|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 07 2020 12:01 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 11:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:47 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:44 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:36 Zambrah wrote:
As someone who acknowledges capitalism as we know it fuckin' sucks and is unlikely to be made better without murderlating the modern robber barons, but basically feels like voting will accomplish essentially nothing, what am I even doing past acknowledging capitalism sucks?
At this point the only thing I think to do is just leave countries that utilize systems I disapprove of as best I can. Can you expand on why you don't think voting accomplishes anything (especially in the US)? I unironically think electing Bernie is one of the last hopes we have (globally). I dont think voting accomplishes anything because the US populace is abusable enough to systematically prevent the overall will from reaching governmental power. I live in Virginia right now, so I at least vote in a state where my vote kind of matters, but realistically speaking, I dont know a single person save one who voted or votes Republican who will vote anything other than Republican for literally any reason. The best I believe the US can hope to achieve is some brand of minute incremental change and I dont want to wait a century to see basic improvements get worked out. I can't disagree with your stance but I would contend that leftwing activism and visibility can shape the next generation of voters and thinkers. I would be a different person today if Shaun, Contrapoints, Three Arrows or even the socdems at TYT had never made videos. We can also appeal to populists, which typically vote republican (granted I doubt there are a ton of those in Virginia specifically). I feel that we are far away from the next generation being powerful enough to outweigh the current old guard who would gladly see the world burn during their last few minutes of life assuming it didnt reach them during that time. Eventually change will get there but it will have to navigate so much that we may as well do nothing til the old people die off in droves.
If we do nothing, the new people will still be old people. There were a few years where the rightwing was absolutely dominant on Youtube after Gamergate and that did a LOT of damage to the discourse among people who are mostly young. I realize Youtube is not quite real life but a lot of new people grow up there.
|
On January 07 2020 12:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 12:01 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:47 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:44 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:36 Zambrah wrote:
As someone who acknowledges capitalism as we know it fuckin' sucks and is unlikely to be made better without murderlating the modern robber barons, but basically feels like voting will accomplish essentially nothing, what am I even doing past acknowledging capitalism sucks?
At this point the only thing I think to do is just leave countries that utilize systems I disapprove of as best I can. Can you expand on why you don't think voting accomplishes anything (especially in the US)? I unironically think electing Bernie is one of the last hopes we have (globally). I dont think voting accomplishes anything because the US populace is abusable enough to systematically prevent the overall will from reaching governmental power. I live in Virginia right now, so I at least vote in a state where my vote kind of matters, but realistically speaking, I dont know a single person save one who voted or votes Republican who will vote anything other than Republican for literally any reason. The best I believe the US can hope to achieve is some brand of minute incremental change and I dont want to wait a century to see basic improvements get worked out. I can't disagree with your stance but I would contend that leftwing activism and visibility can shape the next generation of voters and thinkers. I would be a different person today if Shaun, Contrapoints, Three Arrows or even the socdems at TYT had never made videos. We can also appeal to populists, which typically vote republican (granted I doubt there are a ton of those in Virginia specifically). I feel that we are far away from the next generation being powerful enough to outweigh the current old guard who would gladly see the world burn during their last few minutes of life assuming it didnt reach them during that time. Eventually change will get there but it will have to navigate so much that we may as well do nothing til the old people die off in droves. If we do nothing, the new people will still be old people. There were a few years where the rightwing was absolutely dominant on Youtube after Gamergate and that did a LOT of damage to the discourse among people who are mostly young. I realize Youtube is not quite real life but a lot of new people grow up there.
A lot of the 20 year olds I know are basically their parents politically, I'm not entirely sure theres going to be a shift large enough to displace the combination of abuse and staunch support that political parties have created for themselves in the US.
