|
UnknownTarget posted:Besides, you want to talk about useless? A bunch of people from different geographic areas (heck, different continents) talking about how much they're totally going to fight back, just like, when stuff gets bad enough. There's a difference between making a moral judgement and actually intending to do something yourself. When someone says that they think a terrible criminal deserves to die, that isn't a statement of "I plan to kill that criminal." It's an assertion that the person believes the individual is bad enough to deserve that punishment. This is what people mean when they talk about guillotining the rich and what have you. It isn't (usually, at least) a statement of "I will personally cut the heads off of people" but is instead a value judgement. Helsing posted:The problem is that no one seems to be able to actually articulate a plausible and compelling vision of how we could overcome the current 'mode of production'. In the absence of that unifying vision the left has decomposed into various competing interest groups and factions. The scale of the problem just seems too immense and there aren't any obvious models to emulate or strategies to attempt. Besides, the merger of 'the left' with various counter cultural groups and with students and academics over the last 50 years has produced a situation where many of the left's largest contemporary constituencies are extremely mistrustful of mass action and popular politics so even if a leftist mass movement somehow looked possible I think a lot of current leftist thought leaders and activists would probably be very uncomfortable with it. The majority current left just isn't oriented toward achieving tangible results in the real world and the reality of actually wielding any kind of power or influence would probably make them squeamish. Are you talking about the practicalities of "defeating" the status quo, or are you talking about even constructing a non-capitalist working society? The former is something that might be impossible without some complete societal collapse happening first, but the latter is something that it's at least easy to come up with some basic "rules" for, even if people might disagree on other details. Outlawing the ownership of things like land, buildings, or any other wealth-generating asset would go a long way. Otherwise it's obviously impossible to magically prove that a dramatic restructuring of society will be successful. But you can at least move in that direction and promote core values (like the idea that it's unethical to profit off of another person's labor, or that it's unethical to profit from merely owning things). edit: I feel like one of the core things necessary to have any sort of successful left-wing society is for ownership of land and real estate, or of businesses by anyone who isn't the business's labor, to be thought of in the same way people in our society think of slavery. These things need to become "common sense" ethical things. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Dec 15, 2019 |
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
ChrisBTY posted:I'm not feeling much in the way of 'hope' here. Well I guess that's the critical first step, hope, so yeah that's important. I have hope. Pretty pointless otherwise. Sorry if I gave you a different impression. I think we've had some bad draws the last few years, combined with some pretty deep structural stuff, but I don't think it's insurmountable. But to entertain your question, if no hope, then just nihilist indulgence I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
I don't think capitalism is going anywhere. We need to temper its most outrageous elements, and recognise that a profit motive isn't always the best tool to solve problems and deliver optimal services, like health care. And I think that's getting more and more traction over the last 12 months, which is promising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I don't think capitalism is going anywhere. I live in the most republican-voting district in the entire Rocky Mountain region according to Wikipedia. I see Trump bumper stickers and magahats every day, and my US Rep is such a piece of poo poo that his siblings endorsed his opponent, one of which did so on the grounds that if his brother had his way, he'd be dead right now. This is the argument that when I use it is by FAR the most effective. "Capitalism can do good things, but its not the best for everything. Some things should not be steered by the profit motive. Medical Care is probably the biggest one that should have that motive taken out of it." Anyone I talk to that has even the smallest bit of unprogrammed brain left can see the sense in that. You're never going to be able to reach the "He's not hurting the RIGHT people," types, they're irredeemable fascists, but most people are not actually like that and are not OK with assholes getting rich off literal suffering, even here in the depths of Trumpland. No, I don't mean "reach across the isle," or triangulate or any of that bullshit, I mean present progressive ideas in a way that 1) focuses on the human good to be done by changing a current thing that is failing and 2) makes those ideas compatible with the parts of people's lives/society they like and believe in even if they're objectively not true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 08:41
|
|
|
