Los administradores de TransicionEstructural no se responsabilizan de las opiniones vertidas por los usuarios del foro. Cada usuario asume la responsabilidad de los comentarios publicados.
8 Usuarios y 33 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Repite a la gente lo mismo durante años desde diferentes sitios y al final parecerá que es cierto y que es de necios pensar lo contrario. Esos "autores" de libros panfleto de la guerra generacional son los nuevos vendehumos, flautistas de Hamelin que llevan a la masa por donde quieren.De que las rentas del capital coticen ni hablamos,¿ no? Porque a esos "portavoces" de la juventud no se les ocurre hablar de eso.O de que los pisitos se coticen a un 30 por ciento de su precio actual - y van de sobra pagados -, ¿tampoco hablamos? Porque la chica que ha escrito ese libro de los boomers da por hecho que los precios no bajarán, sino no hablaría de las desigualdades causadas por la herencia de viviendas. No sé le ve atacar a los causantes del problema, las elites económicas y políticas que han generado la estafa piramidal de la vivienda.Por cierto que si, de 40 para abajo sus habilidades cognitivas son notablemente inferiores a las de los de 50 para arriba, y de ahí a peor a medida que son más jóvenes. Yo traje aquí hace unos meses el estudio que demostraba que las habilidades y conocimientos, y capacidad de aprendizaje autónomo se reducían en las sucesivas generaciones hasta la actualidad. Ya lo de los de la LOMLOE es para usarlos solo de criados para los turistas extranjeros o para carne de cañón en las guerras que quiere la elite que les han metido en la cabeza vía esa ingeniería social que les decía al principio, porque ni siquiera para camareros ni albañiles tienen habilidades - no saben sumar ni restar ni leer ni escribir -. Y ahora se vuelven nancys porque no tienen ni la más mínima sombra de raciocinio para ver qué les manipulan, porque para eso hace falta conocimiento y memoria y les han enseñado a despreciarlos - en términos pedagógicos constructivistas a construir su propio conocimiento - Definitivamente estamos rodeados de borregos. Da ganas de mandarlo todo al carajo, irse al monte y ver cómo se produce el inevitable colapso. Y lo dejo que me he calentado.PD. Edito porque la entrevista que nos trae Cadavre es buenísima.
Cita de: tomasjos en Ayer a las 21:52:25Repite a la gente lo mismo durante años desde diferentes sitios y al final parecerá que es cierto y que es de necios pensar lo contrario. Esos "autores" de libros panfleto de la guerra generacional son los nuevos vendehumos, flautistas de Hamelin que llevan a la masa por donde quieren.De que las rentas del capital coticen ni hablamos,¿ no? Porque a esos "portavoces" de la juventud no se les ocurre hablar de eso.O de que los pisitos se coticen a un 30 por ciento de su precio actual - y van de sobra pagados -, ¿tampoco hablamos? Porque la chica que ha escrito ese libro de los boomers da por hecho que los precios no bajarán, sino no hablaría de las desigualdades causadas por la herencia de viviendas. No sé le ve atacar a los causantes del problema, las elites económicas y políticas que han generado la estafa piramidal de la vivienda.Por cierto que si, de 40 para abajo sus habilidades cognitivas son notablemente inferiores a las de los de 50 para arriba, y de ahí a peor a medida que son más jóvenes. Yo traje aquí hace unos meses el estudio que demostraba que las habilidades y conocimientos, y capacidad de aprendizaje autónomo se reducían en las sucesivas generaciones hasta la actualidad. Ya lo de los de la LOMLOE es para usarlos solo de criados para los turistas extranjeros o para carne de cañón en las guerras que quiere la elite que les han metido en la cabeza vía esa ingeniería social que les decía al principio, porque ni siquiera para camareros ni albañiles tienen habilidades - no saben sumar ni restar ni leer ni escribir -. Y ahora se vuelven nancys porque no tienen ni la más mínima sombra de raciocinio para ver qué les manipulan, porque para eso hace falta conocimiento y memoria y les han enseñado a despreciarlos - en términos pedagógicos constructivistas a construir su propio conocimiento - Definitivamente estamos rodeados de borregos. Da ganas de mandarlo todo al carajo, irse al