Paulo Pilotti Duarte

These right-liberal groups have been organizing since at least 2004/2005. Think tanks receiving money from private companies to write articles and hold “libertarian” meetings have been fighting for over a decade. What happened is that Bolsonaro opened the door for the liberal agenda they preach. In this view, authoritarianism was a collateral issue that they could control through Paulo Guedes and the Supreme Court. It didn't work. Bolsonaro is not the result of a sudden growth of a belligerent ideology that formed as a counterpoint to the left; Bolsonaro and all the authoritarianism sweeping the world (Trump, Boris Johnson, Erdogan, and many others) are a reflection of the exhaustion of the social-democratic model of the 90s/00s, the accumulation of wealth by a few, and in Brazil, the liberal Car Wash campaign led by the media that today is horrified by Bolsonaro (FSP, Globo, Estadão).

The left has always needed to be violent to advance an inch in the pursuit of labor rights. The CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws) came about through the deaths of many anarcho-syndicalists in general strikes across this country. The SUS (Unified Health System) only came after many poor people died without care or waiting in line at charities like Santa Casa. The “status quo” does not hand over any slice of power and money without a fight, which is why you will usually see workers having to enter direct confrontation with the Military Police (the armed branch of state repression) to receive transportation vouchers and meal allowances on time.


And this has a name: post-politics.

This type of action ends up strengthening people who feed on the social inequalities of this country (and others) by selling themselves as complete solutions against a symbolic evil. Doria is the prime example of this: the manager who will “end” the problems left by the PT. This common-sense discourse is very affective but not very effective. People will all agree with you if you say that “politicians only think of themselves” because it's more comfortable than thinking that there are alternatives to the current Brazilian sociopolitical system. However, positioning oneself in this way is “extreme” because it challenges the unequal stability that our society has achieved.

Anyway, I think you have a point: ordinary people don't usually embrace causes that can bring them problems (instability) because they have a lot to lose (jobs, income, housing, their own lives) and prefer a life of extreme difficulties but that brings them a minimum stability to at least stay in the same social stratum.

On the other hand, you confuse the political causes and correlations that have brought us to the current moment, creating a false dichotomy between the discourse of the far-left and the Brazilian alt-right. Although the far-left advocates for an armed revolution and a break with the current social structures, it never advocates attacking individual rights such as freedom and the right to life, something that is common in the alt-right, which often reproduces Nazi, racist, and misogynistic aesthetic discourses invoking a supposed “purity” of classical thought (this is Olavo de Carvalho's main point) that would be regained by eliminating the left and its individual values, replacing them with values they deem morally superior (Christianity, TFP, etc.).


I see that there is a paradox in libertarian ideology when the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) is preached for everything because, in issues like this, what is the limit of aggression? You can say “just move” in the case of a neighbor with tires breeding dengue mosquitoes. Or, in the current case of masks, just avoid direct contact with those who are without. In both cases, however, there is a humanitarian dilemma.

Despite this, society (as a social body) has already created a solution for this dilemma: the State. It dictates the minimum rules of social coexistence in normal and extraordinary times and has the monopoly of force to enforce them because, theoretically, physical and legal security should be equal. Private property itself depends on the State for its existence. The private, minimal, or non-existent state that the various strands of libertarian/mincap/ancap thought create brings with it various social dilemmas that are only resolved via the State. And for me, this is the problem with all libertarian thought: it starts from a world with a State to imagine a world without a State but using the rules created by that same State.


One of the big mistakes people make when debating libertarian ethics is thinking that libertarians are against all kinds of governance. Libertarians are only against imposed governance.

This is a statement completely devoid of sense or meaning. All governance is imposed. If you open it up to voting, it is an imposition. If you put it in place by merit (whatever the guideline chosen), it is imposed. Any kind of governance, even if it is a council (as anarchists

  • P

A while back, when it was said that anarcho-capitalism was the new feudalism, a lone voice spoke up and said no, that feudalism had more merit than the current neoliberal-ancap system, and that, given the hereditary characteristics of the liberal system, what most closely resembles our system historically is monarchy. It wasn't me who said this, but I agree. Let's evaluate the list of Brazilian billionaires from FORBES by grouping them by families and adding up their wealth.

