday. All aboard!

Applying the same force that you applied to an object at rest to an object in motion, even in relativistic motion, will still change its momentum by the same amount, but all of that momentum wont go into increasing its velocity; some of it will go into increasing the value of gamma, the Lorentz factor. For the earlier example, a rocket moving at 50% the speed of light that fires a cannonball at 50% the speed of light will result in a cannonball traveling at 80% the speed of light, with a Lorentz factor of 1.6667 along for the ride. The idea of relativistic mass is very old and was popularized by Arthur Eddington, the astronomer whose 1919 solar eclipse expedition validated Einsteins theory of General Relativity, but it takes a certain liberty: it assumes that the Lorentz factor () and the rest mass (m) get multiplied together, an assumption that no physical measurement or observation can test for.

Time dilation (left) and length contraction (right) show how time appears to run slower and distances appear to get smaller the closer you move to the speed of light. As you approach the speed of light, clocks dilate toward time not passing at all, while distances contract down to infinitesimal amounts.

The whole point of going through all of this is to understand that when you moveclose to the speed of light, there are many important quantities that no longer obey our classical equations. You cant just add velocities togetherthe way Galileo or Newton did;you have to add them relativistically.

You cant just treat distances as fixed and absolute; you have to understand thatthey contract along the direction of motion. And you cant even treat time as though it passes the same for you as it does for someone else; the passage of time is relative, anddilates for observers moving at different relative velocities.

A light-clock, formed by a photon bouncing between two mirrors, will define time for any observer. Although the two observers may not agree with one another on how much time is passing, they will agree on the laws of physics and on the constants of the Universe, such as the speed of light. A stationary observer will see time pass normally, but an observer moving rapidly through space will have their clock run slower relative to the stationary observer.

Its tempting, but ultimately incorrect, to blame the mismatch between the classical world and the relativistic world on the idea of relativistic mass. For massive particles that move close to the speed of light, that concept can be correctly applied to understand why objects can approach, but not reach, the speed of light, but it falls apart as soon as you incorporate massless particles, like photons.

Its far better to understand the laws of relativity as they actually are than to try and shoehorn them into a more intuitive box whose applications are fundamentally limited and restrictive. Just as is the case with quantum physics, until youve spent enough time in the world of relativity to gain an intuition for how things work, an overly simplistic analogy will only get you so far. When you reach its limits, youll wish you had learned it correctly and comprehensively the first time, all along.

Go here to read the rest:

Does mass increase when nearing the speed of light? - Big Think

Posted in Quantum Physics | Comments Off on Does mass increase when nearing the speed of light? – Big Think

Answering Questions about Boring Numbers, Disasters, Fusion, and … – Scientific American

Posted: at 8:18 pm

You know a story is going to be fun when it starts with a question that makes you laugh: What is the most boring number in the world? It's a legitimate mathematical question, and it turns out there are interesting numbers (prime numbers, powers of 2) and not-so-interesting numbers. You can probably anticipate the paradox: If a number is especially boring, doesn't that make it interesting? Theoretical physicist Manon Bischoff, who is an editor for our partner publication Spektrum in Germany, showshow to sort numbers for boringness and why it matters.

I admit I was skeptical when we first started discussing a story proposal about treating a person with multiple personalities. Weren't some of the classic cases exaggerated or made up? But the fascinating account of Ella by therapist and anthropologist Rebecca J. Lesterexplains how dissociative identity disorder can develop and manifest. It's a hopeful and generous story that takes us inside the therapeutic process and reveals how someone can start to heal from extreme trauma.

When a weather disaster strikes, people want to know whether climate change is to blame. And if so, to what degree? The field of attribution science has advanced dramatically in the past decade. As investigative journalist Lois Parshley writes, researchers are now able to say how much worse or more likely floods, hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and other disasters were made by the human-caused climate crisis. This knowledge can help people respond to unfolding disasters and plan for future ones.

Drug-resistant hookworms are spreading among pet dogs, and researchers have traced their origins to greyhounds raised for racing. The parasites can kill puppies and occasionally cause nasty infections in people. Science journalist Bradley van Paridon describes how the superparasite evolved and traveled through greyhound racetracks, rescue dogs and dog parks.

Electrons move in mysterious ways. They're too fast to observe in detail as they jump through crystals or perform feats of quantum tunneling that let them escape energy barriers. To understand the bizarre properties of matter, physicists are creating models made of light. Physicist Charles D. Brown II shares how his light-based version of graphene lets him study how particles behave in a crystal lattice. In the author's words, Quantum physics is a trip!

Some of the most distinctive languages on Earth are still spoken, but just barely, by people who live on the Andaman Islands off the coast of India. Andamanese people arrived to the archipelago about 50,000 years ago, and according to genetic and linguistic studies, they were largely isolated until recently. Linguist Anvita Abbi worked with the last speakers of several local languages to preserve and understand their heritage. She discovered that the grammar of Andamanese languages is fundamentally based on the parts of the body, unlike any known language family.

What's the future of fusion? Is it always going to be another 20 or 30 or 50 years away? In our cover story, author Philip Ball examines recent advances in fusion energy, including the first reaction that created more energy than was used to trigger it. Fusion will not be part of our urgently needed transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But there's still a chance it could succeed ... in another 20 or 30 or 50 years. Ball cuts through the hype and explores the physical limitations and opportunities of the energy that powers stars.

See more here:

Answering Questions about Boring Numbers, Disasters, Fusion, and ... - Scientific American

Posted in Quantum Physics | Comments Off on Answering Questions about Boring Numbers, Disasters, Fusion, and … – Scientific American

Spiderman: Across the Spider-verse | Reel World | timesnewspapers … – Webster-Kirkwood Times, Inc.

