|
Fascism and "free market libertarianism" are a lot more closely related than liberals care to admit. First, if you want to understand libertarianism, try replacing any instance of "government" in their rhetoric by "democracy". Libertarians usually understand that they need private property to be enforced: they need the police, they need a justice and prison system, they need a military, etc... They just don't want these institutions to be democratic or answerable to the people in any way: they want them to be privately controlled by an oligarchy of capitalist supermen (which they fantasize themselves to become members of). Another point is the idea of the "free market" as a place where "equality of opportunity" rewards those who deserve it. When you look into this it basically becomes a social-darwinist roundabout way of justifying things like institutional racism and sexism. Women/non-whites get paid less than white men? The unbiased free market has proven their inherent and natural inferiority: they deserve to starve unless they let themselves be enslaved by us white dude captains of industry. Obsession with "Meritocracy" is almost always an obsession with justifying the status quo or creating just-so stories for why the ruling class deserves to enslave everyone else (appointed by god himself, chosen by the invisible hand of the market, genetic Aryan superiority, etc...) Libertarians, just like monarchists or fascists, basically hate any form of democracy or popular rule. They are authoritarians who believe that the mighty deserve to rule over the rest. (I would personally add most liberals to that list, who worship a fetishized ideal of democracy but are often deathly afraid of any real manifestation of it.) Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Mar 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Yeah that's a good point, but by "democracy" in this sense I mean something that goes much further than our modern conception of parliamentary liberal democracy by majority rule (which is exactly what I criticize as being undemocratic). What I'm trying to get at is the idea of the common people actually having control over their lives and the power to shape their own future. "Minority Rights" as in gay marriage for example, though important, are merely a concession by the ruling class to minorities rather than any real empowerment. Minority rights are not self-determination, they do not change the fundamental structures of power which remain thoroughly undemocratic and keep the underprivileged minorities in a position where such rights need to be "granted" to them. Hate against minorities, historically, has always been an instrument of control by the ruling class, "The invention of the white race" is a well-known book about the subject but many historians and cultural critics have written on this. One analysis of fascism is that it is precisely what happens in times of extreme crisis in a liberal democracy with inequalities of power (ie capitalist control of the economy). It is the eventual final end-point of the long series of efforts by the super-privileged ruling class to protect themselves against the potential threat of the electoral process being used to weaken their hold on power. The "divide and conquer" method of fostering hate and scapegoating is the tried and true way of diverting popular discontent by pitting the people against one another, distracting them from the real cause of crisis (exploitation by the ruling class). See the recent rise of anti-Muslim hate in the west, anti-LGBTQ hate in Russia, etc... After WW1 there was a strong left-wing, egalitarian, internationalist, and pacifist movement in Germany (in fact it can be argued that this is why Germany had to leave the war. It is certainly why Russia did.) The various efforts by the established power structure in Germany to silence, counter, and distract from that movement is what eventually led to the Nazis taking over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:That is a rather simplistic analysis of fascism. For one thing, it does very little to explain why fascists are far more successful in some countries than others (except through comparing the severity of the crises, I suppose). If the "degree" of capitalist control of the economy is used as a predictor, then it's very difficult to explain why fascists have generally been more successful in countries where capitalism is less developed and entrenched (there are of course exceptions). The same goes for the "degree of liberalism". Well there certainly isn't a consensus about the mechanisms of how fascism comes to be, and a lot of ink has been spilled over this debate. This is the only explanation that really makes sense to me, though, and if anything it is at least an improvement over the naive views of "German cultural values" and "charismatic leader mind-controls everyone via hypnotic speeches". I would say that the severity of the crises is certainly a factor in whether things ever get that far, but I think there's also a lot of subjectivity about what gets labeled as fascist and what doesn't. For some reason or another this is a label that we tend to reserve for European countries, even though I would argue that historical events in some Asian countries for example could be understood through a similar