Moreira Salles family

Fernando Roberto Moreira Salles: US$ 7.6 billion

Pedro Moreira Salles: US$ 7.1 billion

João Moreira Salles: US$ 5.3 billion

Walther Moreira Salles Junior: US$ 5.3 billion

Total: US$ 25.3 billion

Batista family

Joesley Batista: US$ 3.3 billion

Wesley Batista: US$ 3.3 billion

Total: US$ 6.6 billion

Marinho family

João Roberto Marinho: US$ 2.1 billion

José Roberto Marinho: US$ 2.1 billion

Roberto Irineu Marinho: US$ 2 billion

Total: US$ 6.2 billion

Feffer family

David Feffer: US$ 1.6 billion

Jose Roberto Ermirio de Moraes: US$ 1.5 billion

Jose Ermirio de Moraes Neto: US$ 1.5 billion

Daniel Feffer: US$ 1.5 billion

Jorge Feffer: US$ 1.5 billion

Ruben Feffer: US$ 1.5 billion

Total: US$ 9.1 billion

Grendene Bartelle family

Alexandre Grendene Bartelle: US$ 2.6 billion

Pedro Grendene Bartelle: US$ 1.1 billion

Total: US$ 3.7 billion

Voigt family

Eduardo Voigt Schwartz: US$ 1.3 billion

Mariana Voigt Schwartz Gomes: US$ 1.3 billion

Livia Voigt: US$ 1.1 billion

Dora Voigt de Assis: US$ 1.1 billion

Total: US$ 4.8 billion

The distribution of wealth among Brazilian billionaires is a slap in the face to the course-selling coaches (not that they care about it). It's surreal to see so much money in the hands of so few, while the majority struggle to get by. From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, this mountain of money that the billionaires have is the result of the exploitation of workers. The people who do the hard work receive a pittance of what they actually produce, and the rest goes into the pockets of big business owners. This creates an abyss between those who work and those who hold the capital, keeping the exploitation machine running at full steam.

This concentration of wealth with a few individuals with German-sounding surnames is a clear sign that late capitalism has reached that point where either we have a revolution or we're going to die melting on Earth while they head off to space (literally).

It's not just a matter of money, but also of power. The billionaires have a huge influence on the economy and politics, using it to keep things the way they like.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel, but it's a train.

  • P

These days, white progressives have appropriated “stay woke” as a general-purpose term that refers to being aware of all identity-based injustices. So while “stay woke” started as a remark black people would say to remind each other to be alert to racism, it would now be perfectly normal for white coastal suburbanites to say it to remind each other to watch out for possible microaggressions against, say, transgender people—for example, accidentally calling someone by their pre-transition name. In woke terminology, that forbidden practice would be called “deadnaming,” and “microaggression” means a small offense that causes a lot of harm when done widely. If someone committed a microaggression against black transgender people, we enter the world of “intersectionality,” where identity politics is applied to someone who has intersecting minority identities and its rules get complicated. Being woke means waking up to these invisible power structures that govern the social universe.

  • P


“The 'dominion theology' is a theological approach that emphasizes the idea that Christians have a divine authority to dominate and rule over the Earth. It is based on the interpretation of biblical passages that speak of the dominion given by God to human beings over creation, such as in Genesis 1:28.

In Brazil, dominion theology has been associated with certain groups and religious leaders who promote the idea that Christians should exert influence and control over various areas of society, including politics, economy, and culture, to establish the 'Kingdom of God' on Earth. This approach can be controversial and is often criticized for its selective interpretation of Scriptures and its often-questionable practical application.”


Isadora Rupp | March 17, 2024 (updated 03/28/2024 at 12:36 p.m.)

The Dominion Theology, which preaches the domination of the world by ultraconservative Christianity, has animated part of the political power in Brazil and manifested itself in public acts. Originating from the evangelical movements in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, the concept, when applied to politics, poses challenges to democracy, according to researchers interviewed by Nexo.

In this text, Nexo explains, with the help of two theologians and an anthropologist, what Dominion Theology is, in which spaces it is present in Brazil, and how it affects the Democratic State of Law.

Concept and Origin

Dominion Theology proposes to dominate all fields of social life and the public sphere with the presence and influence of ultraconservative Christianity.

According to anthropologist Christina Vital da Cunha, a professor at UFF (Federal Fluminense University) and collaborator of Iser (Institute of Religious Studies), Dominion Theology has roots in biblical interpretations. The fundamental reference is the book of Genesis.

“Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'” – Genesis (1:26)

For Cunha, this theology has more than a “alternative read” about the bible.

“The central characteristic of this theology advocates the domination of the world by Christianity, its values, and belief systems. And this is not new,” Cunha told Nexo.

