|
Kristov posted:Identity politics is a funny euphanism for 'visible minorities are not second class citizens' don't ya think? Compromising that in the name of political expediency is a great way for fascism to root. And once that pain train gets rolling you better run or get ready for a fight. I didn't say it was a pretty fight, but basically the native and imported working class have been pitted against each other in economic terms. It is going to be ugly and it isn't surprising the left would lose support from the native base. It isn't right, but they aren't just "being insane" or "innately evil." This is more or less happens when neoliberalism works as planned.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Under capitalism, increasing the supply of labour will drive down the wages that labour can demand, but under an economy where capital no longer dictates the terms, there is a multitude of possible solutions to the problem. All your arguments so far rely on the a priori assumption that capital is free to do as it wants and should be accommodated at all costs for fear of being punished by its response. This is the world we live in today, the purpose of revolution is to change this, to use the machinery of the state in order to take control of capital for the workers. And all your arguments have relied on the a priori assumption that you can successfully restrict capital in that way, or at least do so without significantly damaging the economy in a way that impacts the poor as well. I'm never seen it done, and if you have an examples of anyone doing so I'd be delighted to hear them. quote:Because of all the reasons you are implying, obviously. I disagree that the poor of Detroit would be better off if the Texan border was closed to them, however. If socialist revolutions are such a good idea why are the most successful countries the ones which either never had one or are currently undoing them? Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have all increased their populations' standard of living to an astounding extent, and there's a reason that China, Vietnam, and now India to some extent are trying to emulate them. Incidentally, all have retained significant government control over elements of their economies, so I'm not advocating for laissez-faire capitalism, but the kinds of restrictions on capital that you've been advocating have been pretty well discredited. It shouldn't escape your notice that the countries with the highest standards of living in the world are all the very social democracies you were deriding. quote:Nobody who has given any thought to the question claims that the transition from capitalism to socialism can happen without social upheaval. I am perfectly aware that implementing significant welfare state and open immigration policies in a mixed capitalist economy would be disastrous by any bourgeois economic metrics. This is what I'm after: drawing out the contradictions between capitalism and the fulfilment of basic human needs to their breaking point, so that society can move beyond it. It's about putting pressure on capital in order to weaken and eventually to strangle it. Billions of people are being lifted out of poverty, and having their basic human needs met and exceeded, by mixed capitalist economies, on a scale the world has never seen before. Unless you think that life expectancy, literacy rates, access to healthcare, infant mortality, and decreasing rates of violence are all "Bourgeois economic metrics". You are advocating the overthrow of systems of governance that have been monumentally successful in favor of ones which have been universally discredited. There has been an explosion of human happiness precisely because people like you are no longer listened to. quote:The wealth that Belgium enjoys today and that of other European countries has been extracted from the colonialist exploitation of non-Europeans. As far as I'm concerned Belgian-born citizens have no more valid a claim to it than anyone else. It's not to me that you need to justify why it's so very important to defend Belgium's precious borders and GDP, it's to the people being denied immigration from Congo. If the Belgians have no right to Belgium's wealth why do the Congolese have a right to Congo's wealth? After all, preventing European immigration would just be nationalism now wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Most of the arguments in favour of nationalism or of abandoning identity issues in this thread ultimately boil down to a desire to kick down the ladder. How will allowing in more immigrants help the current marginalized populations? How will destroying the welfare states help the currently marginalized populations? Is your hope that once you've burned everything to the ground they will receive an equal share of the ashes?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If the left did this it would stop being the left. The left needs to stop being "the left" to do anything in the modern world. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Weldon Pemberton posted:You weren't misreading, that's what people were talking about. I've asked before and i ask again, show me a Left-wing party with any kind of reasonable respect that rejects the plight of minorities to just focus on economic concerns. You'll find either non or a marginal number at best. Unfortunately you DO see a lot of identity politics people who fight tooth and nail in the name of, for example, feminism, only to vote for the right or center because they don't want actual change, just modest tweaks to satisfy their personal needs. Nintendo Kid posted:
Manuel Valls, is that you?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Mans posted:
Where? In the US, probably because a large number of poor people are minorities. In more homogenous nations it's perfectly likely. You even see it to some extent in the US. There was an amazing article where Bernie Sanders said "why is there such resistance from poor people to social programs? Up here in Vermont the whitest state in the Union we can get stuff down just fine". computer parts fucked around with this message at 01:43 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Kristov posted:[quote="rudatron" post="430240778"]