Thank you. I admit that I infrequently come to this corner of SA after something politically bad happens to see if people have some kind of take on the situation that will allow me to believe in a future that isn't shrouded in gloom and doom. I mean I guess there are small pieces of evidence there. On a micro level the purge of FYAD is symbolic of society slowly purging the rats from the social norm. The idea that people with progressive ideas are able to resonate with younger voters combined with the imminent threats we face as a species becoming more of a reality than an abstract might mean that the future will have more Greta Thunbergs and AOCs and fewer Mitch McConnels. And there is the rather grim idea that the 1% are cannibalizing themselves much like they did a century ago and when the economy crashes it might become their turn to yeet themselves out of the closest window. It's sad to think that the renaissance only came after 1/3rd of Europe was killed by the plague. It's sad to think the new deal only came after several years of economic ruination. Maybe this time humanity can get the ball rolling before the worst happens. Maybe. Because I am the sort of person that will become nothing more than a statistic in the wake of a terrifying social collapse. Hope we can beat the inexorable march of time to the finish line. I should amend, I do not hate capitalism as an ideal. But like most ideologies taking it to its logical extreme is unhealthy. We learned the lesson of balance of power within our government. It stands to reason that similar balances need to exist within our private sector as well. Because power is power no matter its source. Yoke it or it will destroy you. ChrisBTY fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Dec 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I live in the most republican-voting district in the entire Rocky Mountain region according to Wikipedia. I see Trump bumper stickers and magahats every day, and my US Rep is such a piece of poo poo that his siblings endorsed his opponent, one of which did so on the grounds that if his brother had his way, he'd be dead right now. It’s just such a straight-forward equation. You can either have patient / service, or you can have patient / BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROFIT TO A 3RD PARTY / service. And that’s before we even get to the perverse incentives of denying claims, and people forgoing attention because of fear of costs. I know we can’t expect much, but that’s a pretty simple concept for people to understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 09:17
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I don't think capitalism is going anywhere. That’s probably it. Around here, people tend to treat capitalism as a directed conspiracy instead of the organically occurring one that it actually is. There’s also this desire for a violent confrontation, which is dumb as gently caress because the left doesn’t actually win that one if it happens. The road to change probably passes through 20 years of patiently building community structures that work in the current economy (gigs, rapid disruption, shifting of wealth from the west to the emerging world and all the rest of it) so that the left can meaningfully threaten collective action, and simultaneously rebuilding trust with the centre-left while not letting it set the agenda or take over. Even after all that, the likely outcome would be something like the 60s or Scandinavia and not the Bolshevik Revolution. And in that context, it’s likely that climate change or something tech related that nobody’s even imagining yet becomes the main political issue and shifts the political landscape before classic socialism is established.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 09:50
|
|
|
quote:That’s probably it. Around here, people tend to treat capitalism as a directed conspiracy instead of the organically occurring one that it actually is. There’s also this desire for a violent confrontation, which is dumb as gently caress because the left doesn’t actually win that one if it happens. At this point this thread mostly feels like a honey pot for people advocating violence. The way forward is what it has always been; advocating a real progressive platform of some kind with a strong messaging strategy. You know, politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 10:06
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:That’s probably it. Around here, people tend to treat capitalism as a directed conspiracy instead of the organically occurring one that it actually is. I mean, no doubt capitalists collude with one another, but there are too many capitalists for it to be literally just "capitalism is a thing these capitalists are forcing us to do" or something. And I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a leftist that actually thinks that - though, again, you might sometimes get the impression from listening to how they describe the predicament. Maybe this is something we should work on. At any rate, if you think about it this is even worse. If capitalism were a directed conspiracy then you could just depose the conspirators and be done with it. It might even be that capitalism isn't so bad, and you just need to do it right! But this is not the case: the truth is that the social and economic order that both grows from and feeds back in to capitalism, is inherently unjust, and dysfunctional. There will always be haves and have-nots, always an underclass, under capitalism. You can't really fix that. Even if you distribute existing wealth equality to every human being but keep capitalism, the 1% will reassert itself. Obviously it won't be the same people as before, but the capitalist class will reappear, they will control the means of production, they will use that to perpetuate their own existence, to pervert our institutions to their own ends, and we will be right back where we started. This is what capitalism is designed to do and we can only destroy it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