According to the anthropologist, what happens from time to time is the updating of this theology to meet spiritual needs or institutional and power interests. This is something common and also present in other theological forms.

In the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, there was the rise of a reformed matrix of Dominion Theology, called reconstructionism, and a pentecostal one, better known as spiritual warfare, founded by American theologian Charles Peter Wagner.

Discourses by former First Lady Michelle Bolsonaro, current president of PL Mulher, follow Wagner's line. During the 2022 electoral campaign, during an evangelical service at Lagoinha Baptist Church in Belo Horizonte, Michelle stated that the dispute with the PT was a “war of good against evil.”

Dominion Theology is also expressed in the Seven Mountains Mandate, said Kenner Terra, a pentecostal pastor and professor at Betânia Baptist Church in Rio de Janeiro, with a doctorate in Religious Studies from the Methodist University of São Paulo.

Created by Americans Loren Cunningham and Bill Bright, the premise of the doctrine is that the Christian faith needs to occupy the seven main areas of society:

  • Government
  • Education
  • Religion
  • Family
  • Economy
  • Arts
  • Entertainment

“Apparently, there is a certain coherence in the understanding that Christians need to influence culture. The problem is how this is handled, mainly in the spaces of the extreme Christian right and neo-Pentecostals, with a posture of imposition,” Terra said.

Presence in Churches

Christina Vital da Cunha explains that there are differences in how Anglican, Presbyterian, and other churches identified as reformed or Protestant experience Dominion Theology compared to Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches.

While Presbyterians prefer a silent, continuous power project exercised by influence, Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals prefer public confrontation, visibility, and overt persecution of those identified as enemies.

The anthropologist exemplifies this difference by observing the public posture and strategy of leaders such as Supreme Court Minister and pastor André Mendonça and former Education Minister Milton Ribeiro, who are Presbyterians, and pastors like Silas Malafaia, Bishop Edir Macedo, and Congressman Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG), who are linked to Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal denominations.

“In political practice, these actors may gather strength, but they have different social origins and styles,” said Cunha.

According to Pastor Kenner Terra, Dominion Theology is not a potent discourse in most evangelical churches, meaning there is no replacement of other theologies, such as prosperity theology, for example, by Dominion Theology, but rather an intersection between them.

“Neo-Pentecostal churches have a special interest in Dominion Theology because of the logic of cultural battle. In this logic, on one side, there are political figures and organizations that want to end Christian principles and who are occupying positions of power. On the other side, there are Christians to save the faithful and protect morality and the family,” Terra said.

The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, founded by Bishop Edir Macedo, the International Church of God's Grace, led by Pastor R. R. Soares, and Lagoinha Baptist Church, led by the Valadão family, are some examples of churches marked by Dominion Theology.

“But there is no bloc of evangelical churches with a project that takes into account Dominion Theology. It's more fluid. There is a horizon where it is understood that political agents need to dominate the spheres of society. It's not possible to apply theology so quickly. It's not an orchestrated act,” said Terra.

According to the pastor of Betânia Church, Dominion Theology is different from theonomy, which seeks to establish a legal system based on biblical text, such as in Margaret Atwood's novel “The Handmaid's Tale,” which deals with a fundamentalist totalitarian theonomy that overthrows the United States government.

“Dominion Theology does not go that far. It may be that some radical has this expectation that the Bible is above the Constitution. In a Democratic State of Law, this is not possible. But what there is, indeed, is an attempt to insert and bring to the discussion table Christian perspectives on issues that belong to the public sphere,” Terra said.

Presence in Politics

The mixing of politics with religion was defended by Michelle Bolsonaro on several public occasions throughout her husband's government, most recently in her speech at the rally in defense of the former president on February 25. The 1988 Constitution states that the Brazilian state is secular, separate from the Church, with religious freedom for all beliefs and denominations.

“For a long time, we were negligent to the point of saying that we could not mix politics with religion. And evil occupied the space. The time has come now for liberation. Because I believe in a living God. An all-powerful God who is capable of restoring and healing our nation. Do not give up, women, men, young people, children. Do not give up on our country. Keep praying, keep calling out. I know that our God, from the heavens above, will grant us relief.”

Historian João Cezar de Castro Rocha, a professor of comparative literature at UERJ (State University of Rio de Janeiro), says that the rally will be seen by historians in the future as a moment when the Dominion Theology project became explicit.

