|
Because globalization is an awful system that destroys rural community and increases the economic divides within society for the sake of GDP growth, and the only people willing to stand up agasint it are populist nationalistic assholes like Trump or true left wing socialists like Bernie/Corbyn. The difference being that Trump survived his own party's backstabbing vs Bernie who did not.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:
Which is caused by globalization. Who will unionize under threat that their job will be shipped overseas at slightest hint of rebellion? When the potential workforce becomes plentiful rather than scare, the unions lost all bargaining power. Which is why it instead focused on keeping their current members benefits and screwing the newly employed, thus leading to young people seeing unions as pointless. Rhetorical question to the thread: Whats worse, a libertarian neocon non-racist or a poverty stricken racist?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Trick question: neither is personally morally responsible, but the existence of the latter corresponds to more suffering (primarily his own). And i would argue the former is responsible for for more suffering, (primarily of others) which is really the core of the divide among "the left".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Intentionally? Doesn't matter. As part of a system? Then it's the system. To see poverty stricken people with lovely attitudes towards race be condemned to the political leprosy pile while embracing neocon assholes who respects the right pronouns is a frightening development among people calling themselves leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:gently caress me if I know. I'm perfectly useless here I fear. The right thing to do is to emulate successful tactics of other leftist populists, see Bernie, Syriza and Pomedos. Go further left by either creating a smaller party that supplants it, or in the case of America, supplanting the parties current views with more radical left ones. While this seems unfeasible in a two party system, grassroots movements can push parties to the towards a side, which is essentially what Trump did. You can appeal to a lot of the voters through a shared economic standpoint, like Bernie's anti globalist stances. The fact the he and Trump shares some economic policies is telling. You need a political ideology which can conveniently explain to people why their country and the situation is the way it is, and what is to be done to improvement. Hillarys greatest mistakes is not realizing that her description of "everything is great!" did not fit most Americans reality, not providing a convincing explanation why is it like so nor any proposed solutions. Remember that the current democratic tactic is to wait out Trump, hope he makes a fool of himself then run the same spiel again in 2020, which will definitely won't work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
I think if anything this thread shows that the dichotomy laid out in the op is false. There are a lot of different groups with a lot of material interests, goals, and ideologies some which support the "deplorables" some which support the "SJW's". There is a great difference between "is on the same side as" and "allies". Many of the "deplorable s" are supporting Trump not for his horrendous social stances but his economic policies. Despite Trumps flagrant sexism 53% of white women voted for him, i can't believe that they did so simply unaware or completely accepting of his sexist attitudes. They made a prioritization. A lovely moral decision certainly, but then again, morality does not win elections, no matter how much we wish it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
stone cold posted:But this is a culture "war," right, like why do we even need to pretend these views are valid? Those people won the election. Presumably you have to have some of them switch their vote to a new candidate for your side to win. Simply labeling the other side as "repugnant", writing them off as politically radioactive and moving on does not practically solve the problem of getting more votes to your side, nor does it properly explain why these people are voting the way their do. That doesn't mean that one has to take their opinions at face value, but it does mean you have to know the reasoning behind their lovely opinions. For example, is the opposition to illegal immigration driven by a fear of job insecurity? Then you formulate policies that effect those underlying causes, thus bypassing the need to either accept their views or writing of 46% of the population as "deplorable". .