UnknownTarget posted:I listed the incentives, please refute them. As for the finance laws, you're right, take it out or only accept donations from local communities. The incentives you list are circular: politicians use the site because there's tons of voters reading it, and voters read the site because there's tons of politicians on it. There's no reason for one group to start using the site until the other group is already using the site in droves. Until that happens, you just have a half-assed social media site with no users and political words on the buttons. It seems like you think politicians will be the ones to take the first step for the sake of "exposure", but Twitter gets them a gajillion times more exposure than PoliticsBook ever will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:At this point this thread mostly feels like a honey pot for people advocating violence. The way forward is what it has always been; advocating a real progressive platform of some kind with a strong messaging strategy. You know, politics. Maybe in the US, but here in Australia the media is actively hostile to progressive politics, parties and candidates so they do not get equal nor accurate air time to broadcast their message. The message is either twisted or sometimes omitted completely and the oppositions rebuttal or talking points gets double the air time in response. So no, it's not always as simple as just "have a good platform".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
hambeet posted:Maybe in the US, but here in Australia the media is actively hostile to progressive politics, parties and candidates so they do not get equal nor accurate air time to broadcast their message. The message is either twisted or sometimes omitted completely and the oppositions rebuttal or talking points gets double the air time in response. if you lack the skills and resources to organize and put together a campaign for a local school board or council candidate, pool resources for a strike relief fund or mutual aid program, or otherwise bring people together to form a coalition that will work together on the political level I'm almost certain you'd fail even harder to organize an armed insurrection. The folks advocating for political change are not the naive ones who don't understand how stacked the deck is. The people who think shitposts are praxis and better things aren't possible frankly suffer from a lack of imagination and will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
The biggest and most damaging blind spot the academic left has is that they really, truly, have not grappled with the end of the cold war. The "way forward" does not involve winning in the foreseeable future. Pragmatism will lead you absolutely nowhere. Someone posted this on twitter the other day, it's good, read it:    It's from something I haven't read called "The Dark Side of the Dialectic"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
There's no point talking about violent revolution when most people -including the working class - have absorbed neoliberalism into their bones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
It is trading the future for the present anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Okay, new plan: how do we build a time machine, and what specific actions do we take (post-WWII) to prevent neoliberalism and neonationalism? The obvious ones I can think of:
and from then on, the butterfly effect would prevent the future as we know it from coming about. Would this solve the world's problems entirely? gently caress no, capitalism would still exist. Would things be better and more stable for the world as a whole? Undoubtedly, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Buncha important religious socialists in the US ceased to be socialists after looking at Russia under Stalin first hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Venomous posted:
Interesting that Mao and Nehru make the cut of leaders to murder but not any of the imperialist scumbags that run the US and UK. Seems to me the best timeline would going back far enough in history to neuter Europe entirely by letting the Ottomans overrun it from the east and the Moors from the west.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
I guess that's the issue that if you're trying to stop british imperialists you're gonna run out of bullets before you run out of brits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
It really feels like the conservatives have gone full bore with the International Democratic Union and have a united front for right wing policies across the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
In a serious suggestion, Progressives need the kind of spineless, shameless, manipulative liars that the Right has made part of their standard operating procedure. Not true believers who will throw themselves on pikes for the glorious revolution, but true believers who will take every advantage that is available. Don't just shine a light on the evils of racists and cops and prosecutors and billionaires and landlords and insurance companies and anti-LGBT organizations... fully fabricate lies about them that are even worse and more provocative. Ruin their lives with misinformation and libel and conspiracy theories. Apparently we live in a post-truth world, and there are literally no consequences for lying. It's the only weapon we have left that can actually affect the Right-wingers who have spent 40 years deconstructing worldwide democracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:In a serious suggestion, Progressives need the kind of spineless, shameless, manipulative liars that the Right has made part of their standard operating procedure. Not true believers who will throw themselves on pikes for the glorious revolution, but true believers who will take every advantage that is available. Don't just shine a light on the evils of racists and cops and prosecutors and billionaires and landlords and insurance companies and anti-LGBT organizations... fully fabricate lies about them that are even worse and more provocative. Ruin their lives with misinformation and libel and conspiracy theories. Apparently we live in a post-truth world, and there are literally no consequences for lying. It's the only weapon we have left that can actually affect the Right-wingers who have spent 40 years deconstructing worldwide democracy. What makes you think a trustworthy leader will get to the top of the pack by lying? Why would that change the current system where the most cynical liar wins and sells out the movement immediately? Cynicism is central to the problem. Indulging that will worsen the situation. Well, not really. We're already there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