light. Maybe one other reason fascism happens in some places and not others is that unlike Italy or inter-war Germany, most nations in the world tend to be integrated into a more traditional imperialist system. Most countries are either subjugated colonies which are denied self-determination and where nationalism tends to be liberation-oriented, or they form the "core" of the empire where stability is made possible through imperialist exploitation of other nations: everything that we consume, what makes possible our way of living, is produced under slavery-like conditions by people who are not citizens and do not possess the same rights as we do, and under crisis we will side with the ruling class in protecting this imperialist system. This allows liberal "democracy" to continue to exist for the ones lucky enough to be citizens without ever becoming a threat to the power elite. Sakarja posted:And describing fascism as an "effort" by the super-privileged is an exaggeration, if not erroneous. It's true that the elites in certain countries were willing to endorse and collaborate with fascist movements, sometimes quite enthusiastically, but they didn't create them. Ah I do not intend at all to make the argument that fascism is the desired end goal of a ruling class conspiracy or anything like that. It's much more banal: just the outcome that eventually results from a series of short-term efforts, such as efforts over time to oppose any real labour or egalitarian movement that could threaten existing power structures, and efforts to undermine democratic institutions and assert control over state policies, to centralize ownership, to deal with the crime problem by militarising the police in order to avoid addressing inequality, etc... We've been seeing a lot of this kind of thing in Western countries lately with the whole "austerity" business, and it's not too far-fetched to connect that to the rise of fascism. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It should also be noted that most people don't realize how incredibly hosed up the 90s were in Russia. We're literally talking a situation that's pretty close to a full collapse of civil society as we know it here. Hey but at least you got Pizza Hut! http://youtu.be/fgm14D1jHUw Most people where I am don't realize what you're saying because it completely contradicts the dominant narrative of the West exporting freedom and the free market saving the Russian people from the communist bread lines.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
This was posted in the Ukraine thread: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/world/europe/ukraine-workers-take-to-streets-to-calm-Mariupol.html?hp&_r=0 Steelworkers patrolling alongside police officers when their oligarch boss orders them to seize the city from separatists. If I think stuff like this is kind of gross and scary does it mean I've been brainwashed by Putin's propaganda? Wikipedia on Mussolini's doctrine of fascism posted:In fascist thought, the principle of class collaboration is combined with strong nationalism. The stability and the prosperity of the nation was seen as the ultimate purpose of collaboration between classes.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Let me introduce you to the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart" Let me introduce you to "liberal democracy" http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/from-dictatorship-to-democracy-the-role-ex-nazis-played-in-early-west-germany-a-810207.html
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Not totally sure about the US (if you believe the SPLC, fascism is always increasing here...), but Canada seems to be doing well enough. Speaking as someone living in Canada I agree that we're a bit behind right now, but looking at our current trajectory I'm sure we'll be catching up with Europe given enough time.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:On what basis? About Canada, I meant basically stuff like this thing. Here's a list of recent developments. In the current broader context can we really hope for a reversal of such policies down the line? Obviously there isn't any actual fascism at the moment, but Canadian society has undergone changes in recent years that put it on a dangerous trajectory of accelerating crisis. We're seeing racist rhetoric being put to political ends in Quebec and BC (don't know enough about what's been happening elsewhere recently, but widespread institutional anti-aboriginal racism is always a safe bet in Canada. Some of the talking points around the temporary workers program are also pretty worrying) When poo poo goes really bad (as it will eventually given current economic policies), we're going to see that kind of scapegoating rhetoric ramping up along with the ongoing efforts to construct a Canadian national identity. The heavy police suppression of leftist protest movements in Toronto and Montreal is also a bad sign. No fascism yet, but given that we're following the same neoliberal recipe as everybody else there's nothing indicating that it won't happen here as well when the crisis deepens.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
