-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
That UBI article kinda went over my head
Progressive Taxing and the dissembly of the military industrial complex would help go a long way in helping the working class
Progressive Taxing and the dissembly of the military industrial complex would help go a long way in helping the working class
I used to identify as Marxist but as time has gone on I've come to find that while I strongly appreciate both his political position in history and a lot of his work as foundation laying I also perceive shortcomings from both his perspective and the evolution of history since. The work of the Situationists still resonates the most strongly with me on a "yeah these guys get it" sort of level but, as discussed, figuring out what the hell modern praxis looks like means that most of this remains in my head while I try and decide who I should vote for, and I also think that so many genies are just too far out of bottles and social inertia won't permit the dissolution of certain structures (so many anti-authoritarian movements really require the fundamental dismantling of what we consider "city ecosystems", for example)
Well that's the thing, isn't it? Is our goal to "help the working class", in those terms, or is it to empower the working class so they do not require help? I don't think there's a wrong answer per se, but I do think that the answer is the fissure point between a lot of different modern leftist movements
Last edited:
I'm a marxist because it's the only political ideology that gives a good analysis of what's wrong with society and the current status quo and at the same time actually provides a way forward.
It doesn't explain everything about the world of course, but I think in terms of the question of building the left, which way forward in the context of capitalism increased inability to address fundamental problems, I just don't think anything else has come close, and it's by far the most adaptable political theory in terms of changing material conditions and circumstances.
It doesn't explain everything about the world of course, but I think in terms of the question of building the left, which way forward in the context of capitalism increased inability to address fundamental problems, I just don't think anything else has come close, and it's by far the most adaptable political theory in terms of changing material conditions and circumstances.
Something is being done for the working class, that's all that matters to me. The difference between empowering and helping out is such a moot issue, I don't think it should matter in lingual terms.
There are several and more severe issues we need to deal with. The linguistics of such beliefs should not even be of discussions. We need to reboot socialism into something more playable for young working class everywhere.
Socialism isn't a product that you market to "young people" and this very concept is rooted in bourgeois capitalist ideas.
"Empowering the working class" "make socialism more palatable" etc. The working class knows its own interests and methods and this type of language separates the speaker from the working class. Is someone proletarian or not? If they are, then why would they speak of the working class from a point of view of outside it?
I am not sure how evident this is. I'm not even saying that in a "people are stupid and need to be led" way. Or perhaps its more accurate to say: I don't know how well people's internal knowledge of their interests maps onto any sort of classical Marxist models of class. I've spoken before about the ways in which many white people find genuine emotional value and therefore have genuine interest in the maintenance of white supremacy, even when it is at odds with other material interests.
When I speak of "empowering the working class" I try to do so from a position inclusive of myself (although my current class position is certainly complicated)
People act in their economic interests and act from their own economic circumstances. But even then, I doubt "white supremacy" is the primary motivating factor for the white working class on any massive scale.
I also suspect that the economic needs of the white working class are their primary motivation with the manifestation of racism/nationalism/etc an after-the-fact justification simply because many lack a deeper understanding or ability to explain their circumstances.
Point being, "many white people" aren't the masses and racism and the addressing of is an issue that can be done so by but ultimately is separate from Socialism. Ultimately, I don't think "minor" manifestations of bigotry (microaggressions as example) will ever be resolved in full, but only our ability to build communities where we are able to freely associate will neuter any power that makes bigotry painful.
The U.S. 2016 election, French Presidential election of 2017 and Brexit. Demonstrably show that among the white working class that white supremacy is a motivating factor.
Racism is not an after-the fact justification. And with you saying that, you're just justifying the bullshit "economic anxiety" reasoning. Which has proven to be nothing but a fig leaf to hid racism.
They do because the masses are ultimately made up of people.
And this is most definitely an issue that need to be dealt with as a part of socialism, and not separate from it.
