Monsanto?

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I am familiar with Pilger. Which is why I regard his opinions with skepticism.

That's a shame. I have a healthy respect for him, his last film, Utopia, is essential viewing. Having said that, I don't feel particularly favourably towards his position on Assange.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by BVS

Yeah, and then not even knowing if and how much is true...

I confess that I did not know much about the Monsanto allegations – as is apparent by the subject of this thread. Note the question mark. I was asking if U2 fans know whether this allegation is true or not. I was looking for clarification regarding this allegation. While it's so funny ("" etc.) that I don't know if and how much is true regarding the Bono-Monsanto controversy, what is equally "funny" is that nobody on this forum has yet been able to convince me either way.

Meanwhile, while not having answers to my own Bono-Monsanto question, I think I articulated a strong argument against most of Bono's development discourse, which has troubled me for some time. Recently hearing of an alleged Bono-Monsanto connection is potentially the final straw for me and this prompted my post. What is worrying about much of Bono's development discourse is that what he does do and what he does say suggests that it's not unlikely that Bono would, in theory, stand on the side of Monsanto. He would say people need food and he would turn a blind eye to social injustice.

So, my ignorance might be funny, but we all seem to be ignorant on this issue of Bono-Monsanto. The level of complacency troubles me. It's just a rumour and there's no proof etc. So, we go on as normal. Great new U2 tour. etc. What's your favourite setlist? Etc. According to Bono, "People got the power". This forum as a collective of hundreds (thousands?) of U2 fans surely has the power to demand a response from Bono on the subject of Monsanto.

Or shall we not bother?

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

My "pure evil" comment was about Bank of America and banks in general, and I stand by my bewilderment regarding U2 publicising them as a good thing for Africa.

I work for a bank.

Screw you if you think the company I work for is really pure evil.

Or are you suggesting that I, a "banker", am myself pure evil?

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

This forum as a collective of hundreds (thousands?) of U2 fans surely has the power to demand a response from Bono on the subject of Monsanto.

You're delusional if you think a bunch of anonymous idiots on an Internet message board have the power to demand anything from Bono.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by BVS

Another perspective:

Franklin Veaux's answer to Is Monsanto evil? - Quora

Studying the archaeology of the merging of companies and subsequent changes and so on etc etc tells us a lot about how corporations are run and so on... But it can also be smoke and mirrors.

Quote: "Monsanto (the seed company) was distinct from Monsanto (the chemical company), with its own bylaws, a different board of directors, and different management from Monsanto (the chemical company)."

Question: But who were the shareholders? Yes there were distinctions, but what were the similarities and the connections?

I could spend the next two hours doing a discourse analysis of this text, but please can someone else? I came here to ask questions and maybe I've said enough already...

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I am familiar with Pilger. Which is why I regard his opinions with skepticism.

Ok, so let's get specific and not be questioning John Pilger's entire career. Who else has reported on Jeffrey Sachs's questionable work in Bolivia?

Jeffrey Sachs - not very impartial
Naomi Klein - much the same conclusion as Pilger.
And?

I've spoken to Bolivians whose first-hand assessment matches the quote from Pilger which I posted yesterday.

So while we can be sceptical about Pilger in some cases, in this particular case, let's hold our scepticism and do some more research?

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by DaveC

I work for a bank.

Screw you if you think the company I work for is really pure evil.

Or are you suggesting that I, a "banker", am myself pure evil?

Another assumption / knee-jerk reaction. I think humans have the potential to be good and bad. We make choices about what we do with our time and which direction we want to go. I don't believe that people who work for banks are necessarily evil. Just as I don't believe that one footballer makes an amazing football team. The sum of the parts, plus all kinds of momentum, and the runaway nature of certain forms of capitalism.

Originally Posted by DaveC

You're delusional if you think a bunch of anonymous idiots on an Internet message board have the power to demand anything from Bono.

And Bono is not delusional to think that a bunch of U2 fans in Western countries, buying CDs, T-shirts and going to concerts, can persuade governments to implement certain policies with regards to Africa?

Of course U2 fans on a forum have collective power. It's all about the market, as Bono would say. There's a place for the market and the placard, as Bono would say.

When the last U2 album came out, U2 fans were invited to ask questions which they answered on youtube or whatever. What do you think about Monsanto or what is your favourite colour? Hmmm.

U2 are on tour and have a heavy schedule of interviews each day or week. Do we not know journalists? Does nobody on this forum have any connections? And so on?

Delusional? Maybe I was inspired by Bono in my youth. Sorry.