*Stands up in the town hall meeting* GUYS! I've GOT IT! What we need, is politicians who lie!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:What makes you think a trustworthy leader will get to the top of the pack by lying? Why would that change the current system where the most cynical liar wins and sells out the movement immediately? Cynicism is the problem, but it's going to be hard to combat that if the idealists are forever out of power because the cynics just keep dunking on them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:We don't even need leaders who lie. We need Sean Hannitys and Roger Aileses and Bill O'Reillys, media personalities who lie. One Mitch McConnell or two in government, not a whole party full of them. Media talking heads are as much a part of the political apparatus as the members of congress. Whatever culture you foster in that sphere will spread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:We don't even need leaders who lie. We need Sean Hannitys and Roger Aileses and Bill O'Reillys, media personalities who lie. One Mitch McConnell or two in government, not a whole party full of them. You don't see leftist demagogues on TV because 5 corporations run the entire media apparatus, not because leftists are 100% virtuous saints who would never lie, engage in splittism, or indulge their own personal vanities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:In a serious suggestion, Progressives need the kind of spineless, shameless, manipulative liars that the Right has made part of their standard operating procedure. Not true believers who will throw themselves on pikes for the glorious revolution, but true believers who will take every advantage that is available. Don't just shine a light on the evils of racists and cops and prosecutors and billionaires and landlords and insurance companies and anti-LGBT organizations... fully fabricate lies about them that are even worse and more provocative. Ruin their lives with misinformation and libel and conspiracy theories. Apparently we live in a post-truth world, and there are literally no consequences for lying. It's the only weapon we have left that can actually affect the Right-wingers who have spent 40 years deconstructing worldwide democracy. This take hasn't gotten less boring since the previous 3,000 times a goon put it forward
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:You don't see leftist demagogues on TV because 5 corporations run the entire media apparatus, not because leftists are 100% virtuous saints who would never lie, engage in splittism, or indulge their own personal vanities. If you want to put pressure on capitalists from the left, you have to put pressure on the people who serve them: cops, politicians, media, and so on. Make politicians apprehensive about appearing in front of their constituents. Make their job a grind. Heckle reporters and give them poo poo wherever they go. Doxx police officers who brutalize peaceful demonstrators and the like, and put funding pressure on them at the local level. Basically just make these people's lives miserable in every petty little way you can think up, and share what works and what doesn't with other people of like mind. People who wake up in the morning and go to work as enforcers and propagandists for capital do so principally to earn a living, but no one likes doing a job that makes them feel like poo poo all the time. So make them feel like poo poo all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:We don't even need leaders who lie. We need Sean Hannitys and Roger Aileses and Bill O'Reillys, media personalities who lie. One Mitch McConnell or two in government, not a whole party full of them. The reason these people are successful isn't really their messaging, at least not primarily (they do have a knack for pandering to people's pre-existing prejudices while also creating new ones), it's having a powerful platform. The left doesn't need to lie, getting the truth out would be enough. The problem is that the corporations can operate the whole right-wing sewage factory at a loss, because it ultimately means more profits for their owners from getting kleptocrats into power. Roger Ailes certainly was a clever propagandist, but you can't replicate his success if you don't have access to the same giant piles of blood money. Plus, the same media establishment will fastidiously pick apart every half-truth and misleading statistic by a left-wing leader while completely ignoring outright made up bullshit from rightists. They can do this even if their preferred leader is an uncontrollable jelly-brained moron - when Trump lies believably, Fox will relate his words as true, and when he really shits his pants in a way that's obvious to anyone, they just cover for him by not mentioning it. That said, there is something to be said for cynicism as an image, in that we live in an age where people apparently don't trust idealists. All politicians are lying scum, popular belief goes, so you should treat them purely transactionally. And if one appears to be idealistic, they're either a) unpredictable lying scum, or b) a weak personality who may be nice but won't be able to get anything done in a cutthroat environment. Speaking from experience, I was part of a nascent left-wing party here in Poland and the criticism I heard most often while canvassing (from potential voters, discounting people who just called me a dirty communist) was "you're too idealistic and politics is brutal, I just don't believe you can succeed". We got thrashed hard in elections, then the party allied with the awful corrupt faux-socdems we would call lying thieving scumbags just weeks before - aaand support went up, because cynical powermongering is apparently seen as statesmanlike. I left because frankly I don't have the stomach for it, but it was a pretty big lesson in how people actually think. Sure, they value integrity in their friends and family, but politicians are judged by a different standard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Okay, new new plan: we build a time machine, go back to 1162, and strangle Genghis Khan in the cradle
