Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Here is something for you that I think will work! I know it sounds like a scam but it really isn't. The trick to this is that once you sign up you have to use your new e-mail account a lot and try to get referrals for yourself. It won't work if you don't credit your referrals and your referrals don't credit you. Here how it goes:
Follow these 8 steps as shown below. If your referrals do the same as you, you wont be credited by zwallet. So, its important that you follow the whole 8 free steps.)
1) Open an e-mail account at zwallet.com
(It takes up to 6 six days to become eligible for payments. After that you can view at any time your stats at the "Account Info" option)
2) Send an e-mail message to me at fron35@zwallet.com with "NEW ACCOUNT" in the
subject line, and your new zwallet e-mail address in the body. This way, I will know
you signed up with me, and I will be able to assist you in getting your referrals, if you wish (I promise not to mail you more than once if you don't want assistance).
3) Copy this message and replace my user ID in the zwallet link above in step 1) with YOUR new user ID.
4) Save this modified message to your hard disk & keep a floppy copy just in case something goes wrong with your computer. Because this is the only message you will need to e-mail out to prospect for sign ups.
5) Submit this program (or another one that you are promoting) to FFA Links Pages, Search Engines, Safelists, etc. (To generate the 20+ daily e-mails to delete). Use your new zwallet address for confirmation emails. Zwallet.com translates this 20 emails or more into 20 pages views. It's for each page view that you get credit. So another easy way to get this 20 page views is by clicking 20 times or more at the "Address book" feature and that's it! Now you can just use this account as your normal e-mail address to get those 20 emails, this way you can skip the above part of this step.
6) Open at your zwallet e-mail account at least 20 e-mails daily or click 20 times or more at the "Address book" feature.
7) Promote this message with your new user ID and with the subject line "Earn $856,694 Monthly Deleting only 20 Emails" as many times as you can and get at least 28 referrals, just like I have done with you!
Now I know 28 referrals is a lot, so even advertise or tell your friends just 10 referrals and that's still $8,000 a month... either way that's plenty of money for just using this service as your email account.
Follow these 8 steps as shown below. If your referrals do the same as you, you wont be credited by zwallet. So, its important that you follow the whole 8 free steps.)
1) Open an e-mail account at zwallet.com
(It takes up to 6 six days to become eligible for payments. After that you can view at any time your stats at the "Account Info" option)
2) Send an e-mail message to me at fron35@zwallet.com with "NEW ACCOUNT" in the
subject line, and your new zwallet e-mail address in the body. This way, I will know
you signed up with me, and I will be able to assist you in getting your referrals, if you wish (I promise not to mail you more than once if you don't want assistance).
3) Copy this message and replace my user ID in the zwallet link above in step 1) with YOUR new user ID.
4) Save this modified message to your hard disk & keep a floppy copy just in case something goes wrong with your computer. Because this is the only message you will need to e-mail out to prospect for sign ups.
5) Submit this program (or another one that you are promoting) to FFA Links Pages, Search Engines, Safelists, etc. (To generate the 20+ daily e-mails to delete). Use your new zwallet address for confirmation emails. Zwallet.com translates this 20 emails or more into 20 pages views. It's for each page view that you get credit. So another easy way to get this 20 page views is by clicking 20 times or more at the "Address book" feature and that's it! Now you can just use this account as your normal e-mail address to get those 20 emails, this way you can skip the above part of this step.
6) Open at your zwallet e-mail account at least 20 e-mails daily or click 20 times or more at the "Address book" feature.
7) Promote this message with your new user ID and with the subject line "Earn $856,694 Monthly Deleting only 20 Emails" as many times as you can and get at least 28 referrals, just like I have done with you!
Now I know 28 referrals is a lot, so even advertise or tell your friends just 10 referrals and that's still $8,000 a month... either way that's plenty of money for just using this service as your email account.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
A Fresh Look at Social Policy in the Early 21st Century
One of the best ways to look at the era we live in as far as addressing social issues such as poverty, civil rights and equality of all sorts is to realize that we are living in an age that the market frameworks to balance the variables in and out of these conditions just doesn't exist anymore. This trend does not on the one hand dispute the fact that there must be a distributionist goal towards adjusting certain inequalities or disparities but it also on the other hand does not deny the fact that there are underlying distributionist facets well underway. It is just that the way we measure people social conditions in this day and age unlike thirty or forty years ago will altogether no matter what we do be incomprehensive in today's terms.