It'd require some sort of miracle death spiral starting with Mitch McConnell and going downwards in a big way before I felt that there was a chance to pass legislation to do things like, make voting days mandatory holidays, or voting district reform, finance reform, etc. etc.
|
On January 07 2020 12:18 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 12:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 12:01 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:47 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:44 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:36 Zambrah wrote:
As someone who acknowledges capitalism as we know it fuckin' sucks and is unlikely to be made better without murderlating the modern robber barons, but basically feels like voting will accomplish essentially nothing, what am I even doing past acknowledging capitalism sucks?
At this point the only thing I think to do is just leave countries that utilize systems I disapprove of as best I can. Can you expand on why you don't think voting accomplishes anything (especially in the US)? I unironically think electing Bernie is one of the last hopes we have (globally). I dont think voting accomplishes anything because the US populace is abusable enough to systematically prevent the overall will from reaching governmental power. I live in Virginia right now, so I at least vote in a state where my vote kind of matters, but realistically speaking, I dont know a single person save one who voted or votes Republican who will vote anything other than Republican for literally any reason. The best I believe the US can hope to achieve is some brand of minute incremental change and I dont want to wait a century to see basic improvements get worked out. I can't disagree with your stance but I would contend that leftwing activism and visibility can shape the next generation of voters and thinkers. I would be a different person today if Shaun, Contrapoints, Three Arrows or even the socdems at TYT had never made videos. We can also appeal to populists, which typically vote republican (granted I doubt there are a ton of those in Virginia specifically). I feel that we are far away from the next generation being powerful enough to outweigh the current old guard who would gladly see the world burn during their last few minutes of life assuming it didnt reach them during that time. Eventually change will get there but it will have to navigate so much that we may as well do nothing til the old people die off in droves. If we do nothing, the new people will still be old people. There were a few years where the rightwing was absolutely dominant on Youtube after Gamergate and that did a LOT of damage to the discourse among people who are mostly young. I realize Youtube is not quite real life but a lot of new people grow up there. A lot of the 20 year olds I know are basically their parents politically, I'm not entirely sure theres going to be a shift large enough to displace the combination of abuse and staunch support that political parties have created for themselves in the US. It'd require some sort of miracle death spiral starting with Mitch McConnell and going downwards in a big way before I felt that there was a chance to pass legislation to do things like, make voting days mandatory holidays, or voting district reform, finance reform, etc. etc.
Any thoughts on incorporating raising class consciousness and promoting critical pedagogy as (part of*) a strategy to avert the more bleak future scenarios you envision?
|
On January 07 2020 12:18 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 12:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 12:01 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:47 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:44 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:36 Zambrah wrote:
As someone who acknowledges capitalism as we know it fuckin' sucks and is unlikely to be made better without murderlating the modern robber barons, but basically feels like voting will accomplish essentially nothing, what am I even doing past acknowledging capitalism sucks?
At this point the only thing I think to do is just leave countries that utilize systems I disapprove of as best I can. Can you expand on why you don't think voting accomplishes anything (especially in the US)? I unironically think electing Bernie is one of the last hopes we have (globally). I dont think voting accomplishes anything because the US populace is abusable enough to systematically prevent the overall will from reaching governmental power. I live in Virginia right now, so I at least vote in a state where my vote kind of matters, but realistically speaking, I dont know a single person save one who voted or votes Republican who will vote anything other than Republican for literally any reason. The best I believe the US can hope to achieve is some brand of minute incremental change and I dont want to wait a century to see basic improvements get worked out. I can't disagree with your stance but I would contend that leftwing activism and visibility can shape the next generation of voters and thinkers. I would be a different person today if Shaun, Contrapoints, Three Arrows or even the socdems at TYT had never made videos. We can also appeal to populists, which typically vote republican (granted I doubt there are a ton of those in Virginia specifically). I feel that we are far away from the next generation being powerful enough to outweigh the current old guard who would gladly see the world burn during their last few minutes of life assuming it didnt reach them during that time. Eventually change will get there but it will have to navigate so much that we may as well do nothing til the old people die off in droves. If we do nothing, the new people will still be old people. There were a few years where the rightwing was absolutely dominant on Youtube after Gamergate and that did a LOT of damage to the discourse among people who are mostly young. I realize Youtube is not quite real life but a lot of new people grow up there. A lot of the 20 year olds I know are basically their parents politically, I'm not entirely sure theres going to be a shift large enough to displace the combination of abuse and staunch support that political parties have created for themselves in the US. It'd require some sort of miracle death spiral starting with Mitch McConnell and going downwards in a big way before I felt that there was a chance to pass legislation to do things like, make voting days mandatory holidays, or voting district reform, finance reform, etc. etc.
