[USA] SJEDINJENE AMERIČKE DRŽAVE - unutrašnja politika i uticaj na svetska kretanja

[zoran59]

15 hours ago, Selina said:

Ma kakav Hamas, oni pojma nemaju ni ko je Hamas, niti Hizbolah, ne znaju bas tacno ni sta je i gde je Palestina,

ujedinjuje ih mrznja prema Jevrejima i to je ono sto je strasno, a to je kod tih levicara ideologija.

 

Prvi deo je ispravan - nemaju pojma ni o cemu. Takav je znacajan deo Amera (a i drugih...)

Medjutim ne znam, zasto antisemitizam pripisivati levici?

Onomad (relativno nedavno), 2017, je bio onaj famozni skup Unite the Right u Charlottesville, Virginia. Ku-Klux-Klan i slicni. Jedan od slogana koje su urlali je bio "Jews will not replace us!"

KKK ne mozemo pohvaliti nazivajuci ih levicom...

 

Ekstremisti se ponekad sloze u nekim - ekstremnim  - stavovima, i levi i desni. I, na obe strane, ekstremizam pokazuju kolektivizmom - trpajuci sve "one druge" u istu korpu.

Normalni i umereni ljudi su tolerantni, samo se levi i desni razlikuju po prioritetima.

Evo, ja sam "levo" i zalazem se za socijalne programe placene iz budzeta, a protivim se tome da crkvene/religijske organizacije ne placaju porez. Ipak, kod mene "levoga" nema ni traga antisemitizma.

 

Protivljenje politickim/ekonomskim/vojnim potezima neke vlade nije "mrznja prema svim stanovnicima drzave/pripadnicima naroda." I u Izraelu ima dosta protivnika vladinih poteza. Kao i ovde u USA.

 

Ovde primecujem jednu glupost/nedoslednost.

Forumska politika (moderacija) kaznjava tzv. generalizacije. Tj. dobices ban ako napises "Srbi su 'vakvi, Hrvati su 'nakvi."

Ali samo kad se pise o etniji/naciji. Ako optuzis Hrvate za Jasenovac ili Srbe za Srebrenicu, javice se gomila njih koji kazu "nisam ja, prljava generalizacija!"

A ja, "levicar," nemam kome da se pozalim i uzalud bih "reportovao" post kad me optuzis za antisemitizam.

 

edit: gramatika

 

 

 

 

Edited May 3 by zoran59

[Darko]

2 hours ago, zoran59 said:

Medjutim ne znam, zasto antisemitizam pripisivati levici?

Iz konteksta mislim da se Selina odnosila na onaj ekstremni deo levice, ne celu levicu - ali nije na meni da klarifikujem. Za post, piši češće, volim čitati tvoje postove.

[DJORDJE]

5 hours ago, zoran59 said:

 

Prvi deo je ispravan - nemaju pojma ni o cemu. Takav je znacajan deo Amera (a i drugih...)

Medjutim ne znam, zasto antisemitizam pripisivati levici?

 

A zasto ne? Krenimo od SSSR-a, gde je antisemitizam bio vise nego prisutan zavisno od toga ko je bio na vlasti. Kod nas u SFRJ Izrael je bio neprijateljska drzava i na crnoj listi sa Juznom Korejom, JAR, Cileom i Paragvajem. Pecat u pasosu je znacio siguran zatvor, barem dok je marsal bio ziv. Antisemitizam nije neminovno vezan sa desnicom, itekako je bilo i levicarskih pokreta koji su bili izrazito antisemitski, recimo BA'ATH ili SSSR. Cak i  NSDAP kao ekstremni oblik antisemitizma, je daleko blizi levici nego desnci. 

[40Wins]

Šta se to dešava sa Boingom i tim uzbunjivacima sto su se samoubili sa dva metka u potiljak?

[Nek grmi jako]

Integralni tekst nobelovca Džozefa Stiglica:

 

Neoliberal theorists and their beneficiaries may be happy to live with all this. They are doing very well by it. They forget that, for all the rhetoric, free markets can’t function without strong democracies beneath them—the kind of democracies that neoliberalism puts under threat. In a very direct way, neoliberal capitalism is devouring itself.

Not only are neoliberal economies inefficient at dealing with collective issues, but neoliberalism as an economic system is not sustainable on its own. To take one fundamental element: A market economy runs on trust.

 

Adam Smith himself emphasized the importance of trust, recognizing that society couldn’t survive if people brazenly followed their own self-interest rather than good codes of conduct:

The regard to those general rules of conduct, is what is properly called a sense of duty, a principle of the greatest consequence in human life, and the only principle by which the bulk of mankind are capable of directing their actions … Upon the tolerable observance of these duties, depends the very existence of human society, which would crumble into nothing if mankind were not generally impressed with a reverence for those important rules of conduct.

For instance, contracts have to be honored. The cost of enforcing every single contract through the courts would be unbearable. And with no trust in the future, why would anybody save or invest? 

 

The incentives of neoliberal capitalism focus on self-interest and material well-being, and have done much to weaken trust. Without adequate regulation, too many people, in the pursuit of their own self-interest, will conduct themselves in an untrustworthy way, sliding to the edge of what is legal, overstepping the bounds of what is moral. 

Neoliberalism helps create selfish and untrustworthy people. A “businessman” like Donald Trump can flourish for years, even decades, taking advantage of others. If Trump were the norm rather than the exception, commerce and industry would grind to a halt.

We also need regulations and laws to make sure that there are no concentrations of economic power. Business seeks to collude and would do so even more in the absence of antitrust laws. But even playing within current guardrails, there’s a strong tendency for the agglomeration of power. The neoliberal ideal of free, competitive markets would, without government intervention, be evanescent.