At the outset of this century welfare or social progress has gotten its noteriety mainly through the chief efforts of the Brandeis Brief which became believe it or not the chief model in which to understand the dimensions of poverty--that is, you have to rely on statistics and numbers. It served as the basis for many a things including the Brown v. Board of Education and even the Great Society Programs. Yet like many sought after policy they too failed the test of time as the supporters of them weren't able to maintain a hold much less a decisive or I should say convincing reason to sustain these programs any further.
Lots of peope were eventually left out especially with the new waves of social reforms that encompassed one of the fallacy of post-modernism: welfare to work programs, empowerment zones, curtailing affirmative action and school choice vouchers. How at any rate these programs are in themselves a stream of works resulting from a fallible grasp of time is that for starters no matter how much any Republican wants to cut taxes and reduce spending to a minimalist state that such a minimalist state under the circumstances that we live in these days will always become larger(as Congress through the US Attorney General was able to pass the Patriot Act future administrations will have to maintain a certain level of welfare spending, reversing the common ideology found in the conservatives camp).
Secondly, as each age characterized of an economic term evolves(such as from an industrial economy to a post-industrial economy) the worth and value of the information at hand intensifies geometrically(which means that if were are now coming out of an post-industrial economy the inequalities pursuant to it if not being accounted for can increase so many folds); thirdly, as a result of such, no matter which direction societal leaning towards greater or lesser welfare and civil rights protection it is bound to be nothing more than a concoction of what a perfect society or way of life people should live in(such as the Proposition 209 might only reflect racial supremacist projecting their viewpoint in that state state's legislature).
Fourthly, with all this comes a post-instituional effect, that is erosion of physical institutions as we know it being replaced with virtual ones--it can even go down the line to having a virtual state or imaginary armies; finally the concept of individuals and humanity will have to be a post-Soviet one, one in which people are viewed not as having souls but trapped in a world where the evils of slavery and neo-imperialism comes in a different guise as in a post- Soviet era whereas there is more impact on our resources(a good distributionist starting point) in using them to re-assert(or how one looks at re-evaluating people's identity) in which case there is no market framework out there to make such a use of these resources 'morally' worthwhile.
What will connect all this is that unlike before where we looked at poverty as a sign of European exploitation but now it will be seen as a mere occurence that has gone out of control merely due to the constraint of the element of time and energy has placed on us. (To look at it completely from the former approach is simply and extremely naive; it overlooks the organic forces or forces that comes about because there is enough energy and substance to create a following or entity of its kind.)
Poverty as I understand it has been looked at from a dichotomotic debate in which on the one hand you have to meet basic needs and on the other hand that you have to take in consideration non-economic or pre-rational incentives in which people have. Even if it wasn't looked at such a straightforward way, the attitudes and approaches would have to embody elements that were unconventional premodern or local. This does not mean that we can't look at poverty from this perspective but it is useless and pointless to carry out a policy with a type of population we have this today and expect to have tomorrow.
One of the controlling factors of poverty these days is the concept of the digital divide. By this I mean the evolving forces of de novo institutions such as the internet having a tremendous effect on people's lives. As the internet itself grows larger, its existence makes them more uncertain as it evolves into something new and different and yet the impact of it makes us rethink basic discussions on areas of freedom of speech and privacy and that this rethinking is just merely a crowding out of the virtual world on the physical.
Even from a international perspective, the causes of wars will be on the reaction and bluntness of advance technology such as the thought of using bunker busters to flush out Bin Laden in Pakistan and the increased use of caves and tunnels to continue to elude the US making Al Queda ever the larger and its protege. Thus making the causes of war more of who has access to information and how they can cause sort of a hysteria.
There is another factor about the digital divide and that has to do with ongoing technological revolution that will not in the coming years bring forth revolutionary household products but also change the way we approach a lot of things and perhaps how we present them. Take cloning for example how we are able to assign clone individuals the same rights as natural born ones; schooling, how we can have a combination of mass schooling with the internet and allow for private/home schooling at the same time(here I am not advocating one or the other I am just saying how there must be a different approach to things); or entertainment, imagine if pop stars and divas like Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez is replaced with computer generated singers and models.
Imagine an economy in which the revenues comes from the wealth of nannotechonology that have welfare programs resulting from. Imagine the state taking a less derivative approach to families and marriage and just do away with them, afterall they are just institutions and just 'raise' the children by themselves like the Prime Minister in the "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones."