That's a little too pessimistic for me. Imo you are your parents politically until you really engage with it (which you might never need to). But I won't deny the obstacles that you see, it's really going to take a lot, from all of us.
|
I was very politically similar to my mom until around 22 years old at which point I started hugely diverging. A lot of it was me realizing the education and overall world my mom grew up in was simply wildly inferior to what I have now. Not really her fault, but realizing why she thought a lot of what she did made it easy for me to come to other conclusions
|
On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 10:22 Sermokala wrote:
The problem is that I have no idea what he actually is,If he was a tankie that would be a thing. If he was a democratic socialist that would be a thing. If he was for any of those ideologies that nailed down even a shred of what he's actually trying to get at those would be real things to discuss. But instead, we never get past "socialism" or the great revolution that he has planned to totally work that isn't trying to be violent but will be violent because the people he's revolting against will use violence so he needs everyone to be on board to use violence from the start to defend the revolution.
Its like the entire saga around "abolish the police" where he shouted at anyone defending even the most basic premise of what the police did and called them nothing more than an ocupying force. Then once we finally got him to crack that shell he revealed that his entire plan was to replace one police organization with dozens if not more organizations doing the exact same thing as the police. We all had a laugh at this and how insane it was but it took weeks and weeks of intense drilling down to get there.
I don't agree with the people in the thread more often than not. But everyone else is under the pretense that you have to provide arguments for your points and to explain your opinion when someone questions it. GH is not under this pretense and refuses to provide the most basic explanations or arguments for what he advocates for most if not all the time.
So yeah I'll admit it would be nice to attack what he advocates for. Its what everyone else does. Do you not believe that "This is bad, I'd like something else, but I don't want to build something else alone, I'd like us to create the specificities of the something else together among the people who agree that this is bad" is a valid position? I find that to be a much better starting point for honest discussion than imposing any specific version of change as the basis for the conversation. What if I'm talking with someone who likes socialism as an idea but also strongly wants less government? If I shut down libertarian socialism and anarchism from the discussion, then I shut them down, and they're someone who would have been strong allies in what we're trying to achieve. You say defending their ideal practical vision is what everyone else does but I seriously don't think that's true at all. For most of the posters of this forum I have a very vague idea of what they're for and a very clear idea of what they're against. I know much more about GH wants than I do about what you want. And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism.
I was a bit busy for a bit but this specific line is where GH diverges from what you're proposing. I seriously doubt that you know what GH wants specifically as he has said repeatedly that he doesn't actually want anything past getting people to agree on socialism is the only way forward and to create the specifics once people accept this. See the "abolish the police" saga.
The most common defenses of capitalism rely on the fact that capitalism isn't a regimented system but a lack of state control over economies. Advocating for the void is the path to libertarian death cult nonsense where you just want everyone else to die and for people to return to hunter gatherer societies.
|
On January 07 2020 13:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 10:22 Sermokala wrote:
The problem is that I have no idea what he actually is,If he was a tankie that would be a thing. If he was a democratic socialist that would be a thing. If he was for any of those ideologies that nailed down even a shred of what he's actually trying to get at those would be real things to discuss. But instead, we never get past "socialism" or the great revolution that he has planned to totally work that isn't trying to be violent but will be violent because the people he's revolting against will use violence so he needs everyone to be on board to use violence from the start to defend the revolution.
