|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
William Contraalto posted:This is an extremely vulgar Marxism that amounts to a conspiracy theory. Do you really think that the bourgeoisie don't believe in capitalism? Seriously? Do I think they believe it should be implemented according to pure free-market ideals? To the extent that interferes with the above, no.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Depends on what you mean by "believe in it". Do I think the ruling class believes capitalism is a very effective tool they can use to ensure that they and their progeny remain in the ruling class forever? Yes, I do. Okay, so why are rich people immune to ideological thinking?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:Okay, so why are rich people immune to ideological thinking?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Because there's more money in it for them not to be. Not to be immune? Uh, would you mind clarifying?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Man, Verrit is nakedly hostile to the progressive wing: I didn't know Janet Reitman posted in USPol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
It's absolutely true that, at least in America, white supremacy is so powerful and pervasive you could probably sell a lot of conservatives on whites-only communism. Making common cause with racists on the basis that once their health care's free they'll stop thinking all black people have +2 Str/-2 Int is extremely fraught, and unless state power is brought to bear specifically and directly against racial discrimination, ableism, etc, those things are as likely as not to continue even when we've got UBI and free tuition. All that said I don't get why Effectronica is so willing to carry water for the Democrats, who are clearly not willing or able to bring such things about and indeed mostly work to perpetuate these injustices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's absolutely true that, at least in America, white supremacy is so powerful and pervasive you could probably sell a lot of conservatives on whites-only communism. Making common cause with racists on the basis that once their health care's free they'll stop thinking all black people have +2 Str/-2 Int is extremely fraught, and unless state power is brought to bear specifically and directly against racial discrimination, ableism, etc, those things are as likely as not to continue even when we've got UBI and free tuition. I don't get why people will make bizarre tone arguments where if you don't sloganeer enough you're "carrying water for the Democrats" or whatever. It's like leftism is being redefined to be less about ideology, thinking, etc. and more about the shared subjective experience of posting with your pals about how stupid Peter Daou is, which is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel if the fish obligingly jumped in front of the gun. EDIT: Like, if the condition for being acceptably leftist is to chant cant about how Neera Tanden is a shill or whatever, it is morally necessary to refuse to take part and to tear down that poo poo as best you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:I didn't know Janet Reitman posted in USPol. I'm afraid I don't get the reference. To clarify a little, connecting left to right that way is evocative of anti-progressive talking points from the primary. And since Verrit is the brainchild of Daou -- who is a weirdo obsessed with Clinton and primary salt -- I think the idea is very much to assert racism/sexism on the part of progressives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:Not to be immune? Uh, would you mind clarifying?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:They are less likely to be ideologically "pure" capitalists because there is incentive for them not to be. They can do well under "pure" capitalism, to be sure, but they can do even better if they capture the state and use it to entrench their power. So of course they do that, and the more ideological ones who refrain out of some personal morality will find themselves increasingly shut out of power. That capitalism is so vulnerable to this is one of the many reasons (and one of the bigger ones) it's a poo poo show of an economic system. Okay, so you can just will your way out of ideology by your bootstraps. Marvelous. A+ class analysis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:I don't get why people will make bizarre tone arguments where if you don't sloganeer enough you're "carrying water for the Democrats" or whatever. It's like leftism is being redefined to be less about ideology, thinking, etc. and more about the shared subjective experience of posting with your pals about how stupid Peter Daou is, which is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel if the fish obligingly jumped in front of the gun. That's not the condition for being acceptably leftist, though, it's just something a lot of leftists currently have cause to do. It seems to me that you've been taking specific umbrage at criticisms Clinton or Perez or whomever, and swung in to defend those people, rather than fretting that people are becoming misguided/losing sight of the real enemy and trying to refocus their attention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That's not the condition for being acceptably leftist, though, it's just something a lot of leftists currently have cause to do. It seems to me that you've been taking specific umbrage at criticisms Clinton or Perez or whomever, and swung in to defend those people, rather than fretting that people are becoming misguided/losing sight of the real enemy and trying to refocus their attention. That may be what it seems to you. I have been focusing on ideas, policies, and the like, because I fundamentally disagree with the implicit ideas most contemporary leftists hold about how democratic societies ought to work, but I also spit on all the tedious bullshit about Baquack Obamailure!!! etc. because, to my mind, it presents politics as ultimately consumerist, brand-centered. I also find it really risible that a post like "a socialist-reactionary coalition controlled American politics between 1932 and 1968" got not one bit of criticism, which does not incline me to try and be conciliating to people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:That may be what it seems to you. I have been focusing on ideas, policies, and the like, because I fundamentally disagree with the implicit ideas most contemporary leftists hold about how democratic societies ought to work, but I also spit on all the tedious bullshit about Baquack Obamailure!!! etc. because, to my mind, it presents politics as ultimately consumerist, brand-centered. I also find it really risible that a post like "a socialist-reactionary coalition controlled American politics between 1932 and 1968" got not one bit of criticism, which does not incline me to try and be conciliating to people. So how does voting for a slaveowner in the primary advance your goals?