Of course the big question will be where is the normative approach for all this. You can't expect this to happen overnight without anytype of protest or backlash. That is a pretty difficult question to resolve in which case how this will happened is that the debates that warehouses these issues in one way or another will just get trampled and swept under the carpet as others will unfold or posed so as its guise. I don't remember where I read this but as a thinker once said as mankind labor too much they have a tendency to forget. I think not just the labour policy or the mobility of labor will play a role but the forced way we have to reconcile this as the psychological effect on the masses can create some type of 'default' or in G.L. Shackle a 'subjectivity of expectation.'
Applying these two things would mean for the first test as in the case of civil rights whereas negatively a high incarceration rate type culture and 'antinomianistic'(as well libertarian attitudes towards drugs and sex) we live in will forced either various races to start looking at each other as equals or go to some massive race wars. I think the former will happened. You will probably have better days in civil rights only such that those compromises having been made and understood from a rigid test as not be a sell out on either side and allowing things going from there. I am not saying this is my viewpoint on civil rights but it is a worthwhile that should be taken in consideration.
The other sample will be something you read in a amateur newspaper about the effects of being unfair without proving any type of social inequality being there. That is there will be a shift on the model on what the good life assured of the state at hand (i.e. a nation-state) towards one of a post-post-modern ones. Why look at poverty based on the expectation as though everybody supposed to get married and raise a family, even if you really do or don't. This method of looking at things will be looked as being cheap, fraudulent and frivolous. I think the bases in which how we can judge if somebody living in destitution or poverty will(aside from the fact that basic needs having been met) from a Rifkined approach of 'pay per experience' or 'a transformation of ownership to leasing.'
Either way such changes is the result of a lot of things being built up and have at its doorstep long been overdue or overhaul. Pretty much today we are just regurgitating old and passe ways of seeing the world and alleviating its problems. Such a way of percieving and doing stuff makes likely more scenarios such as the World Trade Center and its aftermath more unpredictable and placing a strain on our resources.
One of the best ways to look at the era we live in as far as addressing social issues such as poverty, civil rights and equality of all sorts is to realize that we are living in an age that the market frameworks to balance the variables in and out of these conditions just doesn't exist anymore. This trend does not on the one hand dispute the fact that there must be a distributionist goal towards adjusting certain inequalities or disparities but it also on the other hand does not deny the fact that there are underlying distributionist facets well underway. It is just that the way we measure people social conditions in this day and age unlike thirty or forty years ago will altogether no matter what we do be incomprehensive in today's terms.
At the outset of this century welfare or social progress has gotten its noteriety mainly through the chief efforts of the Brandeis Brief which became believe it or not the chief model in which to understand the dimensions of poverty--that is, you have to rely on statistics and numbers. It served as the basis for many a things including the Brown v. Board of Education and even the Great Society Programs. Yet like many sought after policy they too failed the test of time as the supporters of them weren't able to maintain a hold much less a decisive or I should say convincing reason to sustain these programs any further.
Lots of peope were eventually left out especially with the new waves of social reforms that encompassed one of the fallacy of post-modernism: welfare to work programs, empowerment zones, curtailing affirmative action and school choice vouchers. How at any rate these programs are in themselves a stream of works resulting from a fallible grasp of time is that for starters no matter how much any Republican wants to cut taxes and reduce spending to a minimalist state that such a minimalist state under the circumstances that we live in these days will always become larger(as Congress through the US Attorney General was able to pass the Patriot Act future administrations will have to maintain a certain level of welfare spending, reversing the common ideology found in the conservatives camp).
Secondly, as each age characterized of an economic term evolves(such as from an industrial economy to a post-industrial economy) the worth and value of the information at hand intensifies geometrically(which means that if were are now coming out of an post-industrial economy the inequalities pursuant to it if not being accounted for can increase so many folds); thirdly, as a result of such, no matter which direction societal leaning towards greater or lesser welfare and civil rights protection it is bound to be nothing more than a concoction of what a perfect society or way of life people should live in(such as the Proposition 209 might only reflect racial supremacist projecting their viewpoint in that state state's legislature).
