|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but I think if you can’t recognize shared near-term goals despite long-term ideological differences, then it’s going to be really hard to translate theory into practice? I think it's important to emphasize that not "[giving] a poo poo about ideology" is not a reason to back away from ideological critique, but even more reason to double down on it - after all, it's those that don't think that ideology ultimately matters that are most in the clutches of it. A materialist approach, what you've dismissed as mere 'labeling', is foundational to leftist thought. To simply say that leftists should keep their 'label' as vague as possible as to be able to cast the widest net is akin to burying one's head in the sand, as the inevitable back-stabbing at a pivotal point will be horrifically more damaging (As what should now be forever known as pulling an E. Warren). Would you say AOC is 'too committed to ideological purity' for her rapid disillusionment with politics after a relatively brief experience? Things like M4A and the GND got political traction because of the commitment of leftists to their ideology, not in some grand bargaining with 'reality-based' actors. Now that Sanders has capitulated to every demand of the Democratic establishment, where has that gotten us? KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Nov 15, 2020 |
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:I think i agree with what you’re saying about the non-ideological being the most in the clutches of it — basically if you’re marginalized and oppressed, you don’t have the luxury of examining ideas and this is a massive barrier to developing an ideology, yes? Yes, though not just developing, but also recognizing it in the first place. The problem of ideological illiteracy also extends to the managers of capital and beyond. I'm sure you know more than a few people from all walks of life who cannot even conceive of a world outside of the Democrat/Republican dichotomy. Sharks Eat Bear posted:To me, an implication of this dynamic isn’t to run away from leftist ideology, but I think pragmatically it’s going to be more persuasive to more people to say “I’m in favor of progressive policies like the GND” than “I’m in favor of leftist policies like the GND”. The latter presupposes a level of ideological understanding that just isn’t really widespread enough in the US, whereas the former is more intuitive. I don’t see how this is dismissive or inconsistent with a materialist approach. Policies that appeal to material conditions will always be insufficient if your communication appeals to ideology instead. This strategy is not without its own limitations. M4A and GND getting political traction is certainly a good thing, but they both had the advantage of being able to appeal to 'common sense' (Which is of course, still ideology) by purposefully referencing known signifiers. Leftist projects, by their very nature, require people to imagine new possibilities. How do you repackage ideas like Defund the Police or Prison Abolition into 'common sense' branding?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Well sure, no one's saying people shouldn't need convincing. But the point is that, during this dialogue, eventually you'd have to get to the proposed leftist solution which inherently involves leaving 'common sense' behind to take an ideological stand.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Right - people generally take 'common sense' to be a crystallization of natural reason in the narrative of historical progress. Though I do think it, no matter how unreasonable or detached from reality it may be, remains relevant because it allows us to map out a bit of the terrain that has to be overcome.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I feel like a major problem with the left is that once you go far enough left all energy for forward movement gets sucked away by people like this assuring you that trying to make things better is hopeless because Capitalism itself isn't being destroyed. So what are you saying exactly? That the best that anyone can hope for is whatever can be passed in Congress right now? Is climate catastrophe simply a foregone conclusion?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:... Right, the sanctimony behind the phrase, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", relies on an extremely advantageous framing of the situation. Liberals want to take all the credit for the 'lives they save', but refuse to take responsibility for a single life doomed in the process, which allows them to take a moral high ground. The fact that they get to keep their hands clean while their own situation remains fortuitous is conveniently left unacknowledged, when the truth is that that is what they cherish most of all as an unconditional requisite of their approval. They continue to use this rhetorical trick despite untrammeled technocratism in the last 30 years. In the latest iteration, now that the election is over and we're no longer useful, the Democratic party has already begun the predictable purging of leftist ideas. But it's the unreasonable leftists with no structural power who are preventing technocratism from reaching its highest potential. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Dec 6, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:...The same with all the other problems in the status quo. There's problem after problem after problem, but the only thing to do is tackle each problem one at a time and advocate for better policies. We can't just wipe the slate clean of all problems and "harms" in our society, because that's not something that's possible. This is the society we live in, this is what we've got to work with. So what was the strategy to push the Biden administration left again?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Not if your goal is to obfuscate, as much as possible, that your raison d'être is to preserve the status quo. I mean, we only have to look through history to see how incrementalism has been so good to humanity, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
It’s worth exploring how the lines between 'practicality' & 'idealism' and have been blurred. I agree that, in practice, the neo-liberal era of the Democratic Party “making things better”, is erratic at best in the short-term and blatantly false in the long term. Although this makes their practical claim as incrementalists dubious, the idealist claim remains relevant for us because it accurately depicts their foreclosure of possibility. A concrete example of this foreclosure is in the fetishization of compromise. In circumventing the hard work of genuine conflict, compromise becomes de-substantalized in the name of getting things done. But examining what those things actually are makes you ungrateful. Having any vision at all makes you naïve. The specific term is a positive and self-justifying spin on this foreclosure, which prevents themselves from being held to any objective standards, except that they amass power. When things don’t get better, it’s because they didn’t have enough power. And when they fail to amass power, it’s everybody else’s fault. Incrementalism is violently shoving ‘practicality’ into the realm of ‘idealism’ and calling it the ultimate form of rationality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Donald J. Trump single-handedly killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. All hail the most progressive president of the last 30 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2020 02:36
|
|