Its like the entire saga around "abolish the police" where he shouted at anyone defending even the most basic premise of what the police did and called them nothing more than an ocupying force. Then once we finally got him to crack that shell he revealed that his entire plan was to replace one police organization with dozens if not more organizations doing the exact same thing as the police. We all had a laugh at this and how insane it was but it took weeks and weeks of intense drilling down to get there.
I don't agree with the people in the thread more often than not. But everyone else is under the pretense that you have to provide arguments for your points and to explain your opinion when someone questions it. GH is not under this pretense and refuses to provide the most basic explanations or arguments for what he advocates for most if not all the time.
So yeah I'll admit it would be nice to attack what he advocates for. Its what everyone else does. Do you not believe that "This is bad, I'd like something else, but I don't want to build something else alone, I'd like us to create the specificities of the something else together among the people who agree that this is bad" is a valid position? I find that to be a much better starting point for honest discussion than imposing any specific version of change as the basis for the conversation. What if I'm talking with someone who likes socialism as an idea but also strongly wants less government? If I shut down libertarian socialism and anarchism from the discussion, then I shut them down, and they're someone who would have been strong allies in what we're trying to achieve. You say defending their ideal practical vision is what everyone else does but I seriously don't think that's true at all. For most of the posters of this forum I have a very vague idea of what they're for and a very clear idea of what they're against. I know much more about GH wants than I do about what you want. And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I was a bit busy for a bit but this specific line is where GH diverges from what you're proposing. I seriously doubt that you know what GH wants specifically as he has said repeatedly that he doesn't actually want anything past getting people to agree on socialism is the only way forward and to create the specifics once people accept this. See the "abolish the police" saga. The most common defenses of capitalism rely on the fact that capitalism isn't a regimented system but a lack of state control over economies. Advocating for the void is the path to libertarian death cult nonsense where you just want everyone else to die and for people to return to hunter gatherer societies.
GH has given plenty of detail. It's just that people reply with stuff like "yeah good luck passing that in the Senate" as if he's proposing a bill
|
On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 10:22 Sermokala wrote:
The problem is that I have no idea what he actually is,If he was a tankie that would be a thing. If he was a democratic socialist that would be a thing. If he was for any of those ideologies that nailed down even a shred of what he's actually trying to get at those would be real things to discuss. But instead, we never get past "socialism" or the great revolution that he has planned to totally work that isn't trying to be violent but will be violent because the people he's revolting against will use violence so he needs everyone to be on board to use violence from the start to defend the revolution.
Its like the entire saga around "abolish the police" where he shouted at anyone defending even the most basic premise of what the police did and called them nothing more than an ocupying force. Then once we finally got him to crack that shell he revealed that his entire plan was to replace one police organization with dozens if not more organizations doing the exact same thing as the police. We all had a laugh at this and how insane it was but it took weeks and weeks of intense drilling down to get there.
I don't agree with the people in the thread more often than not. But everyone else is under the pretense that you have to provide arguments for your points and to explain your opinion when someone questions it. GH is not under this pretense and refuses to provide the most basic explanations or arguments for what he advocates for most if not all the time.
So yeah I'll admit it would be nice to attack what he advocates for. Its what everyone else does. Do you not believe that "This is bad, I'd like something else, but I don't want to build something else alone, I'd like us to create the specificities of the something else together among the people who agree that this is bad" is a valid position? I find that to be a much better starting point for honest discussion than imposing any specific version of change as the basis for the conversation. What if I'm talking with someone who likes socialism as an idea but also strongly wants less government? If I shut down libertarian socialism and anarchism from the discussion, then I shut them down, and they're someone who would have been strong allies in what we're trying to achieve. You say defending their ideal practical vision is what everyone else does but I seriously don't think that's true at all. For most of the posters of this forum I have a very vague idea of what they're for and a very clear idea of what they're against. I know much more about GH wants than I do about what you want. And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism.
