• 20 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2022

help-circle





  • Despite the importance of the UN in international law, it is in no real way a superordinate authority, and therefore there is no monopoly of legitimate coercion and hence interpretation internationally. The only bodies able to provide the necessary coercion for international law are the subjects of that law themselves, the states. Given the extraordinary disparities of power between those states, and given that the real content of the legal regulation will be the struggle between them, it is no wonder that materially effective international law, as opposed to the high phrases and noble interpretations of the idealists, has favoured the stronger states and their clients.

    International law is a relationship and a process: it is not a fixed set of rules but a way of deciding the rules . And the coercion of at least one of the players, or its threat, is necessary as the medium by which particular contents will actualise the broader content of competitive struggle within the legal form.

    – China Miéville, Between Equal Rights, p.151.


  • Azazeel by Youssef Ziedan. It’s a tale set in 5th-century Egypt and the Levant, following a coptic monk’s journey amidst the theological controversies of the early Christian curch. Apart from the protagonist (and his devilish visitor) I think all the characters are historically real as well as for the events. It’s a very interesting period during which Christians, Jews and Atheists coexisted, although perturbently.










  • I haven’t yet watched the entire video (in fact, I didn’t pass two minutes) but right off the bat she assumes that economies were originally (and always) sustained by a bartering system, a presumption as old as capitalism. Many scholars prove that this was not the case. This repetitive anecdote only serves to create an imaginary problem to justify the necessity of capitalism later on.

    I might edit my post as I watch the rest of the video.

    Edit: “but that’s another story,” a story which she will actively avoid because it overturns the entire mode of production on which she a priori built her fantasies.

    Edit 2: her conflation of capitalism and “progress” is very problematic in its own right. She’s basically saying that without capitalism there could be no “progress”, no “innovation” and no “civilization”. The only way to progress is through capitalism. I am reminded by what Mark Fisher wrote on capitalist realism, which is a “widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it.”

    Edit 3: she writes in the description that “[t]his video is a brief summary of a dip I did into microeconomics literature in a dark hour of my life.” It shows.





  • I was in a similar spot and gave up before starting. This is due to several reasons: 1) My circle of relatives and friends, like yours, neglect their privacy and would not engage with me in a serious conversation regarding it; 2) educational institutions, businesses, organisations and even governmental bodies may rely on WhatsApp for communications; and 3) the two big telecom monopolies offer enticing mobile data deals for using WhatsApp.

    While I am not saying you should give up, you should go for modest goals (e.g. converting your close family to signal when chatting together) and eliminate optimistic expectations so you don’t get crushed.