Posted: at 8:18 pm

In theaters June 2

THE PLOT:

Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) a.k.a. Spiderman, is now a household name in Brooklyn NY, saving citizens from those who wish to harm them. Yet, being a superhero is lonely as Miles longs to see Gwen (Hailee Steinfeld) again Spiderwoman from an alternate universe.

As Miles struggles to break free from his parents image of him as a kid, he encounters The Spot (Jason Schwartzman) a local villain hell-bent on getting revenge on Miles for transforming him into what he has become.

With The Spot creating havoc, Gwen and other Spidermen and women from alternate universes work to stop him, but Miles discovers a truth from his allies that, for him, is just as sinister as any villainous plan and he plans to stop it.

KENTS TAKE:

Spiderman: Across the Spider-verse is the second chapter in the ongoing Sony animated Spiderman series and is the first half of a two-part story.

Miles is back and is still working through his feelings and situation. His uncle turned out to be The Prowler and is now dead. He learned that he is not the only Spiderman in the universe and has fallen for Gwen, a Spiderwoman in an alternate universe. Spiderman is also a local celebrity in Brooklyn, and this celebrity comes with pitfalls, such as the guest-hosting of Jeopardy, the failed baby powder endorsement, and his attempt to grow a moustache. Miles is a teenager through and through, pushing back at his parents who still see him as a kid while he fights to be heard and understood.

Directors Joaquin Dos Santos, Kemp Powers and Justin K. Thompson bring us a vibrant, colorful, and wildly creative animated feature. Mixing and matching animation styles, this film will keep viewers attention throughout its 2 hours and 15-minute running time. Using interesting and unusual perspectives, we follow Miles and Gwen as they traverse Brooklyn and the multiverse following their spidey-senses to lead them to a truth that is very relevant to Miles.

Writers Phil Lord, Christopher Miller and Dave Callaham manage to pull off a rare occurrence creating a sequel to a successful film that is as good, if not better than the first film. This film is not political, it isnt preachy, and it certainly isnt your traditional superhero film what it is, is an action-packed coming-of-age story about a regular kid who is special and the struggles he endures as he transitions from childhood to adulthood. This heartfelt, emotional film isnt sappy, its real, real life, real feelings in an unreal setting. A setting with splashes of color, hidden places, dark shadows, freedom, beauty, and wonder. Miles likes Gwen and Gwen likes him back, but this isnt a sappy romance, its the awkward moments, the unspoken words and the silences that define their relationship.

The cast is excellent and adds depth to this feature, but the strength of performance by Shameik Moore as Miles elevates this film and creates an honesty that is vital to its success.

Another notable strength of this film is its soundtrack. From modern rap to classic R&B, this soundtrack covers a diverse musical palette and weaves perfectly into the story helping to define and create moods.

Spiderman: Across the Spider-verse is the first Summer Blockbuster to hit theaters and its recommend that this cool, action-packed, memorable story be seen on the big screen. This is one of those instances where getting caught in a spiders web will be a positive experience.

LYNNS TAKE:

Pop art, quantum physics and pathos collide in a grand superhero spectacle, resulting in this Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, sequel being a mind-blowing amalgamation of next-level animation like but surpassing the 2018 original.

However inventive and clever it is, though, about half of the storyline is incoherent and panders to fan service -- and the sensory-overload-on-steroids style is overwhelming and exhausting. Yet, were all locked in.

This 2 hour and 20- minute eye-popping extravaganza takes place across six dimensions, has 240 characters in it and had over 1,000 animators working on it the most ever.

The Spider-Man mythology, easily relatable for teens who understood creator Stan Lees metaphors for figuring out their place in the world, began as a socially inept high school student who was bitten by a radioactive spider, and thus developed superpowers. That was in 1962, and in fighting crime in his subsequent Marvel Comics issues, Peter Parker would eventually learn with great power comes great responsibility.

Since 2002, there have been eight live-action Spider-Man movies, plus his role in The Avengers franchise, not to mention a past TV series, Broadway musical, video games and books.

The three co-directors Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson mash parts of the old films with elements of the comic books. That comic imagery, added in with drawing and painting styles of the 20th and 21st centuries, results in a visually stunning work. Art historians will be in for a treat.

And comic book fans will be delirious about the Easter eggs no doubt courtesy of cheeky producers Phil Lord and Chris Miller who finally won an Oscar for directing the first movie (previously robbed for The Lego Movie) but only co-wrote this script with David Callaham, a veteran of the first and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings.

I understand their desire to throw in as many gags for the super-fans, but that darn muddled narrative lets the rest of us down. And their need to fiddle with the Spider-Man canon to keep it fresh and interesting. Sure, there are compelling human emotional touches (dead relatives, loved ones in peril), but the hyper-kinetic storytelling weakens the overall effect for those not in the zone.

Another sticking point is that the middle entry in this animated world ends with a cliffhanger, then states Miles will return in Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. It is set for a March 29, 2024, release -- frustrating to viewers who like things resolved before waiting for another one, because this one just ends without a resolution.

And if you did not see Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse released four and a half years ago, you will be lost here. As a quick recap, Miles Morales, a black Hispanic Brooklynite, was juggling his life between being in high school and a Spider-Man, but when Wilson Kingpin Fisk uses a super collider, he finds out that others from across the Spider-Verse have been transported to his dimension.