 

We’ve also seen that those with power too often do whatever they can to maintain it. They write the rules to sustain and enhance power, not to curb or diminish it. Competition laws are eviscerated. Enforcement of banking and environmental laws is weakened. In this world of neoliberal capitalism, wealth and power are ever ascendant.

Neoliberalism undermines the sustainability of democracy—the opposite of what Hayek and Friedman intended or claimed. We have created a vicious circle of economic and political inequality, one that locks in more freedom for the rich and leaves less for the poor, at least in the United States, where money plays such a large role in politics.

There are many ways in which economic power gets translated into political power and undermines the fundamental democratic value of one person casting one vote.

 

The reality is that some people’s voices are much louder than others. In some countries, accruing power is as crude as literally buying votes, with the wealthy having more money to buy more votes. In advanced countries, the wealthy use their influence in the media and elsewhere to create self-serving narratives that in turn become the conventional wisdom. For instance, certain rules and regulations and government interventions—tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, deregulation of key industries—that are purely in the interest of the rich and powerful are also, it is said, in the national interest. Too often that viewpoint is swallowed wholesale. If persuasion doesn’t work, there is always fear: If the banks are not bailed out, the economic system will collapse, and everyone will be worse off. If the corporate tax rate is not cut, firms will leave and go to other jurisdictions that are more business-friendly.

 

Is a free society one in which a few dictate the terms of engagement? In which a few control the major media and use that control to decide what the populace sees and hears? We now inhabit a polarized world in which different groups live in different universes, disagreeing not only on values but on facts.

A strong democracy can’t be sustained by neoliberal economics for a further reason. Neoliberalism has given rise to enormous “rents”—the monopoly profits that are a major source of today’s inequalities. Much is at stake, especially for many in the top one percent, centered on the enormous accretion of wealth that the system has allowed.

 

Democracy requires compromise if it is to remain functional, but compromise is difficult when there is so much at stake in terms of both economic and political power.

A free-market, competitive, neoliberal economy combined with a liberal democracy does not constitute a stable equilibrium—not without strong guardrails and a broad societal consensus on the need to curb wealth inequality and money’s role in politics. The guardrails come in many forms, such as competition policy, to prevent the creation, maintenance, and abuse of market power. We need checks and balances, not just within government, as every schoolchild in the U.S. learns, but more broadly within society. Strong democracy, with widespread participation, is also part of what is required, which means working to strike down laws intended to decrease democratic participation or to gerrymander districts where politicians will never lose their seats.

 

Whether America’s political and economic system today has enough safeguards to sustain economic and political freedoms is open to serious question.

Under the very name of freedom, neoliberals and their allies on the radical right have advocated policies that restrict the opportunities and freedoms, both political and economic, of the many in favor of the few. All these failures have hurt large numbers of people around the world, many of whom have responded by turning to populism, drawn to authoritarian figures like Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi.

 

Perhaps we should not be surprised by where the U.S. has landed. It is a country now so divided that even a peaceful transition of power is difficult, where life expectancy is the lowest among advanced nations, and where we can’t agree about truth or how it might best be ascertained or verified. Conspiracy theories abound. The values of the Enlightenment have to be relitigated daily.

 

There are good reasons to worry whether America’s form of ersatz capitalism and flawed democracy is sustainable. The incongruities between lofty ideals and stark realities are too great. It’s a political system that claims to cherish freedom above all else but in many ways is structured to deny or restrict freedoms for many of its citizens.

I do believe that there is broad consensus on key elements of what constitutes a good and decent society, and on what kind of economic system supports that society. A good society, for instance, must live in harmony with nature. Our current capitalism has made a mess of this. A good society allows individuals to flourish and live up to their potential. In terms of education alone, our current capitalism is failing large portions of the population. A good economic system would encourage people to be honest and empathetic, and foster the ability to cooperate with others. The current capitalist system encourages the antithesis.

 

But the key first step is changing our mindset. Friedman and Hayek argued that economic and political freedoms are intimately connected, with the former necessary for the latter. But the economic system that has evolved—largely under the influence of these thinkers and others like them—undermines meaningful democracy and political freedom. In the end, it will undermine the very neoliberalism that has served them so well.

 

For a long time, the right has tried to establish a monopoly over the invocation of freedom, almost as a trademark. It’s time to reclaim the word.

Edited May 4 by Nek grmi jako

[Selina]

7 hours ago, DJORDJE said:

A zasto ne? Krenimo od SSSR-a, gde je antisemitizam bio vise nego prisutan zavisno od toga ko je bio na vlasti. Kod nas u SFRJ Izrael je bio neprijateljska drzava i na crnoj listi sa Juznom Korejom, JAR, Cileom i Paragvajem. Pecat u pasosu je znacio siguran zatvor, barem dok je marsal bio ziv. Antisemitizam nije neminovno vezan sa desnicom, itekako je bilo i levicarskih pokreta koji su bili izrazito antisemitski, recimo BA'ATH ili SSSR. Cak i  NSDAP kao ekstremni oblik antisemitizma, je daleko blizi levici nego desnci. 

SSSR samo je tri dana kasnije priznao drzavu Izrael, znaci USA 15 maja 1948, a SSSR 18.maja 1948. Jugoslavija je valjda tupila

sa priznavanjem zbog Nesvrstanih, Naser, Tito, i slicno, a 1948 nije znala ni gde joj je düpe, a gde glava.

[Selina]

10 hours ago, Darko said:

Iz konteksta mislim da se Selina odnosila na onaj ekstremni deo levice, ne celu levicu - ali nije na meni da klarifikujem. Za post, piši češće, volim čitati tvoje postove.