monte y ver cómo se produce el inevitable colapso. Y lo dejo que me he calentado.PD. Edito porque la entrevista que nos trae Cadavre es buenísima.Mis dieses por la reflexión. Estos vendehumo me recuerdan a cuando la movida indignada, se llenó de libros con recetas mágicas buscando culpables, y muchísimos de ellos se convirtieron en los nuevos vividores del cuento (recuerdo un libro del ínclito ministro Garzón con Vicenç Navarro, predicando contra lo que después el mismo ejecutaría). Detectan un problema, señalan un falso culpable y venden su homeopatía. Hablan de la desigualdad que genera la vivienda, cómo se potencia con las herencias (y así de justifican, porque ellos heredan) y venden la homeopatía del conflicto de Pisitos o Pensiones. Para salvar sus Pisitos y su vida de clase media, nos vamos a cargar las Pensiones. Porque como dice Asustadisimos, la guerra real es entre las rentas inmobiliarias y las rentas productivas destinadas a las pensiones (que no dejan de ser un salario en diferido gestionado por el estado). Los culpables entonces eran los paletas tres mileuristas que se compraban BMWs, y que acabaron todos arruinados, desahuciados y con paro estructural después de trabajar sesenta horas semanales para sacar adelante una promoción tras otra, ser estafados comprando vivienda carísima y cometiendo el error de tener un coche nuevo (que no era un BMW, sino un Audi en el mejor de los casos, pero comúnmente un Citroen o un SEAT de tres puertas). Sufrieron la crisis con toda su crudeza, después de ser los que más trabajaron, sufrieron la ruina del desahucio y las deudas, sufrieron paro estructural durante mucho tiempo y sufrieron el estigma como culpables, porque yo si me acuerdo aquellos correos electrónicos de difusión, porque no había redes sociales, donde los señalaban). Los paletas hoy van a ser los jubilados, porque los que están heredando las viviendas quieren vivir igual o mejor que sus padres, y no quieren que la música se pare. Estefania y María no son más que comemierdas del Pisito, otras estafadoras que no quieren que nada cambie y que intentan acumular en sus filas a perdedores del modelo contra las pensiones para salvar sus himbersiones. Cuando algo no funciona, o deja funcionar, lo más sencillo siempre es encontrar culpables. Y si otros nos los señalan, más rápido se encuentran. Y esto es la demostración del fracaso del progresismo: sus representantes jóvenes no son más que unos comemierdas que quieren ser igual de pisitofilos que sus representantes mayores, no tienen un programa para ofrecer nada nuevo. Y esto puede ser la demostración de para que existan cambios reales, nos vamos a tener que llevar una buena dosis de realidad a base de golpes, la sociedad escucha solamente lo que quiere oír. Y por cierto, que Estefania, aspirante a vivir muy bien de juego de dinero sin trabajar, ataque sin descanso al gobierno de Sánchez y pida elecciones, sólo puede significar que el tal Sánchez va por el buen camino, y que quizá, en su mente himbersora, ve peligrar su himbersion. Más allá de todo lo demás, porque todos tenemos ideología, de una y otra, y ante el devenir de los acontecimientos, creo que Sánchez es el elegido para pilotar el final del modelo, y hay una oposición que quiere poner trabas, promete soluciones, y que con un cambio de gobierno, los problemas no solo no se iban a solucionar, sino que se intentaría alargar el problema a costa de sanidad y pensiones. Con la genial entrevista de Cadavre, constato una cosa. La coerción a través de los medios funciona muy bien, y sus campañas, siempre, son a largo plazo. Sembrar y recoger. Lo que pasa es que cuando se siembra viento, se acaba recogiendo tempestad.
España siempre fue un país de propietarios, pero ese modelo se ha roto: en solo un año la vivienda ha subido un 13% y una casa media ya cuesta 176.000 euros, una cifra que en muchas ciudades consume más de la mitad del sueldo. Para comprarla, un español necesitaría trabajar ocho años sin gastar nada, lo que explica por qué la emancipación se retrasa, adultos de 40 y 50 años comparten piso y la natalidad se desploma. Sin vivienda no hay estabilidad, sin estabilidad no hay hijos ni futuro. La crisis de la vivienda ya no es solo económica, es social, demográfica y generacional.