This time, 15-year-old Miles remains on Earth 42, but as he discovers more multi-verses, he meets dozens of other Spider-People. In this global take, we meet a Spider-Man India (Karan Soni), a cockney street punk Spidey named Hobie (Daniel Kaluuya), a snarling, hulking vampire Spidey Miguel OHara (Oscar Isaac), and a pregnant Spider-Woman, motorcycle mama Jessica Drew (Issa Rae). Saving the world is tough business, and there are existential crises happening.

Miles mentor, Peter Parker (Jake Johnson), is shown as a young father, married to MJ (Zoe Kravitz), who brings his baby along for the adventures. Sad girl Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld) is a combo grrrl rocker and a Spider-Girl whose anguished storyline is equal to Miles.

While one can applaud the energy and the dazzling visuals of non-stop action, characters are often frazzled, and the pace is so frenetic that you feel like you are trapped in this parallel universe too. Whos good, whos evil, and who may be both?

Shameik Moore has returned to voice Miles, and hes dandy as the angsty teen who is exasperating to his parents because of his time-management skills (they dont know hes keeping the bad guys in check, at least his neighborhood in Queens).

His parents are voiced by Brian Tyree Henry and Luna Loren Valdez, joining a slate of major talent whose vocal work is solid but does not immediately identify them. Yet, its easy to place J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, SNLs Rachel Dratch as the principal, and Jason Schwartman as the revenge-seeking villain The Spot (a standout).

Hyper and hypnotic, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse has pushed forward the genre and is a fun fan experience. The propulsive score by composer Daniel Pemberton is also a plus. I give the animation an A+ but the story a B-.

Its a lot to juggle sci-fi, action, adventure, family, comedy, drama, and fantasy in one animated feature, and this film does display heart, even if the movie cant stand on its own.

After two decades of superhero comics ruling the bombastic blockbuster box office, whats next? Has art opened another dimension? One of the Spider-Verses greatest strengths is that it still surprises, and these multiverses show no signs of maxing out.

One thing is for certain, the enthusiasm for this head-spinning series is not waning anytime soon (even with the grumbling about waiting for the next sequel). Its as if weve hopped on one of the wildest amusement parks rides ever, and we need to see where it leads.

Read more here:

Spiderman: Across the Spider-verse | Reel World | timesnewspapers ... - Webster-Kirkwood Times, Inc.

Posted in Quantum Physics | Comments Off on Spiderman: Across the Spider-verse | Reel World | timesnewspapers … – Webster-Kirkwood Times, Inc.

Europe’s liberals should take a page or two out of the populist movement’s book – Euronews

Posted: at 8:18 pm

Populist movements in Europe are still with us, and European liberals ought to take on board how and why they appeal to voters, political scientist Zsolt Enyedi writes.

A number of European elections in recent times stronglysuggest that the wave of populism may have peaked in Europe.

Centrist parties, typically representing some version of liberalism, have managed to muddle through and retain public support in some places.

But the problems that caused Europes populist insurgency are still with us, with many of its aspects now transforming rather than falling away.

Populism is typically understood as a negative, transitory, and disruptive phenomenon. This is partly because, in the post-World War II period, populists tended to be amateurs.

Lately, however, a number of authoritarian parties have started to attract donors, campaign managers, lawyers, and government insiders to their cause.

These backers have changed the game and provided a more professional look to their operations by providing investment in institutions of socialisation, access to international contacts, and ground to forge geopolitical alliances.

Liberals, who are prone to self-flagellation, have acknowledged many of the political mistakes they committed in the past.

Neglecting national sentiments and showing insensitivity towards the plight of the losers of globalisation feature high on the list.

But they keep oscillating between two equally dangerous strategies.

The first is to focus on issues that affect tiny groups in the society. The second, typically adopted once the first proves disastrous, is to build on the assumption that ordinary citizens care only about material conditions.

They could do with observing their opponents.

Populists, while playing the nostalgia card, also capture citizens imaginations by stirring debates about the future: a future full of apocalyptic threats.

Playing on fear has a bad reputation. But it is a completely legitimate strategy. If politics has any function, it is precisely to help us avoid future disasters.

The principal disaster heralded by populists is multicultural conflict and a loss of national identity.

Many citizens consider these real dangers, and although they are critical of the authoritarian movement, they often see their countrys authoritarian insurgents as counterweights against rapid social change.

Anti-populist discourse today has an equivalent danger: climate change. But we are a long way away from a restructuring of our political space as a consequence.

Climate concerns motivate the younger generation, less so the older one. This is a problem because, in most countries, young people dont turn out to vote in such large numbers, and they are simply fewer.

This has the additional consequence that the universalistic, cosmopolitan discourse embraced by younger generations is likely to remain on the fringes of national policymaking for some time to come.

National identities are here to stay, and liberals need to remind people of the fundamental compatibility between liberalism and patriotism.

In order to reach the median citizen, liberals need to explain how personal safety and cultural continuity will be safeguarded in the future.

They also need to identify authoritarianism as the source of conflict rather than the resolution.

There may be a dramatic scenario ahead of us one of cultural and inter-cultural clashes but the facilitators of such an outcome are exactly the ones who show themselves to be most concerned about it: populists like Matteo Salvini, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Narendra Modi, and Donald Trump.

Another thing liberals can learn from populists is the rhetoric of self-respect.

While references to national sovereignty may be self-serving and often shield corrupt leaders from criticism of their self-aggrandisement, human rights abuse and restrictions on press freedom, voters hear the voice of someone who doesnt take orders and who doesnt surrender in front of impersonal processes.

Viktor Orban, for example, has long cultivated the myth of Central Europe as a region that can rejuvenate European politics and forge ahead without waiting for Brussels.