Fourthly, with all this comes a post-instituional effect, that is erosion of physical institutions as we know it being replaced with virtual ones--it can even go down the line to having a virtual state or imaginary armies; finally the concept of individuals and humanity will have to be a post-Soviet one, one in which people are viewed not as having souls but trapped in a world where the evils of slavery and neo-imperialism comes in a different guise as in a post- Soviet era whereas there is more impact on our resources(a good distributionist starting point) in using them to re-assert(or how one looks at re-evaluating people's identity) in which case there is no market framework out there to make such a use of these resources 'morally' worthwhile.
What will connect all this is that unlike before where we looked at poverty as a sign of European exploitation but now it will be seen as a mere occurence that has gone out of control merely due to the constraint of the element of time and energy has placed on us. (To look at it completely from the former approach is simply and extremely naive; it overlooks the organic forces or forces that comes about because there is enough energy and substance to create a following or entity of its kind.)
Poverty as I understand it has been looked at from a dichotomotic debate in which on the one hand you have to meet basic needs and on the other hand that you have to take in consideration non-economic or pre-rational incentives in which people have. Even if it wasn't looked at such a straightforward way, the attitudes and approaches would have to embody elements that were unconventional premodern or local. This does not mean that we can't look at poverty from this perspective but it is useless and pointless to carry out a policy with a type of population we have this today and expect to have tomorrow.
One of the controlling factors of poverty these days is the concept of the digital divide. By this I mean the evolving forces of de novo institutions such as the internet having a tremendous effect on people's lives. As the internet itself grows larger, its existence makes them more uncertain as it evolves into something new and different and yet the impact of it makes us rethink basic discussions on areas of freedom of speech and privacy and that this rethinking is just merely a crowding out of the virtual world on the physical.
Even from a international perspective, the causes of wars will be on the reaction and bluntness of advance technology such as the thought of using bunker busters to flush out Bin Laden in Pakistan and the increased use of caves and tunnels to continue to elude the US making Al Queda ever the larger and its protege. Thus making the causes of war more of who has access to information and how they can cause sort of a hysteria.
There is another factor about the digital divide and that has to do with ongoing technological revolution that will not in the coming years bring forth revolutionary household products but also change the way we approach a lot of things and perhaps how we present them. Take cloning for example how we are able to assign clone individuals the same rights as natural born ones; schooling, how we can have a combination of mass schooling with the internet and allow for private/home schooling at the same time(here I am not advocating one or the other I am just saying how there must be a different approach to things); or entertainment, imagine if pop stars and divas like Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez is replaced with computer generated singers and models.
Imagine an economy in which the revenues comes from the wealth of nannotechonology that have welfare programs resulting from. Imagine the state taking a less derivative approach to families and marriage and just do away with them, afterall they are just institutions and just 'raise' the children by themselves like the Prime Minister in the "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones."
Of course the big question will be where is the normative approach for all this. You can't expect this to happen overnight without anytype of protest or backlash. That is a pretty difficult question to resolve in which case how this will happened is that the debates that warehouses these issues in one way or another will just get trampled and swept under the carpet as others will unfold or posed so as its guise. I don't remember where I read this but as a thinker once said as mankind labor too much they have a tendency to forget. I think not just the labour policy or the mobility of labor will play a role but the forced way we have to reconcile this as the psychological effect on the masses can create some type of 'default' or in G.L. Shackle a 'subjectivity of expectation.'
Applying these two things would mean for the first test as in the case of civil rights whereas negatively a high incarceration rate type culture and 'antinomianistic'(as well libertarian attitudes towards drugs and sex) we live in will forced either various races to start looking at each other as equals or go to some massive race wars. I think the former will happened. You will probably have better days in civil rights only such that those compromises having been made and understood from a rigid test as not be a sell out on either side and allowing things going from there. I am not saying this is my viewpoint on civil rights but it is a worthwhile that should be taken in consideration.
The other sample will be something you read in a amateur newspaper about the effects of being unfair without proving any type of social inequality being there. That is there will be a shift on the model on what the good life assured of the state at hand (i.e. a nation-state) towards one of a post-post-modern ones. Why look at poverty based on the expectation as though everybody supposed to get married and raise a family, even if you really do or don't. This method of looking at things will be looked as being cheap, fraudulent and frivolous. I think the bases in which how we can judge if somebody living in destitution or poverty will(aside from the fact that basic needs having been met) from a Rifkined approach of 'pay per experience' or 'a transformation of ownership to leasing.'
