"The Truth is in the Middle" - The Liberal Ideal in an Era of Nationalism

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > "The Truth is in the Middle" - The Liberal Ideal in an Era of Nationalism

White Rock: Jul 14, 2007; Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!

Count Roland posted:

This is my very basic understanding of it.

Workers rights that we take for granted like the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, weekends and so forth came after decades of violent clashes in the early 20th century. Workers were treated little better than slaves. Attempts to organize were met with beatings or outright murder from bosses and police. There were massive and bloody strikes that led to workers being granted rights.

The western welfare state as we know it came about after WW2. Europe was a broken place. The USSR effectively controlled half of it already. Communists were among the few credible political groups that weren't tainted by fascism. The question was of keeping the populace fed and at work or of facing outright revolution against the frail governments of the time.

If anyone would like to comment or challenge or add to this account, I'd like that. I've only recently been learning about this sort of thing. This is (so far) a surprisingly constructive and civil thread.

There are two more major reasons social democracy failed.

1. It only works when labor is actually in high demand, as workers strikes, lockouts are a real threat and labor is not easily replaceable. There is a real benefit to capitalists to cooperate. With a globalized economy workers from all over the world can take your place if your too much of a hassle, or they can just move production aboard. Secondly, demand for labor in genera has steadily been decreasing due to productivity gains. Combine this with new labor laws that makes the workforce more "flexible" (ie fireable) and any strike can essentially be met with a giant middle finger and little to no concessions.

2. Most social democratic parties were reformist socialists, split of from their revolutionary comrades. Their end goal was communism, but through democracy, which their many of their party programs stated. But both due to having to win elections this goal was pushed back and back and instead making smaller, more popular progressive reforms that still moved society towards the goals of their ideology. Finally the nail in the coffin was the fall of the USSR which meant that , at least in one aspect, communism had failed. End of History and all that, no more ideologies necessary other than global capitalism and representative democracy. Thus leading to parties striking their goals in of socialism (see Blairs edit in 1995) and implementing the lovely piss weak third way socialism we have today.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2017 21:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 23:07

White Rock: Jul 14, 2007; Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!

Mr. Wynand posted:

I know the point has been beaten to death elsewhere but I think it is, in fact, going to be easier to find common ground with a subset of Trump supporters than with older, comfortable, white liberals. The common ground is specifically economic distress. Many Trump supporters feel it and voted Trump out of a sort of hopeless despair. All you have to do is show that Trump has not actually helped their day-to-day situation (or made it worse), which shouldn't be the most difficult thing in the world.

As an aisde, the really scary scenario to my mind is if the Trump government actually manages to caugh up enough social programs (primarily targeted to his base and disguised as tax cuts with job-creating conditions and PPPs and god knows what else) that it actually improves the day-to-day situation of a large part of his base. I don't know how the left comes back from that, I really don't.

Trumps ideology and stories are good, but his policies will do little to help the working class. The rust belt has no economic niche, and nobody is willing to bail them out, not even Trump. And when canceling TRIPPS and "standing up to china" doesn't do jack poo poo Trump he will shrug his shoulders and say "i tried". And he will get a lot of goodwill for doing ANYTHING of course, so that could carry him for another term.

What you should really worry about is the candidate that replaces Trump, because it will be another nationalistic populist, and you better have your own populist to run.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2017 12:42

White Rock: Jul 14, 2007; Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!

Tribalism hasn't gone away, tribalism of nations it has been replaced of tribalism of the urban. City livers have more in common with other city livers then the rest of the citizens of their nations. Copenhagen and London has more in common then the rural parts of their own nations. However, this is not some sort internationalist, "the world is one" attitude, it has material prerequisites, like being able to fart about the globe in cheap budget airlines. One can now ignore class, and ignore nationality, if one has the means to, but those things aren't gone. That is a temporary illusion. Nations continue to exist, and the worse the situation the more you will rely on them.

If your gonna achieve political goals you have to use class and nationhood to your advantage.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 13:32

White Rock: Jul 14, 2007; Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!

Neeksy posted:

I think it has more to do with the fact that the logistics of living in cities are universal; people are more exposed to each other on a daily basis in urban areas and in order for things to function, people developed compromises and social structures that tends towards the collective needs of the denizens. You're also more likely going to encounter people of many different classes and backgrounds in cities, whereas suburban and rural areas are far more likely to be homogenous in that regard.

People have been living in cities for centuries, this incredibly sharp divide in future prospects, ideology and attitude between rural and the urban was non existent the 50's and 60's, for example. The fact that Londoners have more in common with Parisians than the rest of their own nations is a new and frankly quite dangerous idea, and very much reminds me of how the noblemen of feudalism had more in common with each other than the countries they were ostensibly running.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 14:21

White Rock: Jul 14, 2007; Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!

radmonger posted:

Obviously, the tricky bit here is that it is not merely necessary to think you are right, but to be right. You have to identify the real groups involved, and the real causal relations between them. Zoologists get that kind of stuff wrong all the time, finding what they thought was one species is actually 5, and vice versa. If you ever find yourself trying to feed a lion on grass (because that's what most large African mammals eat) you hosed up.

I find this analogy both fitting and hilarious.
*David Attenborugh voice*
"The common house liberal is sometimes confused as part of the prole genus, put scientists have for decades know it as part of it's own separate family of "bourgeoisis petititus""

Also great post, recongningtion of common shared material interested is how classes get created.

radmonger posted:

The thing is, again and again you would see some interview where some guy living on a coal industry pension would be described as 'working class' based on their clothes and accent.

To clarify what i think your saying here: The coal worker would want to get to keep or get back his steady job with a bit of pride rather then being payed slightly more as a Walmart greeter (if he can even land THAT)?

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 11:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > "The Truth is in the Middle" - The Liberal Ideal in an Era of Nationalism