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Sure, they value integrity in their friends and family, but politicians are judged by a different standard. they don't value it in friends and family either, except when the integrity does good for them it's just empty words, everyone says they value honesty because that's what we are told from the moment we start talking, that honesty = good and dishonesty = bad, so we "value" honesty in words while in reality valuing whatever brings us more money/stuff/good feels people are just animals with bigger brains which are mostly used not to actually reason poo poo out but to invent excuses and rationales for why the bad things we do are actually good that's the material you have to work with and you have to adjust accordingly
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
There isn't one. The right finally has the power it needs to tear and rip and kill forever. It has absolute power over what anyone sees or hears. The victims believe their suffering is just. Any heretic can be Dealt With by the absolute surveillance state that exists now. Their word and rule are absolute. They are like God, except there is only Hell. From top to bottom, all this iron cage wants is the pain of the inhabitants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Now also bear in mind that Britain actually has some loving laws that mandate press neutrality during an election. They were ignored with impunity. America has no such laws to even ignore so how do you think that will go? (I do think, that the American press somehow manages to be less poo poo than the British press, but we'll see.) Now you go ahead and tell me not only how, but why the rest of us ought to fight on such uneven ground? Be specific. Why should the left feel obligated to fight these battles, battles which are not just necessary from a social and economic justice standpoint, but indeed from the standpoint of saving human civilization, on ground wholly owned and controlled by the people they're fighting? The people who want to see the entire human race save for themselves in chains and who will irreversibly degrade this planet's ability to sustain life in order to achieve that goal? Pretty much. The American media is only playing coy right now. If Bernie Sanders ever starts to look like he's in a real position to win, we will see all factions of the capital class united against a candidate in a way that basically hasn't happened ever in our lives. The goal would be to engineer a McGovern type of loss to neuter electoral leftism for the next 3 decades, and the Electoral College plus FPTP makes that exceedingly easy. The UK election is pretty much a demonstration of that process. I had hoped naively that the internet circumventing mainstream news and increasing radicalization of younger generations would be enough to overcome that, but it clearly isn't. The only way to win electoralism is for the economy to poo poo the bed at the right time... and again the owners of this planet are also strategic about controlling oil prices and interest rates to pad their numbers and hurt their opponents during election season. We need to be working right now to coordinate a general strike to shut down the economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Are you talking about the practicalities of "defeating" the status quo, or are you talking about even constructing a non-capitalist working society? The former is something that might be impossible without some complete societal collapse happening first, but the latter is something that it's at least easy to come up with some basic "rules" for, even if people might disagree on other details. Outlawing the ownership of things like land, buildings, or any other wealth-generating asset would go a long way. Otherwise it's obviously impossible to magically prove that a dramatic restructuring of society will be successful. But you can at least move in that direction and promote core values (like the idea that it's unethical to profit off of another person's labor, or that it's unethical to profit from merely owning things). The old left tried to link the current grievances of the masses to a historical project aiming at the reconstruction of society. Not just a new government but an entire new set of social relations that would fundamentally change the social order. I don't think that vision plays a significant role in the leftist imagination anymore. There are a few holdouts but very few people seem to believe that such a thing would be possible. There's also a widespread belief that any attempt to transform society would - assuming it didn't fail completely - simply unleash destabilizing social conflict eventually leading to some kind of dictatorship and probably an overall lower standard of living. I think one of the questions that must be asked if whether the left can survive and remain relevant in the absence of some shared values or goal or vision of the future that is genuinely appealing to people outside the narrow confines of activism and the academic left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