“When Michelle says that the time of liberation has come, what she is saying is: the time has come for the civil State to subordinate itself to faith, not to spirituality, but to their belief. Thinking about this, everything in our country starts to become quite clear and very worrying,” Rocha said in an interview with Agência Pública on sunday.

Ronilso Pacheco, a theologian from PUC-Rio and director of Iser (Institute of Religious Studies), told Nexo that the rally on Paulista Avenue was not a climax of Dominion Theology. “The movements of the extreme right and ultraconservative evangelicalism have been happening for a long time and in various forms, with an educational exchange and think tanks that finance various missions in Brazil.”

Although Michelle's and other politicians' religious discourse, such as Senator Magno Malta (PL-ES), was aimed at evangelicals, most of those present were not followers of the religion, according to a study by the Monitor do Debate Político Digital da USP (Digital Political Debate Monitor of USP).

According to the survey, which interviewed 575 people, throughout the extent of the demonstration on Paulista Avenue, 43% of those present declared themselves Catholics.

The majority of those present were men (62%), white (65%), aged between 55 and 65 years (25%). A profile distinct from the evangelical mass, which is predominantly female, black, and peripheral.

According to Christina Vital da Cunha, the pro-Bolsonaro rally held in late February reveals a religious behavior that is not new, although it has been strengthening with the growth of the extreme right as a political phenomenon and sought to shield the demonstration.

“Any attempt to delegitimize it [the demonstration] or prevent it would be taken as intolerant, an affront to religious freedom. At the same time, it aimed to emotionally lead people as if they were all involved in a war of good against evil, in which the religious domination of politics would be justified,” the anthropologist said.

Pacheco also affirms that Dominion Theology has been present throughout the Bolsonaro government, with a presence in ministries such as Education, Justice, Human Rights, and Foreign Affairs.

“This is Dominion Theology: to conquer the Ministry of Education to determine what content, what books are. Set the agenda for what human rights are. This is Dominion Theology. On Paulista Avenue, it's much more of a big caricature,” the theologian said.

Damage to Democracy

The anthropologist and the two theologians interviewed by Nexo agree that the use of Dominion Theology by politics brings risks and challenges to Brazilian democracy.

For Pastor and theologian Kenner Terra, the anti-democratic attacks on January 8, 2023, are a concrete example of the fragility of democracy in Brazil, as they made a “dangerous symbiosis” between religious discourse and the implementation of a coup d'état.

“The institutions of Brazil are strong, and only a religious coup could destroy our Democratic State of Law so that it becomes a religious State. But even if it doesn't reach that point, the posture of these agents

Ronilso Pacheco evaluates that the insertion of the idea is a “total risk” to democracy. “Dominion Theology composes the idea of Christian nationalism, that Brazil should be guided by ultraconservative Christian and evangelical fundamentalist values. It is a threat because it does not tolerate diversity. It's not domination for nothing. Why does it not tolerate plurality, inter-religious dialogue, only those who submit to their dominion.”

Anthropologist Christina Vital da Cunha affirms that “there is no doubt” that Dominion Theology as a spiritual orientation animated the top of the Executive power in the Bolsonaro government and continues to animate the practice of a group of politicians in Brazil.

“But not only this theological form is a challenge to democracy, to diversity, to overcoming social inequalities, but also the economic greed and class domination of many powerful people, who are not only religious,” said Cunha.

–> Source: O que é teologia do domínio. E como ela aparece no Brasil


  • P

If someone asks you for a summary and you don’t know how to explain it in scientific terms, you can paraphrase Thomas Sankara’s quote:

“It is the system where you have to decide whether a minority drinks champagne or everyone has access to drinking water.”

If it’s still not clear, you can tell them the story of the former revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries in the world, from 1983 to 1987:

  • He launched a national literacy campaign.
  • Built railroads, roads, and housing.
  • Banned female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and polygamy.
  • Expanded women’s rights and access to education. He also appointed women to high-level positions in his government.
  • Redistributed land to peasant farmers.
  • Vaccinated over 2 million children against meningitis, yellow fever, and measles, saving 18,000 to 50,000 children’s lives annually.
  • Built schools, health centers, water dams, and provided free access to everyone in the country.
  • Suspended rural taxes and house rents.
  • Planted over 10 million trees to combat desertification.
  • Reduced the infant mortality rate from 208 per 1,000 births to ~100.
  • Refused to submit to the IMF and the World Bank.