The content of such rhetoric is reactionary, but the format has huge potential.

Ultimately, the best course of action for liberals is to stay true to their fundamental values, such as freedom. The protection of freedom represents a rejection of the hard right but also of the hard left.

It is true that liberals should take the issue of equality more seriously than in the past.

But they should also openly say that imposing radical visions of social justice on citizens while curtailing their freedom to speak up is an unacceptable idea, even if it comes from well-meaning and progressive young people.

They should keep reminding us that respect toward others is a virtue, but one still has the right to free speech whether one is respectful or not.

Zsolt Enyedi is a professor at the political science department at Central European University (CEU) and lead researcher for CEUs Democracy Institute. He was also a speaker at the inaugural Budapest Forum in 2021.

This article was originally published on 8 October 2021.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

More here:

Europe's liberals should take a page or two out of the populist movement's book - Euronews

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Europe’s liberals should take a page or two out of the populist movement’s book – Euronews

Smith, Trump and the Paranoid Populist Assault on Democracy – TheTyee.ca

Posted: at 8:18 pm

In 1954, Richard Hofstadter, the eminent American historian of modern conservatism, asked a provocative question about his eras assault on progressive and left-wing ideals, known as McCarthyism: Where did this extremism come from?

Which issues do you think we should be exploring more deeply here on The Tyee? Take our quick and easy poll.

The Tyee launches a new free newsletter with fresh reporting and curated must reads. Just in time for the big vote.

He argued in a celebrated essay that even the prosperous, post-Second World War United States was not immune to the radicalism of authoritarian populism. The so-called Red Scare of the 1950s was simply the old ultra-conservatism and the old isolationism heightened by the extraordinary pressures of the contemporary world.

Seven decades later, Hofstadters words ring true again. Conservative movements are always fighting a rearguard action against modernity by falsely claiming to protect society from progressives who trample traditional values and sneer at the forgotten men and women who embrace them.

Paranoid politics

With so much money and power behind it, this paranoid style of politics with its enemies lists, demonization of opposition leaders and often violent language has gone mainstream.

Conspiracy theories are no longer a stigma discrediting those who trade in salacious innuendo. Even mainstream politicians are now peddling them.

But is there anything to fear from the red-hot rhetoric of the paranoid style of politics? Some argue these circumstances are cyclical. In Hofstadters time, after all, American conservative politics turned away from fringe radicalism following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. The following year, Lyndon Johnson defeated right-wing Republican insurgent Barry Goldwater in one of the largest landslides in U.S. history.

But the crisis we face today is bigger in scale and scope. Its been whipped to a frenzy by political leaders who seek to profit from the chaos that it incites via social media.

Populism was supposed to bring government closer to the people, but it actually places the levers of power squarely in the hands of authoritarians. Here are four ways populism has turned poisonous and poses existential threats to democracy:

1. The shrinking middle ground

Democracy without compromise erodes popular sovereignty by fragmenting the electorate and eliminating meaningful compromise. We are now in a world of zero-sum political contests, with a shrinking middle ground. Conservative parties often force extreme referendums to maintain their grip on a deeply divided electorate.

Election campaigns have become dangerous contests over wedge issues designed to deepen cultural divisions using social media.

We saw this with Brexit as Boris Johnson and other populists stoked fears about immigration and Europeans. Donald Trump did it well with attacks on immigrants. Republicans are now doubling down on the abortion issue, even though theyre facing pushback from some state legislatures and governors.

In Canada, Albertas Premier Danielle Smith, whose United Conservative Party has been newly re-elected with a majority, has focused on demonizing her opponents and has allegedly engaged in anti-democratic conduct in her months as premier.

2. The working class isnt benefiting

Identity politics isnt empowering working people because the politics of revenge doesnt fix structural problems.

Nevertheless, conservative parties around the world are marketing themselves as parties of the working class.

Populists recognize the working class is essential to their success at the national level because of the diploma divide that now separates right and left.

There is a strong correlation between lacking a college diploma and supporting nationalist conservative movements at election time.

It used to be that working people recognized education as a path to prosperity. But massive tuition increases in the U.S., in particular, have betrayed the promise of universal access to a college degree.

Tuition fees are also heading in the wrong direction in the U.K., Canada and Australia. Education now reinforces class divisions rather than breaking down barriers to a better life.

3. The rich and powerful direct the chaos

Populism was supposed to empower people outside the corridors of power, but talk of retribution against liberal elites normalizes calls for political violence always a bad thing.

In a war of all against all, its not the wealthy who lose. Its ordinary, hard-working citizens.

Furthermore, once a lust for vengeance takes hold in the general public, its almost always being directed by elites with money and power who benefit financially or politically from the chaos.

4. Assaults on the rule of law

Authoritarian leaders have gained unprecedented institutional legitimacy by building successful movements based on fantasies of blood and soil. The paranoid style of politics has entered a new phase with a full-spectrum assault on the rule of law from inside government.

Populists are lying when they argue they want to empower the rest of us by divesting judges of their authority to oversee democracy. They really want to breach the strongest constitutional barrier against authoritarianism.

Look at the situation in Israel, where Benjamin Netanyahus extremist coalition seeks to destroy judicial checks and balances and allow the countrys parliament to overrule its Supreme Court, a move that would ease the prime ministers legal woes.

Netanyahu has been charged with corruption and influence peddling.

Trumps attempts to undermine the legitimacy of judges are equally self-serving. As he runs again for president, hes already telegraphing his violent desires, promising pardons for the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.

The road ahead for populists

The political dial is already spinning. The defeats of Trump and Brazils Jair Bolsonaro dont represent absolute rejections of their movements.

