The Jackman Humanities Institute at the University of Toronto advances humanities scholarship, generates interdisciplinary ways to understand human experience, and provides opportunities for scholars to learn from each other by:
-Creating new research and study networks (both virtual and physical) that complement and go beyond the mandates of individual disciplines -Providing funding to faculty members to bring arts and humanities out of the classroom and into the public domain through events and exhibitions -Offering scholarships to students and faculty at all career stages from all three University of Toronto campuses and other universities.
We enable humanities research to reach outside the university walls and engage with the wider public.
We don't have AI yet, just algorithims similar to those that search engines use that produce re-arangments of captured material generated by humans and cameras etc.
The assumption here and of many studies on the subject is that neoliberalism begins as an idea, a political philosophy idea, it develops as a discipline, politicians adopt this idea as an ideology, sell it, get the power to implement the ideas, and remains today as a choice for political parties and other entities to adopt it or reject it, within the parliamentary environment. But what if the assumption is wrong? Why would an idea such as this be born, to address what problem, and by whom, academics and philosophers? If we locate actual transition events that move government and economies towards that direction preceding the birth of the ideology then we invalidated this assumption. If we study what took place before the 1940s that lead to the need for this ideology adoption, and particularly how labor organization in 19th century pushed governments against the wall to make reforms, against the interests of the ruling capitalist class, we can draw alternative conclusions. The realization that behind labor organization were anti-capitalist radicals, particularly marxists, then the Russian revolution takes place, then the near collapse of capitalism in the 30s, class war was live and well. This class war severity forced the upper class to get better organized as they saw government not being strong enough to protect their interests and could easily collapse if it resisted reforms. Already industrialists were seeking alternative labor markets when their domestic ones were becoming too hostile, capital needed to transfer between state borders (see Chrysler in Japan and Diamond industries). Then boom! In the midst of war you get the Bretton-Woods agreement among the industrialized members, a historic event that has drawn insufficient attention. Voluntarily "government officials" passed monetary, financial, and wealth-transfer control to private institutions, stepped aside the regulatory power of import/export of commodities, products, tools, and industrial capital became more free flowing across borders. Then came state debt sold in open private markets and held (also rated) by private institutions. Check-mate. Neoliberalism had already started before officials (capital's puppets) can say the word. The inability of Marxists to theorize on neo-liberalism has allowed all this speculation of what neo-liberalism pretends to be, when it is entirely something very different. In summary it is a global dictatorship that has disempowered nation-states from having any ability to regulate the market, while everything conceivable is becoming a commodity easily transferrble across the globe as a financial instrument through a handful of multinational banking/financial institutions. Government are now hostage and subservient to this global federation of capital hiding behind banking signs. The worst part is what is perceived as left of parliament today is trying to survive in some fake notion of social-democracy reconstruction, which is absolutely baseless and sensless. Eitheir they are too naive or they are lying to seek power and be able to do nothing with it. Also see what was trying to be achieved by the Atlantic and Pacific trade agreements the US was so eager in ratifying. Basically spelling out that nothing that is even remotely related to economic processes can even be proposed in parliaments before it is OKed by specific industries' lobbies that will not be adversely affecting their interests. That leaves out what? Abortion and gay marriage?
I admire the link between his theoretical dedication and his sense of practical urgency. Great lecture, very structured. Even though I don't know how I feel about the criticism on the systematized marxist worldview, I agree with his emphasis on the importance of overthrowing capitalism.
Firstly, there is something wrong with a person's brain and mind if they grow that amount of hair on their face as Marx. Secondly this person's ideas are not philosophy or sociology but rather a complicated way to express his hate for others with the warped critical thinking of a complete ass feigning empathy for a group he has nothing to do with. Marx hated and however complex his notions nothing helpful can come from hate nor his stupid complicated puzzle.