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
stone cold posted:46% of the country didn't vote for Trump, hope this helps. Fine, 46% of the people voting the election, so "only" 60 million people. Do you have any remarks too the rest of the post or are you just a collection of witty comebacks?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Chelb posted:The entire sticking point, however, is that one group is connecting economic difficulties to issues like opposing immigration, while the other finds the root of the problems to be centuries long policies of social and socio-economic discrimination against otherized groups of people. One implies that a base emotional state must be assuaged through economic policies, while the other rejects an assuaging of perpetrators. I'm having trouble parsing this, what's the connection? Is economic difficulties caused by... what in the case?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:One says "poor governmental/business decisions have hosed you over" and the other says "Mexicans are stealing your jobs" I would argue that the difference in what's said is that trump is laying economic problems at hands of globalisation and labour competition instead of Hillary's explanation of "what problem?"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Right, but I think his choice of caricatures says more about him than it does about the "establishment left." And the decision to ignore the actual content of the metaphor says a lot about the "cultural left". Good night thread, keep on failing to meaningfully analyze your political enemies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Chelb posted:You're right, I'm not wording myself very well. Here's a hypothetical: Agreeing with this 100%. Fundamentally, i believe in that candidate that can promise reach people affected by A while taking a firm stance against B. Even if some voters overlap in their believes, i think people who contain any mix of A and B can be reached through a mutual interest of A, since B is actually not in their interest. I also believe the A group is larger then B. Conflating the two groups and thus thinking that all Trump voters are the same is the mistake i'm seeing again and again in this thread and in general debate among the left. Chelb posted:Here's what I think: Labeling right-wing groups and voters as repugnant is a far cry from unfair discrimination or a mere writing off of people. A person's actions reflect upon them, a group's actions reflect upon it. These actions are tangible, objective, real: Trump voters endorsed hatred. This needs to be battled and confronted. A good way to do this is to reach out to all of the people that didn't vote. The people of varying races and ethnicities and orientations and genders that are the victims of poor education or politically apathetic. The people that are stuck working soul-crushing shifts at fast-food places or supermarkets. The disadvantaged groups having their votes actively suppressed by rightist groups and political legislatures. These people number in the millions, and these people are the ones that need their voices actively listened to. I hope you the best of luck with this, it's a solid enough plan. I still believe reaching across is not harmful. To continue policies like calling all Trump voters racist without offering any chance of redemption will further alienate a large part of the voter base. Large parts of the democratic party seems content to sit on their laurels and not change any of their strategies or policies. They will try to kneecap any progressive with ideas of economic reforms, and might be successful just like they were with Bernie. There is also the possibility of Trump actually gaining part of the 50% who did not vote. I still believe that if you create a candidate with A without B, you will by default gain some of the people who voted Trump if you explain that their concerns were economic in nature. It's a unique solution to America because of your two party system. In my country we the national populists have to compete with 7 different parties with different ideologies, and voter turnout is high. They've been steadily growing during the last three elections and are looking to be the largest party next election. The left has not made a dent in their numbers because of their inability to address economic anxiety. (might do an effort post if anyone interested) Trump's success is not a singular American phenomenon., he is part of a larger movement sweeping the globe, and looking at the patterns globally when it comes to national populists is beneficial.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Mark your calendar. It should be an interesting look back. We can convene and compare how many secret police and concentration camps have been formed as well. My guess is that Trump will be very limited in his ability to implement his changes, even outside of things that are not his policies. Here, this clip is a pretty good future predictor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsKnsgPiWEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH5tQWrnO_c
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:He'll be limited in the sense that he can't act as a dictator to the rest of his party, so you can expect more of the same Republican policy what with their control on all three branches of the government, which has been so lovely in the past. My point was if he can't even implement his own stated policies screaming about concentration camps is pretty much like saying "DEATH PANELS". It's hyperbole, and it's used to shut down any sort of actual discussion about Trump. Seriously, if we are not gonna examine what Trump is, what he is trying to do, and how we can use what he is doing to our benefit the OP might have well just have posted "Trump is a fascist, sexist racist and must be stopped" and locked the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:You guys can bitch and moan about the pernicious effects of identity politics all you want. To be absolutely honest I would even have had a bit of sympathy before the election when the centrist liberal force were at their most obnoxious. But since then I think I've come a lot more receptive to the idea that identity politics is an important part of a leftist movement since its obviously not just going to go away because some internet Communists don't like it, and a lot of leftists, yourself especially, have glaring problems with Race, Gender and Religion that seemed to get broadcast all over the place since the election and ignoring those problems will just breed disillusionment and resentment. I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that identity politics have a major role to play after Hillary Clinton, who built much of her campaign on identity politics, who's victory was predicted to be a give due to the nature of demographics, lost the election. Hell, she lost white women while brandishing the slogan "I'm With Her". 29% of Latinos voted Trump, which is a big number considering. I have no problem with integrating Race, Sex etc etc into an existing functioning ideology, but putting another neoliberal with the right opinion" seems to be the democratic ticket for 2020, so hope they can win on identity politics alone. Otherwise, enjoy 8 years of Trump! Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability Hahaha, ah yes. gently caress the poor. 