Prof Jiang Podcast and Prof Jiang Explains · 2025.12.11 · They Found a Way to Rule You Without Force and You Don’t Even Notice | Prof Jiang XueqinCitarOkay, tonight I want to walk slowly through an idea that seems simple, but is actually the entire architecture of the modern world. It is why no one revolts anymore. It is why politics feels like theater. It is why people are exhausted but compliant. It is why nothing changes.And the idea is this: the worker is gone. Not unemployed—vanished as an identity, replaced, deleted from the heart of modern society. And in his place stands the consumer. That’s the whole secret.But let me start more gently. After the Second World War, 1945 to, let’s say, 1975, every industrial society—whether they admitted it or not—adopted Marx’s premise. They didn’t call it communism. They called it democracy, social welfare, social contract. But essentially, the worker became the organizing unit of society.Workers got pensions. Workers got free universities. Workers got public healthcare. Workers had unions that could shut down the state. Workers had class consciousness—meaning they understood themselves as a group, as a collective organism capable of forcing justice. That was a golden moment. It was short, maybe 30 years. Okay? Right?But then, in the 1980s, the elite realized something dangerous. A worker-centered society becomes too equal, too fair, too stable, too non-hierarchical. And if you are elite, the one thing you cannot tolerate is equality, because equality dissolves power.So the 80s were not just Thatcher, not just Reagan, not just neoliberalism. They were the revolt of the elite. And the task of the 80s was not to expand capitalism. No. It was to destroy the worker as a political category. Because a worker can unionize, strike, negotiate, curse the factory owner, seize the means, vote for redistribution. A consumer cannot.So the worker had to die. Let me restate that, because it is the hinge of the century. The worker had class solidarity. The consumer has envy. The worker says “we.” The consumer says “me.” Okay.So in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, the state promised: if you are a citizen, I give you housing, education, job stability, pension. In the 1980s, the state promised: “If you are a citizen, I give you choices—low prices, goods.”That shift seems gentle. It is the most violent shift in modern economics. Because the consumer does not need political consciousness. The consumer needs desire. You do not need to unionize to buy shoes. You do not need class solidarity to buy a phone. You do not need comradeship to scroll through endless pictures of people you resent. And this—quiet, cheerful, glittering—kills revolution.Now, I want you to run the thought experiment again, because Jung always returns to it. You give every student one million dollars. At first, they smile. Then they buy homes, cars, sofas. Then they post pictures. Then everyone else must buy bigger homes, bigger cars, more exotic vacations, more radiant appliances. Then the debt arrives.Debt is the chain. But unlike all chains, debt feels chosen, patient, self-inflicted. And you do not rebel against chains you choose. Okay?So in a worker society, political identity was built around class cooperation: union halls, strikes, negotiations, collective bargaining rights. In a consumer society, identity is built around prestige—who has the larger screen, richer vacation, brighter wedding, deeper mortgage, cleaner feed.The consumer becomes an influencer even before the word existed. And influence is the opposite of solidarity. To influence is to outshine, not join.Let’s go deeper into the psyche. Under worker logic, when you meet another person, you ask: “Are they decent, trustworthy, kind—someone I can stand beside?” Under consumer logic, you ask: “What do they own? How much do they earn? Can they amplify my image? Can they embarrass me by having more?”This is the perfection of slavery. Not because someone seizes your body, but because you surrender your imagination. You voluntarily cease to think about freedom at all. Slaves rebel. Consumers display. Okay. Right.So by the late 20th century, the elite realized something astonishing. If you turn every citizen into a micro-entrepreneur of identity—posting, curating, showing off, purchasing, upgrading—then revolt becomes mathematically impossible. Not morally. Mechanically.A society of consumers cannot riot, because each individual is too busy defending their little island of purchased image. And if revolt did begin, the first fear is not loss of wages, but loss of Wi-Fi.Let me make it darker. When the worker was dominant, school existed to expand consciousness. You read poetry, studied history, learned argument, grappled with Nietzsche and Marx—not because it helped your résumé, but because it helped your soul.Now school is a marketplace for prestige signals. What major gets me the job that gets me the house I can photograph to prove I am not losing? Education is no longer learning. It is sorting. If you fail, you do not feel dumb. You feel poor. And shame is far stronger than failure.This is why consumerism pacifies better than any police state could. A police state frightens you. Consumerism flatters you. And flattered people obey more willingly than frightened ones.Now inequality. In