Despite an indictment for alleged financial crime and being found liable for sexual abuse in a civil case, Trump is still the 2024 frontrunner.

We cant count on an easy institutional fix, like a grand electoral coalition to push the populists off the ballot.

Opponents of Hungarys Viktor Orban formed a united front to oppose him in the countrys 2022 elections. But Orban was re-elected in a vote widely derided as free but not fair.

Opposing coalitions are an uncertain strategy in most cases, and they dont work at all in two-party systems. There is in fact no obvious electoral strategy for defeating populism, especially now that the far right has hacked the system.

Red lights flashing

We can no longer view elections as contests between the centre-right and centre-left in which undecided voters make the difference between victory and defeat. Nor can we count on the right to step back from the abyss of culture wars. We cant even say for certain that the populism will recede in the usual cyclical manner.

Only decisive rejection can force the right to abandon anger and grievance, but voters are not yet turning their backs on the paranoid populists. It will take a lot of strategic ingenuity to beat them. And it will get harder to do so as they rig the game with rules designed to disenfranchise people who are young, poor or racialized.

All citizens can do is offer is constant, concerted pushback against the many big lies told by populists. Its never enough, but for the time being, its the only way forward.

Here is the original post:

Smith, Trump and the Paranoid Populist Assault on Democracy - TheTyee.ca

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Smith, Trump and the Paranoid Populist Assault on Democracy – TheTyee.ca

Other GOP candidates still pave the way for Trump’s vile populism – National Catholic Reporter

Posted: at 8:18 pm

While most eyes are on the Trump vs. DeSantis battle, other candidates, we'll call them the Lilliputians, are jumping into the race. We'll wait until the autumn to start handicapping these contestants, but no one should dismiss them entirely. When George W. Bush sought the presidency in 2000, people dismissed his candidacy, comparing him unfavorably not just to the other candidates but to his younger brother Jeb. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was leading the Democratic pack in 2004, until he melted down in Iowa. Barack Obama was in single digits when he entered the 2008 presidential race.

The Palmetto State has two announced candidates: former Gov. Nikki Haley and current Sen. Tim Scott. Trump's Vice President Mike Pence, set to enter the race next week, would be expected to be a front-runner, if things had turned out differently with his former boss. They didn't. Former governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, is running as the voice of sanity in a party where sanity is no longer a highly valued commodity.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to announce his candidacy next week. In 2016, he singlehandedly took down the candidacy of Sen. Marco Rubio, mocking the Floridian's robotic debate performance. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Christie for that takedown, but that doesn't mean he should be president.

In fact, none of these other candidates should become president.

It is easy in the era of Donald Trump to look back wistfully at an earlier Republican Party. We recall that GOP candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain conceded when they lost. We remember that George W. Bush was young and irresponsible when he was young and irresponsible, but like St. Paul counseled, when he became a man, he put away childish ways. And, further back, there is the memory of Ronald Reagan, optimistic, brimming with confidence as only an actor can, sketchy on policy details but someone who knew what he believed. Every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime was preferable to Trump.

The other Republican candidates running now, with the possible exception of DeSantis, would be better than Trump. None of them have his baggage, his obsessions, his acute narcissism. (Every presidential candidate has to be at least a little bit of a narcissist.) They all lack his capacity for self-delusion.

These Lilliputian candidates, however, share one characteristic that also defines their relationship to Trump in a critical way. They all subscribe to neoliberal economics that made Trump possible. Reagan was not hateful the way Trump is hateful, but he and his GOP heirs embraced policies that hollowed out the middle class, decimated the working class and denuded the government of the power needed to right the wrongs they perpetrated.

Income inequality has grown consistently since the Reagan years. This article at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities looks at the data from a variety of angles, but each angle tells the same story: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The numbers for wealth inequality are even worse than those for income: "The best survey data show that the share of wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30 percent in 1989 to 39 percent in 2016, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33 percent to 23 percent," the CBPP article states.

Union membership is half what it was in 1983, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Not coincidentally, the decline in union membership tracks with the increase in income inequality, as this fact sheet from the Economic Policy Institute shows. The best news in the post-pandemic economy is that low-income workers have seen steady gains in both employment and wages, as the pandemic brought back classic Keynesian policies. President Joe Biden needs to be out celebrating that fact every day.

Last week, a friend drove me around Detroit. We looked at some beautiful, historic churches. All around was the fallout from neoliberalism. Vacant buildings interspersed with vacant lots. Boarded up storefronts. Few pedestrians downtown. Reagan accepted the presidential nomination of his party in that city's Cobo Hall in 1980. His shadow still lingers over the city's decline.

For every Detroit, there are scores of smaller cities that have also lost their vibrancy. Harvard politics professor Robert Putnam has been cataloging the diminishment of these communities for years, from Bowling Alone, to American Grace, to Our Kids. Those books focus on the citizens and communities that neoliberalism left socio-economically crippled. They are the same citizens and communities whose anxieties Trump figured out how to exploit. Trump's vulgar populism is different from neoliberalism, but it is dependent on the crushing economic devastation neoliberalism wrought.

So, one cheer, maybe even two, for Republicans who stand up to Trump, who insist the 2020 election was not stolen, who condemn his racist and misogynistic behaviors. But voting for neoliberals does not really help the country move forward or address the solidarity deficit; It only paves the way for other, future populists to degrade our democracy.

