|
Centrism is a loving terrible ideology that either rules or enables the right to rule every nation in the western world. It is also a complete and utter lie. It comes from a flawed (and deliberately cultivated) view of the left-right struggle. For centrists this struggle is seen as a fight for money. And if you think left-right is about money it kinda makes sense to hold a middle position in a capitalist system. After all, capitalism is about giving everything to these magical capitalist folk who then create goods and services and grow wealth for the people. So of course you have to balance this, right? I mean the capitalists need lots and lots of stuff to do their thing, but we can't just let everybody else die in the gutter like the right wants. Except it's never been about money. Never ever. It's not about who can afford the biggest of TVs or what kind of car the poors can afford; it's about who gets to control the reigns of power. Liberalism was a leftist ideology back when it existed in a world run by monarchies. It was the ideology that wrested power from the nobility and placed it within the hands of private citizens. It was a huge leap forward and a very good thing. Back then. But not now. Now we know unrestrained liberalism leads to disempowerment of the masses while capital concentrates into the hands of oligarchs who then use this power to essentially take over the government. This most obviously manifests as the lives of regular people becoming much worse as they become poorer and poorer. Centrists see this and some part of them recognises that abject poverty is not right so they go about trying to fix this problem. But poverty is not the problem; poverty is a symptom of the imbalace of power still inherent in liberalism. The right is about concentrating power within a specific group of the worthy. What makes someone worthy depends on the brand of right. It could be by economic class, by birthright, by education, by religion, by adherence to morality, by adherence to law, by race, by gender, by sexual orientation, or by whatever other measure. The left is about dispersing power amongst as many people as is possible. It is about breaking down the barriers of power along every metric mentioned above until we can get as close as possible/sustainable to every single person having exactly the same power as everyone else. The left tends to differ based on how far a person thinks this can sustainably be taken or which method is best to achieve the outcome. The centre? The centre is a lie. It is a lie because it is really just a faction of the right. The centre believes that power should be held by educated, wealthy technocrats. The centre differs from the right not at all on the subject of power, it instead has a lateral disagreement with the right. It believes that the few worthy should have power, but that the rest should not suffer too much because of it. The centre is the politics of rightists who just don't want to face the full and inevitable consequences of their ideological alignment. It wants to throw welfare to the unemployed not because doing so empowers the worker to quit, but because then the worker doesn't have to starve when they're fired. They want health care not because it stops employers from having power over their employees' health, but because it means people don't die in the gutter when their employer cuts them off. They want education not because they want to arm the people with knowledge, but so that people can drag themselves onto the higher rungs of wage slavery. Lets looks at Obama/Clinton vs Bernie Sanders since that's the example that's most visible to people right now. When Obama ran for president he formed a huge movement to get him there. Once he became president, did he use this people power he had assembled to get things done? Nope. He ignored them because he didn't assemble them to empower them. He didn't want to be the figurehead of a powerful movement. He wanted to use them to get himself into power. Once placed within power he wanted to concentrate on working with the other worthy technocrats to get things done. YES WE CAN get me into office because I am worthy and will rule well. Bernie on the other hand said from the very beginning that he did not have the ability to do things as president. That what America needed was a popular movement. And he has continued to champion causes and encourage activism after his bid was ended. This was the quality of Bernie that the left recognised even when some thought his actual policies were not as left as they would like. The centre says "but (to me) his policies are not that different!" not realising the essential ingredient Hillary was missing. Look at Obama/Clinton's reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement. They dismissed and chastised the movement. Oh they agreed with the premise. They agreed that what BLM was protesting against was a problem that needed to be fixed. But they disagreed with the movement. They did not want them protesting, especially not if it inconvenienced people. They wanted the problem to be fixed, but they wanted it fixed the right way: by them or others like them. Bernie on the other hand stepped aside when BLM activists crashed his event so they could speak to his crowd, at his rally, on his stage. He empowered their voices both figuratively and literally through the microphone he yielded to them. Because Bernie understood that you need to work with and empower people to fix their problems, not empower yourself and then fix their problems for them like the powerless peasants they should be. This same dynamic was repeated in the the case of NoDAPL. Bernie spoke on behalf of the NoDAPL movement and visited them to raise their profile. Where were Hillary and Obama? loving nowhere. When pressed Obama said both sides need to be peaceful and that they were going to let it play. Then suddenly the government laid down a judgement a few weeks later. The only acknowledgement of the water protectors was as one of the two sides that needed