The economist desires that we all be lobotomized and strapped into exo-suits to spend the rest of our lives as servitors.
What, am I reading this correctly? Do I really have to go for The Parenti Quote fucking twice today? Okay, here you go:
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
I had no idea. wtf, why can't I live in the enormous, successful, socialist project with hope for the future? why must I be in giant trash country?
The only way to retire at that age in the US is to be rich as fuck or in a very good union. 90+% would have to work another 10,15,20 years before being able to retire.
My step dad is 65 and he biked all the way from DC to Pittsburg for shits and giggles.
This man drinks like a fish too. Biking kids, it keeps you in shape.
Imagine being able to retire before your body starts really falling apart on you.
Even better, it should be in like bursts if you want it.
You'd get a certain amount of early retirement income years to use whenever you dont want a job, and then the rest of the time if you don't have a job, you just have a basic income but your needs are decommodified. So you can take several years off for kids, or just a little while to save it up, etc.
On first read, I thought you were referring to what The Economist did here.
before bolsonaro changed the retirement age it was 55 for women and 60 for men here in brazil right wing people love to complain about this
before bolsonaro changed the retirement age it was 55 for women and 60 for men
What did he change it to?
62 and 65 respectivelly and also there is a lot of changes in the rules too like you could ask for retirement early depending on contribution time and now you have be this age even if you already have worked for enough time changes to retirement for permanent disability going from a full pay of the salary to 60% plus 2% every year more than 20 contributing although it keeps the old full pay for work related injury among other things it was bad for workers overall
it was actually 60/65 before the changes to 62/65
as for lula, there's no reason to think he would change the rules as the very first thing he did in his first term was precisely a pension reform (a bad reform, which even provoked a split in the party and the formation of a new, slightly more leftist one, the PSOL)
despite his rhetoric, lula is a centrist, not even center-left, though he's really good at pretending otherwise (i've seen other marxists and anarchists here calling it a siren's chant and it's just like that, he knows what to say and if you hear it for 30 minutes you're gonna believe everything regardless of our practical experience)
edit: bear in mind, brazil already has stuff like a free health care and a free higher education system (which is actually responsible for our best universities), so being a centrist under these conditions is still far better than a right-winger who actively tries to undermine or outright destroy these services - i'd be lying if i said i'm not anxious about 2022, especially as an aspiring academic
who knows at all like they would need the senate to be in favor of it to change that and that would be complicated as the senate has some weird 8 years election rules so it is kinda of a mess and the country economy will be on the shit probably whenever someone else assumes the power
That's also PRC's retirement age for white-collar workers. The average is at 54 probably because retirement age is 50 for blue-collar workers.
55 for women and 60 for men
this is not true, it was 60 for women and 65 for men, then temer/bolsonaro changed it just for women (62)
oh fuck that is right i think i was thinking of the public service previdence stuff as both of my parents did that my bad
it's cool i get that mixed sometimes too, it's confusing that they only changed the age for women
it's a really fun language with relatively simple grammar (no verb conjugations) and the word order is very natural for a native English speaker
the complexity is instead more in the tones and writing
The chinese writing system is why I dropped Japanese and took French instead. I'm not spending the next 10 years learning the alphabet so I can read a newspaper.
I don't know how you find it fun. I speak the language on a conversational level everyday but my vocabulary is still limited. There's just so many words and I can't be bothered remembering them all. Ask me to read a Chinese novel cover to cover and I'd toss the book out the window by the 5th page.
Yeah, this is obviously the reason why the Chinese economy is going to shit.
Hey wait a minute
Formerly socialist countries have large amounts of women in STEM fields. This is a problem
since there is no free healthcare in China
There was.
:mao-wtf: :deng-cowboy:
since there is no free healthcare in China
This is inexcusable and must be changed immediately.
LOOK AT THEM COMMIES (spits) PRETENDING TO BE HAPPY!! SEE HOW THE FAKE THEIR SMILES ARE BROTHER!!!
https://archive.is/FUeoC
Honestly they present fair points that are reflected in their citations of Chinese news outlets like Xinhua.Thats on me for defaulting to "The Economist is a pro-american-empire rag" I guess, those arguments are pretty solid. The one child policy was really a poor decision I don't think would have been made with hindsight now (or adequate forsight then even, there wasn't really a situation where it didn't increase the age average of the population).
They are taking about this through the lens of China’s work force, which is shrinking.
China admits this is an issue, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1223198.shtml
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-05-14/China-s-aging-population-Trends-and-policy-response-10fOOVvGufC/index.html
Yeah, for all the hate in the comments here, the article brings up points like those that I've seen discussed on sites like Sixth Tone which is sponsored by the CPC. The article isn't riddled with heavy handed anti-Chinese or anti-communist rhetoric. It quotes articles from Xinhua and studies done by official outlets in China.
As far as an article from a western news site goes, this one passes my filter. I make no claims about The Economist in general.
https://archive.is/FUeoC
I know people want to knock this rag, but it is a genuine problem admitted to by the government.
In totalitarian communist China jackbooted Asiatic bureaucrats force you to retire at 54.
I'm so lucky to live in the free democratic western world, enjoying the unprecedented riches of capitalism while also living in the happiest, safest welfare state in the world where I'm allowed to retire at 71.