Read more here:

Other GOP candidates still pave the way for Trump's vile populism - National Catholic Reporter

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Other GOP candidates still pave the way for Trump’s vile populism – National Catholic Reporter

BioShock 4 May Have an Edge Compared to Other Modern FPS … – GameRant

Posted: at 8:17 pm

2007's BioShock was one of the best games of the decade, and refined some key philosophies while introducing its own mechanics, presentation, and narrative twists. It's a project that took the structure of System Shock 2 and subjected it to a libertarian spin. In many ways the Irrational-developed BioShock served as a direct response to Ayn Rand's works, but was also a stellar survival horror experience. 2010's BioShock 2 stayed in Rapture while the third game in the trilogy, BioShock Infinite, took to the sky in the floating city of Columbia. BioShock 4 will hope to continue the lofty legacy.

The series has been dormant since Burial at Sea, and though it's never been far from the minds of fans, games like Prey, We Happy Few, and Atomic Heart have done well to bridge the gap and fill the temporarily vacated hole that BioShock once filled. Now being developed by new company Cloud Chamber, BioShock 4 will be looking to reset the standard and swat away the impending competitor Judas, reestablishing its place as the king of first-person environmental storytelling. It's at an immediate advantage over the rest, as it was the one to put the bar so high in the first place, and can't be criticized for being just another BioShock clone.

RELATED: BioShock is Better Off for Embracing the Final Fantasy Blueprint

While Call of Duty prioritizes twitchy competitive combat and Battlefield insists on being realistic, BioShock is a first-person franchise that puts fun at the forefront. It's always been heavy on its science fiction influences and splicing (no pun intended) of narrative genres. Having a firearm in one hand and an elemental attack in the other gives players choice with each encounter, and makes battling through the setting enjoyable because there's always a trade-off for all the player's potential approaches.

In the first BioShock, for example, players can go in guns-blazing, or carefully use the environment and an ability to do damage in a more inventive way, like shocking a water puddle or using telekinesis to hurl an object from afar. The protagonist of BioShock 4 will surely have access to both guns and plasmids (though they may be called something different), which means that the game will have the same fundamental strength of its predecessors, ensuring it stays on the franchise's pre-prescribed path to success.

BioShock 4 being the newest entry in the series means there will be a lot of scrutiny, but this at least means that it won't have to reinvent the wheel and prove that it's more than just an imitation of Irrational Games' crowning achievement. Titles like the aforementioned Prey and Atomic Heart can be criticized, perhaps fairly, because they take too much from BioShock, whereas the fourth game in that series is building off the innovation of its predecessors. BioShock 4 may be struggling in development hell, but in a way there's less pressure in 2023, because it doesn't have the added requirement of changing the formula to make it different enough from the stories in Rapture and Columbia.

The only game that could perhaps say the same thing is Judas, developed by Ghost Story Games, which is made up of former Irrational Games staff and BioShock creator Ken Levine. Having that heritage could mean that those in the know believe it to be a more faithful continuation of BioShock, but the name means a lot, and BioShock 4 will stand alongside the previous games in the history books. It might be best, then, to rely on tried-and-tested gameplay conventions to help it resonate with existing fans as well as new ones.

BioShock 4 is in development.

MORE: BioShock 4 Can Still Beat Judas to the Punch

View post:

BioShock 4 May Have an Edge Compared to Other Modern FPS ... - GameRant

Posted in Ayn Rand | Comments Off on BioShock 4 May Have an Edge Compared to Other Modern FPS … – GameRant

LETTER: When will Republicans wake up? – The Pantagraph

Posted: at 8:17 pm

White the current debt ceiling crisis unfolds, we are reminded again of the differences of the two main political parties.

Led by the Republican Speaker of the House, the members of his party seem to be following President Reagan, Steve Bannon, and Ayn Rand/Rand Paul in wanting to destroy the "administrative state" -- the community our nation has as one nation. Many want a default

A fundamental thread of the current GOP seems intent on emasculating the federal government and, yes, destroying the mutual care that we practice and the federal government represents. This GOP tribe would prefer reducing citizen rights throughout the country to states rights. Inevitably, some states will foster and buy greed, prejudice, and exclusion to their heart's content. The Conservative Supreme Courts decision to gut the Civil Rights Act demonstrates the effective deep ideological passion used to destroy both the government and citizens rights.

Big business controls so much money and spends lavishly on their lobbyists, yet maintains the federal government is the enemy. It is a deep lie that the government is the enemy, planted deliberately by former Justice Powell, Newt Gingrich, and Paul Weyrich. This lie has successfully persuaded many poorly educated representatives and senators to help commerce in place of serving their constituents common good. The lie started with the effective falsehood by Justice Powell that Business is under attack. That lie is a GOP principle.

Against this destructiveness, deregulation, control of individuals and greed, the Democrat Party fosters our natural impulse mutual helping one another. The Democrat Party wants to rein in banks, tax non-tax-paying businesses and their billionaires for their share and help you and me with less money to deal with our common problems. The truth is: When will Republicans wake up instead of blaming Democrats for being "woke"?

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the original post:

LETTER: When will Republicans wake up? - The Pantagraph

Posted in Ayn Rand | Comments Off on LETTER: When will Republicans wake up? – The Pantagraph

‘The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’ Celebrated Selfishness as a Virtue – Reason

Posted: at 8:17 pm

After years of toiling against a culture that refused to recognize or celebrate the value of our hero's unique gifts, there was a possible breakthrough. A chance was seized. A microphone was commandeered. The nation's airwaves were unexpectedly filled with a message about the value of selfishness, individuality, and ambition.

I'm talking, of course, about the finale ofThe Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, which concluded its five-season run on Amazon Prime last week.