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Mans posted:It would be immensely stupid for a worker's party to reject the plight of minorities and not to look at their characteristics. It would be as equally stupid of someone interested in minority rights to just focus on minority rights without understanding that to permanently change an unequal society you need to change it on the whole. Mans posted:I've asked before and i ask again, show me a Left-wing party with any kind of reasonable respect that rejects the plight of minorities to just focus on economic concerns. You'll find either non or a marginal number at best. Unfortunately you DO see a lot of identity politics people who fight tooth and nail in the name of, for example, feminism, only to vote for the right or center because they don't want actual change, just modest tweaks to satisfy their personal needs. computer parts posted:Where? In the US, probably because a large number of poor people are minorities. In more homogenous nations it's perfectly likely.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Do they still ever hold internationals or something similar? I don't think I have heard of such a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Do they still ever hold internationals or something similar? I don't think I have heard of such a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The left needs to stop being "the left" to do anything in the modern world. Hope this helps. It doesn't help at all because it's typically glib. What's the point of doing things if you just fit yourself to the times? Just work in finance if that's the case. You'll be doing things left and right! (Fishmech please give us a glimpse of the Grand Unified Theory of Fixing Things Without Being Leftist)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Do they still ever hold internationals or something similar? I don't think I have heard of such a thing. Yes, every year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avante!_Festival
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:
Okay, how many of those are there? Maybe the fact that there are so few "successful" anti-capitalist groups is proof that there is a fundamental divide within the working class? computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:33 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Siryza in Greece, Feminist Initiative in Sweden, and The Green Party in the UK, are a few of the real anti-capitalist parties that have seen their support greatly increase in the European elections and are NOT catering to hetero white males only or whatever is even being suggested here.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Siryza in Greece, Feminist Initiative in Sweden, and The Green Party in the UK, are a few of the real anti-capitalist parties that have seen their support greatly increase in the European elections and are NOT catering to hetero white males only or whatever is even being suggested here. A few, or all of them? Also, 5% of the vote doesn't seem significant, especially in a parliamentary system.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
How did they do it in seattle? Could other cities do what they did?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Siryza in Greece, Feminist Initiative in Sweden, and The Green Party in the UK, are a few of the real anti-capitalist parties that have seen their support greatly increase in the European elections and are NOT catering to hetero white males only or whatever is even being suggested here. But if you talk about sheer numbers, the weight is behind the hard populist right.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:But if you talk about sheer numbers, the weight is behind the hard populist right. Yes don't get me wrong, all things considered I am not optimistic about where this is going. Miltank posted:How did they do it in seattle? Could other cities do what they did? I'd like to know people's take on this as well. Here's an article from SA about it: http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/01/31/lessons-kshama-sawants-historic-victory/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Okay, how many of those are there? computer parts posted:Also, 5% of the vote doesn't seem significant, especially in a parliamentary system. Ardennes posted:But if you talk about sheer numbers, the weight is behind the hard populist right.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, the lack of success is largely down to socialist groups being a bunch of racists and sexists (or at least willing to ignore the issue), not them representing the ideology most hated by the ruling class. Quite the opposite, their lack of success is likely more due to racism and the like being a large part of the working class than they themselves being a bunch of racists and the like. Actually my real thesis is that "notable leftist parties don't do X" is a meaningless statement because there's not a significant number of "notable leftist parties" under the definition given. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:38 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
The two explanations are not mutually exclusive: the left represents the ideology most hated by the ruling class, therefore racism is fostered as a means of dividing the working class and of distracting them from leftism. This kind of thing is as old as politics. 
Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 20:11 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:The two explanations are not mutually exclusive: the left represents the ideology most hated by the ruling class, therefore racism is fostered as a means of dividing the working class and of distracting them from leftism. See, you're doing it again. You think racism derives solely from rich people and their meddling with poor people so if we get rid of the rich people suddenly there's no more racism. There's no reason to believe that is true.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:See, you're doing it again. You think racism derives solely from rich people and their meddling with poor people so if we get rid of the rich people suddenly there's no more racism.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You do realize the word fostered doesn't mean created, right? It does at least imply that racism (or similar phenomenons) was not a significant factor before [some arbitrary date when rich people wanted to solidify their power].