I'm going to multi-quote a lot of people below so I want to say this first; my entire outlook is based on the historical fact that no empire has ever recovered once it begins to decay. Once the structure begins to truly collapse, momentum and human nature tend to keep it going along that path. That is why everything I advocate for is to build a new global organization out of the order of this one, because it is impossible to "turn back the clock" and restore the Liberal Western Empire to its former glory. Ok, begin multiquotes: Bucky Fullminster posted:First hey, my pleasure, glad it's appreciated. Responding to your paragraphs in order; - Global recognition is important to show that something is a global movement but with actual individuals it supports. It supports the idea that someone running a campaign in Hoboken, NJ is "part of something big". - I looked up electorialism; managed elections by authoritarian states? Not sure if that's what you meant because I don't see how it relates in this context. - I disagree with general strikes/disruptions. All it does is annoy people and at best puts things on hold temporarily. But it permanently makes people hate you for that time you made them late to an important meeting in their life, which frankly will always matter more to us. - I agree, Justice Democrats have a couple charismatic people on their team and it pays dividends. That's what people need. We are experiencing a dearth of real leadership - our politicians are just managers or people out for themselves. People will fall in line behind people they can believe in. The right has that, the left does not. Doesn't matter where those people come from or where they go (politics or community projects), they're just needed and we need to build the systems to support, grow and distribute that talent. The right has all media, we have the Internet because it's hard to control all of the Internet. We need to use it like a strategic resource. Bucky Fullminster posted:I don't think capitalism is going anywhere. Beefeater1980 posted:That’s probably it. Around here, people tend to treat capitalism as a directed conspiracy instead of the organically occurring one that it actually is. There’s also this desire for a violent confrontation, which is dumb as gently caress because the left doesn’t actually win that one if it happens. Ytlaya posted:There's a difference between making a moral judgement and actually intending to do something yourself. When someone says that they think a terrible criminal deserves to die, that isn't a statement of "I plan to kill that criminal." It's an assertion that the person believes the individual is bad enough to deserve that punishment. These are all related and the idea that capitalism is not going to go away is correct. Capitalism is a very natural process. It's literally evolution, but in market form. The problem that people have are with those that have accumulated unfair amounts of wealth and unfair distribution of profits between the people who work and the people who own the results of that work. This is what they need to change. You will get that problem in capitalism, communism (the government became the billionare class) or even socialism, though functioning socialism today still uses capitalism as its economic engine. Trying to deny capitalism is like trying to deny evolution. I agree that the best method for attacking this problem is to patiently build new services and work within or around the current system to shape it to the objectives of the left. Ok Ytala that makes sense re: people not actually saying they will cut people's heads off, just saying that they deserve to have that happen to them. Still that's kind of the approach of Trump, right? "Russia, if you're listening..." etc. Just my first thought. Amethyst posted:The biggest and most damaging blind spot the academic left has is that they really, truly, have not grappled with the end of the cold war. I love this post and I agree. The left is still stuck in 60s/70s era of resistance movements and is only just starting to move past the "if we protest they will have to listen" mindset. The left is also stuck in the "capitalism vs. socialism vs. communism" that was really big at the turn of the century. That sort of ideological clash IMO is out of style and out of touch with the modern world. Capitalism won. How do you make capitalism work as it nears the end result of its evolution is the next stage. Trying to turn back the clock to the early 1900s and get capitalists to fight socialists to fight communists will not go anywhere. The left also loves to ignore the practicalities of society. The point this writer(s?) makes is great; the system survives because it's logical, easy to understand and it kind of works. You need a practical, alternative that's demonstrated to be better and work to be able to show that people should switch over. Not everyone will, because there will be problems in every system or they'll have a lot invested in the previous one - and they'll fight to stop a new one from taking hold. But you need at least something beyond rhetoric ideas of "we need socialism/worker's rights/etc." to get people to move over. That's why I still hold the biggest problem with Occupy is that when it took over all those parks, they didn't try to create a new socioeconomic system within those parks. Instead, everyone looked at Occupy and was like "oh if we become like them then we'll just act like homeless people in a park" rather than "wow look at that system they're using, that looks better than what I've got going on right now". Even if it got shut down, it would have a lasting impression. Finally, I've advocated for progressives to begin staking out claims in areas that are least likely to be significantly disrupted by climate change and create Isaac Asimov style "Foundations" to protect liberalism, knowledge, etc. and get there before the right realizes there's an actual problem with the climate and tries to go there too. Bucky Fullminster posted:Well I guess that's the critical first step, hope, so yeah that's important. I have hope. Pretty pointless otherwise. Sorry if I gave you a different impression. I think we've had some bad draws the last few years, combined with some pretty deep structural stuff, but I don't think it's insurmountable. ChrisBTY posted:Thank you. I admit that I infrequently come to this corner of SA after something politically bad happens to see if people have some kind of take on the situation that will allow me to believe in a future that isn't shrouded in gloom and doom. I mean I guess there are small pieces of evidence there. On a micro level the purge of FYAD is symbolic of society slowly purging the rats from the social norm. The idea that people with progressive ideas are able to resonate with younger voters combined with the imminent threats we face as a species becoming more of a reality than an abstract might mean that the future will have more Greta Thunbergs and