"I want a big life. I want to experience everything. I want to break every single rule there is," Miriam "Midge" Maisel (Rachel Brosnahan) said, near the end of her final set, in a moment that effectively summed up the character's first principles over the course of the show's arc. "They say ambition is an unattractive trait in a womanmaybe. But you know what's really unattractive? Waiting around for something to happen. Staring out a window, thinking the life you should be living is out there somewhere, but not being willing to open the door and go out there and get it, even if someone tells you you can't."

It was a bit more terse than another famous speech delivered at the climax of a story that celebrates many of the same themes. Or perhaps it was a more verbose version of Howard Roark's famous declaration in The Fountainhead,after being informed that it's unlikely anyone will let him design buildings in the way he wanted: "That's not the point," he said. "The point is, who will stop me?"

Over the course of five seasons, no one stopped Midge Maisel. Not when she stormed onto the stage at New York City's famous Gaslight Cafe in a bathrobe to deliver her first impromptu set after discovering her husband's infidelity in the show's premiere. Not when she similarly broke away from an interview to deliver that monologue in the finale. It wasn't all smooth sailing in betweenindeed, one of the show's strengths was its willingness to let Midge struggle, even seem to fail at timesbut that's not the point, is it? The point is, no one stopped her.

More than most other shows on television,Mrs. Maisel celebrated the selfishness that is essential to success in comedy and show business at large. Midge was always a selfish character, but the show's final season leaned into that trait in a refreshing way. Rather than having her grow to be a better mother or romantic partner, or learn some self-sacrificial lesson about helping others succeed, the showrunners (Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino) put the spotlight on Midge's defining trait, while also acknowledging the trade-offs that come with it.

The final season culminated with Midge getting her long-sought-after breaka four-minute set on The Gordon Ford Show, which we're told is the highest-rated late-night program on television in the show's fictional version of 1962 Americaand used various flash-forwards to leave no doubt that it was, in fact, the springboard to a wildly successful career in show business. She got there by breaking the rules and by demanding to be first in line, yes, but also by refusing to compromise on who she was.

The show's celebration of selfishness extended beyond Midge herself and did so in a way that fits with Ayn Rand's conception of the term. While there is nothing wrongand plenty rightabout putting one's own needs first, Rand emphasized that selfishness also indicated moral first principles: Being selfish means, essentially, being true to one's self and refusing to subvert the individual to the desires of others.

Throughout the show, Midge repeatedly encountered supposedly successful people whose showbiz fame was predicated on committing the Randian cardinal sin of subverting their individualism for mass appeal. First and most apparent was Sophie Lennon (Jane Lynch), a snooty Manhattanite who donned a fake accent and fat suit to perform stand-up as a crass housewife from Queens. There was also Shy Baldwin (Leroy McClain), the closeted homosexual who performed as a womanizing pop singer. Finally, there was Ford, the late-night host with a fake marriage who didn't write his own jokes or have as much creative control over his own show as he liked to think. As the lies those characters lived were peeled back, Midge (and the audience) discovered them to beto varying degreespathetic, tragic, and pitiable.

Midge steadfastly refused to play that game, announcing early on that she would achieve fame on her own terms. Her comedy act was a reflection of that perspective, rooted as it was in the lived experience of a divorced Jewish mother from the Upper West Side. Her manager Susie Myerson (Alex Borstein) and real-life comic Lenny Bruce (Luke Kirby), fellow outsiders who disdained the phoniness of their industry, stood alone in recognizing and encouraging Midge's unique talent.

To be sure, there was plenty of the traditional form of selfishness in Midge's character too. Her big break came after she persuaded Myerson to apply a particularly nasty form of leverage over Ford so he would break his personal rule against allowing his writers to appear as guests on his show (which is, it should be said, a very reasonable rule). By doing so, she blatantly stepped to the front of the line ahead of other comedians who toiled in the obscurity of the writers' room far longer than she did.

But the show left no doubt that she deserved the break when it came. She wasn't just the one writer in Ford's bullpen who found the right leverage to make him break his ruleshe was also the best of the bunch, and therefore the one most deserving of special treatment in the show's Randian-tinged perspective. Her selfishness, in all its forms, was duly rewarded.

Still,Mrs. Maisel also demonstrated that the selfishness necessary for success is not without its trade-offs. In the fifth season's flash-forwards, we learned that Midge's strained and distant relationship with her two children continued even after both reached adulthood. If Midge's success was the result of never compromising on her individualism, then that same character trait naturally made her a poor mother, a role where self-sacrifice is fundamental. Her relationship with her parents was similarly difficult, though one might note that strained or absent family ties only reinforce the similarities between Midge and Rand's heroes, most of whom lack children or relatives who aren't portrayed as losers and leeches.

The dark side of Midge's ambition and selfishness was always part of the show's award-winning formula. Her inability to separate her real life and stage persona cost her friends and opportunities along the waymost prominently getting her canned from a tour as Baldwin's opening act after she inadvertently outed him during a set. There were lessons to be learned, but Midge never abandoned her individuality in order to set things right.

Over its five seasons, Mrs. Maisel veered into other libertarian-adjacent themes, including casting a critical eye toward the obscenity laws that limited free speech in 1950s/'60s New York Cityand which Midge got arrested for violating. The final season dealt in a small way with the tragic end of Bruce's career and placed the blame for his personal decline squarely on the persecution he suffered at the hands of government censors. "I can't step foot in any club east of the Grand Canyon," he lamented at the start of the final episode. Offered Myerson's help to get back on top, he selflessly declined, telling her to use her favors on someone else. There's a hint of a moral there.