My understanding of fascism is pretty specific, and it's always difficult to agree on a definition. The term itself has been so instrumentalized for propaganda purposes since WW2 that at this point it basically just means "evil" for most people. Even some of the best writing about fascism I've seen often only goes as far as looking at "symptoms", rather than attempting an explanation of the root causes of it. I tend not to pay a lot of attention to surface manifestations such as use of symbols or rethoric because fascism keeps reinventing itself and stealing whatever talking points appear to work for other ideologies in any given context. There's also a tendency to only ever apply the label of fascism to European movements for some reason, which I try to avoid. I see fascism as what happens in a liberal democracy when capitalism reaches an unprecedented moment of crisis. As dysfunction develops in the economy the liberal and democratic structure of the government comes to conflict with the material hyper-concentration of power and ownership by the ruling class, and a point is reached when the usual institutions of control such as the police and mass media are no longer sufficient to ensure "stability" of the increasingly contested and precarious system. A place for something that goes beyond this, fascism, emerges. Although "true-believer" fascists are always a minority, extreme crisis makes it no longer possible to stay "moderate" in the political landscape. Against instability and looming collapse we are given the choice to either side with the fascists out of necessity for the sake of stability and of the rule of law, or to be labelled as an unreasonable and dangerous left-radical. The usual means of distraction from class struggle such as racist scapegoating, class-collaborationism for the sake of nationalism, male supremacy, and obsession with combating crime with violence reach their extreme point of conclusion in fascism. I see something like this as being unfortunately quite likely to eventually take place in most capitalist democracies, and I don't think I would be alone in labelling such a development as "fascist". It might end up looking totally different from the kind of fascism we've historically seen so far, though. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 04:50 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:But what we have seen in the USA and Canada, historically, is that the fascists that try to spring up when crises happen get swept away by more traditional forms of conservatism and general opposition. They don't even make it to any sort of regional popularity, and they're unlikely to ever do so in the future. Historically fascism has never come close to having any kind of power in the US or Canada, that's true. Why is this, though? I don't want to fall back on some kind of exceptionalism as the answer. The thing about Reaganite conservatism is that I don't believe that it's sustainable. Can it just keep going forever? What happens when it turns out not to be the end of history and it breaks?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Nearly all European countries have a direct "nation" basis for themselves. Which includes having an unambiguous ethnicity easily covering 90% or more of the nation's territory, that ethnicity's language being in charge, etc. All this makes it easy for a fascist group to build itself up, there is ein volk that's clearly the owners. Contrast that to the US or Canada, where there is no pure ethnic groups in large enough numbers, and the dominant culture is a melding of a couple of distinct groups - and further there's a strong country-wide adoration, even fetishization of "democracy" even if people are willing to make that "democracy" harder for a few others to participate in. All nations are made up to begin with, though. The Italian nation was a pretty young concept when fascism emerged, and Germany hadn't been around for that long either. US nationalism is certainly a powerful force and Canadian nationalism is quite underplayed (witnessed it recently during Boston v Montreal hockey street riots). I totally see how constructing a national ideal is much less obvious for some places than for others, but I'm not convinced it's ever impossible.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The left, which is the dominant and active policy of the time, thinks that nations are obligated to immigrate anyone no matter how destructive it is in terms of crime, welfare obligation, or cultural disruption. The "far-right" "fascists" think countries should only immigrate those that are somehow beneficial to the country. This is true, some people value human life over the arbitrarily-defined well-being of imaginary institutions like a "country". No need to put scare quotes around the words "far-right" and "fascists" when you're talking about people who think that a good reason for being denied the rights they themselves enjoy is coming from a poorer country, or because it might threaten the superiority of the nation.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:So you are saying that every party or person that doesn't stand for unlimited immigration is fascist? No I wouldn't say that, using the term in such a broad way would undermine its usefulness. However I would not use "fascist" in scare quotes when referring to right-wing positions as a way of implying that they are good ideas which are unreasonably associated with reaction.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason fascism is returning to Europe (well, aside for the catastrophic effects of leftist policy) is that leftists have continually and unapologetically accused people of being Nazis and racists and Hitlers for holding completely sensible and innocuous beliefs, to the extent that people no longer care if they are called that. In your zeal to "shift the Overton window" ever leftward, you have reduced all of those words to meaninglessness. Now when a moderate person hears them, they hear overwrought bluster and nothing more. Well done. I don't know what world you're living in where the Overton window has been shifting to the left in the last decades
