|
[ed: beaten]
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:I maintain that liberals aren't to be trusted because their relation to the struggle is completely different than ours. They're happy to say they're on your side until you inconvenience them, and they absolutely hate it when you point this out. Their value system is different, so many of them are incapable of seeing antifascism as anything other than violating the right of another group to voice an opinion. You've got some pretty massive generalizations about people who are basically bound together by "the state is good, and a mixed economy is fine". Social liberalism is certainly both antifascist and considerably to the left of what we're getting now in the US, UK, France, etc. There's a shitload of movement before the goals are going to be misaligned.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Social Liberalism is telling you pre-election that trump is Hitler, and telling you post-election that we need to compromise with Hitler and give him a chance. Your mixed economy remark makes me think you mean Social Democracy. I'm continuing this because there is value in understanding factions and what positions, methods, and goals will be non-starters. There is little value in sniping at people who are more or less leftist, and I think the pithy "your political philosophy is inherently against all progress!" bullshit is counterproductive. Labels are useless in activism. I mean social liberalism, in contrast to classical liberalism and neoliberalism. John Rawls' writing would fall into this category. You're just taking the current political state of the American Democratic voter and painting it with the pejorative "liberal," when the American Democratic voter does not necessarily have a coherent political philosophy. If you want to convince milquetoast American Democrats, that's not the same as fighting liberalism. I consider myself a liberal. We will almost certainly have fundamental disagreements over political theory, but almost none about short- to medium-term political action as long as you're not planning on violent revolution. I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate at the state or federal level who is sufficiently left for my liking; I am certainly not an enemy when it comes to pushing against fascism. I have gotten into serious arguments about racism and misogyny with "socialists". Again, labels are useless in activism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I'm not interested in your insistence that you're a "good one", that's something all liberals say, even the ones that gently caress people over. I'm interested in your action. It's something everyone says. We're in agreement. Back to your regularly scheduled programming!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:I've seen a number of articles/videos over the last few days condemning the tone/approach of the left. In general I agree there's a lot to unpack, and plenty of room for improvement here. The left needs to be sold on abandoning respectability politics. We have no shortage of people happy to "watch their tone." There's absolutely nothing to be gained from any person who sits around doing nothing but trying to police people to be more moderate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Take it to USPOL if you can't ignore that bullshit, people. These are not good faith arguments and they're not worth addressing. He followed a post about leftists working with churches to promote social justice with handwringing about violence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:gently caress off, dude. We're not "underestimating" anything, you're just mistaking the completely ordinary way election campaigns happen, i.e people giving money to candidates they like, for a conspiracy to control the outcome of western elections. I've already asked you exactly how it is you think Russia's actions are unique, and you have no idea. You look like a drat fool talking about how we need to "warn the government" like you've discovered something on twitter that they haven't loving noticed. Just to head off a potential response: it's quite a bit more than "funding," but it's still not out of the ordinary at all for state actors to influence elections. The US has done it a ton, and in much more nefarious ways than building up foreign propaganda and buckets full of money (but of course we've done that too!) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/ But yeah, the US government is more than aware of this happening, and I don't really know what anyone expects to gain from forcing congresspeople to publicly denounce it. Pollyanna posted:I said crashing mostly because me just being there would weird people out, like what is a person doing here? Never mind, it's an anxiety thing. gently caress it, might as well try. Yes, those are fundraisers. Those are different. You want to find the committee meetings. Look up your town/ward, there will be local meetings for that on occasion; many of them will have their own sites (e.g. google Boston Ward X) but you should at least be able to find contact info. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
tsa posted:You and others miss why unions have largely died. Yes, combative forces on the right played a role but overall the biggest contributor was simply that the way people worked changed. Unions had the most success (and even still do) when you have lots of workers in one place doing the same work, the work is relatively simple, and where there wasn't much difference between the super productive employees and the average employees. When you have those last points systems like seniority work fairly well because time on the job is a good predictor of worth and skill. This just doesn't happen much anymore. In particular almost no one wants to work someplace where seniority decides promotions and poo poo like that. Like go out and ask young people this question and you will get an almost unanimous answer regardless if they are on the left or the right, we are far far too individualistic these days for something like that to fly. But the other points matter a lot too: because you can now have huge discrepancies in worker talent in intellectual careers and that all of these people are doing different things are the biggest contributors to why union membership is at a low. Unions have simply not evolved to meet the times and this is reflected in people's attitudes toward them. The few places where they are popular still has jobs that follow the rules I laid out. Student teacher unions make a lot of sense and work well for that reason. Automotive manufacturing where it's still a bunch of people on a (increasingly automated) line and workers can be trained quickly for x task. Your argument is contingent on the belief that unions just magically make everything better and it's not the truth. They made things better because they were effective given a certain set of parameters that no longer exist. I concur that one reason unions don't pick up is because there's a historical organizational structure and contractual emphasis that people are inclined to bristle at, particularly in white-collar jobs. I disagree that labor unions are an outdated concept, because the only natural requirement is just labor. Some of the traditional individual worker protections -- seniority, job security, high threshold of for-cause firing -- are not likely to be a mainstay of the 21st century intellectual labor union, but people can be mobilized around ideas of contractual collective benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 23:17
|
|