Kompliment je za njih to sto ih nazivam levicarima jer ne bih inaca znala pod koju rubriku da smestim te silne

mrzitelje Jevreja. To je jedan konglomerat raznoraznih aktivista, kulturnih radnika, naucnika, politicara, zamlata

iz filozofije, publicistike, psihologije koji svi od reda dobijaju pare za svoju aktivnu mrznju prema Jevrejima koju

ovde nazivaju protestom protiv izraelskog premijera.

 

Jedan nemacki reziser, direktor festivala kratkometraznih filmova, juce u jednom intervjuu kaze da je sankcionisanje

i prezir, pa i javni pozivi na bojkot i robe , ali i ljudi, danas nesto sto je pozeljno i da sada san kcije snose oni koji se

toga ne pridrazavaju. Na ovom forumu ljudi iz plemenitih razloga imaju empatiju ( izuziman dvoje, troje koji su verovatno

i perjanice BDS pokreta prema nesrecnom stanovnistvu u Gazi, ali su ratovi po celoim svetu, deca, stari, mladi ne

trpe nemastinu samo u Gazi tako da je neprimerna ova velika ljubav samo prema tim ljudima.

 

Za sve naivne umetnike na zici koji se cude zasto i kako samo nekoliko recenica iz poveceg clanka sa sajta Al Dzazire

u kome se lepo objasnjava da ova mrznja i protesti protiv Izraela imaju korena vec u samom osnivanje drzave, a

vec v ise od dve decenije besne aktivisti protiv njih, do 7.oktobraa to nije bilo bas otvoreno, danas je to postao

kulturni kodeks lepog ponasanja i misljenja.

 

Konačno, poziv palestinskog civilnog društva od  9. Jula 2005. godine smatra se historijski važnim događajem, kao početak globalne kampanje BDS (“Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” /Bojkot, neinvestiranje, sankcije)

Iako se ideja, kao i određene akcije u vezi sa bojkotom Izraela spominju još od četrdesetih godina prošlog stoljeća,  jasno formuliran zahtjev pojavit će se tek početkom 21. stoljeća.   

Od međunarodnog civilnog društva i svih savijesnih ljudi zatraženo je da podrže kampanju po uzoru na bojkot koji se primjenjivao protiv Južne  Afrike u doba apartheida. Očekuju se vršenje pritiska na vlastite države sa ciljem nametanja embarga i sankcija Izraelu.  “ Zbog pravde i istinskog mira“ podrška je zatražena i od savjesnih Izraelaca. Iza poziva stajalo je 170 palestinskih organizacija predstavljajući Palestince sa Zapadne obale,  iz Gaze, današnjeg Izraela i dijaspore. Zbog složenosti akcije, na web stranici BDS-a, kao i palestinske kampanje za akademski i kulturni bojkot Izraela (PACBI) vrlo detaljno su objašnjeni razlozi i detalji u vezi sa svim principima i formama bojkota.

Kao uvjet za prekid bojkota navedena su tri zahtjeva: Okončati okupaciju i kolonizaciju svih arapskih teritorija i ukloniti zid (1); Priznanje temeljnih prava arapskih i palestinskih građana Izraela na punu ravnopravnost (2);  Poštivati, štiti i promicati prava palestinskih izbjeglica na povratak u njihovu domovinu i na njihovo vlasništvo sukladno UN-ovoj rezoluciji 194 (3). Treća tačka je u više navrata proizvela i rasprave unutar grupa koje suštinski podržavaju BDS zbog bojazni da bi se mogla iskoristiti za potpunu deligitimizaciju Izraela.

I bez sporne tačke, ideja BDS-a je izazvala pravu lavinu kritika i napada. S ciljem borbe protiv akademskog bojkota Izraela, još 2002. godine formiran je AFI (The Academic Friends of Israel), a u kompromitaciju pokreta uključile su se pored izraelske vlade, brojne udruge i pojedinci. Od samog početka pobornici ideje bojkota optužuju se za „antisemitizam“, pa čak i negiranje Holokausta pri tome potpuno negirajući činjenicu da su mnogi BDS aktivisti također Jevreji i državljani Izraela.

 

https://solidarnost-bosnia.com/index.php/projektisolidarnost/druge-aktivnosti/195-sve-o-bds-pokretu

[deez nuts.]

1 hour ago, 40Wins said:

Šta se to dešava sa Boingom i tim uzbunjivacima sto su se samoubili sa dva metka u potiljak?

Smecarski gigant koji se mora sacuvati. 

[zoran59]

9 hours ago, DJORDJE said:

A zasto ne? Krenimo od SSSR-a, gde je antisemitizam bio vise nego prisutan zavisno od toga ko je bio na vlasti. Kod nas u SFRJ Izrael je bio neprijateljska drzava i na crnoj listi sa Juznom Korejom, JAR, Cileom i Paragvajem. Pecat u pasosu je znacio siguran zatvor, barem dok je marsal bio ziv. Antisemitizam nije neminovno vezan sa desnicom, itekako je bilo i levicarskih pokreta koji su bili izrazito antisemitski, recimo BA'ATH ili SSSR. Cak i  NSDAP kao ekstremni oblik antisemitizma, je daleko blizi levici nego desnci. 

 

Antisemitizam ne vezem ni sa levicom ni sa desnicom, nego sa - antisemitima. Tj. sa onima koji su od benignog (ako je to moguce i postoji) oblika patriotizma - tj. kolektivistickog plemenskog identiteta - skrenuli u sovinizam, tj. (opet kolektivisticki) netrpeljivost, pa i mrznju, prema "onim drugima." Takvih ima i sa levim i sa desnim stavovima.