I think the bolded is untrue and indicates that the viewpoints you engage in are limited. There are many defenders of capitalism on it's own merits even on a medium such as the internet which is overwhelmingly left wing. There are plenty on this forum as well (me included).
|
Young people tend to be more social progressive/liberal but god damn are they capitalistic and often also very conservative when it comes to everything that has to do with money. Atleast the ones i "deal" with that didn't go to University. They couldn't care less about Greta, overcoming capitalism or "fixing" the system. Most just want to be on the winning side or in other words: Make decent cash so they can do fun stuff.
I doubt "Gamergate" had much of an impact and if it had one, then probably mostly in the US. The way "the left" handled that was laughable anyway… It would probably help if online leftist would not be such holier than thou asshats with often 0 real life job experience (no, student jobs/part time while studying doesn't count). People tend to have more immediate and direct problems than overcoming capitalism and no, capitalism itself is not the root of these problems.
|
On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried.
The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't.
|
On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't.
One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point.
That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of.
|
On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature.
|
On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature.
It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism.
So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions of innocent people, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism.
|
On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly.
But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage.
|
On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage.
I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do.
As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system.
There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy.
At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty.
Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism.
That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism.
EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximizing profit.
|
On January 07 2020 12:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 12:18 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 12:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 12:01 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:47 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:44 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:36 Zambrah wrote:
As someone who acknowledges capitalism as we know it fuckin' sucks and is unlikely to be made better without murderlating the modern robber barons, but basically feels like voting will accomplish essentially nothing, what am I even doing past acknowledging capitalism sucks?
At this point the only thing I think to do is just leave countries that utilize systems I disapprove of as best I can. Can you expand on why you don't think voting accomplishes anything (especially in the US)? I unironically think electing Bernie is one of the last hopes we have (globally). I dont think voting accomplishes anything because the US populace is abusable enough to systematically prevent the overall will from reaching governmental power. I live in Virginia right now, so I at least vote in a state where my vote kind of matters, but realistically speaking, I dont know a single person save one who voted or votes Republican who will vote anything other than Republican for literally any reason. The best I believe the US can hope to achieve is some brand of minute incremental change and I dont want to wait a century to see basic improvements get worked out. I can't disagree with your stance but I would contend that leftwing activism and visibility can shape the next generation of voters and thinkers. I would be a different person today if Shaun, Contrapoints, Three Arrows or even the socdems at TYT had never made videos. We can also appeal to populists, which typically vote republican (granted I doubt there are a ton of those in Virginia specifically). I feel that we are far away from the next generation being powerful enough to outweigh the current old guard who would gladly see the world burn during their last few minutes of life assuming it didnt reach them during that time. Eventually change will get there but it will have to navigate so much that we may as well do nothing til the old people die off in droves. If we do nothing, the new people will still be old people. There were a few years where the rightwing was absolutely dominant on Youtube after Gamergate and that did a LOT of damage to the discourse among people who are mostly young. I realize Youtube is not quite real life but a lot of new people grow up there. A lot of the 20 year olds I know are basically their parents politically, I'm not entirely sure theres going to be a shift large enough to displace the combination of abuse and staunch support that political parties have created for themselves in the US. It'd require some sort of miracle death spiral starting with Mitch McConnell and going downwards in a big way before I felt that there was a chance to pass legislation to do things like, make voting days mandatory holidays, or voting district reform, finance reform, etc. etc. Any thoughts on incorporating raising class consciousness and promoting critical pedagogy as (part of*) a strategy to avert the more bleak future scenarios you envision?
Theres only one person I've talked to that my complaining and arguing about robber baron bastards and voter suppression and the like has had any influence on. People know their lot in life feels shitty, but despite that they mostly don't seem to think it actually is shitty. The Bootstraps Mentality Bullshit (or Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire Mindset) seems pervasive among my conservative high school friends and acquaintances, the other mentality I see is the mentality to just get by and doing more is just too draining to do, what with multiple jobs and all of modern life's incessant stressors.