to be peaceful (and it happened to be the only side that was). Hillary has said nothing as far as I know on the subject. It's not necessarily so that they disagree with NoDAPL's goals, but they do disagree with its methods. They don't believe in people power except as a springboard for the right people to get into power. Not for people actually using their people power to get things done. The abandoning of unions is part of the same problem with the centre. Why support organisations that seek to empower workers when you can just skim some money from the people who deserve it and hand it to the workers? As long as they're not starving what's the big deal? Look at how the centre abandons and shits on the rural poor whites. It's because they view those poor whites as not being worthy of power any more, of having their voices heard. They happily hit down just as much as the rest for the right, they just have different views of what is down. Notice how centrists deride the rust belt for wanting jobs instead of welfare? You know why the people want the jobs? It's not because they're stupidly clinging to a past that will never be again and are just too drat proud to take welfare. It's because employment is empowering. Doing a job gives you power over your employer; direct, individual power over the people who decide the money you're given. Granted the employer holds the balance of power, but some power is better than no power, and people have effectively no power over their welfare payments. Oh is the president going to listen to you when you when your vote is a tiny fraction of an electoral vote in the best case scenario when you live in a swing state? Will senators or congress people in your own state, let alone from other states? If you quit your boss suffers. How much depends on what job you do and the type of employment (notice how recent trends of having lots of people on low/0 hour contracts means individual workers have less power to hurt their employer?) but you do have the power to hurt them however small. And if you quit you still theoretically have something of value with which to secure employment with someone else. If welfare goes down what recourse do you have? Does quitting welfare hurt the government? Is there an alternate government you can go get welfare from? No and no. Welfare is disempowering compared to employment. That's why people want jobs. And it's why you the centre doesn't get it. There are so many other ways in which centrism blindly violates core concepts of the left, but that's enough examples from me I think. Seriously guys, centrism is terrible and not at all what it's sold as. If you're a leftist you should stop seeing centrists as allies. If you're centrist you should have a good look at what your ideology is actually about and decide if you're really happy being on the side you picked. The inherent problems with the centre are starting to come to the fore all over the world. Actual sides need to be picked.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
People are going to claim that the world needs moderates now more than ever. gently caress That Noise. Proud moderates and centrists will claim the moral high ground and "see both sides" while social welfare crumbles around them. Centrists will oppose leftists every step of the way because they fear the appeal of radical and populist leftism. I'm not advocating constant activism or violence going forward, but we need very clear messages. Liberals, neo-liberals and moderates have failed us. We need a real American Left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
The OP was much better thoughtout and well written than I expected it to be. Great job. Agree 100%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Great points and I think the essential conceit of centrism is unravelling visibly in so many countries - it is not the failures of the obvious right, but of the moderate centre in the developed west that is driving the current populist backlash. There's an unfortunate growing pain, though, that needs to be addressed for the left to really include and galvanise the voter base responsible for these populist insurgencies. Right now, unions are unwittingly creating another power concentration (although a wider one than the narrow oligarchical/capitalist power holders in liberal centrist economies). Anyone who isn't in a union is massively disadvantaged and disempowered - the days of worker organisation pulling up standards for everyone are long gone. In Canada, for example, you can work as a dishwasher in a restaurant with terrible conditions and no power for minimum wage, or if you happen to be in the CUPE union and work as a dishwasher in a hospital, you make more than double that and have huge protections. Because unions are difficult to enter, they exert no pressure on employers outside, even in the same industry. And now the government hires primarily contract workers because they can, so they don't need to hire more difficult-to-fire unionised workers. Looking at France's 25% youth unemployment rate, the problems of uneven labour market regulations and the divisions they create among potentially allied working factions are clear. Whatever new left emerges to challenge the current status quo needs to be able to structurally include everyone, and not create localised pockets of power based on in-group membership.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Artificial Idiocy posted:There's an unfortunate growing pain, though, that needs to be addressed for the left to really include and galvanise the voter base responsible for these populist insurgencies. Right now, unions are unwittingly creating another power concentration (although a wider one than the narrow oligarchical/capitalist power holders in liberal centrist economies). Anyone who isn't in a union is massively disadvantaged and disempowered - the days of worker organisation pulling up standards for everyone are long gone. In the United States, unions have been heavily neutered and become a socialist/communist boogeyman or sorts. I wouldn't say they have much power at all here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