A reader of Marx and Engels and a jazz guitarist, Sankara was assassinated by his former friend in a coup with the help of the French government. A right-wing dictatorship friendly to the French was installed. Much of the progress Sankara made in power was undone during this period. Many believe that the coup happened because Sankara, a pan-Africanist, was fighting for African countries to unite and refuse to pay the debt that colonizing nations, like France, had imposed on them.

  • Sankara was known for his charisma and his commitment to social justice. He was a vocal critic of colonialism and neocolonialism, and he called for a united and independent Africa.
  • Sankara’s legacy is still debated today. Some see him as a hero and a visionary leader, while others criticize his authoritarian methods. However, there is no doubt that he had a profound impact on Burkina Faso and on the African continent.



  • P

We shouldn't live in a world where we're afraid of AI stealing our jobs or fighting against it. What we should be fighting for and focusing our efforts on is improving our working conditions, especially in the IT sector. It's clear that AI will be able to produce drafts for almost everything we do today, leaving us with the task of improving and reviewing those drafts. This is not a bad thing, on the contrary.

And that's where our real fight comes in: people should WORK LESS. It's not a question of having 10 analysts working 44 hours today and 3 analysts working 60 hours tomorrow (because AI has “stolen” those 7 jobs).

We should fight to have 10 analysts working 30 hours. We should fight to have time to be creative, to be with our families, to play sports, video games, watch movies, and read. Work is not the end goal of our species, capitalism is not the final system for humanity; this system is not the end of history; we should not fight to maintain it, we should fight to overcome it, work less, earn more, and use AI every day to improve our lives.

Fighting against AI is fruitless, we have to fight for AI to be an ally of workers and people, not of companies and billionaires.

  • P

Yes, I stated that Monark is right in saying we live under a dictatorship. He is wrong from that point forward, as it is not a 'judiciary dictatorship', as he says. For every Marxist, we live under a dictatorship that has lasted for centuries.

Let's analyze the three branches of government:

  • Do the laws created by the legislature favor the poor-worker or the landowners, rentiers, billionaires?
  • Does the executive favor the poor-worker, or is the budget directed towards wealthier neighborhoods/cities?
  • Does the judiciary favor the poor-worker, or are the penalties for the rich lighter and their cases often dismissed?

It's indisputable: the three branches of the republic CLEARLY lean towards favoring the 'dominant' class in all its magnitude. The negligence of the powers towards the working-producing class is evident, see the violence employed against teachers and the leniency towards the owners of Americanas. The State uses its violence to ensure the privileges of one class and uses this same violence to alienate another class from their rights.



Source: LinkedIn.


You don't know who is Monark? Well, look here for more information (PT-BR).

  • P

Sometimes I came across a very well writen text on Reddit. Mainly on r/askshitorian, for sure. This time, I was reading an essay about the “Capitalism and Slavery” book.

The text is a detailed analysis of Eric Williams' thesis presented in his. Williams' thesis suggests that the development of modern capitalism in the West was heavily dependent on transatlantic slavery, aiding in capital accumulation that spurred the Industrial Revolution. Williams also argues that the abolition of slavery in the British Empire was motivated more by economic reasons than humanitarian ones.

Although the book has been influential, the text emphasizes that the relationship between capitalism and slavery is complex and not fully outlined by Williams. The author of the text critiques the view that slavery and capitalism are incompatible systems, indicating that slavery played a significant role in the development of capitalism. Additionally, it is argued that the economy of slavery was not in terminal decline before abolition, countering one of Williams' claims.

The text also acknowledges the historical importance of Williams as a political and intellectual figure in the British Caribbean, suggesting that his work should be read with an understanding of its historical context and followed by more recent studies for a fuller understanding of slavery and its economic impact.

I don't have the necessary knowledge to reply this kind of essay, so, I resproduce below (and now you can read and thunk about it).


On “Capitalism and Slavery” from Eric Williams

The short, and profoundly unhelpful answer, is that it depends entirely on who you ask and what you mean by “hold up”, and for what reasons you're interested in Williams' ideas. The ideas presented in Capitalism and Slavery are today referred to simply as 'the Williams thesis' by scholars of transatlantic slavery and the British Empire, and they have been debated non-stop pretty much since the moment Williams first published the book, and there has been a resurgence in interest around the Williams thesis among new scholars in the last few years. Part of the problem in assessing Williams' legacy is that many scholars misunderstand the context in which he himself was setting out his ideas, and miss the fundamental point that he set out to make at a time when the modern historical professional was still in its relative infancy.