This sentiment is the same as "if you ignore the bigots they'll go away"
Free associating doesn't deal of the problems in a community. All it does is give people the excuse to tell me "if you don't like it than leave" Which is a disgusting mentality to have. And doesn't address the problem at all.
Form your entire post, It seem that people of colour aren't particularly welcome, and if they are, their problems will just be brushed aside.
I mean...I don't agree with you. I think that people can be highly motivated by "immaterial" matters like cultural pride or community solidarity or any others, and I think the body of evidence is more on my side in this manner. The longer we continue to underestimate this the longer we'll continue to mistake intra-class fronts of conflict as just "manipulations of the elite" that we can fix instead of internally or socially generated interests that are at odds
Reactions against Neo Liberalism and failed US policy isn't white supremacism.
Socialism addresses the issues by destroying the concept of political and economic power, which you, in the following quote, denounce. If you don't believe in the central tenant of Socialism, that of Free Association, then you're not in the right thread.
If bigots have no political or economic power over you, then why does it matter? A white person screaming "nigger" into a vacuum has 0 affect on anyone. A white person can't blame a person of color for their lack of personal agency if there is no zero sum economic structure.
Trying to frame me "racist" because I prefer a true emancipatory society over our current Capitalist moral panic is peak liberalism.
Fuck off with cynical and cheap appeals to emotion. People of color are 100% in a leadership position of their emancipation, white dudes on the internet talking about Utopian, non existent, and fantastical ideas like "everyone is going to magically get along under Socialism" are not going to help them at all, at best, and set people up for immense disappointment.
You simply can't police people being assholes.
Show me the body of evidence that the vast majority of the white US population is on board with apartheid/white supremacist social organization. "Well they voted for Trump!" is not scientific, nor is it evidence.
Last edited:
When did the GOP openly campaign on the concept of "America is for White People"?
"The Wall", Trumps biggest campaign promise, is rooted in and resonates with protecting American jobs aka Economic Anxiety. Race is an alibi.
Last edited:
The things i listed have nothing to do with Neo Liberalism and failed US policy.
For example. You can't blame those two thing on the National Front ( an actual fascist Nazi party) almost being elected in France.
I have no problem with Free Association. I just don't think it should be used as an excuse not hold people accountable for their behaviour.
Only someone who has never been called nigger would ever claim that it has no effect.
And see this is the point i'm trying to make. White people can (and are) racist without it being an excuse for their own situation.
I for one minute don't believe that people will suddenly start getting along under Socialism. But there's a big difference between that, and outright bigoted behaviour.
I wasn't trying to be cynical, or making a cheap appeal to emotion. I was telling you how i, a P.O.C feel from reading your posts.
Among other things this just landed:
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2017-voter-survey/party-hoppers
Showing that economic concern is inversely correlated with turning into a Trump/Conservative voter.
White Supremacy can be short of "rabid enthusiasm for apartheid", it just means "finds genuine interest in the oppression and exploitation of non-white bodies"
I'm not even saying white supremacy is a unique phenomenon, I'm saying that we have to deal with the fact that material concerns are one of several types of concern that people use to discern what is or isn't "in their interests".
Last edited:
Neo Liberalism doesn't exist in the US alone. It's failed on a global scale.
I said that we should destroy the power structure that enables bigotry to be harmful at all, and it seemed that your response was to twist that into me saying "ignore the problem and it goes away".
People should be held accountable for their actions, but that is a separate topic/issue from Socialism outside of how a community would handle that type of behavior in an environment where there is no economic or political power associated with bigotry.
And I don't deny this, but I'm not on board with it being the sole mitigating factor, or the major factor either.
That said, I'm gonna take a pause with the conversation and think of a way to better put my position. I recognize that I may not be putting myself out there in a way that is accurate and I certainly don't want to reinforce any reactionary/right wing talking points.
Last edited:
Racism and "economic anxiety" aren't wholly linked but fascism and austerity go hand-in-hand and to say otherwise is dangerously ahistorical.
