It's what I suppose both the 'left' and 'right' call "lib shit". It's at the heart of what's gotten me very confused politically: I'm probably proper left, but find myself oddly sympathetic of the the pretty bad part of what is called 'right'. So which am I, 'politically realistic' and as a result 'a lib', or do I just want to simultaneously tune out and 'fuck shit up' and feel both guilty and apathetic about /that/ too. There are only so many turtles I can go down a day.
The political spectrum is a lot wider than most people realize in a US context. Generally when people use "left" and "right" without qualification they're describing shades of difference between what's essentially the same neocon/neolib party.
Trump's impact on the RNC seems to have checked if not eliminated the neocons (we'll see if that holds or expands).
Many hoped Sanders could have done the same with the DNC — shifted it away from neoliberalism - but it may take a few more losses (which, who knows, may never come).
I don't necessarily disagree, but I can't help but wonder if the increase in peace and progress, assuming that's actually true (imperialism has caused quite a bit of suffering, just often not in our back-yard), cannot be explained by factors other than the 'leviathan'.
Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that a less centralized, less coercive approach might not be the next step in our 'progress'. Our technological developments, among other things, might make that more possible.
(I think that any such change would might not work very well if implemented revolutionary-style though, and I'm unsure what other approach might work)
What makes you think the problems of immigration are not just Trumped up (heh) to distract from the much bigger problem that is the very hierarchy and filthy-rich class (that your president represents) of people that has steadily been fucking over the lower- and middle class, and reduced much of your country to a pretty shit place for the latter compared to more socialism-inspired countries?
Scapegoating is an age-old tactic used by the powerful and there's tons of evidence that inequality on the level seen in the US is not a good thing. On the other hand, the evidence that immigration is terrible and that stronger elements of socialism (at least Europe-style) don't work is quite lacking.
I'm not saying we should go for full on state socialism USSR-style, but there's a lot in between.
"What makes you think the problems of immigration are not just Trumped up (heh) " - what do you mean?
Certainly most people who own houses in the suburbs have been aware for many years that some of the problems with illegal immigration are making for an uneven playing field for small business and average workers. I'm not sure if city living folks are as exposed to the business dealings in the same way.
In what ways "very hierarchy and filthy-rich class... of people that has steadily been fucking over the lower- and middle class,"
In what ways do you mean? My only guess is you mean the wealthy have convinced both democrats and republicans for years to avoid minimum wage increases that match living wages?
"filthy-rich class (that your president represents)" - If you mean he represents the rich because he used similar methods to get rich in the past, okay - like a token symbol? IF you mean he represents them in his current government role, I think you are wrong. I think many of his policies are very contradictory to what the wealthy wanted. From replacing O-care to the illegal immigration enforcement, these issues are things most of the wealthy have been against from what I understand.
Scapegoating as a tactic for either side is annoying.
When you say "evidence that immigration is terrible", please understand some in the US are rallying for complete open borders, most are saying legal immigration is not terrible, it's good for the country, and we want the process to be better. A small few are against immigration, however it appears that certain media outlets and those who want to change the course of democrat vs republican want people to think that enforcing the laws that have been on the books for years means people are evil, racist, and want no one to enter the country.
Both sides are saying different things about the same thing. It appears the republicans / conservatives are listening the to media and social justice warriors, hearing what they are saying.
Stronger elements of socialism? Europe style? What do you mean? Work or don't work, we've tried more and less feed stamps, rent vouchers, healthcare things for the whole country and state by state these things have varied and swung a bit one way and then the other. So yes there is a lot in between.
I don't think most of those things are going to make much difference with the rich vs poor actually. I do envy some of the programs I have read about in the UK and other countries that are close, but the populations here are very different, and country wide things are major.
One of the things that actually is working to put pressure on wealthy to put more money in the pockets of the lower and middle class is limiting the amount of readily available people who will work and live illegally.
You say "your president" and then later say "we should go for" - so I am confused as to whether you are outside the US or in it.
There are many pieces to these complex issues, what works in Detroit is not going to work in Burbank. Scapegoating a person or class you don't like is not helping to put facts on the table, just appealing to emotions and encouraging others to buy into the group feels.
If I were in charge of company that does what CA does, I'd specifically hire 'IT guys' that I have dirt on that is worse than any of this... Or I'd find dirt on people that my IT guy cares about.
I might be giving CA more credit than they're due in the smarts department, but considering that I'm just a dude making up scenarios, I find this particular one pretty plausible. And assuming the worst seems like a sensible approach in this case.
How much of that relies on the raided party to have a desire to remain in business and to avoid criminal charges?
I can't help but feel that those individuals who really 'matter' in this situation have insulated themselves appropriately from CA as a corporate entity that whatever happens to CA specifically is just a minor inconvenience.