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It does at least imply that racism (or similar phenomenons) was not a significant factor before [some arbitrary date when rich people wanted to solidify their power]. This is actually kind of true. Xenophobia has always existed, sure, but racism as a developed, pseudoscientific ideology was largely cooked up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a way to justify the Atlantic slave trade.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:This is actually kind of true. Xenophobia has always existed, sure, but racism as a developed, pseudoscientific ideology was largely cooked up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a way to justify the Atlantic slave trade. What's the difference between xenophobia and racism, especially contemporary racism?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:36
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Racial minorities in the US has a good reason to distrust people who go "Yes yes, but let's focus on this bit first." The problem with this kind of thinking, though, is that the "this bit" the left should be focusing on will inherently fix most of the minority problems in America. The reason why minorities are oppressed and why fixing that oppression is a Sisyphean task is because there needs to be people on the bottom in any capitalist society; swing everything else leftward and suddenly there's much less incentive to keep minorities down.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What's the difference between xenophobia and racism, especially contemporary racism? Numerous studies show examples such as black children learning to associate black people with laziness and vice while they associate white people with virtue and attractiveness. This is racism, but not xenophobia.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Numerous studies show examples such as black children learning to associate black people with laziness and vice while they associate white people with virtue and attractiveness. This is racism, but not xenophobia. Would housing policies designed to keep minorities out be xenophobia, or racism?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, the lack of success is largely down to socialist groups being a bunch of racists and sexists (or at least willing to ignore the issue), not them representing the ideology most hated by the ruling class. Granted, every country is going to be different, the FN (24.85%) did much better than Left Front (6.33%). Nevertheless, in total they (and some of the smaller radical parties) show a strong amount of radicalization. Obviously, in the case of France, the FN doing well while the radical left is mostly treading water.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Actually, I'm not sure historical examples are that important, compared to contemporary examples. Assuming you will agree with the statement "The media is largely controlled by rich people", one just needs to look at what's actually going on to see that the fight against capitalism is important for the fight against racism. It might not deal with it entirely, but making headway is much harder when you have a ruling class which happily paints far right parties as "not that bad" while demonizing the far left. Like seriously, people were advised against supporting the Red-Green Alliance here in Denmark because if they got too much support they would carry out mass murder. Meanwhile, the far right continues to argue for racial supremacy, ethnic cleansing, or even genocide.SALT CURES HAM posted:The problem with this kind of thinking, though, is that the "this bit" the left should be focusing on will inherently fix most of the minority problems in America. The reason why minorities are oppressed and why fixing that oppression is a Sisyphean task is because there needs to be people on the bottom in any capitalist society; swing everything else leftward and suddenly there's much less incentive to keep minorities down.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:See, you're doing it again. You think racism derives solely from rich people and their meddling with poor people so if we get rid of the rich people suddenly there's no more racism. Yes there is. Without media propaganda about rampant minority crime or wellfare mooches much of the weapons of the far right would be rendered obsolete. You can't discuss modern politics and worker consciousness without discussing media propaganda, media control and media capital. Leftist parties will always be self-sustaining, they will logically be a few steps bellow the propaganda capacity of Rupert Murdock or Fox News. And these posts are being contradicting as hell. First it was the leftist parties that were being racist and homophobic." Now it turns out the reason we're "losing" is because we're not being racist or homophobic enough. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
So, the left should embrace nationalism, neoliberal policy and race hatred. Anything else before I get started? Oh right, we shouldn't call ourselves "the left" any more.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What's the difference between xenophobia and racism, especially contemporary racism? Xenophobia is just 'those foreign people are weird and I don't like them'. The racism developed to justify the slave trade was far more elaborate, using pseudoscientific theories to demonstrate that people of other colours were not only a bit weird with unpleasant customs, but actually subhuman. It's kind of like the difference between, for example, saying you don't like those shouty New Yorkers and showing up with a model of a New Yorker's skull and a chart demonstrating that they are physically, genetically, and morally inferior.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So, the left should embrace nationalism, neoliberal policy and race hatred. Clearly the nazbols and "national anarchists" are the way forward.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Xenophobia is just 'those foreign people are weird and I don't like them'. The racism developed to justify the slave trade was far more elaborate, using pseudoscientific theories to demonstrate that people of other colours were not only a bit weird with unpleasant customs, but actually subhuman. It's kind of like the difference between, for example, saying you don't like those shouty New Yorkers and showing up with a model of a New Yorker's skull and a chart demonstrating that they are physically, genetically, and morally inferior. I said contemporary racism. Mans posted:Yes there is. Without media propaganda about rampant minority crime or wellfare mooches much of the weapons of the far right would be rendered obsolete. quote:
Actually, your point was that "major leftist parties" don't engage in racism and the like and I pointed out that major leftist parties don't exist. computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:25 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I said contemporary racism. You said 'especially'. I was drawing the line for the example I detailed.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:You said 'especially'. I was drawing the line for the example I detailed. So engage me about contemporary racism, unless you honestly think people being racist today means that they think black people are a different species.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually, your point was that "major leftist parties" don't engage in racism and the like and I pointed out that major leftist parties don't exist.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
computer parts posted:So engage me about contemporary racism, unless you honestly think people being racist today means that they think black people are a different species. To be honest, there is a touch of that, even if it's rarely that extreme (at least explicitly) unless you're on Stormfront or something. Xenophobia is a blanket term for fear of anyone who's somehow different to you. Racism, meanwhile, is the belief that they're inherently inferior as an aspect of their being, rather than just coming from a place/culture you deem bad. Nature versus nurture, basically. This isn't a moral judgement - xenophobia sucks, whether it's racist or not. It's just clarifying the definition.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:39
|
|