I kinda sorta agree. I think my problem is with the 'we want jobs' thing. Short of luddism, it is not going to happen in the long term. The best case scenario is for worker cooperatives to own the means of production for most vital goods, with federal oversight to ensure that nobody is getting denied things by these councils because they don't subscribe to the correct religion or whatever (something that I could definitely see happening). This ensures power is divested to the people in a meaningful way. We really need to kick the whole 'dignity of work' thing out of our society, it has no place anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
As for unions, how do you increase their reach to everyone without giving them absurd amounts of power, like a medieval guild writ large?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Notice how centrists deride the rust belt for wanting jobs instead of welfare? I don't think centrists do this at all. Bill Clinton is the president who said that he wanted to "break the cycle of welfare dependency" and "end welfare as we know it," after all, and Bill Clinton is basically the poster child for Democratic centrism. The problem I have with this, and it definitely seems to be an issue that's dividing some of the left at the moment, is how do you actually help people who want jobs without it simply being a form of welfare? "Make more jobs" is not actually an actionable plan, because the government's ability to do that within a normal economic context is severely limited. The government can literally create jobs if it wants to, of course, but that doesn't really fulfill your criteria of empowering workers. If the work doesn't need to exist or if it's in some way being subsidized, then workers don't really have any power and are still effectively being given a handout in the form of employment. Like, what is the actual solution to the jobs problem? Because it comes up constantly and I haven't seen real answers from anywhere on the political spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
You're ascribing a few motives to centrism that are hyperbolic at best. quote:They want education not because they want to arm the people with knowledge, but so that people can drag themselves onto the higher rungs of wage slavery. Wage slavery isn't a goal of centrists. Education of the populace leads to a better world for all of us, and is pretty universally revered among centrists I've met. Distributive and executive power absolutely should be held in the hands of educated representatives, that have been voted on by the people. Tyranny of the majority is a monstrous thing, and would absolutely result in horror for those in the minority. Self determination is important, but making decisions that effect others should require education and ethics, rather than a simple majority opinion. Centrism isn't always right, but it's not nearly as horrible as the Right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
ok op assuming you're right (lol) what's the solution other than, you know, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:ok op assuming you're right (lol) what's the solution Trump won so getting exhibits A and B will not become more difficult?..
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Tell us what the loving solution is NOW or I will scream
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:As for unions, how do you increase their reach to everyone without giving them absurd amounts of power, like a medieval guild writ large? Maybe unions should have absurd amounts of power (compared to what they have now)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Tell us what the loving solution is NOW or I will scream Mandatory firearms training for any adult over the age of 18.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Centrism is the natural and intended outcome of representative democracy. The "center", at least in theory is a compromise position between various political factions with broad appeal and no dealbreakers, intended to be acceptable to a significant majority of the electorate. In practice, it doesn't really work out that way, but that's due to largely to significant social breakdowns and flaws in our systems of government. Remember this - the center is not, strictly speaking, an ideology of its own. Rather, it's the expected result of the compromises inherent in democracy. That's the case even in parliamentary democracies, and the US's ancient system has always been particularly problematic in that regard.Higsian posted:Look at how the centre abandons and shits on the rural poor whites. It's because they view those poor whites as not being worthy of power any more, of having their voices heard. They happily hit down just as much as the rest for the right, they just have different views of what is down. Notice how centrists deride the rust belt for wanting jobs instead of welfare? You know why the people want the jobs? It's not because they're stupidly clinging to a past that will never be again and are just too drat proud to take welfare. It's because employment is empowering. Doing a job gives you power over your employer; direct, individual power over the people who decide the money you're given. Granted the employer holds the balance of power, but some power is better than no power, and people have effectively no power over their welfare payments. You're way off here. In the US, it's the left that derides the poor rural whites for wanting jobs over welfare. I don't know how it is in countries that speak the Queen's English, but here in the US the idea that employment is inherently empowering is a right-wing idea shared by the center and largely rejected by the left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Centrism is the natural and intended outcome of representative democracy. The "center", at least in theory is a compromise position between various political factions with broad appeal and no dealbreakers, intended to be acceptable to a significant majority of the electorate. In practice, it doesn't really work out that way, but that's due to largely to significant social breakdowns and flaws in our systems of government. Remember this - the center is not, strictly speaking, an ideology of its own. Rather, it's the expected result of the compromises inherent in democracy. That's the case even in parliamentary democracies, and the US's ancient system has always been particularly problematic in that regard. I agree, unfortunately though a huge chunk of left-liberals still actively consider themselves centrists/Third Way
