|
computer parts posted:No, because then he's also a racist. okay so now he's a racist. what else are you going to throw out there to avoid having to deal with the argumnent??
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
From a historical perspective, integrating or attempting to integrate the designated reserve army of labor has often been more fruitful than attempting to expel them- the rural unions that violently expelled immigrant and black labor largely died out, while unions that integrated have at least survived if not thrived. Or, broadly speaking, in the absence of a dictatorship of the proletariat, when attempting to expel immigrants you have to win much more often than with integrating them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:okay so now he's a racist. what else are you going to throw out there to avoid having to deal with the argumnent?? I'm assuming he's not a racist, just that his argument is hypocritical. You're the one saying he's racist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:From a historical perspective, integrating or attempting to integrate the designated reserve army of labor has often been more fruitful than attempting to expel them- the rural unions that violently expelled immigrant and black labor largely died out, while unions that integrated have at least survived if not thrived. bam computer parts posted:I'm assuming he's not a racist, just that his argument is hypocritical. You're the one saying he's racist. my god youre bitchmade lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
The argument is bad. Why it's bad depends on the speaker. But regardless, it's bad. Sorry if they don't teach critical thinking skills in your country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A socialist says this? I'm not really a socialist, but I'm not concern trolling either; it genuinely surprises me to see that this is the hill the left has chosen to die on after the financial crisis and repercussions actually could have given them some momentum on economic issues. I think some fundamental flaws with the neoliberal order were exposed, but now that discussion has been overshadowed by the immigration crisis and the people are increasingly turning to the right rather than the left as a result. I do see a moral good in helping the less fortunate from other countries of course, but denying that there's any opportunity cost in doing so seems absurd to me. waitwhatno posted:Sorry, but are you high? If you are talking about Europe, who is privileging the concerns of immigrants over the concerns of native workers? It's not that refugees get a better deal than native workers, because they obviously don't. It's knowing that ethnic cleavages in a society are highly predictive of conservative economics because the rich succeed in playing divide and conquer and destroying welfare programs by suggesting that the benefits flow to outgroups. I know this is the euro thread, but that sort of divide and conquer seems to be inarguably the number one reason the US has so many policies that gently caress the poor, and it's hard to imagine leftists wanting to turn Europe into America. None of this even addresses that the immigrants themselves may not be interested in joining the leftist program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And the 38% is based on American data, and would be different for European countries. But it is used as a point of comparison and there's no point in singling someone out for being clear about the source of the data.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
The vast majority of people are not interested in joining leftist programs, regardless of whether they're an immigrant or not. One of the largest non-ruling communist parties in the world still has a membership of maybe 0.3% of the population of its home country. That's just not a good argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I'm not really a socialist, but I'm not concern trolling either; it genuinely surprises me to see that this is the hill the left has chosen to die on after the financial crisis and repercussions actually could have given them some momentum on economic issues. I think some fundamental flaws with the neoliberal order were exposed, but now that discussion has been overshadowed by the immigration crisis and the people are increasingly turning to the right rather than the left as a result. I do see a moral good in helping the less fortunate from other countries of course, but denying that there's any opportunity cost in doing so seems absurd to me. that's a strange narrative you're creating since austerity was the go-to solution in Europe for years before the refugee crisis started. Like, yeah maybe if they were within a few months of each other you'd have an argument, but either there was no push by the left at all or it was attempted and failed. Either way, the Syrians weren't the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The vast majority of people are not interested in joining leftist programs, regardless of whether they're an immigrant or not. One of the largest non-ruling communist parties in the world still has a membership of maybe 0.3% of the population of its home country. That's just not a good argument. Accepting that the public may never choose full communism is one thing, but surely there's still a difference between a public desiring to move the country in a rightward direction vs a leftward direction. computer parts posted:that's a strange narrative you're creating since austerity was the go-to solution in Europe for years before the refugee crisis started. That's fair. Sincere question then: how the gently caress did the left manage not to capitalize at all on an historic opportunity like that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The vast majority of people are not interested in joining leftist programs, regardless of whether they're an immigrant or not. One of the largest non-ruling communist parties in the world still has a membership of maybe 0.3% of the population of its home country. That's just not a good argument. computer parts posted:that's a strange narrative you're creating since austerity was the go-to solution in Europe for years before the refugee crisis started.