Conversation

Replying to
15/ This means the actual conflict is between those who want to unwind all evolution in the global political order since roughly 1975 and..
1
6
Replying to
16/ ...Those who want to double down on it and get through to the other side of a world order solidly centered in digital, soft technologies
2
6
Replying to
17/ So not just Putin and Trump, but Bernie too, and many other leaders on the nationalist side. On the cosmo side: mainly neoliberal MNCs
1
3
Replying to
18/ "Election influence" thing is a sideshow not because undermining of liberal democratic institutions and process is not important but...
1
2
Replying to
19/ ...but because retro-nationalists don't want to undermine them back to Stone Age, only to pre-digital form where they serve hard power
1
3
Replying to
20/ Using adversary's frame is to lose before you start, so what's alt to the Surkovian frame (doesn't matter if attrib is apocryphal btw)
2
3
Replying to
21/ It is to recognize that the way battle lines are drawn, to choose a *nation* to be loyal to is to already side with Putin-Trump axis
1
7
Replying to
22/ Option 1 is "whatever comes after neoliberalism following logic of increasing global integration with soft power", call it Option X
1
1
Replying to
23/ Option 2 is whatever emerges from an effort to rewind to 'great again' zero-sum economics. Call it Neomercantilism.
1
Replying to
24/ You might not like this dichotomous framing of neomercantilism versus Option X (the 'other side of neoliberal transition era' thing)
1
1
Replying to
26/ Unfortunately those options aren't on table. Nobody credible is working on anything meaningful in any direction besides the 2 big ones
1
1
Replying to
27/ How do you "play" for Option X? The key is to recognize that neomercantilism has *no* economic legs. It is an oil-economy endgame.
3
10
Show replies