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Maybe unions should have absurd amounts of power (compared to what they have now) I suppose it's a meaningless quibble when they have no power in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:I suppose it's a meaningless quibble when they have no power in the US. Dems gave up trying to repeal Taft-Hartley after they failed under the Carter admin and huge growth in IT and among Knowledge Workers convinced the leaders that unions were irrelevant artifacts of the Old Economy. Fighting right-to-work at the state level was left to crippled state level parties who national liberals had left to die because with so much tech growth in San Fran flyover country is irrelevant now
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You're way off here. In the US, it's the left that derides the poor rural whites for wanting jobs over welfare. I don't know how it is in countries that speak the Queen's English, but here in the US the idea that employment is inherently empowering is a right-wing idea shared by the center and largely rejected by the left. Most other countries actually have or had an organised left due to things like labour movements, which were rather active proponents of the right to work and considered employment empowering by definition since it allowed them to collectively organise. The left-liberal tendency in america doesn't share the same lineage, the same aims or the same values and it shows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Wage slavery isn't a goal of centrists. Education of the populace leads to a better world for all of us, and is pretty universally revered among centrists I've met. Were this actually true, they would cease to be centrists, what with that goal being all of a wet fart when you take into account the politics of centrists and how efficient they are at bringing this utopia about. "Why yes, I do revere education, however not enough to actually support a position that brings it to the greatest amount of people. You could say my interest is strictly... academic  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Most other countries actually have or had an organised left due to things like labour movements, which were rather active proponents of the right to work and considered employment empowering by definition since it allowed them to collectively organise. The left-liberal tendency in america doesn't share the same lineage, the same aims or the same values and it shows. Well, to be fair the left isn't doing so hot in other countries either. Canada and Australia never had socialist parties with any meaningful political power, Britain's got eviscerated and taken over by Third Way centrists, Germany's was very moderate from the start of the postwar, wasn't in power for very long, and got taken over by Third Way centrists anyways, and France's is about to get annihilated at the polls and either French Ted Cruz or a literal neo-nazi is going to win. Even in Scandanavia the parties there moved to the center a lot and I believe adopted a lot of racist/anti-immigrant stances to forestall loss of support among the native working class though I'm not totally up on Scandinavian politics
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I kinda sorta agree. I think my problem is with the 'we want jobs' thing. Short of luddism, it is not going to happen in the long term. The best case scenario is for worker cooperatives to own the means of production for most vital goods, with federal oversight to ensure that nobody is getting denied things by these councils because they don't subscribe to the correct religion or whatever (something that I could definitely see happening). This ensures power is divested to the people in a meaningful way. We really need to kick the whole 'dignity of work' thing out of our society, it has no place anymore. This is my main gripe with the basic wage. It devalues work. I mean, modern work is without a doubt exploitive, dehumanizing, and alienating, but a perpetual class of basic wagers floating through society without a purpose other than consumption sounds pretty dystopian to me. And I don't buy the whole "time to make art" poo poo. People will sit on their fat asses and do nothing. Workers cooperatives are neat-o and all but it's not going to solve the problem of modernism's slow march toward grinding every bit of humanity out of us. Gio fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Gio posted:Yeah I don't agree with this at all. Work gives people purpose, something to take pride in, solidarity with other workers, a sense of community. It empowers them, to an extent, however minimal. I like how you're so detached from poor people and how much they suffer just to make it from day to day that giving them 15$ an hour automatically means that they'll be lazy instead of oh, say, being able to afford the homes they're in, being able to feed their children, being able to afford the medicine or insurance they're being hosed by and not having to work three shifts a day just to make sure they can survive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I like how you're so detached from poor people and how much they suffer just to make it from day to day that giving them 15$ an hour automatically means that they'll be lazy instead of oh, say, being able to afford the homes they're in, being able to feed their children, being able to afford the medicine or insurance they're being hosed by and not having to work three shifts a day just to make sure they can survive. basic wage != living wage