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:That may be what it seems to you. I have been focusing on ideas, policies, and the like, because I fundamentally disagree with the implicit ideas most contemporary leftists hold about how democratic societies ought to work, but I also spit on all the tedious bullshit about Baquack Obamailure!!! etc. because, to my mind, it presents politics as ultimately consumerist, brand-centered. I also find it really risible that a post like "a socialist-reactionary coalition controlled American politics between 1932 and 1968" got not one bit of criticism, which does not incline me to try and be conciliating to people. You're actually just concern trolling nonstop, because you're Effectronica. Please leave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Ultimately, it's endlessly fascinating how some people will recognize the need for direct action against all forms of discrimination and oppression, but are unable to figure out that the people babbling about "identity politics" are an obstacle to justice and no more their allies than the hand-wringiest centrist you ever saw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:That may be what it seems to you. I have been focusing on ideas, policies, and the like, because I fundamentally disagree with the implicit ideas most contemporary leftists hold about how democratic societies ought to work, but I also spit on all the tedious bullshit about Baquack Obamailure!!! etc. because, to my mind, it presents politics as ultimately consumerist, brand-centered. I also find it really risible that a post like "a socialist-reactionary coalition controlled American politics between 1932 and 1968" got not one bit of criticism, which does not incline me to try and be conciliating to people. I'm not seeing how criticism of liberals, even if it's couched in stupid memes, is ultimately consumerist and brand-centered and therefore needful of immediate challenge. Really, the tragedy of a lot of these people who assume that racism will end as an emergent consequence of the ascension of the soviets is that they're making the exact same mistake the liberals do: assuming they can just make the tweaks they're comfortable with and kick back because all the other stuff is some kind of random accident.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
lol, "its fascinating how" and "interesting how" as a passive-aggressive way of insulting someone while feigning emotional detachment. another classic effectronicaism love this guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'm not seeing how criticism of liberals, even if it's couched in stupid memes, is ultimately consumerist and brand-centered and therefore needful of immediate challenge. Really, the tragedy of a lot of these people who assume that racism will end as an emergent consequence of the ascension of the soviets is that they're making the exact same mistake the liberals do: assuming they can just make the tweaks they're comfortable with and kick back because all the other stuff is some kind of random accident. What "criticism of liberals"? The vast majority of these posts are either stupid memes, bland dipshittery, or mindless hostility. That's fine, I guess, but it's certainly not profound or anything. Perhaps the biggest problem leftists generally face is exalting dumb jokes into being a knife at the bourgeoisie's throat, and thus it's OK to call someone a fat cocksucker because you were criticizing liberalism. EDIT: That's setting aside how much of this thread probably are liberals, in any real sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:What "criticism of liberals"? The vast majority of these posts are either stupid memes, bland dipshittery, or mindless hostility. That's fine, I guess, but it's certainly not profound or anything. Perhaps the biggest problem leftists generally face is exalting dumb jokes into being a knife at the bourgeoisie's throat, and thus it's OK to call someone a fat cocksucker because you were criticizing liberalism. That they're incompetent at best and traitors to their own (nominal) constituents at worst, and that their invocations of identity politics are pretty much the devil quoting scripture. It's okay to say these things in a funny way if a good joke occurs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That they're incompetent at best and traitors to their own (nominal) constituents at worst, and that their invocations of identity politics are pretty much the devil quoting scripture. It's okay to say these things in a funny way if a good joke occurs. And we get to the point where you bust out the inane conspiracy horseshit about the donors and lump together Ta-Nehisi Coates and Mark Lilla. Well, well, well. Anyways, if any good jokes are ever made in this thread, I'd like to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:And we get to the point where you bust out the inane conspiracy horseshit about the donors and lump together Ta-Nehisi Coates and Mark Lilla. Well, well, well. Anyways, if any good jokes are ever made in this thread, I'd like to know. What???
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What??? Well, I can't tell what definition you're using of liberalism from telepathy, you know. So I have to use a broad brush and then work it down to the point where we agree that "liberals" refers to Bill Kristols and Joe Manchins and other such creeps. Or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
When noone goes for Efftronica's delusions, he must make things out of whole cloth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Centrists need the left to be racist, otherwise the centrists start looking like impotent apologists for oppression and the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
I was thinking Clintons and Pelosis - people who may well genuinely want to end discrimination and ease the suffering of the marginalized but only want those things to happen as byproducts of market houserules which enable the rich to stay rich. In many ways, the mirror images of the people you criticize here. I guess I'm inclined to be a lot more charitable than you are, though. Legal reforms which effect some non-negligible transfer of wealth from the top to the bottom are at best only going to lightly warm up the muscles that might eventually smash American racial capitalism, but they do seem to be within the realm of political possibility at the moment and the Democrats are being real slow about warming up to the idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Grognan posted:When noone goes for Efftronica's delusions, he must make things out of whole cloth. And by "whole cloth," you mean "his own poop."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Centrists need the left to be racist, otherwise the centrists start looking like impotent apologists for oppression and the status quo. The left isn't racist. But many on the left believe that racism can be solved by economic justice or that minority views aren't as important as economic justice. And those views are dangerous to minorities, and naive. If you truly believe in both economic justice and helping specifically lift up minorities, then you are great. Otherwise...