Either way such changes is the result of a lot of things being built up and have at its doorstep long been overdue or overhaul. Pretty much today we are just regurgitating old and passe ways of seeing the world and alleviating its problems. Such a way of percieving and doing stuff makes likely more scenarios such as the World Trade Center and its aftermath more unpredictable and placing a strain on our resources.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
This day and age we look at things from two unique perspectives. Among them is what you call a post-institutional outlook in which we are seeing that basic institutions that we have taken for granted and have become an essential part of our lives for centuries are just withering away. One of the main reasons why institutions as we know them has been around quite for some time is that they embody what is known as a nation-state society. A nation state is one that has at its base or cover a central governement that allows diversity and toleration for different religions and religous beliefs, ethnicities and social classes. Much has been talked and concluded about the setbacks and the benfits of what is the nation-state and exactly for now how long it too will last. The nation-state itself has been a model for what many First World countries like the US model themselves after and tries to spread through out the world. The situation in Iraq only shows that whatever is left of divulging a Post-Saddam Hussein government can easily be up for grabs, much less going back to look at the fruits of what the nation-state in rebuilding Iraq as useless and a waste of time. The two world views that encompassed what is next or what would succeed a post-nation-state order is based on the conversations between two famous writers, they are Samuel Huntington and Anthony Giddens. Huntington believes that the conflict in the world today is between fundamentalist cultures vis-a-vis democratic cultures while Giddens believes that dilemna we live in is between those share a cosmopolitan outlook as opposed to those who shares more of a local view of the world they inhabit. Each views offers a unique perspective and much truth about what is going on in the world today, again especailly in place of Iraq. It is true that there is no perfect concept of democracy and that the type of democracy that is being exported throughout the world is that of the US. Moreover the reason why the US has such a strong edge in doing so is not just only because she is physically a superpower(albeit she ,from a standpoint from moral ethics, isn't one) but more so because her culture is truly democratic in practice and in outlook. Exporting democracy these days in order for it to be successful requires that those cultures as well must be inherently democratic. Here where Huntington is right; the chances that a democracy will thrive in Iraq-- whereas the problems in Iraq is a matter of implementing a rule of law, rebuilding an economy where as I often theorized there is no market framework anything short of a information tech economy, closing the gap on age old rife and enmities that crosses different ethnicities and historocities, and deep political tension due to the war itself--remains next to nothing.
Yet there is a truth to Giddens side of the equation and that has to do that what is damaging American success in Iraq is that Al Queada and her protege are more advance in the cosmopolitan way of things. They are by far apart of the digital divide that is increasingly shaping the world we live and perhaps a basis in understanding the fundamentals of violence, social inequalities and violence. However they are not the ones that have been left out. The chief driving force of the digital divide in a Weberian way of looking at things is the internet. Remeber the internet is the growth or super growth of exchanging of information that can be harness by a small personal computer. Yet this way of exchanging information as we do so now is transitory and will have to be replaced by other means(that is with molecular nannnotechnology--afterall from a perspective borrowed from Isabel Paterson 'The God of the Machine' it is the energy and forces from the World Trade Center attacks is evident of such). From Gidden's perspective there is an overlap how certain cultures and groups are surviving these days. So it will be asserted that 1)the powers that be that are shaping the world is by far much larger and more powerful anything of the nation-state 2) looking at moral ethics has by far shifted with the rise and somewhat strange success of Al Queada being able to shape the outcome of the world and 3) all political and social models that is being taught will have to add these untimely variables. Thus an age of the digital divide does not mean those who are excluded precisely because they are illiterate or lack a cosmopolitan way of approaching matters at hand but it is just a matter who can get access to such a wealth of information and use it to project thier feelings on the world at large. We see that with the recent decapitation of Nicholas Berg which was posted on a pro-Al Queda website.
It can according to a Giddens point of view push things in a more positive and socially progressive light as in the case of the recent election of Spain. It is not here to say whose views are stronger but to shed some light on what is out there for us to use as a basis as far as how to look at the world.
