RE BOBBITT STEINGART WAR OF THE WORLD VIEWS MARKET STATES OR ATTACKER STATES OR RISING LIBERAL MIDDLE CLASSES
Recall from 'Shield' the Market State concepts?
There were three or so so-called paradigms there,
for those little pups.
He has not been at the level of delusion as was Fukuyama with The End of History and the Last Man;
that was a tour de force of delusion.
I rather like Steingart's notion of Attacker States better than the notion of market states of one stripe or another;
that, to me, gives a truer flavor for things to come.
How about also 'Defender States', or 'Victim States', or perhaps 'Slave States' for those ranged in helpless opposition or submission?
Steingart calls his book The War For Wealth.
I would call the future struggle based on what he discusses more a War For Survival.
That is really what is on the cards.
Re Thomas Friedman, NYT editorial today, re why so called rising middle masses everywhere are 'mad', 'A Theory of Everything (sort of)', higher education, higher skills, import high skills workers, higher entrepreneurialism, are still the answer for national bourgeoisie, and wannabourgeoisie everywhere, etc., etc., :
Steingart's book is a sort of antidote.
"What matters this or that reason":
No comments:
Post a Comment