 

I pitanje je sta je danas "levica." To nije nostalgija za SSSR-om ili podrska totalitarizmu tipa Severne Koreje. Barem za mene, levica je progresivna socijaldemokratija. Recimo, nesto kao Olof Palme ili Willy Brandt.

 

Odnos Yu prema Izraelu nije bio uzrokovan antisemitizmom nego time sto je Izrael stvorio i podrzavao "mrski kapitalisticki Zapad" dok su Arapi bili "bliski nesvrstani prijateji."

[zoran59]

Nego, da se vratimo na USA temu...

 

Opinion: ‘America First’ conservatives aren’t putting American workers first

Opinion by Ginny Hogan, opinion contributor

 

The support for Ukraine aid exposed a fundamental division in the GOP. Traditional conservatives like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) pitched support for Ukraine as existential for the future of democracy, while “America First” conservatives opposed the aid. By and large, they claimed America shouldn’t be sending money overseas when we have problems to solve at home. It’s a nice sentiment, except that these “America First” senators aren’t actually working to solve the domestic problems they complain about. They cannot put America First when they fail to see America as it is.

 

The “America First” movement has grown around Donald Trump to give policy to a catchphrase. The most generous reading of the movement is an effort to close the border, rebuild American manufacturing, and bring jobs back to our country. Essentially: To put the American worker first. There are many examples —  Sens. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Bill Haggerty (R-Tenn.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — but I’m going to hone in on Rubio, Hawley and Vance to paint a picture of this faction. These three are often praised for their “pro-labor” policy, and if I squint, I can understand why. The bar is quite low, and talking about liking labor is an improvement over talking about hating labor. When compared to former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who in her decidedly 2004-esque 2024 presidential campaign proudly described herself as a “union buster,” the rhetorical distinction is clear. And both parties should actively compete for union endorsements; it doesn’t matter if Joe Biden himself shows up on a picket line or calls out Shawn Fain in the State of the Union if the Democratic Party doesn’t put its money where its mouth is, either (which it does, to an extent). But the GOP’s “America First” movement never gets beyond the talk.

 

A leader cannot fight for America’s working class when they don’t see America as it is. The “America First” movement tries to pair social conservatism with pro-labor economics, but this is an impossible needle to thread. Unions aside, the very idea of talking about a “median” worker (as Oren Cass, one of the “thinkers” behind the movement often does), or trying to separate out economic and social issues, is nonsensical. There is no “median” worker — to support American workers is to support diversity.

 

Rubio, Hawley and Vance are all pro-life, as are the vast majority of “America First” conservatives. When they would prefer a high school girl drop out to become a mother than choose to get an abortion and finish her education, I have a hard time believing they want women to succeed in the labor force. When Vance defends Trump for saying immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” I have a hard time believing either of them cares about any worker who happens to be born outside the U.S. When Rubio supports a ban on transgender military service, I have a difficult time imagining he cares about the economic advancement of the LGBTQ community. When Hawley fights the Biden administration’s attempts to manufacture electric car parts in the U.S., I struggle to believe he cares about climate change, and how only those with vast sums of money will be able to insulate themselves from the effects.

 

When Hawley, Vance and Rubio have all indicated they won’t accept the lawful results of elections (or in Hawley’s case, not only objected, but actually voted against it), it’s not believable that they care about the voice of working people. 

And even in their narrow, conservative, cisgendered, male conception of the American worker, are their policies helping? Put another way: Is it conceivable that someone with anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ policies could care about closing the wealth gap? Maybe, in theory, but that person’s not in the Senate right now. Rubio has claimed to support unions, but just as long as they fight against woke CEOs. Hawley and Vance both showed up on UAW picket lines, but their voting records have earned them lifetime AFL-CIO scores of 11 percent (Hawley) and 0 percent (Vance). Vance told Politico he’s only willing to support “good” unions, which he then defined as unions that align with him politically (unsurprisingly, the cops).

 

Hawley, Rubio and Vance all oppose the PRO Act — Protecting the Right to Organize — which expands and protects workers rights to collectively bargain and organize. Arguing that you’re pro-union while opposing the PRO Act is a little bit like arguing that you’re pro-women while opposing Roe v. Wade (as in, you’re not). Their words may be pro-union, but their actions don’t match.

Then again, “pro-union” and “pro-labor” are related but not synonymous. I want to leave open the possibility that a politician could, in theory, support policies that benefit the working class without focusing on unions. Unfortunately, we once again don’t see examples of that among these “America First” senators. Rubio and Hawley talk a big game about keeping jobs in the U.S., but both of them (along with other “America First” senators like Cruz and Rick Scott) voted against the CHIPS Act, which actually does keep jobs in the U.S.

 

Hawley described a $12 minimum wage as “out of the mainstream” and has voted against worker protections for pregnant workers. JD Vance has opposed universal child care, a policy that would help all working parents, and for all his screaming on X about how much he hates the “elites,” he doesn’t come out against Trump’s 2017 tax cuts (Politico described him as “quietly critical.” That doesn’t mean anything. Quietly, I am Taylor Swift, for all you know). Rubio introduced a bill that would pay for parental leave by allowing families to basically take an advance on their Social Security payments; I find the idea of treating Social Security like an exchangeable commodity incredibly dangerous. Even on labor positions unrelated to these radical socialist unions, the “America First” senators have come up short. 