[Hollow Island]

DaveC, banks are evil. Doesn't mean everyone working for them is evil, but what do you call a company that, in yet another year of record profits

A) fires employees
B) brings in temporary foreign workers because they get paid less
C) asks the employees that are going to be out of work to train those that are replacing them?

Or another bank that fires workers during a year of record profits? This happens all the time. Banks increase fees to increase profits, and fire as many workers as they can, or out source them to a country that pays lower wages.

Banks are fucking evil. They are built to exploit. Just the same as McDonalds - evil. But people need to work, and there aren't a lot of well paying jobs out there anymore (thanks to economic policies recommended by banks and economists).

Or there's the "financial crisis" aka implementing the shock doctrine. Wasn't that just a little bit evil? And it wasn't caused by isolated cases or a bad apple, as news hacks like to say, but by institutionalized greet that borders on psychopathy.

[DaveC]

In other words yes, you think my employer is literally evil.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Fuck you, dude.

EDIT: that goes for both of you.

[Hollow Island]

Well what bank do you work for? Why don't you tell us about how your bank doesn't fire people when it makes record profits, or doesn't exploit its customers?

Or how about this: fuck you on behalf of the thousands of people Canadian banks have fired while raking in record profits. And fuck you on behalf of all the people who lost their homes and savings because of predatory lending and flat-out lying.

Buddy, there's a reason that people hate banks and bankers. I'm not saying you're evil, but your employer? If it's like most other banks, then yeah: it's evil.

[wideawake2015]

My final thoughts for today before I have to go and get some work done!

Please think about this: Bono claims to know what's going on in Africa. He tells U2 fans and many U2 fans believe him. Some are critical. Others don't care. Some think they can’t collectively ask a question of Bono on a subject that he has been lecturing us about for the past 40 [correction: 30] years. Some think that a belief in being able to ask this question collectively is “delusional”.

This all amounts to consent. Consent from those who believe Bono knows the truth and is a force for good. Consent from those who don’t care. Consent from those who don’t challenge him even if they are critical. This consent means that Bono has the power to speak to world leaders on the basis of his supposed knowledge on the subject of Africa. But it's not really his knowledge on the subject. University professors with 40-year careers don’t easily get a meeting with Bush or Obama or the Pope. Bono’s power is primarily because of the weight he carries in terms of support from U2 fans. Consent. Consent to be the spokesperson for U2 fans on the subject of Africa. U2 fans give Bono all of this power. All of it.

So there is a bizarre disjointed loop of hegemonic power occurring here. The audience is predominantly influenced directly by the speaker on a particular topic that most of the audience knows nothing about. The speaker gains the consent of the audience which assumes the speaker to be correct and ethical. The speaker then uses that consent to exercise power and influence in other circles. Western politicians. The results show up in Africa. But what Bono is advocating is what Bono thinks is right for Africa. U2 fans stand by him. The majority of Africans don't have a voice.

And now I am told that we, the audience that has “given U2 a great life”, are delusional to think that we can collectively ask Bono for a response regarding Monsanto? Has Bono not been advocating for Amnesty International – the power of the letter writing campaign – for the past 30 years? Is the work of Amnesty International “delusional”?

Addition: What I should have said in the third paragraph: Bono claims to be speaking on behalf of African people. We can see this is not true because he claims that there is a consensus of opinion (on development issues) within and between African countries (see my post yesterday). Most of the U2 audience nods in agreement of what Bono thinks (what Bono thinks the African people think and want) because we don't know any better than him. So we give him the consent to speak on our behalf. That's not exactly informed consent. Then he speaks to the media and to politicians and claims to be speaking on behalf of the U2 audience AND the African people (who have apparently reached a consensus). Isn’t this somehow more like a cult than a political / social movement?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

I could spend the next two hours doing a discourse analysis of this text, but please can someone else? I came here to ask questions and maybe I've said enough already...

I think it's great that you're asking questions, but you're also saying "this is the final straw" while you're asking such questions. You're already laying blame and judgement before you have the full answers. You have a lot of tidbits, some half-truths, and no I don't think you've laid out a compelling argument.

I mean to lump Sachs in your whole neoliberalism argument is just plain odd.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by DaveC

In other words yes, you think my employer is literally evil.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Fuck you, dude.

EDIT: that goes for both of you.

Charming! Seems like a loyal employer [correction: EMPLOYEE] in the running for employee of the year!
But seriously, please can we not reduce the discussion to anger and telling each other to fuck off etc. It's not helpful.
Why not try to persuade HOLLOW ISALND why they are, in your opinion, wrong about banks? The fact that you don't give a serious argument and start telling people "fuck you" suggests that you don't have much to say.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by BVS

I think it's great that you're asking questions, but you're also saying "this is the final straw" while you're asking such questions. You're already laying blame and judgement before you have the full answers. You have a lot of tidbits, some half-truths, and no I don't think you've laid out a compelling argument.