AOCs and fewer Mitch McConnels. And there is the rather grim idea that the 1% are cannibalizing themselves much like they did a century ago and when the economy crashes it might become their turn to yeet themselves out of the closest window. Hope is about the only thing the left has at this point, and even that is faint. Darkest before the dawn and all that though. It's still technically a winnable fight, so it'll look like we're losing until we're not. But no I don't think that we will completely stop this ship before it runs aground. Main Paineframe posted:The incentives you list are circular: politicians use the site because there's tons of voters reading it, and voters read the site because there's tons of politicians on it. There's no reason for one group to start using the site until the other group is already using the site in droves. Until that happens, you just have a half-assed social media site with no users and political words on the buttons. It seems like you think politicians will be the ones to take the first step for the sake of "exposure", but Twitter gets them a gajillion times more exposure than PoliticsBook ever will. The politician can put up their message. People can read it on that page or not or interact with that person or not. But simply putting it on the page doesn't require there to be a lot of people, and it doesn't require a lot of people for it to be useful as a reading platform. Additionally, if a politician has supporters and says they're putting stuff on the page then the supporters can be directed to use it. Unlike regular social media, where you require lots of people interacting and sharing content before it's useful, this just starts with one person going "I agree with this statement, my name is on the page, you can read about what I want here and interact with me via this site". Then people follow the one, rather than the crowd. Now I've responded to your deconstructive feedback twice. I've worked with people like you in projects before, where you play the holy critic and never offer any substantive solutions to the problems you raise because you're not interested in collaboration towards a solution, only to prove someone else wrong. I challenge you in your next response to offer at least one solution to an issue you raise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The old left tried to link the current grievances of the masses to a historical project aiming at the reconstruction of society. Not just a new government but an entire new set of social relations that would fundamentally change the social order. I actually really like your point here (came out when I was typing that massive post). This I think is the failure of the creative left. For all of Hollywood and the gaming sphere's collective "leftism", they are incredibly trite and repetitive when it comes to visions of the future. Almost everything is worse or dystopic in media, because that plays on our fears and sells really well right now. There's no better future to look forward to because no one has built one to show people in screen or fiction. It's a failure of imagination and a triumph of profit over creativity that has created this problem and it needs to change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
A big part of the solution is to stop using twitter. Stop pretending it's legitimate, and definitely stop pretending that anyone who uses it can be a leftist. Most of the politics threads in D&D are a joke because of all the twitter linking. Twitter is Trump's platform. Simply using twitter at all helps the right far more than any message you could try to spread via twitter. The simplicity of the platform provides a permanent house advantage to those with simple and hateful ideas. At the very least it needs to be boycotted until they ban trump for his threats of violence and start banning people who threaten to rape/murder/etc women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Alternatively social media is a tool which allows people of like mind to form communities and keep in touch with each other and if all the leftists leave it that's not going to do anything to stop the right from using it but is going to severely limit our access to information and other people to potentially convert...
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
If everyone left of center left twitter it would collapse and something better could then take its place. Keep using social media if you want, just stop using twitter because it's by far the worst. Every time you use twitter you hurt the left, full stop. Bluechecks are trash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
NaanViolence posted:A big part of the solution is to stop using twitter. Stop pretending it's legitimate, and definitely stop pretending that anyone who uses it can be a leftist. Most of the politics threads in D&D are a joke because of all the twitter linking. Ironically you're going to have to avoid collective action [at first] to get something to work. Which sounds more effective/realistc: Build a small, devout core group and grow from there, slowly adding on people until everyone sees what you're doing and the effort you've already put in and starts to dogpile on. or... Try to organize a big effort with millions of people to boycott a platform lots of legitimate actors use for sharing personal life stuff, government updates, etc.? Not to mention that how would news of the boycott spread? Without using Twitter, you're just going to have to go to another social media platform to broadcast your intent to stop using Twitter and to join the movement. Heck if you use it to broadcast your message and then turn off your account then you're just proving the effectiveness of the platform. I would love to get rid of Twitter but I think the best option is just to ignore it as much as possible and focus on interpersonal connections and small communities that build a body of work over time. UnknownTarget fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Dec 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 19:27
|
|