White Rock fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Identity politics in this case sounded more like treating minority voters as captive voters simply by virtue of having D beside your name rather than something she would have to work to bring out. There's also the fact that identity politics did work, but for Trump. Okay i'm gonna stop you right there: How did identity politics work for Trump? What does the words Identity politics mean to you? I saw a piss idiot, willing to have actual economic policy that benefited his voters, win via said policy. OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that the desire to boil everything down to economic class is no longer sufficient, there manifestly are other, valid classes to which people may belong. Classes are based on material interest. The people inside that class share real material goals, and thus cooperation is possible, while with other classes genuine cooperation is impossible since they are in a material conflict. Having multiple sets of classes for each dimension of politics is a messy construct that's not helpful to analyzing society. Not all members of the same ethnicity or sex share a common goal, especially if the economics is involved (e.g. black republicans, 53% of white women voting for a sexist etc).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:He appealed to white identity politics, worried about Terrorism, worried about unchecked Hispanic immigration and, yes, worried about the end of a way of life represented by the nine to five manufacturing job down at the plant. He pushed the right buttons on issues like guns, he cast doubt on the legitimacy of the first Black president and he had an aggressive, confrontational position on law enforcement and the police, he didn't even seem that bothered when the Klan fell for him. The alt right declared him their champion. What are we missing here? His first foray into politics was the loving birther controversy, if he didn't play to white identity politics in your eyes, what would he need to have done differently to do so? The alt-right did not carry the election, nor the KKK. And he did renounce the alt-right and the KKK, he has never embraced them. At the worst he has dodged questions about them, probably because it was a good strategy. Worries about terrorism and Immigration are staples among most of the republican candidates, why did Trump in particular carry the primary? In my view, Trump won first the primary and then the election because of (in order of importance) 1. He was seen as an outsider, a protest to the establishment, a chance to get back at a political elite that had neglected, ignored and disappointed a lot of people. He spoke brashly, crudly and said what was on his mind, which came off as genuine compared to a lot of the other candidates. These qualities are great in times of economic strife, when people have a lot of misgivings. 2. He had economic reforms that would benefit people voting for him materially. 3. He had the "right opinions" about race. "3." could have been filled by anyone in the GOP, dosen't matter, a loving libertarian could have have run with it and it would have costs nothing. The other stances are bold and was the reasons his own party tried to sabotage him. They cannot abide by it. And thus Trump had a niche that appealed to voters. My beef with identity politics is that it's not something you can build a political movement from that can win elections, it's an add on to existing political systems. You have to assume everyone takes the current system as a given and belongs to the same class. You can be a neoliberal feminist, a marxist feminist or a centrist feminist. The idea that these will always vote for the same candidate is laughable. That dosen't mean you should'nt appeal to women in general. Here, let me extend an olive branch of reasonableness: Focusing soley economics and ignoring issue like race is a doomed strategy. Focusing soley on race and ignoring economic issues is a doomed strategy. Agreed?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Edit: oooops
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:Then again, winning elections is not the end-all-be-all of activism. Power is ultimately in the hands of the state. Thus holding sway over state power in someway, (e.g elections), is the endgame of all forms of activism. There are other powerful actor in society that can be influenced as well, like companies. But boycotts, fair trade stickers and media campaigns only get you so far. Ultimately, if the state is not interested in your cause, and your not obstacle to their continued reign, you are harmless. You can't name a significant issue you can influence without somehow influencing the state at some point. If you are not somehow a threat to an elected official position or have your own candidate in the race, you have no power to make meaningful or lasting change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Edit: Space is apparently enter. God damnit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I consider nationalism