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:The left isn't racist. But many on the left believe that racism can be solved by economic justice or that minority views aren't as important as economic justice. And those views are dangerous to minorities, and naive. Yeah, sure. Your point?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
I think the opposite question is also necessary, can anything be done to defeat racism or at least undermine it without addressing economics at some point? Is the status quo now eternally acceptable due to the fact that some leftists think (erroneously) economics will fix racism on its own? In the end, the answer will probably be "both need to be worked on" but there is certainly a drag out fight to admit that something needs to be done. There is a big difference between saying more needs to be done for both economic and racial justice, and that in the end we really we should implicitly accept the status quo because dealing with both economic and racial justice is tricky. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:Okay, so you can just will your way out of ideology by your bootstraps. Marvelous. A+ class analysis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
man she's really going all out on her grievance tour
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
She's a narcissist and gets her supply from Lena Dunham people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:The left isn't racist. But many on the left believe that racism can be solved by economic justice or that minority views aren't as important as economic justice. And those views are dangerous to minorities, and naive. I agree 100%, but that's an argument that won't get much pushback from Democratic leadership, strategists, pundits, etc. They're mostly onboard with antiracism, at least in theory, and good for them! They should all be fervent antiracists. Everyone who isn't a literal monster should be antiracist. But then talk about emphasizing the needs of the working class as a whole, and suddenly you're talking to a brick wall. "We can't do that - we're capitalist!" they wail defensively. "And will it solve racism?" I mean, loving really? You have to realize, those of us who want economic justice have more ground to make up, in the party that claims to be for the people. True, that's not the case with the country as a whole - the right is way more racist than the DNC is neoliberal. But this is a two-party system, and the party that used to represent the working class (if only a bit, and only unevenly, along racial lines) is now, almost 50 years after 1968, is still enthralled with Fred Dutton's playbook. And the Dems have sunk to newer and newer depths of powerlessness, but the centrists still keep whistling past the graveyard. "We don't need the white working class anymore," they insist. "We only need the urban centers. We only need socially liberal whites, all minorities, and all women!" Never quite getting around to showing us the electoral math in which that leads to 270 electoral votes, at least before the year 2040. So yes, you're right. We are in agreement: leftists must fight for racial/sexual/gender/religious freedom and justice, and anyone who thinks these ends can be achieved purely through economic justice is a fool. If you look through this thread, you'll see that people who argue that here tend to get ridiculed and chased out as quickly as Effectronica reregs. Sanders, Warren, Brown, et al., certainly don't make this argument. But again, try finding an established DNC leader (or a mainstream media pundit) who will fight hard for economic justice, and not just pay it lip service. I guarantee you, you'll be looking for a while. e: Ardennes posted:I think the opposite question is also necessary, can anything be done to defeat racism or at least undermine it without addressing economics at some point? Is the status quo now eternally acceptable due to the fact that some leftists think (erroneously) economics will fix racism on its own? Exactly. Someone in USPol the other day flat-out wrote (I think completely unironically), "I'll vote for any corporate neoliberal, as long as they do something about structural racism." And, I mean, joke or not, what better summary of that mindset is there? Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You have to realize, those of us who want economic justice have more ground to make up, in the party that claims to be for the people. Just out of curiosity, what does economic justice mean to a leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to be a socialist? I see that term thrown around a lot and I don't really know what people exactly mean by it. For myself, economic justice would mean basically paying everyone the same hourly wage. Obviously some people do more or less work and some people don't try at all and that would have to be accounted for with how people are paid for people to accept it as fair, but that's what I think of when I think of economic justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Just out of curiosity, what does economic justice mean to a leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to be a socialist? I see that term thrown around a lot and I don't really know what people exactly mean by it. I dunno, I consider myself a socialist. Maybe more of a Fabian than other folks here, and I wouldn't call myself a Marxist (although I do acknowledge that there's plenty of value in his analysis). But do believe in class consciousness, worker ownership of businesses where possible, obviously Medicare for All, a UBI, yadda yadda. I think most or all of those things might be achievable in our lifetimes, although that's obviously all contingent on how much class consciousness permeates the public.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
 "Crusader of women's rights"    
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
I know you didn't ask me personally, but imo economic justice is the ability of every person to afford quality shelter, food, education, and health care without any of these tied to a job. The rich can have more money than the average person, sure whatever, but taxes should be high enough to keep the disparity between the richest and the poorest as small as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Btw, Sanders' Medicare-for-All bill -- the one already supported by Kamala Harris -- will be unveiled this Wednesday. It'll be interesting to see how developed it is . If it's a real bill which receives real support including from Centrists then I'd be absolutely ecstatic. And we'll start finding out Wednesday!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Specifically helping black communities is an aspect of economic justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
economic justice means democratic control of capital.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 07:18
|
|