We know these senators aren’t on the side of the American worker, which begs the question — whose side are they on? The answer is obvious: people and corporations with money. Despite his UAW picketing, Hawley has received campaign donations from GM and Ford. Rubio has voted against the Freedom to Vote Act to end dark money contributions in politics. JD Vance was among the top 20 recipients of oil and gas money in the 2022 election. And so, when I say that these “America First” leaders don’t see America as it truly is, perhaps I’m the one who’s missing something. They’re nothing new. Maybe they understand how power works in this country, and they’re seeing everything perfectly.

izvor: https://thehill.com/

 

[Nek grmi jako]

Kada je reč o prohamasovskim protestima na koledžima u SAD, istina je da se većina studenata ne pača u to, ali je to donekle i manje bitno u odnosu na stav koji zauzimaju uprave visokoškolskih institucija.

 

Pa ćemo tako videti primer sa FSU, koji je pozivajući se na propis 2.007 zabranio kampovanje na univerzitetskom zemljištu i naterao studente da uklone šatore. 

 

U saopštenju univerziteta stoji da FSU, kao obrazovna institucija, pozdravlja slobodu govora, različita mišljenja i rigoroznu debatu, ali samo i jedino kada su u skladu sa univerzitetskom regulativom.

 

Takođe, uprava FSU zapretila je studentima koji su prekršili pravila protestnog ponašanja suspenzijom i izbacivanjem iz kampusa na tri godine. Uz to i profesorima, te ostalim zaposlenim koji su obavešteni da će biti otpušteni ako krše veoma jasna pravila.

 

Možda je ova demonstracija držanja situacije pod kontrolom i poštovanja pravila razlog zašto su protesti na Floridi obuzdani, dok su oni u plavim državama, od Njujorka do Kalifornije, izmakli kontroli, čak dajući demonstrantima prednost i neosporivi legitimitet i u slučajevima kada direktno krše pravila univerziteta (ima i tu izuzetaka, poput delovanja rukovodstva Stanforda koje se snažno suprotstavilo demonstrantima).

 

Pa je tako Univerzitet Nortvestern u Ilinoisu, na primer, saopštio da su postigli dogovor sa studentima demonstrantima. Prvo, univerzitet se složio da u potpunosti objavi svoja ulaganja. Takođe su se obavezali da će podržati posete palestinskim fakultetima i  finansirati dva tamošnja fakulteta godišnje tokom dve godine, kao što će i pokriti pune cene troškova za pet palestinskih studenata koji će pohađati Nortvestern.

 

Pored toga, obavezali su se da će obezbediti trenutni privremeni prostor za MENA/muslimanske studente.

 

Dan kasnije, Braun univerzitet, koji se nalazi u Providensu, sledio je taj primer. 

 

U isto vreme, omladinski koledž ogranak Demokratskog nacionalnog komiteta daje izjavu u kojoj izražavaju svoju solidarnost sa antiizraelskim demonstrantima čije su postupke nazvali - herojskim.

 

U saopštenju se navodi da su demonstranti i studenti iz svih slojeva života imali moralnu jasnoću da vide ovaj rat kakav jeste: destruktivan, genocidan i nepravedan.

 

Grupa je bila izuzetno kritična prema odnosu Bajdenove administracije sa Izraelom, rekavši kako je Bela kuća krenula pogrešnim putem strategije zagrljaja medveda, mislivši na Netanijahua. A u zaključku navode da svakim danom kada demokrate ne uspeju da se ujedine za trajni prekid vatre, rešenje dve države i priznanje palestinske države, sve je više mladih razočarano partijom.

 

Naravno, studentski demonstranti nisu samo zagovarali trajni prekid vatre u Gazi ili rešenje sa dve države. Mnogi su aktivno slavili Hamas i druge organizacije čiji je cilj potpuno iskorenjivanje jevrejske države.

 

I sada se postavlja logično pitanje zašto uprave tih najelitnijih američkih visokoškolskih ustanova ne sankcionišu očigledni antisemitizam, već ga i nagrađuju naknadnim dogovorima sa vođstvom demonstranata? Zašto ove škole dozvoljavaju studentima koji su prohamasovci i njihovim profesionalnim agitatorima da nekažnjeno gaze građanska prava onih studenata i članova fakulteta koji ne dele te stavove, pa čak dozvoljavaju da ubedljiva manjina koja demonstrira kasnije diktira uslove nagodbe?

 

Tako je radikalizacija akademske zajednice, koja se gradila decenijama, sada u stvari dostigla vrhunac postavši totalni opozit od onoga što piše u Ustavu i Povelji o pravima. 

 

Jer, republika koja stoji na tekovinama demokratije postaje ugrožena kada jedna grupa odluči da je u redu da otvoreno krši građanska prava druge grupe, dok joj najznačajnije obrazovne institucije daju vetar u leđa i maltene podstiču određene sukobe.

Edited May 4 by Nek grmi jako

[DJORDJE]

On 5/4/2024 at 6:06 AM, Selina said:

SSSR samo je tri dana kasnije priznao drzavu Izrael, znaci USA 15 maja 1948, a SSSR 18.maja 1948. Jugoslavija je valjda tupila

sa priznavanjem zbog Nesvrstanih, Naser, Tito, i slicno, a 1948 nije znala ni gde joj je düpe, a gde glava.

SSSR je priznavao i Drazu i to duze od Saveznika. Jugoslavija je sledila politiku Moskve , kao i gotovo sve komunisticke zemlje i prekunula je diplomatske odnose sa Izraelom. Mislim da jedino Rumunija  nije sledila taj put.

 

 

 

On 5/4/2024 at 7:10 AM, zoran59 said:

 

 

I pitanje je sta je danas "levica." To nije nostalgija za SSSR-om ili podrska totalitarizmu tipa Severne Koreje. Barem za mene, levica je progresivna socijaldemokratija. Recimo, nesto kao Olof Palme ili Willy Brandt.