the 70s, a CEO made maybe 20 times a worker. Today, 200 or 300 times. The difference is not monetary. It is architectural. Because when inequality becomes divine, untouchable, expected, aesthetic, it ceases to provoke revolt. Instead, it provokes aspiration.Workers see billionaires not as enemies, but as templates. A worker sees injustice. A consumer sees possibility. Okay?So now you understand why the billionaire must be worshipped. Because if the billionaire becomes a villain, the consumer remembers he is a worker. And the moment he remembers he is a worker, the elite lose control.So consumerism is the continued neural sedation—the constant whisper that you are almost there, almost luxury, almost celebrity, almost wealthy enough to escape solidarity. It is a treadmill disguised as a dream.Now the philosophical endpoint. Francis Fukuyama is mocked for saying this is the end of history. But he was right—not because peace has been achieved, but because revolt has been dissolved. History, in the Marxist view, advances by material struggle. But the consumer does not struggle. He refreshes. He does not overthrow. He orders. He does not march. He scrolls.How do you create revolution when people check their battery percentage more than their wage percentage? You don’t. And that is the perfection.Okay. No—better phrased: consumerism is the system in which people willingly imprison themselves in desire. Workers rebel because they suffer. Consumers do not rebel because they hope. Hope is the cage. It is easier to starve a man than to deny him envy.So what does the next quarter century look like under this? Not uprising. Not Marxist correction. Not proletarian dawn. But a glittering quiet. People compete for symbols rather than rights. People compare wardrobes rather than wages. People vanish into self-valuation rather than class valuation.The worker was a citizen. The consumer is a customer. And a customer cannot overthrow the store.That’s the secret. That’s why the elite reversed the 20th-century bargain. They do not need to censor you if they can distract you. They do not need to chain you if you chain yourself to aspiration.When your dream is to display more than others, revolt becomes logically impossible, because revolt requires collective imagination—and consumerism destroys collective imagination at its root. You cannot unionize against your reflection.So let me close quietly. Marx was right, but not in the way the textbooks say. The worker was central—briefly—then removed. Not killed, but subtly refashioned. And the consumer—smiling, scrolling, displaying, indebted—became the perfected subject.Not coerced. Not frightened. Not obedient.Willing.And that is why nothing changes.Okay, that’s enough.Saludos.
Okay, tonight I want to walk slowly through an idea that seems simple, but is actually the entire architecture of the modern world. It is why no one revolts anymore. It is why politics feels like theater. It is why people are exhausted but compliant. It is why nothing changes.And the idea is this: the worker is gone. Not unemployed—vanished as an identity, replaced, deleted from the heart of modern society. And in his place stands the consumer. That’s the whole secret.But let me start more gently. After the Second World War, 1945 to, let’s say, 1975, every industrial society—whether they admitted it or not—adopted Marx’s premise. They didn’t call it communism. They called it democracy, social welfare, social contract. But essentially, the worker became the organizing unit of society.Workers got pensions. Workers got free universities. Workers got public healthcare. Workers had unions that could shut down the state. Workers had class consciousness—meaning they understood themselves as a group, as a collective organism capable of forcing justice. That was a golden moment. It was short, maybe 30 years. Okay? Right?But then, in the 1980s, the elite realized something dangerous. A worker-centered society becomes too equal, too fair, too stable, too non-hierarchical. And if you are elite, the one thing you cannot tolerate is equality, because equality dissolves power.So the 80s were not just Thatcher, not just Reagan, not just neoliberalism. They were the revolt of the elite. And the task of the 80s was not to expand capitalism. No. It was to destroy the worker as a political category. Because a worker can unionize, strike, negotiate, curse the factory owner, seize the means, vote for redistribution. A consumer cannot.So the worker had to die. Let me restate that, because it is the hinge of the century. The worker had class solidarity. The consumer has envy. The worker says “we.” The consumer says “me.” Okay.So in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, the state promised: if you are a citizen, I give you housing, education, job stability, pension. In the 1980s, the state promised: “If you are a citizen, I give you choices—low prices, goods.”That shift seems gentle. It is the most violent shift in modern economics. Because the consumer does not need political consciousness. The consumer needs desire. You do not need to unionize to buy shoes. You do not need class solidarity to buy a phone. You do not need comradeship to scroll through endless pictures of people you resent. And this—quiet, cheerful, glittering—kills revolution.Now, I want you