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Or maybe I'm loving wrong. I meant to say "basic income".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Gio posted:Yeah I don't agree with this at all. Work gives people purpose, something to take pride in, solidarity with other workers, a sense of community. No it doesn't. People may develop those things around their jobs but their jobs do not provide them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I agree, unfortunately though a huge chunk of left-liberals still actively consider themselves centrists/Third Way That's not because they think centrism is a compelling ideology that they're deeply devoted to. It's because they think centrism is closer to what voters want, and is most likely to be the end result of any Congressional effort anyway. And there probably was some truth to that two decades ago. But partisanship has been skyrocketing over the last decade or two, and moderates on both sides are being blamed for every real or perceived problem with the country; it's fair to say that today's Third Wayers are people who weren't able to adjust to swings in voter opinion and public discourse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
edit != quote
Gio fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Gio posted:Then what the hell does? I'm not even sure I know what you mean by this. That those attributes are side effects, not the intended goal, of work? Serious question. a job is part of an identity but things like family and religion usually play a bigger part here in America
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:a job is part of an identity but things like family and religion usually play a bigger part here in America Everything goes hand-in-hand, there are no absolutes. Gio fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
With regards to the topic and related to what I've been saying-- I wholeheartedly agree. People's sense of dillusionment is the feeling they have no control over their own destinies, over their own work, so I am all for any efforts to disperse power from the oligarchs. So yeah, people do want jobs--good ones that empower them, that give them a feeling of control over their own destinies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
"Only the crushing dread of Poverty keeps that ignoble specie of Man toiling in the fields" - an 18th century gentleman, probably
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Distributive and executive power absolutely should be held in the hands of educated representatives, that have been voted on by the people. Tyranny of the majority is a monstrous thing, and would absolutely result in horror for those in the minority. Self determination is important, but making decisions that effect others should require education and ethics, rather than a simple majority opinion. what are you talking about, there is no reason why legislation, regulation, prosecution, etc. cannot all be decided by referendum in our amazing electronic age anyone who doesn't believe in government by hashtag is a fuckin centrist and should be shot
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
how does centrism work btw, are courts a centrist institution due to being officiated by an elected judge rather than a lynch mob
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Gio posted:And family expectations in any culture are that you are able to provide for said family vis-a-vis work, whether it's subsisting off of some dirt plot or working min. wage at Walmart. Some jobs provide more dignity than others, both in dollars and cents and a sense of fulfillment and pride and purpose, but ultimately work is a fundamental source we derive these things from. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
working minimum wage at walmart is empowering
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Gio posted:And family expectations in any culture are that you are able to provide for said family vis-a-vis work this is not true
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Gio posted:With regards to the topic and related to what I've been saying-- Right, so how do you do this? Like, if those jobs literally don't exist or it's cheaper/more efficient to outsource or automate them then how do you create this sense of empowerment? If you're creating good jobs through subsidies or protectionism then you are for all intents and purposes pushing more power onto employers, who are now employing people only because they absolutely have to. You're just talking about a form of welfare where people are now reliant on government assistance for their continued employment status.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
The idea that Work is a Moral Good is a very Victorian idea, and was criticized by many people who saw the effects of this (unfettered capitalism, exploitation of labour, literal workhouses to survive etc.) quite a bit. Here are two prominent critiques of this ideal: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/ http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html Then the idea that Work is Moral gained a large resurgence because of two devastating wars that ravaged the world and Europe in particular and the necessary rebuilding of society after them were taken as an inherently good thing rather than it being for a specific, actual good i.e. we need poo poo to survive. It's time to rethink this idea and throw it in the garbage of history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
if people din't have to spend a lot of their time and energy doing work for pay they'd find something else to occupy their time. sitting around doing nothing gets real boring real fast
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:52
|
|