to be an incredibly powerful form of Identity Politics, so that's one of the reasons why I will say that Trump won by exploiting Identity Politics. DISAGREEMENT _____BOX____ How can you consider nationalism a form of identity politics? It's an actual ideology. Is Globalism identity politics too? Your second video has NOTHING to do with identity politics. He is literally suggesting economic policies that will help his voterbase. Here i'm just gonna post an exceprt: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/full-transcript-trump-job-plan-speech-224891 The incredible piss bitch posted:A Trump Administration will change our failed trade policy - quickly How are these NOT economic issues? _____ OwlFancier posted:The difficulty there is that unlike the economics of the 1800's there is no single enemy. It is entirely possible for people on the same side of economic conflict to be on opposing sides of a racial or sexual conflict. OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that probably all black people want to stop being racially discriminated against. And all gay people similarly would like the same thing for sexuality reasons. Al-Saqr posted:ok then make the mandatory minimum wage 15$ dollars an hour. that way everything is fair. The hiring of undocumented workers is already illegal, raising the minimum wage just incentives companies more to try to save a buck. But to continue your thought experiment to try to save it, we could give them all work permits, but that would have the follow up effect of making it even more lucrative to cross the border. The real root of the issue the existence of economic inequality between Latin America and USA. But trying to solve economic inequality in Latin America is a different issue then trying to solve it for just the USA, a much harder one at that. White Rock fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nationalism is literally the attempt to build a unified identity in order to organize people to strive for a goal together. If it isn't identity politics then very little is. It's stupid identity politics and dangerous to boot, but it has the concept of individual and collective identity and their interaction with politics at its very core. Nationalism is a construction, a potentially useful construction. Remember, you can redefine what it means to be American. The alternative is some sort of globalist individualist identity which is only accessible to the well off. OwlFancier posted:They have different economic interests but possibly similar racial interests. Economics may make them largely immune to some of the racial issues because say, rich people don't get arrested very often, but the bias remains. If we are envisioning a hypothetical economically equal society, I see no reason why that would guarantee equality in other areas. Again, i have no problem including analysis and working with race as part of an ideology. I just don't believe in identity politics in a vacuum. White Rock fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Are you serious? Dictionary definition of Identity Politics: By this logic almost every issue that is constructed to appeal to a group on the planet is identity politics Whether to keep or repeal the ACA is an identity issue under the identities "Republican" and "Democrat".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Convergence posted:I agree that we should avoid destroying peoples livelihoods if possible. However, I brought up climate change as an example to illustrate that there are definitely globe-scale problems we need to deal with as a species and not just as nations. For instance, we could solve the problem faster if a large international community implemented a carbon tax which levels the playing field for all involved- probably necessary for such an oppressive and ubiquitous externality like carbon emissions. Climate change is intrinsically a globalist issue (we're going to kill off fishing communities, for instance, in which no one had even heard of climate change yet faces the consequences of the Wests actions http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/12/14/459404745/fish-stocks-are-declining-worldwide-and-climate-change-is-on-the-hook). Following the globalist model the biggest breakthrough in solving the climate crisis, the big revolutionary set piece, after weeks of tireless negotiation, was for countries to sign an agreement to have " make any kind of plan to deal with climate change". So incredibly spineless... To think that there will be any strong consensus on climate change will just not happen, because it stands in the way of growth and making profits. Capitalism is incompatible with climate change, any and all reforms will be toothless. I think what "The Saurus" and i are feeling is that a putting band aids on open wounds is pointless, you have to solve underlying issues. Centrism while pleasant is simply letting underlying problems grow. A bunch of hidden factors that will eventually explode in our collective faces..
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 10:56
|
|