Absolutely true, but in the end, disciplining and liquidating redundant/competing sectors of the bourgeoisie and working class needs a scapegoat, and that's what populism gives them.
I'll give it a read, but you can't really make any assumptions as to Stalin's motivations. Though if Stalin and the Party felt they had eliminated internal rivals there wouldn't have been much of a justification for the resulting purges.
The system is intrinsicaly racist as It is normally, in a moral acceptable way by most people, you are not imprisioning Black people and latinos, but criminals. Then they say Race is not a factor when It is.
What fascism does, its that it gets the system that already exists with more energy and authoritarism/totalitarism, saying thats the only Way the system can work, is with more strenght, violence. Then there's two types of fascists govermnents the Way i see, the openly racists, racial supremacy (nazi). The other that does not say that openly, but is (Basic fash)
Fascists have the advantage that they already have the system in today's world already done, and their defense of the elite makes It easier for them to be accepted. Then they reinforce the prejudice to communists, Blacks, jews, romani etc, to have a scape goat of the system.
Thats How I understand It.
What fascism does, its that it gets the system that already exists with more energy and authoritarism/totalitarism, saying thats the only Way the system can work, is with more strenght, violence. Then there's two types of fascists govermnents the Way i see, the openly racists, racial supremacy (nazi). The other that does not say that openly, but is (Basic fash)
Fascists have the advantage that they already have the system in today's world already done, and their defense of the elite makes It easier for them to be accepted. Then they reinforce the prejudice to communists, Blacks, jews, romani etc, to have a scape goat of the system.
Thats How I understand It.
You're right in that Fascism already has "the system in today's world".
Fascism is, ultimately, Capitalism and the bourgeoisie dropping the pretenses of "democracy" and normally justified State power in exchange for fulfilling populist ideals in situations of crisis. It's not necessarily "defense of the elite", as fascist or similar movements have often done away with socially elite and at some points protected classes in the name of "stability" or redeeming the State. Think of Revolutionary situations in the past where a Monarchy along with the Monarchist Caste were liquidated along with race/ethnic minorities and Leftist elements. As an example Germany after WW1 saw both the Emperor and the resulting Military political power post WW1 removed by the fascists.
Fascism is, ultimately, Capitalism and the bourgeoisie dropping the pretenses of "democracy" and normally justified State power in exchange for fulfilling populist ideals in situations of crisis. It's not necessarily "defense of the elite", as fascist or similar movements have often done away with socially elite and at some points protected classes in the name of "stability" or redeeming the State. Think of Revolutionary situations in the past where a Monarchy along with the Monarchist Caste were liquidated along with race/ethnic minorities and Leftist elements. As an example Germany after WW1 saw both the Emperor and the resulting Military political power post WW1 removed by the fascists.
Last edited:
I'm trying to very specifically not say anything like "humans are inherently racist" or "humans are inherently sexist" or any of that sort of bullshit because I know how much those are used as arguments for "why socialism can never work" which I, hopefully obviously, don't believe. The furthest I might go is that "humans have tribal social tendencies" but the sociological phenomenon of "tribalism" is certainly a complex one
My overarching point is that there are significant nonmaterial things that people find genuine and internally motivated value in, weather those things are social or artistic or anything else, and people do account for them when consciously or unconsciously figuring out "what their interests are"
My overarching point is that there are significant nonmaterial things that people find genuine and internally motivated value in, weather those things are social or artistic or anything else, and people do account for them when consciously or unconsciously figuring out "what their interests are"
How socialists engage the topic of tribalism will honestly decide its future imo.
In multi-cultural societies, you got to be able to know how to engage that discourse. Racism, sexism, homophobia. There are folks, economic status be damned, who have some bad or violent thoughts on that.
Not just clearly negative things like white supremacy, but grayer or positive things like decolonization. I believe in it, but also know it would take hurting colonizers on varying fronts for it to have a positive impact on the colonized.