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Accepting that the public may never choose full communism is one thing, but surely there's still a difference between a public desiring to move the country in a rightward direction vs a leftward direction. No, I mean that the majority of people are not actively engaged and have no desire to be. And there's nothing to suggest that "immigrants" are inherently opposed to joining unions or being mobilized as part of left-wing efforts, any more than anyone else is. A Buttery Pastry posted:Which one would that be? Japanese Communist Party. 440,000 members, 127 million people living in Japan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That's fair. Sincere question then: how the gently caress did the left manage not to capitalize at all on an historic opportunity like that? Both the middle left and middle right have been firmly entrenched in the neoliberal mindset since the economic clusterfuck that was the aftermath of the Second Saudi Oil crisis and the collapse of the Bretton's Woods system under Reagan. There's been some rebellion in the middle left as of late (Corbin, Syriza, Podemos, etc) but no real success as of yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I''s not that refugees get a better deal than native workers, because they obviously don't. It's knowing that ethnic cleavages in a society are highly predictive of conservative economics because the rich succeed in playing divide and conquer and destroying welfare programs by suggesting that the benefits flow to outgroups. I know this is the euro thread, but that sort of divide and conquer seems to be inarguably the number one reason the US has so many policies that gently caress the poor, and it's hard to imagine leftists wanting to turn Europe into America. None of this even addresses that the immigrants themselves may not be interested in joining the leftist program. The socialist party, at least in Germany, is against unrestricted immigration and is warning that social systems could get overburdened at some point. Nowadays, Europe is more or less on lockdown for anyone who doesn't have a PhD and/or a nice job offer and savings. It's even harder to get into the US. As far as the refugees are concerned, there is really not much choice here. Syria and Iraq are bloody warzones and these people have nowhere else to go. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Japanese Communist Party. 440,000 members, 127 million people living in Japan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
As more and more jobs are replaced by robots, the capitalist system as it exists now is not sustainable. Either it, or democracy, has to go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The vast majority of people are not interested in joining leftist programs, regardless of whether they're an immigrant or not. One of the largest non-ruling communist parties in the world still has a membership of maybe 0.3% of the population of its home country. That's just not a good argument. Most people are fellow travelers at best
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Alright. You should probably include the fact that the Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled Japan nearly the entirety of its democratic existence, only has about twice as many members. Maybe the Japanese just aren't that big fans of actually joining parties? The JCP is, however, larger in absolute terms than the vast majority of communist parties outside of the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. So this seems like a strange criticism, since the point is that even large communist parties are still small compared to the overall population. The Portugese Communist Party has 0.6% of the population, the PCF has 0.2% of the population... if you have examples of Communist parties (outside of effectively one-party states) with substantially higher proportions of party membership you should probably present them and make an actual counter-argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The JCP is, however, larger in absolute terms than the vast majority of communist parties outside of the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. So this seems like a strange criticism, since the point is that even large communist parties are still small compared to the overall population. The Portugese Communist Party has 0.6% of the population, the PCF has 0.2% of the population... if you have examples of Communist parties (outside of effectively one-party states) with substantially higher proportions of party membership you should probably present them and make an actual counter-argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:My point is that no party in Japan seems to have a particularly large proportion of the population as members. Like, their supreme status quo party has as many members per capita as the Portuguese Communist Party. Party membership is not like the US where the two biggest parties have like 10-13% of