But the hero and moral center of the show was always Midgeindeed, everything in the show revolved around herwho used her talents and shamelessly seized every favor offered to her. Even in flash-forwards to her later years, we saw her tireless work ethic continue. And while Midge would surely fall short of Rand's ideals about what defines an objectivist herodespite her propensity for delivering diatribes into a microphoneThe Marvelous Mrs. Maiselleft little doubt that she'd never have succeeded without putting herself first.

Read more:

'The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel' Celebrated Selfishness as a Virtue - Reason

Posted in Ayn Rand | Comments Off on ‘The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’ Celebrated Selfishness as a Virtue – Reason

Blaming the Victim – CounterPunch.org – CounterPunch

Posted: at 8:17 pm

It is not uncommon to blame victims for whatever problems or difficulties they may encounter. Often enough, it involves people who did not comply with police officers commands, never mind that different cops may be shouting out contradictory orders so that the person does not know who to listen to. More recently, Jordan Neely was tragically killed in New York because his strange behavior was threatening to other subway passengers. Luckily, someone stepped in to subdue him, and its just too bad that he lost his life for it. The person who choked him out cannot be blamed; it was all a bad accident, you know.

But lets pull back the lens a bit consider victim-blaming in a more general way.

The conversation starts with Achille Mbembe in Necropolitics (2019) when he discusses how capitalism and the economic imperative of profit-making remade the world system via colonialism and slavery. People were forcibly moved or coerced from the places where they once lived and then ended up being sent to places in order to satisfy demands for labor. They didnt want to move, but were enslaved. They did not want to work in plantation agriculture where monocultures replaced the self-sufficiency of small farmers planting and growing for their family and community, but that was not where the money was. Once moved, those same people are subjected to hatred and racism, as those in new lands argue that you dont belong here. At the same time, no one is allowed to utter the words, Capitalism brought me here.

In Cannibal Capitalism (2022), Nancy Fraser goes through a discussion of how social reproduction in capitalism has a chain effect wherein people from peripheral countries are recruited to provide household care in the developed world so that more privileged women can be allowed the freedom to work and to not be bound by their familial duties. But those caregiving tasks must still be fulfilled, and consequently women are recruited from peripheral countries to be those caregivers, in turn allowing them to send remittances back home, and helping their families back home. Entire economies like the Philippines are set up on this concept, including the broadened need to provide health care for the aged in wealthier countries where the population is at or below replacement rate. Womenmostly womenget work and are paid, all the while destroying their own family units in order to keep the upper classes of capitalist society intact.

So while caregiving becomes a necessity for women who want to work because they are made to feel independent, there is a parallel resentment of those who migrate and seek refugee status to take up those very roles in the heart of the global economic system. Women try to escape their own worlds of poverty and violence, as is currently the case with refugees coming from Central America to the US, but they are hated and scorned for responding to the very demands that capitalism has created. Again, lets not say the name of the system causing this predicament. Lets blame the victims instead.

More broadly than that, we can look at the implications of neoliberalism now spanning 50 years of history. If one were to believe the precepts of Ayn Rand before, Milton Friedman more recently, the effects of capitalism operating under a neoliberal system of accumulation were clear enough. The rich would get immensely richer, there was to be no governmental help for society because capitalism must incentivize individual performance and not compensate those who fail. If people did not survive in this dog-eat-dog environment, they would fail, and they would ultimately die. Their own failures in not being assertive and aggressive enough, made them unsuccessful. Theyre toast, and theyre supposed to be.

Back in the 1980s, sociologist Ulrich Beck talked about Risk Society (1986) and how capitalism in its neoliberal iteration now meant that individual achievement alone determined ones fate. No longer would there be a social safety net to catch those who failed. Presciently, Beck was right. Fortunately, the demise of this safety net has not been as rapid in Europe as it has in other parts of the world, North America included. But the risk is still on us even though the system generates or creates it.

Watching news network a handful of nights ago, there was an extended report about how homelessness had reached epidemic levels, particularly in blue cities where Democratic mayors had not done anything to address the situation. Especially useful in this reporting is that People of Color and/or women are behind the inability to resolve the problem: the mayor of New York is Eric Adams, Brandon Johnson is in Chicago, Los Angeles has Karen Bass, and London Breed is in San Francisco. The implied meaning is clear: they get elected because of this mad desire to support inclusiveness, then fail because they dont know what theyre doing.

What is to be done? In a neoliberal world where any and every action made by government is treated with suspicion, wrath, or both, the answer is, nothing. So in doing nothing, the grand neoliberal vision of a divided world between some winners and many losers is realized. The winners get to celebrate on Mont Pelerin, or maybe its in Davos these days, while the rest of society must navigate around tents and people shooting up fentanyl on the sidewalks of San Francisco. For Rand, Atlas Shrugged because thats how its supposed to be. If you are wealthy, you deserve everything you have.

There are two victims here. First, the homeless and the unwillingness to do anything about helping them involving outlays of money for housing and for health care (both physical and mental) that most people do not have. When it comes to refugees desperate to leave where they came from due to circumstances beyond their control, those problems lie with the governments and the states that they came from. Their labor is needed, and yet few people are willing to take them in. One can only wonder what will happen when streams of people number in the hundreds of millions once climate change makes certain parts of the planet no longer livable. Do the gates swing open for refugees? Not in a dog-eat-dog world, they dont. Second, the public officials themselves fall victim to criticism because theyre not doing anything. Well, you know what? No one wants them to do anything. Thats neoliberalism for you. But lets not talk about that.

See the original post here:

Blaming the Victim - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch

Posted in Ayn Rand | Comments Off on Blaming the Victim – CounterPunch.org – CounterPunch