to run the thought experiment again, because Jung always returns to it. You give every student one million dollars. At first, they smile. Then they buy homes, cars, sofas. Then they post pictures. Then everyone else must buy bigger homes, bigger cars, more exotic vacations, more radiant appliances. Then the debt arrives.Debt is the chain. But unlike all chains, debt feels chosen, patient, self-inflicted. And you do not rebel against chains you choose. Okay?So in a worker society, political identity was built around class cooperation: union halls, strikes, negotiations, collective bargaining rights. In a consumer society, identity is built around prestige—who has the larger screen, richer vacation, brighter wedding, deeper mortgage, cleaner feed.The consumer becomes an influencer even before the word existed. And influence is the opposite of solidarity. To influence is to outshine, not join.Let’s go deeper into the psyche. Under worker logic, when you meet another person, you ask: “Are they decent, trustworthy, kind—someone I can stand beside?” Under consumer logic, you ask: “What do they own? How much do they earn? Can they amplify my image? Can they embarrass me by having more?”This is the perfection of slavery. Not because someone seizes your body, but because you surrender your imagination. You voluntarily cease to think about freedom at all. Slaves rebel. Consumers display. Okay. Right.So by the late 20th century, the elite realized something astonishing. If you turn every citizen into a micro-entrepreneur of identity—posting, curating, showing off, purchasing, upgrading—then revolt becomes mathematically impossible. Not morally. Mechanically.A society of consumers cannot riot, because each individual is too busy defending their little island of purchased image. And if revolt did begin, the first fear is not loss of wages, but loss of Wi-Fi.Let me make it darker. When the worker was dominant, school existed to expand consciousness. You read poetry, studied history, learned argument, grappled with Nietzsche and Marx—not because it helped your résumé, but because it helped your soul.Now school is a marketplace for prestige signals. What major gets me the job that gets me the house I can photograph to prove I am not losing? Education is no longer learning. It is sorting. If you fail, you do not feel dumb. You feel poor. And shame is far stronger than failure.This is why consumerism pacifies better than any police state could. A police state frightens you. Consumerism flatters you. And flattered people obey more willingly than frightened ones.Now inequality. In the 70s, a CEO made maybe 20 times a worker. Today, 200 or 300 times. The difference is not monetary. It is architectural. Because when inequality becomes divine, untouchable, expected, aesthetic, it ceases to provoke revolt. Instead, it provokes aspiration.Workers see billionaires not as enemies, but as templates. A worker sees injustice. A consumer sees possibility. Okay?So now you understand why the billionaire must be worshipped. Because if the billionaire becomes a villain, the consumer remembers he is a worker. And the moment he remembers he is a worker, the elite lose control.So consumerism is the continued neural sedation—the constant whisper that you are almost there, almost luxury, almost celebrity, almost wealthy enough to escape solidarity. It is a treadmill disguised as a dream.Now the philosophical endpoint. Francis Fukuyama is mocked for saying this is the end of history. But he was right—not because peace has been achieved, but because revolt has been dissolved. History, in the Marxist view, advances by material struggle. But the consumer does not struggle. He refreshes. He does not overthrow. He orders. He does not march. He scrolls.How do you create revolution when people check their battery percentage more than their wage percentage? You don’t. And that is the perfection.Okay. No—better phrased: consumerism is the system in which people willingly imprison themselves in desire. Workers rebel because they suffer. Consumers do not rebel because they hope. Hope is the cage. It is easier to starve a man than to deny him envy.So what does the next quarter century look like under this? Not uprising. Not Marxist correction. Not proletarian dawn. But a glittering quiet. People compete for symbols rather than rights. People compare wardrobes rather than wages. People vanish into self-valuation rather than class valuation.The worker was a citizen. The consumer is a customer. And a customer cannot overthrow the store.That’s the secret. That’s why the elite reversed the 20th-century bargain. They do not need to censor you if they can distract you. They do not need to chain you if you chain yourself to aspiration.When your dream is to display more than others, revolt becomes logically impossible, because revolt requires collective imagination—and consumerism destroys collective imagination at its root. You cannot unionize against your reflection.So let me close quietly. Marx was right, but not in the way the textbooks say. The worker was central—briefly—then removed. Not killed, but subtly refashioned. And the consumer—smiling, scrolling, displaying, indebted—became the perfected subject.Not coerced. Not frightened. Not obedient.Willing.And that is why nothing changes.Okay, that’s enough.