the total population as members. The same is probably true in many countries. I think a better measurement would be percentage of the total vote, which puts them at 13.3% in the last election. You're making the assumption that I was saying people are less likely to actively support leftist organizations as compared to other political ideologies. Which I wasn't. I was arguing against the idea that immigrants are less likely to actively support than citizens generally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You're making the assumption that I was saying people are less likely to actively support leftist organizations as compared to other political ideologies. Which I wasn't. I was arguing against the idea that immigrants are less likely to actively support than citizens generally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If that's what you're trying to do, shouldn't you include membership numbers of immigrants as percentage of total immigrant population? The fact that very few people in general join a political party doesn't tell you whether immigrants are even less likely to, and what the distribution looks like for them. This is backwards, because the point of my argument is to take the basic commonality of immigrants and citizens as human beings as axiomatic rather than leaving the door open for race-realist arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is backwards, because the point of my argument is to take the basic commonality of immigrants and citizens as human beings as axiomatic rather than leaving the door open for race-realist arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That's fair. Sincere question then: how the gently caress did the left manage not to capitalize at all on an historic opportunity like that? What the hell do you consider to be a leftist outcome? The answer is that leftism = unionist labour organisation, as described by Kynes, which is by no means open to integration of external actors; in fact, it was formed to resist external pressure on labour cost depreciation, and as such is willing to accept new members only if they 1) share the same basic labour arithmetic 2) employing a unit of labour from the new mass doesn't decrease the marginal cost of labour beneath the marginal utility of existing employed labourers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That's fair. Sincere question then: how the gently caress did the left manage not to capitalize at all on an historic opportunity like that? The left was basically dead by the early 2000s thanks to the cumulative effects of the Cold War, the stagflation era and the power of neoliberal orthodoxy at the point when the Soviet Union was collapsing. It wasn't so much that the left hosed up the opportunity as that the right scored an extreme victory in the 90s and rode a wave of success from then until now. The outcome of the financial crisis was that there was indeed a re-emergence of the left, but it had to start again as their traditional parties of left-wing policy (UK's Labour, France's Socialist Party, Spain's Socialist Party, Greece's PASOK socialist party) had succumbed to centrism and neoliberal policies in an attempt to grasp power. By the time of the crash, the parties usually on the left had become the neoliberal centre. The 'real' left or at least those of a proper left-leaning disposition had found themselves starting from the ground up. Hence you see France's Night Group, Greece's SYRIZA / Popular Front, Spain's Podemos. Britain tried and failed to raise a unified left, but that's not surprisingly because lmao our left-wing are the most petty motherfuckers on the planet and I would just stand and watch them die in a burning building.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
YOu know what is worse than the right? Self-described leftists who have no idea what the left is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:From a historical perspective, integrating or attempting to integrate the designated reserve army of labor has often been more fruitful than attempting to expel them- the rural unions that violently expelled immigrant and black labor largely died out, while unions that integrated have at least survived if not thrived. Sounds entirely plausible. Do you have any (hopefully not bone dry  ) reading on that? I am not exactly up on anything but the broader strokes of labor history and that may also apply to other readers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:YOu know what is worse than the right? Self-described leftists who have no idea what the left is. Like what, you? Because quite seriously, you seem to fit the description you just laid out. fishmech fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What the hell do you consider to be a leftist outcome? The answer is that leftism = unionist labour organisation, as described by Kynes, which is by no means open to integration of external actors; in fact, it was formed to resist external pressure on labour cost depreciation, and as such is willing to accept new members only if they 1) share the same basic labour arithmetic 2) employing a unit of labour from the new mass doesn't decrease the marginal cost of labour beneath the marginal utility of existing employed labourers. What does Dune have to do with this? Are you talking about John Maynard Keynes? GreyjoyBastard posted:Sounds entirely plausible. Do you have any (hopefully not bone dry I would honestly suggest looking at Thomas Sugrue's History of the Urban Crisis and James Loewen's Sundown Towns and examining their bibliographies, as they synthesize a variety of papers and books on