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That was clearly referring to an attempt, regardless of whether it succeeded or not. Kyrie eleison posted:The left, which is the dominant and active policy of the time. Not that clear to me
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I think there's a grain of truth in that the word "racist" is applied too broadly, although it's trolling or huge exaggeration to say that causes the return of fascism. As an Eastern European I first tried to understand what's considered racism on SA, and to change some thought patterns if they are truly wrong and racist, but after some time I was overwhelmed and I resigned. Racism is apparently ever-permeating like sin in Catholicism - try as hard as you can but you'll always be a sinner. So I kind of accepted that I'm a racist and I'll always be one, and all my family and all my friends too (regardless of the fact that most of them vote left and are anti-nationalist)... You can accept that you're a racist and that you'll always be one while at the same time doing the best you can to combat racism at a personal and institutional level A big problem with people's understanding of racism is the widespread liberal narrative of "good people vs racists" where non-racism is enshrined as this virtue that you either have or you are a bad person, and this means of course that nobody believes about themselves that they are racist. Pointing out someone's racism becomes this personal attack against their integrity because they understand it as being accused of being an evil person with bad intentions. It produces weird behaviours like white people doing things solely with the purpose of self-congratulating themselves about how non-racist they are and to prove it to everyone else. The truth is that in a racist culture it is impossible to escape being racist. Studies have shown that literally everyone has learned racism on a subconscious level to some extent, and even victims of racism internalize racism against their own group. If racism is to be fought at a societal level it's important for people to realize this stuff and to stop taking it so personally.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Neoliberalism does not benefit from open-borders and is in fact opposed to it, and this is reflected in the policies of all neoliberal parties. Foreigners who come to a country with good social policies and progressive reforms will demand a higher minimum wage and better work conditions than if they stayed in their home country. This is why since the beginning of globalization we have seen capital export all industrial jobs to third-world countries where conditions are poo poo. This is also why we see things being pushed like temporary foreign workers programs, where regular immigration is sidestepped in order to import slave labor with none of the rights that come with citizenship.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
If immigration leads to the ruling class crafting a narrative of "foreigners are stealing welfare!" because they want to roll back social policies, the correct response is not to fall back to a closed-borders stance. The correct response is for the working class of the first world to realize that they are complicit in a system of pitting the workers of different nations in competition with each other for the sole benefit of capital, and against their own class interests. The solution is, and has always been, international solidarity. By closing borders and keeping all your social reforms for yourself (gently caress you got mine) you are sabotaging your class interests in the hope of becoming the labor aristocracy of an imperialist nation. Any "left" which is not internationalist is not on the left, it's a populist tool of imperialism.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
SickZip posted:I have no idea where you get the idea that neoliberalism is against as open borders as they can get away with. It takes some serious denial to not recognize that its one of their core policies. As rudatron and I pointed out there is a difference between migrant labor and citizenship. Neoliberalism wants the former (there are even papers by neoliberal economists arguing that more illegal immigration is preferable to legal immigration) Today the institutions of capital have become international, and soon they will operate entirely above the level of the old nation-states. In order to struggle against it, labor needs to work on an global level as well. Solidarity beyond borders is not a new concept, it's why the anthem of the left is called the "Internationale".