I understand this line of reasoning from a butt-hurt nerd perspective, but surely we can agree that it's a good thing that the consequences of 'all this' is finally hitting the mainstream?
And if so, what is the value of such an attitude other than some kind of petty 'told you so' need? Do we demand badges for our wokeness?
It's fine if it hits the mainstream, but if it's because of Trump, and not because of what Facebook is, then it will end up being just another half-assed initiative by only half the population - the half that happens to disagree with one flash-in-the-pan, here-today-gone-tomorrow, and ineffective-to-boot, President.
I'm among those who think the world would probably be better off without both Facebook and Trump, but the consensus out there in the world doesn't agree with that. They elected Trump and continue to make Facebook rich. Somewhat counter-intuitively, there is really not a lot of fodder there for feeling superior about oneself.
Too early to tell. It took almost a week to get a warrant to raid the CA offices, and while I do sort-of understand why, it's not promising. Furthermore, the Snowden revelations didn't have as much of an effect as I'd hoped, and once it 'blew over' it largely stopped being a public concern.
The same could happen here. Perhaps Zuck will be fired or we'll stop hearing about his (alleged) ambitions to enter politics, and that will be the end of it.
Let's not forget that CA is just one company. As long as Robert Mercer can continue doing what he does under various shell companies that are easy to register, we really haven't gotten anywhere unless regulations are implemented, and somehow applied globally.
Start by asking yourself which non-fringe socialist/communist party was not using the Leninist model of organisation, and which was not a member of the ComIntern and its successors? Which did not receive funding and ideological schooling in the Soviet Union?
You have an uphill struggle against history against you.
> non-fringe socialist/communist party was not using the Leninist model of organisation, and which was not a member of the ComIntern and its successors?
UK Labour party? Has everyone forgotten the Fabians?
The modern Green parties tend to be "left" but not necessarily inheriting from the Marxist tradition at all, generally post-dating WW2 (although this produces endless arguments about "watermelons"). Also modern left-wing parties of almost all colours are explicitly pro-human rights, which includes not only the right to privacy but the right to property!
Again, I'm not saying that there aren't some actual pro-Stalin "tankies" around, but it gets incredibly tedious having to defend everyone to the left of the Daily Mail from automatic charges of being a Stalinist. Congratulations on your dozen posts of derailing.
Fringe is clearly a vague predicate.
One way of defining Fringe is via the number of followers that can be mobilised for political action. E.g. in the UK the Tories, and Labour are not fringe, but CISTA (Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol) is. In the Weimar Republic the KPD was not fringe, but the Socialist League was.
> The historical record of the left is extremely pro-state, pro surveillance
I think the problem with your comment is that you're flat-out misrepresenting the 'reeeally left wing'. There are plenty of 'leftist' movements that are just as opposed to 'the state' as they are to our corporate overlords. Arguing otherwise is either plain stupidity or intentional misrepresentation.
Railing against "the state" or "our corporate overlords" is not a mature political position, but merely unfocussed, reflection-free rage that gets tooled / channeled by political organisers and activists on the left and right, not to mention commercially exploited by the Facebooks of this world, whence Zuckerberg's "Dumb Fucks".
> Railing against "the state" or "our corporate overlords" is not a mature political position
Why not? Historically anarchists played a mentionable role in this whole leftist thing.
EDIT: Also, could you elaborate on what you mean with 'a mature position'? I've found that kind of statement to be an effective but dishonest way to dismiss things.
The anarchists, qua bombings, played a potent role in 19th, and early
20th century politics, but not a good one.
Politically, anarchists are really quite different from the
socialist/communist tradition:
- Anarchists: reject the state
- Socialists/communists: reject capitalism
Naturally there could be overlap, and indeed there is a well-known
tradition of anarcho-communism [1] which was especially potent in the
Spanish Revolution of 1936 (note that there were bitter fights between
anarchists and the Stalinists), but at the same time, it's difficult
to reconcile the philo-capitalism of the libertarian wing of anarchism
with the socialist tradition. Likewise, it's difficult to reconcile
the philo-stateism of the socialist tradition with anarchism.
As to "mature": as a first approximation, I'd say, having a written, elaborate and communicable theory behind one's political actions, one that has survived multiple round of (friendly) critique. A mature political position includes reflection on the nature of political power, the shape of politial organisation, and political activism, and clear end goals with reasons why the desired end-goals are likely to come about. A mature political position also contains an understanding of other political positions, including those of one's political adversaries.
An prime example of a mature political position is Marx.
As an example of political immaturity, I'd point to myself when I was 19. I was nothing but an angry, raging young person, who railed against "the system", wanted to "stick it to The Man" and save the world. But I would not have been able to explain why, in way that I would have found plausible.
Is there any way I could continue this conversation via email or some other form of communication? I very much would like to pick your brain on some of this in a more personal form.