At its most basic, the Williams thesis set out in Capitalism and Slavery essentially argues that the development of modern capitalism in Western Europe and the United States was dependent upon the experience of transatlantic slavery. Williams makes the argument that slavery was a system that allowed British elites to create vast sums of wealth that were simply not possible prior to the colonisation of the New World, whilst also creating the foundations for an infrastructural network that would transform the scope, speed and efficiency of both interregional and international trade. In the Williams model of the development of modern capitalism, the vast profits from the slave trade in the Americas created the capital necessary to invest in new technologies and means of production at home in Britain, spurring on the industrial revolution and making possible the development of the modern capitalist economy.

Williams never really comes to a concrete conclusion about the full nature of the relationship between slavery and capitalism – sometimes he describes slavery as capitalistic and at other times his ideas clearly argue it is wholly distinct from capitalism – but in essence, he sees the transatlantic slave trade as a proto-capitalistic phenomenon, with some elements of capitalism already present in slavery and others yet to emerge. But he also argues that we cannot look at the colonial system as it existed in the period of transatlantic slavery as truly capitalistic because it depended upon the heavy warping of market forces to sustain itself. For Williams this was demonstrated best by the explosion in trade and commerce that ultimately followed American independence after an initial period of adjustment, and he holds that this was not lost on contemporaries in Britain when they were considering what to do with Caribbean colonies who (in his mind) were increasingly struggling to compete with the United States. In particular, he cites anger from British industrialists and merchants that the industrial revolution and Britain's Imperial project abroad had led to an explosion in competitive markets to sell goods to abroad, but public policy protecting the monopolies of Caribbean planters impinged their ability to cut the costs of production or seek out alternative sources of raw material.

But in making this case, Williams was not necessarily trying to focus too much on identifying at what point slavery gave way to modern capitalism. Rather, Capitalism and Slavery is better understood as a refutation of a popular narrative – one which we still see in our schools today in the UK – that the British nation abolished slavery for entirely moral reasons, driven by the demands of a British public who were horrified to start learning of the brutality of the slave trade and conditions in the Caribbean. Eric Williams was trying to make the point that rather than public pressure, moral outrage or the evolving political sentiments among the elite in Britain as a result of ideas about freedom and democracy, the abolition of slavery was only made possible by the cold, methodical calculation that it had become a net drain on the British economy. In essence, the same capitalists who decades earlier had been turning to slave owners to find investors in their grand projects and schemes were now looking on those investors with contempt for their protected, privileged position. Williams argues that the Caribbean in this period was in terminal economic decline, unable to compete with a much more modern and also industrialising United States economy as well as new competitors in India and other British colonies, and that the profits of industry were now so self-sustaining and secure the capital of the Caribbean plantocracy was largely going to waste.

So there are really two very closely linked but subtly and meaningfully distinct ideas being explored Capitalism and Slavery. One is about the relationship between slavery and capitalism as systems; it would be uncharitable to say that Williams deals with this subject primarily by accident, because he was a man well versed in these kind of theoretical and political issues But it is not fundamentally why he was writing the book. He does come to the conclusion that the wealth created by slavery was an essential ingredient in the development of the modern capitalist economy but he never really gets into the ins and outs of any kind of higher theory of what that relationship looks like precisely, and he didn't set out to. Capitalism and Slavery has been imagined by some to have made a kind of Marxist critique of modern capitalism, but although he was influenced by some Marxist ideas via the likes of his alternating political ally-and-rival C L R James, Williams was fundamentally pragmatist who had little time for ideological frameworks or being restricted to a single way of understanding the past. The second theme – and the idea that Williams was really trying to press – is the notion that slavery had become economically unsustainable by the 19th century, and that this made inevitable its destruction at the hands of industrialists and their advocates once the economic decline of the region became apparent. Williams was above all setting out to disprove the idea that the abolition of slavery could have been motivated by anything other than the calculated, economic concerns of the capitalist elite, although he does take care to stress that he is describing broad patterns rather than ruling out altruism on the part of every individual or group.

The question of how the Williams thesis holds up then depends partly on how you want to use his work and his ideas to better understand slavery. There have really been two interwoven debates raging around the ideas that Williams advanced since the 1940s: one about the nature of the relationship between slavery and capitalism, and one about the nature of the economy in the British Caribbean. The former is larger and more well known because it's an area of work of profound interest to a whole new generation of scholars and one that has seen quite a lot of movement in the last few years, whilst the latter is a smaller, quieter debate which is concerned more with the practicalities of Capitalism and Slavery as an economic study of conditions in the region up until abolition in the 19th century and to what extent Williams' ideas about humanitarian vs economic concern stand up to scrutiny. The former is usually what we mean these days when we talk about the debate around 'the Williams thesis', even though I'd argue it's fairer to Williams himself to use that title for the second debate that he was more intentionally contributing to.