I mean to lump Sachs in your whole neoliberalism argument is just plain odd.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This is the FIRST TIME I have mentioned the word "Sachs". Here's the second time: "Sachs".
In other words, you are mixing up posts from different people.
Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that? Ok, I said I have had enough of Bono's political crap and it's putting me off the music. But the fact that I don't have time to do a full discourse analysis of the text in question doesn't mean I am saying it's the final straw. I am simply saying I should really get on with some work now. [Addition: Get some work done now, and not totally dominate the discussion in this thread by commenting on absolutely everything before anyone else gets the opportunity]

If you don't believe I have made a compelling argument, please engage with it and help me to develop my understanding. It's so boring to be told, "No, you're wrong" but then have nothing to go on. It's like marking an essay 30/100 but giving no feedback. Tell me, regarding my long post of 25th June, what is not compelling? What is not convincing? It would be really helpful for me to get other opinions. Otherwise, I can't help thinking I'm right, and that's no good if I;m wrong. I'll end up like Bono

[Hawkmoon269]

Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that?

Your first line ever posted here...

been a U2 fan since 1982. But I have had enough!

[BVS]

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

This is the FIRST TIME I have mentioned the word "Sachs". Here's the second time: "Sachs".

In other words, you are mixing up posts from different people.

Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that? Ok, I said I have had enough of Bono's political crap and it's putting me off the music. But the fact that I don't have time to do a full discourse analysis of the text in question doesn't mean I am saying it's the final straw. I am simply saying I should really get on with some work now.



If you don't believe I have made a compelling argument, please engage with it and help me to develop my understanding. It's so boring to be told, "No, you're wrong" but then have nothing to go on. It's like marking an essay 30/100 but giving no feedback. Tell me, regarding my long post of 25th June, what is not compelling? What is not convincing? It would be really helpful for me to get other opinions. Otherwise, I can't help thinking I'm right, and that's no good if I;m wrong. I'll end up like Bono

You don't remember mentioning Sachs? You don't remember saying you're done? Well then we have much bigger issues.

I'm not going to dissect your long post and go point by point, I don't have the time right now and I'm on my phone.

But from a macro level you seem to be throwing shit on a wall and seeing what sticks, in other words, you're all over the place. Banks are evil, Monsanto may or may not be evil and Bono may or may not be "shilling", we're consenting, his guru is wrong(even though I can't remember bringing him up). I think you should focus more and people may start to engage more.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[wideawake2015]

Hi Hawkmoon,
You're right, but you are quoting me out of context since I already answered my own question. I said, "Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that? Ok, I said I have had enough of Bono's political crap and it's putting me off the music".

Elsewhere I said that the Monsanto rumour, if true, is the straw that broke the camel's back. It's just that when BVS commented that I said "final straw" etc., it appeared to be in reference to something else I said. I was trying to clear up confusion....etc.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by BVS

You don't remember mentioning Sachs? You don't remember saying you're done? Well then we have much bigger issues.

I'm not going to dissect your long post and go point by point, I don't have the time right now and I'm on my phone.

But from a macro level you seem to be throwing shit on a wall and seeing what sticks, in other words, you're all over the place. Banks are evil, Monsanto may or may not be evil and Bono may or may not be "shilling", we're consenting, his guru is wrong(even though I can't remember bringing him up). I think you should focus more and people may start to engage more.

Hilarious! I take it all back! For some reason, the discussion of banks was making me think of Goldman Sachs. For a moment, I forgot all about Jeffrey! Sorry about that.

I take your point. When I get time I will try to summarise my main points. But it can preliminarily be framed as: "I have serious reservation about Bono's knowledge of development issues in Africa, the ways in which he depoliticises development issues, his involvement with corporations with questionable ethics and which might be harmful to many Africans, and the ways in which U2 fans do or don't give him power and consent to speak on our behalf".

[wideawake2015]

Bono? I never mentioned him at all!

Have a nice day!

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by DaveC

In other words yes, you think my employer is literally evil.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Fuck you, dude.

EDIT: that goes for both of you.

Cool it, Dave.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by BVS

I mean to lump Sachs in your whole neoliberalism argument is just plain odd.

Sorry, one last thing. Now that I have recalled Jeffrey Sachs and stopped thinking about Goldman Sachs, can you please tell me why this is just plain odd? Jeffrey Sachs is an advocate of neoliberal envelopment practices, after all. And that's understating it. So I don't understand why this seems odd?