How do you engage that? Ignore, dismiss, include, or manipulate? Hell, do you exploit it?
I honestly don't have a clear answer myself.
In multi-cultural societies, you got to be able to know how to engage that discourse. Racism, sexism, homophobia. There are folks, economic status be damned, who have some bad or violent thoughts on that.
Not just clearly negative things like white supremacy, but grayer or positive things like decolonization. I believe in it, but also know it would take hurting colonizers on varying fronts for it to have a positive impact on the colonized.
How do you engage that? Ignore, dismiss, include, or manipulate? Hell, do you exploit it?
I honestly don't have a clear answer myself.
Last edited:
I readed about communists groups in many different cultures, arabs, africans, indians japanese, latin americans, North americans, Europe, oceania etc.
I dont think we need to answer ALL multiculturalist questions. Each country is a different situation about culture mostly.
I dont think we need to answer ALL multiculturalist questions. Each country is a different situation about culture mostly.
Socialism is international, appeals to a national bourgeois are still appeals to capital.
Last edited:
I guess something I keep myself from thinking about, is what else is there in Socialism am I in favor of?
-UBI
-UHC
-anti imperialist/ pro independence for all groups/countries
-destruction of bougie and elite classes in the world
I'm also in favour of the abolition of american exceptionalism because that shit is everywhere
I'm also in favor of equality for all genders and people and the spread of capital to all people and just not 1%
I'm also in favor of the government investing in quality journalism (a la the BBC and not Faux News) and impartial journalism
I'm more interested in the abolition of the two party system as a whole because it hurts people more then helps.
Is there something else I'm missing?
I don't even think there should be a president, maybe a committee?
-UBI
-UHC
-anti imperialist/ pro independence for all groups/countries
-destruction of bougie and elite classes in the world
I'm also in favour of the abolition of american exceptionalism because that shit is everywhere
I'm also in favor of equality for all genders and people and the spread of capital to all people and just not 1%
I'm also in favor of the government investing in quality journalism (a la the BBC and not Faux News) and impartial journalism
I'm more interested in the abolition of the two party system as a whole because it hurts people more then helps.
Is there something else I'm missing?
I don't even think there should be a president, maybe a committee?
luv 2 spend my saturday morning reading 15 tweet threads about how the DPRK is totally not a hereditary dictatorship and its just standing up to western imperialism
at a certain point western imperialism can't be an answer for why you just "have to run secret prisons and confiscate all outside media while starving all of your people"
at a certain point western imperialism can't be an answer for why you just "have to run secret prisons and confiscate all outside media while starving all of your people"
OP
OP
OP
OP
I think they'd be more likely to have a resurgence in Russia than gain power in the west judging by Russian admiration for Stalin.
They have no political influence anywhere and it's largely a movement of 20 year old bourgie edge lords and LARPers.
Tankies are 100% authoritarian goobers with a revenge fantasy.
Tankies are 100% authoritarian goobers with a revenge fantasy.
The DSA Medicare for All campaign wasn't communicating with the Disability Working Group, which apparently was a result of not having the correct contact info for the latter rather than malice.
This got a lot worse because Amber from Chapo decided to make some really shitty and unhinged attacks on the Disability WG on Facebook. But I think/hope it's just another Extremely Online controversy that has little relevance to DSA's actual organizing.
You're telling me someone affiliated with Chapo Trap House made a comment that was simultaneously disturbingly ableist, cruel and cliqueish? But that's so off brand for them
In all seriousness I think I'm done paying attention to the national DSA until they get all the Chapo asshats out. Support your local chapters folks
In all seriousness I think I'm done paying attention to the national DSA until they get all the Chapo asshats out. Support your local chapters folks
I mean, I hope it doesn't affect actual organizing also but I would like a good answer for why the hell she's qualified or suitable to be on their M4A committee in the first place