To make matters even more complicated, it is probably fairest to say that on both debates scholars have come to the conclusion that Williams was both right and wrong in his analysis depending – again – on what aspects you want to focus on and what you think the most important parts of 'the story' are.

In Caribbean studies there is now broad agreement that although Capitalism and Slavery does correctly identify some very real structural concerns for the long-term economic health of the British Caribbean in the run-up to the abolition of slavery, he was off the mark in assuming this meant that the institution of slavery was in terminal decline or would inevitably crash the economy of the Empire without intervention. The evidence we now have instead points broadly to a regional elite who were slow to adapt to changing economic circumstances but who were nonetheless adapting, and beginning to re-energise the institution of slavery in the Caribbean just as abolition was imposed on the colonial elite. It has also been shown that Britain's anti-slavery commitments were not pursued without cost, and the abolition of the slave trade in particular has been identified as shaving a not insignificant sum from national income in Britain over several decades, whilst abolition was only made possible by the imperial government being willing to pay £20million (the equivalent to around £80billion in wealth today) to cover the cost of wealth lost by former slave owners. We also have a very rich abundance of research on the United States now that affirms the institution of slavery was most certainly not unprofitable or in decline there, and that on the contrary it was thriving and continuing to grow on the eve of the Civil War.

The debate around the relationship between capitalism and slavery is less clean cut (it's also one I quite frankly have very little time for and which I think is characterised mostly by people who agree with each other arguing over semantics, but that's another story) partly because Williams never tried to articulate a single, coherent theory himself, as much as illustrate the direction he believed the economic evidence was pointing in. But fundamentally scholars have rejected the notion his thesis largely embodies that slavery and capitalism were or are incompatible systems, whilst affirming that slavery had a significant role to play in the development of modern capitalism. There is broad agreement that the transatlantic slave trade itself represented an authentic kind of capitalist enterprise and that it cannot be conceived as a kind of pre-capitalist stage, even if it does not entirely resemble the capitalist economy we are familiar with in the 21st century. This, combined with the insight that slavery was not in any way economically backwards in the 19th century and that the economic problems of the British Caribbean defy such simple characterisation, seriously undermines the notion that capitalism evolved neatly from slavery and then dismantled this archaic way of organising labour when it became an inconvenient burden.

So in some quite fundamental ways Capitalism and Slavery has been refuted and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who says they subscribe fully to the Williams thesis. But there are other ways in which Williams' work continues to stand up to scrutiny and hold significance for how we study the British Caribbean and transatlantic slavery as an institution. There are nuances and contours to the book that are often lost when we discuss it today, and it's important to recognise the monumental contribution it made to our understanding of slavery. There are books like Ed Baptist's The Half Never Told, a deeply flawed and sharply criticised (but publicly lauded) piece of work that stretches its evidence to breaking point in an attempt to prove its point, that have essentially tried to revisit the Williams thesis without properly situating their own ideas alongside or in contrast to his. Williams' work anticipated many later developments in slavery and Caribbean studies. He identifies early in the book for example that it is not slavery strictly speaking but rather coercive labour that was essential to the development of the colonial system and modern capitalism, and traces how the earlier experience of using white indentured labour helped create the necessary infrastructural, social and ideological frameworks for slavery, whilst still correctly identifying the characteristics that mark slavery apart from indenture. Williams has also been indirectly vindicated in an emerging consensus that, in the long-run, slavery is a net negative for economic growth and development compared to an economy based on 'free' labour – simply not to the point of the inevitability of its abolition (given that it persists today, just illegally).