The other factor or viewpoint that is controlling how things being seen in this day and age is a Post-Soviet look at people. One of the mistakes in understanding at how to look at people and to view them in light of the decline of communism and Soviet philosophy is that it must be done so by a pre-Soviet or from a pre-Marxist perspective, such that all religous ways of looking at things must be considered. So it would be assumed that people contrary to Lenin or for that matter Marx, that people have souls and they have lineage and historicity. This sounds great but this way of looking at matters only takes too seriously the nostalgia the critics of Marxism and socialism has long been deep seated. In fact a better approach would be a mixed of a Smithian and a Giddened approach that on the one hand that as times flies or elapses people has a tendency to forget and that how they forget is shaped not necessarily by a labor policy but how fast and astute government and the general opinion can grasp what constitutes a labor policy--among them if we are living in a post-Soviet era the notion that tobacco, rum, cotton, rice and perfumes will make a comeback in its atavistic guise of slavery and labor exploitation as people are being more inclined and feeling more freely to do so, assert or re-examined their own cultural identity--and that the market frameworks for such an economy doesn't exist anymore;but on the other hand, that due to industrialization and conspicous consumption, nature as we see it just doesn't exist anymore. It is these divergent factors makes up a forum how to view people from a post-Soviet light. This I think can applies to all fields. Thus the by product of manking and individuals from this perspective is perhaps the more precise and accurate way of looking at him and her and them.
Either way these two perspectives are in themselves powerful and might explain some of the unforeseeable things you hear in the news such as why is Al Queada is growing larger not smaller, why is there is an impending if not already underway a technological revolution, that will revolutionize the way wars are fought, justice is demanded and implemented and so on.
Yet there is a truth to Giddens side of the equation and that has to do that what is damaging American success in Iraq is that Al Queada and her protege are more advance in the cosmopolitan way of things. They are by far apart of the digital divide that is increasingly shaping the world we live and perhaps a basis in understanding the fundamentals of violence, social inequalities and violence. However they are not the ones that have been left out. The chief driving force of the digital divide in a Weberian way of looking at things is the internet. Remeber the internet is the growth or super growth of exchanging of information that can be harness by a small personal computer. Yet this way of exchanging information as we do so now is transitory and will have to be replaced by other means(that is with molecular nannnotechnology--afterall from a perspective borrowed from Isabel Paterson 'The God of the Machine' it is the energy and forces from the World Trade Center attacks is evident of such). From Gidden's perspective there is an overlap how certain cultures and groups are surviving these days. So it will be asserted that 1)the powers that be that are shaping the world is by far much larger and more powerful anything of the nation-state 2) looking at moral ethics has by far shifted with the rise and somewhat strange success of Al Queada being able to shape the outcome of the world and 3) all political and social models that is being taught will have to add these untimely variables. Thus an age of the digital divide does not mean those who are excluded precisely because they are illiterate or lack a cosmopolitan way of approaching matters at hand but it is just a matter who can get access to such a wealth of information and use it to project thier feelings on the world at large. We see that with the recent decapitation of Nicholas Berg which was posted on a pro-Al Queda website.
It can according to a Giddens point of view push things in a more positive and socially progressive light as in the case of the recent election of Spain. It is not here to say whose views are stronger but to shed some light on what is out there for us to use as a basis as far as how to look at the world.
The other factor or viewpoint that is controlling how things being seen in this day and age is a Post-Soviet look at people. One of the mistakes in understanding at how to look at people and to view them in light of the decline of communism and Soviet philosophy is that it must be done so by a pre-Soviet or from a pre-Marxist perspective, such that all religous ways of looking at things must be considered. So it would be assumed that people contrary to Lenin or for that matter Marx, that people have souls and they have lineage and historicity. This sounds great but this way of looking at matters only takes too seriously the nostalgia the critics of Marxism and socialism has long been deep seated. In fact a better approach would be a mixed of a Smithian and a Giddened approach that on the one hand that as times flies or elapses people has a tendency to forget and that how they forget is shaped not necessarily by a labor policy but how fast and astute government and the general opinion can grasp what constitutes a labor policy--among them if we are living in a post-Soviet era the notion that tobacco, rum, cotton, rice and perfumes will make a comeback in its atavistic guise of slavery and labor exploitation as people are being more inclined and feeling more freely to do so, assert or re-examined their own cultural identity--and that the market frameworks for such an economy doesn't exist anymore;but on the other hand, that due to industrialization and conspicous consumption, nature as we see it just doesn't exist anymore. It is these divergent factors makes up a forum how to view people from a post-Soviet light. This I think can applies to all fields. Thus the by product of manking and individuals from this perspective is perhaps the more precise and accurate way of looking at him and her and them.
Either way these two perspectives are in themselves powerful and might explain some of the unforeseeable things you hear in the news such as why is Al Queada is growing larger not smaller, why is there is an impending if not already underway a technological revolution, that will revolutionize the way wars are fought, justice is demanded and implemented and so on.