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
SickZip posted:How successful have international leftist movements been compared to ones of a national character? "Socialism with National characteristics" 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Except for the part where Nazis were never socialists and the only people who insist they were are the fascists, or whatever you call dumb right-wing American shitheads. Kind of like how people in this thread insist that socialism+nationalism is socialism even though it's not SickZip posted:Your very term of labor aristocrat is about the fact that my class interests are different from a pakistani brick layer. And the interests of an engineer are different from those of a clerk which are different from those of a miner. Also the interests of a man with a job is different from those of a stay-at-home mom. The interests of a white person are different from those of a black person. Why even pretend to be on the left if you don't understand what class is? Clearly the solution is to have a highly hierarchical system where nobody acts in solidarity with anyone below them lest their own privilege be taken away.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I agree with your characterization of international capital, but how would international labor solidarity work in practice? If a country refuses to implement labor protections and therefore becomes an attractive destination for capital, it has essentially become the international equivalent of a scab. What can international solidarity between some number of countries do in response? Scabs are not scabs if they are denied membership to the union in the first place. If you're part of a union that keeps people out because they threaten the privilege of existing union members, then you don't get to complain when these people that you won't stand in solidarity with start to undercut you. EDIT: Also any union that works like this understands nothing about the concept of collective bargaining, just like any nation-state with a closed-borders policy cannot be socialist. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 04:55 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I'm not talking about people being denied membership, I'm talking about the leadership of countries that deliberately enact policies to make themselves more attractive to capital, such as restricting worker's rights. What can international solidarity do about this? What is international solidarity in the first place? A global alliance of unions? An alliance of countries controlled by labor parties? We're talking about international relations and you're using language like we're talking about a single factory. You mention Viet Nam restricting worker's rights, but then mention that Vietnamese workers have their conditions improve. Which one is it? A socialist America in this case would have an open-borders policy towards Vietnam, welcoming any refugees seeking to flee the actions of their pro-capital government. EDIT: hopefully it would also seize the assets of the company and keep the american factory running under worker management instead of letting it go abandoned. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
EA Sports posted:They have their pay improved, not conditions. Are they better off or not? Also anyone who thinks that people willingly move from an agrarian lifestyle to factory work because it pays better does not understand how industrialization works under capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:In response to your edit: Assuming that the company left the machinery behind and didn't ship it to Vietnam, or that they were prevented from doing so, by what legal means would the assets be seized? And if they were seized, how would the worker-owned factory's goods compete with lower cost goods from the new factory in Vietnam? Seizure of assets to prevent capital flight has precedent even in non-socialist countries. You can't transition to a socialist economy without changing a bunch of laws, though, if that's what you're asking (?) Rent-seeking from "intellectual property" is probably one of the most ridiculous aberrations of capitalism, and countries which have industrialized by rejecting such systems (China, the US) have benefited immensely from it, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to keep patents and trademarks. One of the goals of socialism is to actually take back the means of production from the capitalists, in case this isn't clear. How would closing borders to immigration prevent Viet-Nam from undercutting american factories with cheap exports? thekeeshman posted:They are definitely better off. thekeeshman posted:If you think that the people in developing countries taking these factory jobs are doing so involuntarily then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The migration from rural agrarian jobs to urban industrialized ones has been almost entirely voluntary, because pay and conditions and lifestyle are all better. In the third world people "voluntarily" decide to get a factory job because capitalism consolidates the land of their country into the hands of a small number of large landowning corporations who put it to use growing cash crops for exports, while food production is undercut by cheap imports from industrialized countries where it is subsidized, thus forcing local peasants to sell their land to the multinationals and become wage laborers. I hope we're beyond the point where anyone has to explain why neocolonialism is not in fact, civilization bringing a better life to the savages. thekeeshman posted:But back to my question: Vietnamese labor is better off, American labor is worse off, what does international solidarity do about this? And what is international solidarity? International solidarity means recognizing that Viet Nam becoming better off is a good thing and that it will benefit Americans and everyone else in the long term if we're aiming to defeat capitalism. It means recognizing that socialism is doomed to fail without a world revolution and it means working towards that end. This has always been a core part of socialism. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 08:01 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Every single progressive leftist policy you can think of is going to be defeated if it's only national in scope. Your country has minimum wage, unions, human rights, taxes on capital that fund socialized medecine or unemployment benefits? --> capital is going to get the hell out of there and move to somewhere more "business-friendly". Seriously, it's not hard to understand, and it's what's been happening to social democracies all over in the last decades. If you're able to have those things under international capitalism it's only because you happen to be the "core" in an imperialist system of exploitation that feeds on war and is destined to collapse. Your nation isn't going to defeat global capitalism alone, and if it tries without an international movement it's going to be crushed like the Paris commune. Turning your back on the other workers of the world is not a winning strategy.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's lunacy to expect worldwide adoption of the beliefs and practices of rich, western, liberal democracies. Hell, look at how well the EU is using policies as a weapon. No country is going to hurt themselves in the short-run to protect American jobs. Since when is socialism "the belief and practices of rich western liberal democracies"? If anything that's where socialism is the weakest and has been beaten into utter submission. So far the west has been the dominant force in the world AGAINST socialism. Is this some kind of the new variant of the racist "democracy is good in theory but those primitive developing countries people just aren't ready for it" narrative or am I completely misunderstanding your point?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:That makes sense although I don't see why liberalism has to be in the mix. Do we have to look at all cultural and societal trends through the lens of economic agenda? I would say yes but that's because I am a historical materialist  This moral understanding of racism is tied to liberal notions of individual agency and responsibility. Kyrie eleison posted:The left's strategy of trying to undermine national identity has been a disaster. It is nothing but an extreme reaction to imperialist jingoism. There is nothing scientific about it. Your lack of patriotism, your lack of respect for people's loyalty to their people and country has been your downfall. It is a total victory for capitalism, and for the right wing groups which are the only ones willing to take advantage of patriotic sentiment, the only ones willing to claim popular sovereignty and do something about the neoliberal order everyone dislikes. A global monoculture is, as you recognized yourself, something that is created by neoliberalism through cultural imperialism. The left advocates nothing of the sort and in fact has been behind most national liberation movements in history. Following the Russian revolution the empire was broken down into a multitude of autonomous republics each with their own official language and laws. The kind of nationalism you support is one that seeks to deny cultural diversity within a territory for the sake of creating a national identity. How does Lepen appeal to Breton or Corsican identity? How does UKIP appeal to Scottish identity? They do not, and if you believe in the nation they are selling you, you believe in a fairy tale imposed from the top down.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:I wonder that if the left adopted earnest patriotism within the confines of some universalism and dropped identity politics overnight would the right wing would even know how to respond? It seems like it would take the wind right out of their collective sails and make a lot of carefully crafted rhetoric from the right fall apart. If the left did this it would stop being the left. So much social chauvinism in this thread. We have learned nothing from history 
Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 14:23 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Ok, read militant enthusiasm for a new order instead of patriotism. I fail to see how identity politics are in any way integral to the left. Splitting the working class along identity lines is a divide-and-conquer strategy of the ruling class. The left has always recognized and fought this, and class solidarity across such divisions is the only way forward. Identity politics without a proper class analysis is a dead end, yes, which is why you see a lot of valid criticism of identity politics as it currently stands on the left. The answer is not to reject those issues, though, it's to recognize that what they all have in common is being subject to a greater system of institutional oppression that can only be defeated by addressing root economic causes. Women's issues, minority issues, etc, are a fundamental part of the class struggle and work towards liberation for any one of them always strengthens the entire movement, while defeat on that front serves only to empower reaction. Good luck with becoming even more irrelevant than you already are by giving up those issues in an attempt to capture the far-right vote, while neoliberal parties become the only ones around that pretend to care. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 14:52 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:New generations of leftists think that indulging racism, the patriarchy, and anti-semitism is a savvy political shortcut- that if we throw the proletariat a bone they will become focused on class issues. No no no. We've done it all before. This current crisis is hugely depressing to me, as I'm seeing evidence over and over again that nothing has been learned from history, and that we're doomed to repeat the worst parts of it again by committing the exact same mistakes. I want to see a way out but at this point I've almost resigned myself to the fact that we're headed for terrible disaster. AstheWorldWorlds posted:My concern is the modern left (in the broadest sense) very much is abandoning the root economic cause in favor of more parochial identity interests and it is getting us nowhere. It is to the point where the most zealous advocates of identity politics are hostile to trying to build some universal consensus along economic lines, in a sense actively rejecting class conflict. The current trajectory is clearly not working out so well so what would you advise as an alternative course of action? I agree that there is such a problem, and what we're seeing everywhere is neoliberal parties co-opting surface-level wedge issues that throw a bone to the left such as gay marriage in order to be able to pass austerity policies and roll back on other achievements. Most people who vote for these parties are pretty unsatisfied and do it out only of a perceived strategic concern to prevent the other neoliberal party, the one that hates minorities, from winning. I regularly agitate among feminist, LGBTQ, and anti-racist circles to encourage them to take an intersectional class-conscious perspective. I've in fact had a lot of success with this, as for obvious reasons these groups happen to be much more receptive to radical critiques of capitalism than your typical white hetero male. Seriously, the people who care about social justice and identity issues are the natural constituency of any anticapitalist movement. I'm pretty happy with the results I see from this course of action so I would advocate taking it, and I see a lot of these movements currently maturing their understanding of class and their economic critique of capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Absolutely, you can't just offend people and hope they'll go along with what you say. You have to be able to speak to the heart, talking down to members of the working class is hardly a good action for someone who purports to represent them. Yet I still think it's necessary to supplant nationalism, however ingrained it may be. Yeah, "let's not offend the simple-minded worker by threatening their sacred idols" sounds like it comes from some weird kind of paternalist contempt or lack of trust in the revolutionary potential of the working class. Nationalism wan't always around, it was invented by the ruling class, and it was taught to us. It is alien to the workers. What happens when, in times of crisis, socialist parties put the interests of the nation ahead of those of the international proletariat? There also seems to be this weird assumption about left-wing politics that the way it works is by creating a standard bourgeois democratic party and crafting a set of policies through compromise in order to attract the most votes and in the hope of getting elected. That's not how it happens, left-wing politics come from the bottom-up, from the streets: it's about Educating, Agitating, and Organising. In time political parties become forced to adapt to the demands of an organized and class-conscious population, and not the other way around.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
(double post)
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Wasn't nationalism originally a force that overthrew the traditional ruling class? It was invented by the class that is now the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. It got the lower classes on their side then and kept them on their side throughout the development of capitalism until today.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:The US industrialized without strong intellectual property systems? Really? I disagree with your defense of patents, but this is a whole other debate, so I won't go into it. I'm realizing from this exchange that I misinterpreted your position as someone merely trying to combine socialism and nationalism. I see now that you're actually defending many other aspects of capitalism, so I feel like any meaningful debate between us would actually have to start from much more basic principles than those I've been arguing so far. My best bet is that you seem to be advocating for the very kind of capitalism with social policies (or social democracy) that is now being defeated by neoliberalism all around the world. The irony is that the only reason such a system was able to exist for so long in the first place (and only in imperialist nations) is because capital was forced into this compromise given the historical threat of actual existing socialism and a strong international worker's movement. thekeeshman posted:It wouldn't, it would prevent the companies from keeping their factories in America and exploiting third world labor at the same time. In a restricted-immigration situation companies can either stay in developed countries and pay higher labor costs or they can outsource to save on labor but shoulder the costs and risks that come with it. In our hypothetical socialist America, the companies would be unable to exploit third world labour while keeping their factories in America precisely because the socialist american government would be using the state as a means of putting pressure on capital and in order to prevent such exploitation in America. I'm talking about granting citizenship with full rights, not importing cheap migrant labour for the benefit of capital. thekeeshman posted:In the short to medium term, this will cause pain and disruption to American workers, so how do you convince them to sacrifice their interests in the name of international solidarity? It will also strengthen American Capital, how will you prevent it from using that strength to derail your agenda? There are many possible strategies, but again, in our hypothetical socialist America, the state could have a policy of seizing and collectivizing the assets of American capitalists who try to pull something like this by outsourcing. In this case having become the new owners of the factory, the American workers would in fact be better off, and American capital would be weakened or at least not strengthened as much. Note that this is the kind of action that a not-superpower country is typically heavily punished for by international capital (through trade sanctions or military intervention). This is precisely why there is a need for leftists around the world to put the interests of their fellow workers in America before those of the local capitalists in their own nation, just as our imaginary socialist Americans put the interests of Vietnamese labour before those of American capital. Without this, socialism in one country will one way or another be defeated by reaction, as we've seen historically. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 18:25 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:So your system relies on third world peasants forgoing a chance to drag themselves out of crushing poverty to benefit American workers? On American workers giving up their current jobs and descending into poverty to benefit third world peasants? That seems like a big ask. The very idea that third world workers benefit from outsourcing is valid only in the scenario where closed borders and international capitalism creates such a situation where they are made to be dependent on capital's whims. Once given the ability to cross borders the workers are not condemned to "forgoing a chance to drag themselves out of crushing poverty", they have more agency, and more self-determination as labourers, while capital has less control over their lives. I have no idea why anyone would try pretend in good faith that denying this right to workers is for their own good. The interests of workers coincide with the interests of capital in the same way that the interest of hostages coincide with their hostage-taker. Your ideology is one of Stockholm syndrome. The hypothetical situation you paint where the interests of capital and labour are aligned is an imaginary one that has no analogy in today's world. Nationalism encourages class collaborationism by pretending that there is such a "national" interest that unites capitalists and workers of the same nation. It is a lie. Benito Mussolini posted:We deny your internationalism. That is a luxury article which only the elevated can practise, because peoples are passionately bound to their native soil. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 19:41 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Again, if you increase the supply of labor within a country that will drive down the wages that labor can demand. Free migration of workers would benefit developed world capitalists and the migrants while disadvantaging developed world labor. I have never, at any point in this conversation, posited a universal coincidence of interests between labor and capital, please read better and stop making assumptions about what my ideology is when yours seemingly rests on continually ignoring facts that are inconvenient to you. I would like to know what the point you're trying to make is then, because I'm genuinely interested and pretty tired of trying to guess here. 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. thekeeshman posted:Besides, in your scenario factories don't move to Vietnam, and so any people who remain there will not benefit from the money and development it would bring. Outsourcing has meant that Vietnamese, in Vietnam, have access to higher wages without leaving their families or communities. Who do you think is most likely to have the education and resources to move to a completely different country? Hint: It's not the poor. You remind me of Republicans who ask indignantly why the poor of Detroit haven't just moved down to Texas where the jobs are. There are no legal barriers to doing so, and yet generally people don't, why do you think that is? 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 outsourcing and the free flow of international capital is such a good deal for the workers of the third world then why are we looking at a history where so many non-western countries including Vietnam have attempted socialist revolution? What's with those third world workers and all the anti-imperialism? Shouldn't they be grateful that western capitalists are investing so much in their nation's development? Why did the Viet Cong have secret agreements with African-American marines not to fire upon each other if the notion of international proletarian solidarity coming before national interests means nothing and is but an unrealistic utopia? thekeeshman posted:And for that matter, how can you have a welfare state and unrestricted immigration? If a million migrants turned up in Belgium do you think they would be able to find jobs and the money for benefits for all of them? And do you really think that this wouldn't cause any social upheaval? You clearly enjoy ranting and handwaving away potential issues but your unwillingness to examine the consequences of the policies you advocate is bordering on the comical. 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. 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. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
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. Whatever first-world country you live in there are already immigrants, Roma, Aboriginals, or slave-descended people in it, stealing the precious welfare of true patriots. They are the most vulnerable members of society, the ones that have the least to lose and are the most natural constituency of a real leftist movement, and they don't give a poo poo about your "nation" in the least. They often despise it. Are they wrong? What should we do? Tell them to behave? Kick them out?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
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
|
|