 

Taj tip levice u SAD ne postoji , bas kao sto ne postoji ni u Srbiji.

[Mama_mia]

Da ne citiram, znate ko je sta napisao, osvrnula bih se na nesto sto se kaze da `ameri ni o cemu pojma nemaju` ne znaju ni sta je hamas ni tako to....medjutim tu se ne radi o obicnim americkim studentima koji su se eventualno poveli sa drugovima iz licnog neznanja - vec se radi o onima koji VEOMA dobro znaju sta je hamas, sta hezbolah, sta iskonska mrznja prema izrealu. Cemu jedna Rashida Tlaib ili Ilhan Omar uce svoju decu? Verujete da ta njhova deca ne znaju to sto ste poverovali da ne znaju?

 

I jos nesto, kada se kaze da su levicari antisemiti na ovoj temi ili na nekoj politickoj - iskljucivo se misli na americku administraciju i njihove levicare, tako da ne vidim razlog da se neki anonimni forumas oseti prozvanim da je levicar i samim tim antisemita.

 

Antisemita je osoba ne zato sto je osoba levicar, vec zato sto osoba ispoljava antisem.ispade. Ovo je nadam se vise nego Kristal jasno.

 

 

[nonick]

To su neki fini ljudi, sa jedne i sa druge strane.

 

 

[Selina]

On 5/6/2024 at 2:17 PM, DJORDJE said:

SSSR je priznavao i Drazu i to duze od Saveznika. Jugoslavija je sledila politiku Moskve , kao i gotovo sve komunisticke zemlje i prekunula je diplomatske odnose sa Izraelom. Mislim da jedino Rumunija  nije sledila taj put.

 

 

 

Taj tip levice u SAD ne postoji , bas kao sto ne postoji ni u Srbiji.

Taj tip levice postojao je mozda samo dvadeset godina u Nemackoj, Skandinavskim zemljama, Austriji i u tragovima u Francuskoj.

 

[Selina]

17 hours ago, Mama_mia said:

Da ne citiram, znate ko je sta napisao, osvrnula bih se na nesto sto se kaze da `ameri ni o cemu pojma nemaju` ne znaju ni sta je hamas ni tako to....medjutim tu se ne radi o obicnim americkim studentima koji su se eventualno poveli sa drugovima iz licnog neznanja - vec se radi o onima koji VEOMA dobro znaju sta je hamas, sta hezbolah, sta iskonska mrznja prema izrealu. Cemu jedna Rashida Tlaib ili Ilhan Omar uce svoju decu? Verujete da ta njhova deca ne znaju to sto ste poverovali da ne znaju?

 

I jos nesto, kada se kaze da su levicari antisemiti na ovoj temi ili na nekoj politickoj - iskljucivo se misli na americku administraciju i njihove levicare, tako da ne vidim razlog da se neki anonimni forumas oseti prozvanim da je levicar i samim tim antisemita.

 

Antisemita je osoba ne zato sto je osoba levicar, vec zato sto osoba ispoljava antisem.ispade. Ovo je nadam se vise nego Kristal jasno.

 

 

Ne samo prema Izraelu, nego  prema Jevrejima an zeneral.

Danas je medju lepima i naprednima u medijima, kulturi ( i u politici, ali to izveceri u tajnosti), umetnosti, narocito u nauci, kulturni

obrazac bojkot Izraela, ali ujedno i bojkot pa cak i fizicki napadi na Jevreje sirom sveta.

Filmski festival u Kanu ne zeli da se prikazuje bilo kakav film iz Izraela. Naucnici iz Izraela nisu nigde pozeljni gosti.

Nalaze se razni izgovori da im se ne dozvoli prisustvo na tim skupovima.

[Mama_mia]

...nije bitan neki specijalan TIP levice. Toliko je ocigledno da levicari usled podilazenja svojim glasackim grupacijama ili ideologijama - imaju `obavezu` da mrze Izrael. Moram reci da oni usput ne mrze jevreje, jer u USA i ne samo tu, ima jevreja koji takodje imaju protiv Izraela ili protiv vlasti Izraela, tako da - takvi jevreji im nisu problem. Sto znaci nisu mrzitelji jevreja kao hitler ili slicni. Trpe ih ako su na njihovoj strani. A znamo da su jevreji u usa uvek naginjali demokratama. Ali ni takvi vise nisu van opasnosti i sada se i oni bude ....pa imamo da javne licnosti uvidjaju da su izvesni ili mnogo njih iz demokrata - antisemiti u svojim akcijama, neki demsi se ogradjuju od sebe samih jer progresivci podrzavaju antiizraelske proteste.

Sve se vise ranijih levicara javlja i kaze npr, kao Paul Mason u prevedenom tekstu na Pescaniku -.Zašto neću da ćutim o levičarskom antisemitizmu. 

 

Pa mislim dosta je bilo sulude politicke korektnosti u smislu ajde da zatvorimo oci i pravimo se idioti.  Budjenje ide sporo ali bice probudjenih sve vise. Na kraju idu izbori.

[Div]

39 minutes ago, Mama_mia said:

dosta je bilo sulude politicke korektnosti u smislu ajde da zatvorimo oci i pravimo se idioti.

 

Znači, ti ne zatvaraš oči, jednostavno umesto: levičari mrze Jevreje, levičari mrze ceo Izrael i samo neke  neke Jevreje.🥺

Dosta je sulude korektnosti, držimo otvorene oči.☹️ Milijardu ljudi gurni u mrzitelje Izraela, otvorenih očiju.