the intersection of labor history and race history as part of their broader projects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:what the left is. Death to the white devil. Finland will probably get another rightwing neoliberal populist government in next elections because our leftwing parties are so amazingly incompetent. Their current collective plan is to fight with each other over the tiny minority groups in effort to appear progressive while competing which of them can dismiss workers the most. Why are all workers voting for the populist shitheads??? Maybe if we call them racist a few more times, they understand that they need to vote for us. At least there's the positive side of rightwing government that they already pushed gay marriage law through and if they stay in power, maybe they can be convinced to change some other laws, like mandatory sterilization of transsexuals. Left parties don't give a poo poo about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
When you consider just what kind of person would willingly decide to live in Finland, it's very apparent that caring for refugees in Finland is a compassionate act not just because of that universal human brotherhood thingummy, but also in the sense of taking care of those poor damaged souls for whom the hell-marsh is attractive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Honestly, and without meaning to be rude, looking at Finland's internal politics really isn't useful since while the external "gently caress REFUGEES" policy is pretty typical of Europe, the internal concepts of how government should function are almost hilariously unique. Honestly getting a bunch of weekly updates on Finnish politics make me almost happy with my stupid-as-poo poo dystopian government of imbeciles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
It's pretty clear that leftist movements generally have issues with immigration or race issues. The current attempt to re-activate the leftist program in the US with Sanders and his largely white followers, and the movement's failure to engage minorities is a good example of this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's pretty clear(1) that leftist movements(2) generally(3) have issues with immigration(4) or race issues(5). The current(6) attempt to re-activate(7) the leftist(8) program(9) in the US(10) with Sanders(11) and his largely white followers, and the movement's failure to engage minorities is a good example of this. Counted to 11 and gave up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
What do you guys think about the Swiss Basic income vote today?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:What do you guys think about the Swiss Basic income vote today? Seems full of holes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That's fair. Sincere question then: how the gently caress did the left manage not to capitalize at all on an historic opportunity like that? the crisis was the wrong crisis. The crisis that the right expected was a structural deficit crisis as countries routinely continued to flout their Maastricht commitments on debt. The crisis that the left expected was a crisis of capitalism as global capital exhausted its markets, leading to speculatory price increases and speculatory attacks on sovereign commitments that would inevitably traumatically devalue capital. These are basically the same crisis through different ideological lenses, obviously. Both of these were supposed to happen in Western Europe first. Parties and activists were mobilized for the usual battles over alternative globalization and debt reduction in a political context of relative prosperity; nobody was really prepared for how things would actually shake out. calling for alt-global solidarity is a narrative which is easy when the main concern is that jobs are moving from Germany to China or Algeria, you can make people feel good about their latent racism/nationalism by telling them that antiglobalization is really for the own good of the Chinese and Algerians. But it's much harder to sell when the main concern is whether to bail out the Greek government, or whether China might soon fail to buy enough European highly-value-added exports (ie, "high quality jobs") amidst fears of global secular stagnation
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A racist left seems to be defeating the point. It is much harder to build up a strong left and welfare state solely on borderless internationalist compassion than on one that premiers compassion to those that are the most similar to themselves. Nationalism and the subsequent racism have been great for building all welfare states which have traditionally been the main allure for the left. In short, there is a significant cost for the left movement for taking the ideologically pure stance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Nationalism and the subsequent racism were also great drivers for struggles over the Rhineland, as a source of jobs, revenue, and an enabler of a decent quality of life. Hence the European Coal and Steel Community and hence the European Union half a century later. okay, say you do put all your money on CONTROLS ON IMMIGRATION, and society at large buys it. What left-wing nativist policy do you then pursue? Protectionism and isolationism? Autarky? Deindustrialization and communalization? What policies do you actually foresee being purchasable by cashing in anti-multicultural chips? Or did you never like multiculturalism to begin with, and only went along with it with gritted teeth? ronya fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 07:22
|
|