I mean this is still all anecdotal, but even the one person's whose views I've managed to help shift feels too shitty to be driven to do anything about the US, and he lives in a very red state so his vote is likely functionless.
|
On January 07 2020 21:46 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 12:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 12:18 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 12:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 12:01 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:47 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 11:44 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 11:36 Zambrah wrote:
As someone who acknowledges capitalism as we know it fuckin' sucks and is unlikely to be made better without murderlating the modern robber barons, but basically feels like voting will accomplish essentially nothing, what am I even doing past acknowledging capitalism sucks?
At this point the only thing I think to do is just leave countries that utilize systems I disapprove of as best I can. Can you expand on why you don't think voting accomplishes anything (especially in the US)? I unironically think electing Bernie is one of the last hopes we have (globally). I dont think voting accomplishes anything because the US populace is abusable enough to systematically prevent the overall will from reaching governmental power. I live in Virginia right now, so I at least vote in a state where my vote kind of matters, but realistically speaking, I dont know a single person save one who voted or votes Republican who will vote anything other than Republican for literally any reason. The best I believe the US can hope to achieve is some brand of minute incremental change and I dont want to wait a century to see basic improvements get worked out. I can't disagree with your stance but I would contend that leftwing activism and visibility can shape the next generation of voters and thinkers. I would be a different person today if Shaun, Contrapoints, Three Arrows or even the socdems at TYT had never made videos. We can also appeal to populists, which typically vote republican (granted I doubt there are a ton of those in Virginia specifically). I feel that we are far away from the next generation being powerful enough to outweigh the current old guard who would gladly see the world burn during their last few minutes of life assuming it didnt reach them during that time. Eventually change will get there but it will have to navigate so much that we may as well do nothing til the old people die off in droves. If we do nothing, the new people will still be old people. There were a few years where the rightwing was absolutely dominant on Youtube after Gamergate and that did a LOT of damage to the discourse among people who are mostly young. I realize Youtube is not quite real life but a lot of new people grow up there. A lot of the 20 year olds I know are basically their parents politically, I'm not entirely sure theres going to be a shift large enough to displace the combination of abuse and staunch support that political parties have created for themselves in the US. It'd require some sort of miracle death spiral starting with Mitch McConnell and going downwards in a big way before I felt that there was a chance to pass legislation to do things like, make voting days mandatory holidays, or voting district reform, finance reform, etc. etc. Any thoughts on incorporating raising class consciousness and promoting critical pedagogy as (part of*) a strategy to avert the more bleak future scenarios you envision? Theres only one person I've talked to that my complaining and arguing about robber baron bastards and voter suppression and the like has had any influence on. People know their lot in life feels shitty, but despite that they mostly don't seem to think it actually is shitty. The Bootstraps Mentality Bullshit (or Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire Mindset) seems pervasive among my conservative high school friends and acquaintances, the other mentality I see is the mentality to just get by and doing more is just too draining to do, what with multiple jobs and all of modern life's incessant stressors. I mean this is still all anecdotal, but even the one person's whose views I've managed to help shift feels too shitty to be driven to do anything about the US, and he lives in a very red state so his vote is likely functionless.
I'm not into electoralism either. I agree with Neb that Sanders is it's last vestige of hope though.
As someone who's been beating their head against that wall for a while, I can empathize. To Neb's point earlier, sometimes it's better to just find and focus on folks that are more receptive to your message and discussing your experiences with people who are more "radical" than yourself and finding out why they are that way.
As a silver lining to our ongoing electoral, ecological, and economic nightmare, increasingly more people are raising the contradictions they see in our society for examination.
|
On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops.
Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic.
|
On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic.
Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point.
No one (but you) is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"?
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic.
I don't find the thing about shareholders to be a convenient excuse at all.
Whenever something morally unambigious happens that is bad for everybody except the company you hear the phrase "Duty to our shareholders" to justify it. A company's legal duty to be despicable because 'capitalism' is a real thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