[ters]

1 hour ago, Mama_mia said:

...nije bitan neki specijalan TIP levice. Toliko je ocigledno da levicari usled podilazenja svojim glasackim grupacijama ili ideologijama - imaju `obavezu` da mrze Izrael. Moram reci da oni usput ne mrze jevreje, jer u USA i ne samo tu, ima jevreja koji takodje imaju protiv Izraela ili protiv vlasti Izraela, tako da - takvi jevreji im nisu problem. Sto znaci nisu mrzitelji jevreja kao hitler ili slicni. Trpe ih ako su na njihovoj strani. A znamo da su jevreji u usa uvek naginjali demokratama. Ali ni takvi vise nisu van opasnosti i sada se i oni bude ....pa imamo da javne licnosti uvidjaju da su izvesni ili mnogo njih iz demokrata - antisemiti u svojim akcijama, neki demsi se ogradjuju od sebe samih jer progresivci podrzavaju antiizraelske proteste.

Sve se vise ranijih levicara javlja i kaze npr, kao Paul Mason u prevedenom tekstu na Pescaniku -.Zašto neću da ćutim o levičarskom antisemitizmu. 

 

Pa mislim dosta je bilo sulude politicke korektnosti u smislu ajde da zatvorimo oci i pravimo se idioti.  Budjenje ide sporo ali bice probudjenih sve vise. Na kraju idu izbori.

Nice... Woke pocinje da znaci nesto drugo...

Edited May 8 by ters

[Koca Popovic]

On 5/4/2024 at 12:30 PM, Nek grmi jako said:

Integralni tekst nobelovca Džozefa Stiglica:

 

Neoliberal theorists and their beneficiaries may be happy to live with all this. They are doing very well by it. They forget that, for all the rhetoric, free markets can’t function without strong democracies beneath them—the kind of democracies that neoliberalism puts under threat. In a very direct way, neoliberal capitalism is devouring itself.

Not only are neoliberal economies inefficient at dealing with collective issues, but neoliberalism as an economic system is not sustainable on its own. To take one fundamental element: A market economy runs on trust.

 

Adam Smith himself emphasized the importance of trust, recognizing that society couldn’t survive if people brazenly followed their own self-interest rather than good codes of conduct:

The regard to those general rules of conduct, is what is properly called a sense of duty, a principle of the greatest consequence in human life, and the only principle by which the bulk of mankind are capable of directing their actions … Upon the tolerable observance of these duties, depends the very existence of human society, which would crumble into nothing if mankind were not generally impressed with a reverence for those important rules of conduct.

For instance, contracts have to be honored. The cost of enforcing every single contract through the courts would be unbearable. And with no trust in the future, why would anybody save or invest? 

 

The incentives of neoliberal capitalism focus on self-interest and material well-being, and have done much to weaken trust. Without adequate regulation, too many people, in the pursuit of their own self-interest, will conduct themselves in an untrustworthy way, sliding to the edge of what is legal, overstepping the bounds of what is moral. 

Neoliberalism helps create selfish and untrustworthy people. A “businessman” like Donald Trump can flourish for years, even decades, taking advantage of others. If Trump were the norm rather than the exception, commerce and industry would grind to a halt.

We also need regulations and laws to make sure that there are no concentrations of economic power. Business seeks to collude and would do so even more in the absence of antitrust laws. But even playing within current guardrails, there’s a strong tendency for the agglomeration of power. The neoliberal ideal of free, competitive markets would, without government intervention, be evanescent.

 

We’ve also seen that those with power too often do whatever they can to maintain it. They write the rules to sustain and enhance power, not to curb or diminish it. Competition laws are eviscerated. Enforcement of banking and environmental laws is weakened. In this world of neoliberal capitalism, wealth and power are ever ascendant.

Neoliberalism undermines the sustainability of democracy—the opposite of what Hayek and Friedman intended or claimed. We have created a vicious circle of economic and political inequality, one that locks in more freedom for the rich and leaves less for the poor, at least in the United States, where money plays such a large role in politics.

There are many ways in which economic power gets translated into political power and undermines the fundamental democratic value of one person casting one vote.

 

The reality is that some people’s voices are much louder than others. In some countries, accruing power is as crude as literally buying votes, with the wealthy having more money to buy more votes. In advanced countries, the wealthy use their influence in the media and elsewhere to create self-serving narratives that in turn become the conventional wisdom. For instance, certain rules and regulations and government interventions—tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, deregulation of key industries—that are purely in the interest of the rich and powerful are also, it is said, in the national interest. Too often that viewpoint is swallowed wholesale. If persuasion doesn’t work, there is always fear: If the banks are not bailed out, the economic system will collapse, and everyone will be worse off. If the corporate tax rate is not cut, firms will leave and go to other jurisdictions that are more business-friendly.

 

Is a free society one in which a few dictate the terms of engagement? In which a few control the major media and use that control to decide what the populace sees and hears? We now inhabit a polarized world in which different groups live in different universes, disagreeing not only on values but on facts.

A strong democracy can’t be sustained by neoliberal economics for a further reason. Neoliberalism has given rise to enormous “rents”—the monopoly profits that are a major source of today’s inequalities. Much is at stake, especially for many in the top one percent, centered on the enormous accretion of wealth that the system has allowed.

 

Democracy requires compromise if it is to remain functional, but compromise is difficult when there is so much at stake in terms of both economic and political power.

A free-market, competitive, neoliberal economy combined with a liberal democracy does not constitute a stable equilibrium—not without strong guardrails and a broad societal consensus on the need to curb wealth inequality and money’s role in politics. The guardrails come in many forms, such as competition policy, to prevent the creation, maintenance, and abuse of market power. We need checks and balances, not just within government, as every schoolchild in the U.S. learns, but more broadly within society. Strong democracy, with widespread participation, is also part of what is required, which means working to strike down laws intended to decrease democratic participation or to gerrymander districts where politicians will never lose their seats.