And whilst the relationship between slavery and capitalism that Williams appears to describe might have been largely refuted, his appreciation of some of its complexities if something that I – as a historian who is very critical of the slavery and capitalism debate as a whole – find useful. There has been a great drive in slavery studies in the last decade or so to try and 'prove' that slavery and capitalism might as well be synonyms; that one cannot have possibly existed without the other. As I have argued here before, I do not think that is something that has ever been satisfactorily demonstrated, and fear that we sometimes confuse the alignment of events and characters in the historical record with almost Whig-like stories of inevitable progression. I don't think we can say transatlantic slavery was separate and distinct from the capitalist system we see in the world today, no, but nor do I think we can neatly say that capitalism was only made possible because of transatlantic slavery and thus slavery is the foundation of all 21st century wealth and prosperity. Rather, I would argue that we are better served looking at the various ways in which the plantation economy and the institutions that grew up around slavery helped to create economic and political modernity – that is to say, how they explain the particular shape and form capitalism takes, rather than the existence of capitalism or anything intrinsic about capitalism itself. Williams has moments where he tentatively touches on a similar analysis of capitalist economy (at least in my view), and although his conclusions about slavery's economic viability are wrong, his insights into the functioning of capitalist economy are useful. Readers concerned about the impending danger of climate change will find some of the ideas explored in Slavery and Capitalism's chapters very familiar and fascinating indeed, for better or worse.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that Slavery and Capitalism is worth reading as an historical document in and of itself if this is a part of the world you have passion for. Eric Williams is one of the most remarkable figures in the history of the British Caribbean. He went on to found the People's National Movement, one of the most successful political parties anywhere in the western democratic world, and his beliefs – difficult though they are to neatly pin down in the left/right framework we usually function in when thinking about political parties and leaders – have informed the political economy of the British Caribbean for decades. It is almost impossible to understand the political forces at work in this region without trying to understand the complicated, enigmatic figure that was Eric Williams, and there is no better insight into his complicated view of the world than Slavery and Capitalism. This is a book that in places could be forgiven for sounding like it comes from the mouth of Karl Marx and in others contains stinging rejections of mainstays of 20th century western Marxist political theory, and helps give an ideological grounding to a very Caribbean form of radical centrism that dominated the politics of Trinidad and Tobago for 30 years.

So on balance yes, I would say it is still well worth reading (and it is an enjoyable read – Eric Williams was a very gifted writer). But it should be read with an appreciation for what the author was setting out to do, in what context he was doing it, and followed up by more recent works of scholarship so you can pick apart for yourself the ways in which the study of slavery has moved on but still owes a debt to the work that Williams did all those years ago in trying to illuminate the economic dynamics of transatlantic slavery and complicating the narrative of its abolition.

  • P

Technology essentially refers to any tool designed to enhance a task and our lives. Examples include blackboards, chalk, and the wheel.

For a more detailed analysis, it is proposed to segment the market into technological subsets: computational technology (phones, computers, televisions, peripherals); social technology (technological influence on society, our relationship with it, the impact of algorithms); automotive technology; and market technology (Musk, B3, NASDAQ, cryptocurrencies).

This segmentation is already applied in various areas of human knowledge. It may be beneficial to adopt it in the technological field as well.

My concern is not with generalist sites like Verge or 404, but with those formatted exclusively for Google SEO.

I am particularly interested in how Google, especially through its search engine and YouTube, has influenced post-2010 society in political, educational, entertainment, and consumption aspects. Google's influence over the last 14 years is noteworthy, as is that of Facebook and WhatsApp, especially in Brazil and India.

Discussing the social implications of technology, in my view, is more relevant than focusing solely on products like iPhone, Android, or macOS. However, I recognize the need to adapt to the market and to the demands of the algorithm or target audience. Initiatives like Ghedin's and MdU's, which separate these topics into Órbita, are commendable, offering a complementary perspective to the distinct discussions found on platforms like Felipe Deschamps' TabNews.

In summary, considering the ubiquity of technology in society, it is vital to develop specific fields of study to analyze it from a theoretical and well-founded perspective.

  • P

Everything was copied from the web (from various sources). This is a “note-like” post that can be useful for more people other than me.



Gameplay, WADs/Maps/Mods, Source Ports

Same thing, in video format:

Downloads for various /vr/ shooters:

Doom Shovelware:

Fileplanet archives:









=== WHEN IT'S DONE ===


=== NEWS ===

[1-12]vQuake aka Rendition Veritage Quake released

[1-07]Simpler Times for Duke 3D released

[1-07]William Gee made a compilation of all his Duke3D maps into one mod, Supports Alien Armageddon

[1-07]Quakewulf releases “Four Base” a techdemo map demonstrating Quake 4 Textures in Quake 2 Remastered, source map included for mappers(Quake 4 textures needed):

[1-03]WRATH: Aeon of Ruin's update that goes over its singleplayer content, improvements and fate of deathmatch.

[1-01] Chasm: The Rift entity & weapon pack for Garry's Mod released

[1-01] Anon releases a map for the Quake 2 Remaster

=== PREVIOUS ===