 

Whether America’s political and economic system today has enough safeguards to sustain economic and political freedoms is open to serious question.

Under the very name of freedom, neoliberals and their allies on the radical right have advocated policies that restrict the opportunities and freedoms, both political and economic, of the many in favor of the few. All these failures have hurt large numbers of people around the world, many of whom have responded by turning to populism, drawn to authoritarian figures like Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi.

 

Perhaps we should not be surprised by where the U.S. has landed. It is a country now so divided that even a peaceful transition of power is difficult, where life expectancy is the lowest among advanced nations, and where we can’t agree about truth or how it might best be ascertained or verified. Conspiracy theories abound. The values of the Enlightenment have to be relitigated daily.

 

There are good reasons to worry whether America’s form of ersatz capitalism and flawed democracy is sustainable. The incongruities between lofty ideals and stark realities are too great. It’s a political system that claims to cherish freedom above all else but in many ways is structured to deny or restrict freedoms for many of its citizens.

I do believe that there is broad consensus on key elements of what constitutes a good and decent society, and on what kind of economic system supports that society. A good society, for instance, must live in harmony with nature. Our current capitalism has made a mess of this. A good society allows individuals to flourish and live up to their potential. In terms of education alone, our current capitalism is failing large portions of the population. A good economic system would encourage people to be honest and empathetic, and foster the ability to cooperate with others. The current capitalist system encourages the antithesis.

 

But the key first step is changing our mindset. Friedman and Hayek argued that economic and political freedoms are intimately connected, with the former necessary for the latter. But the economic system that has evolved—largely under the influence of these thinkers and others like them—undermines meaningful democracy and political freedom. In the end, it will undermine the very neoliberalism that has served them so well.

 

For a long time, the right has tried to establish a monopoly over the invocation of freedom, almost as a trademark. It’s time to reclaim the word.

Jos da znam engleski pa da prociam ovo.🤨

[DJORDJE]

2 hours ago, Div said:

 

Znači, ti ne zatvaraš oči, jednostavno umesto: levičari mrze Jevreje, levičari mrze ceo Izrael i samo neke  neke Jevreje.🥺

Dosta je sulude korektnosti, držimo otvorene oči.☹️ Milijardu ljudi gurni u mrzitelje Izraela, otvorenih očiju.

Ja sam ipak drugacije razumeo. Antisemitizam se tradicionalno vezivao za ekstremnu desnicu, slicne pojave na levici su se ignorisale, nije im se pridavala paznja, jer se eto radi o "progresivnim" snagama. 

Postoji i treci ekstrem, gde je svaka kritika Izraela automatski antisemitizam. Ko je u Americi levica,  ko je desnica i to onda porediti sa nekim evropskim ekvivalentima je bukvalno tema za posebnu diskusiju. 

[Klotzen]

Jel to Moscow Marjorie smenjuje Johnson-a ?

[033zero330]

Pukla ko zvečka.

 

 

 

[Selina]

14 hours ago, DJORDJE said:

Ja sam ipak drugacije razumeo. Antisemitizam se tradicionalno vezivao za ekstremnu desnicu, slicne pojave na levici su se ignorisale, nije im se pridavala paznja, jer se eto radi o "progresivnim" snagama. 

Postoji i treci ekstrem, gde je svaka kritika Izraela automatski antisemitizam. Ko je u Americi levica,  ko je desnica i to onda porediti sa nekim evropskim ekvivalentima je bukvalno tema za posebnu diskusiju. 

Isto vazi i za Evropu. Danas je sve dijametralno suprotno, desnica ( evropske desne partije) u Evropi jedine su koje na neki nacin

stite Jevreje, pa i Izrael, a to opet ima kod njih veze sa silnim muslimanskim stanovnicima po evropskim zemljama.

 

Izrael svakako treba kritikovati, ali ne zbog Gaze nego zbog Zapadne obale.

Danas su po Evropi najlepsi, najpametniji, najbogatiji i najuticajniji ( takoreci elita) zapravo bivsi revolucionari

studentskih demonstracija 68. Oni kroje kapu i medijima i kulturi, ali i politici. Oni su bili ti koji su koristili kamenje

(RAF i Brigade Rosse) i eksplozive, oni su u otmici aviona u Entebbe propitivali ko je Jevrejin , a ko nije. oni su

danas sive eminencije od kojih omladina slusa sta i kako.

[Div]

15 minutes ago, Selina said:

...

Danas su po Evropi najlepsi, najpametniji, najbogatiji i najuticajniji ( takoreci elita) zapravo bivsi revolucionari

studentskih demonstracija 68. Oni kroje kapu i medijima i kulturi, ali i politici. Oni su bili ti koji su koristili kamenje

(RAF i Brigade Rosse) i eksplozive, oni su u otmici aviona u Entebbe propitivali ko je Jevrejin , a ko nije. oni su

danas sive eminencije od kojih omladina slusa sta i kako.

Opet generalizacija. Ko je otimao avione i podmetao eksploziv a danas kreira javno mnjenje? Nije sporno da ljudi menjaju pogled na svet, da se mmenjaju okolnosti, da i politici postoje modni trendovi, ali ne može se čitava generacija rođenih krajem četrdesetih i početkom pedesetih svrstavati u teroriste, čak ne ni u levičare ili desničare, jer i sama kažeš da se značenje menja, menjaju se ljudi. I ta ultralevica iz 68. nije imala podršku levice, hapsile su ih i levičarske vlade i sudile im sudije iz levičarskih, u tom momentu, država.