|
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 |
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On January 22 2020 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019.
I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something.
I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law.
Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often  It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me." I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you. I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us. Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage. I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him? That's going to need to be answered by someone who thinks fascists can be reasoned with or "defeated in the marketplace of ideas" or whatever. I wouldn't hold your breath though. As to the general "why" of your questions, as Wombat pointed out about Vivax's "nurses need to be poor" (paraphrase) argument the beliefs are hegemonic and incoherent and the people that hold them are able to insulate themselves with people that believe it too. Wombat won't be able to inform Vivax's hypothetical nurse that he thinks her being poor is the best way to leverage her into taking care of him because proximity to poverty will kill him first. So instead she'll be thankful to have a job not knowing that the precariousness of her survival is a feature, not a bug. Killing children in the Middle East is obviously wrong but we get away with killing thousands and thousands of them because the hegemonic belief is that it's the best option. Which is reinforced by a cascade of other hegemonic ideas that, like premises in capitalism, people don't critically engage with unless forced to (which is nearly impossible to do, at some level they have to choose to).
Ireland (the South) has a shortage of nurses that they can’t redress because they lose so many to either emigrating to the UK or switching professions entirely.
There’s a breaking point on how much you can squeeze even people with a vocational calling before they end up doing something else.
It’s not purely a wage thing either, it’s both hours worked as well as job security. People can reconcile themself to working a lot if it’s regular and guaranteed, if it’s not and it’s consistently changeable then people can’t even plan a week ahead in terms of social lives and whatnot. I was dating a nurse for a bit and we dropped it because it was utterly unworkable on a schedule sense. Managing 2 times together in 2 months because they switched her rota every week and our schedules took that long to align, just wasn’t workable.
Currently they’re plugging the gap with agency nurses, who cost the state more per hour because the obvious solution of better pay and conditions is not being pursued.
|
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On January 22 2020 01:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?” I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done. I think one reason specific policy doesn't get discussed is because the first point made about it is that Republicans (or centrist Democrats) won't support it so it's pointless to talk about. Then comes "well we should replace them" then "but we can't because money in politics" then "then get the money out" then "we can't, they need it to beat Republicans/the people with the power to change take it out are dependent on keeping it in and we can't expect them to act against their self-interests in that way" Then we circle back to needing a new system to implement policy we all agree is better than what we have. Which brings us to "Socialism never works". Then complaints that we're talking about socialism and the people in opposition don't know what it is. EDIT: One benefit to this latest round is that we know that the biggest advocates for capitalism/opponents of socialism don't really know what capitalism is either. The constant focus on central planning and belief that socialism doesn't have markets as well as the inability to see many problems are capitalism working as intended and the need for supplementary systems like socialist healthcare serve as recent and clear examples this is the case. I'll be quick. Let's leave money in politics out of it. It's a wash. Let's focus solely on what policies would be good, how/who would install those policies, and what would be the preferred outcome. It can be mixed markets, social democracy, or capitalism reworked to better serve most rather than few. I think once we set some hard areas with which we can agree upon, then we can move forward. So for starters: The need to retain/gather absurd wealth is not something that should be condoned since that same absurd wealth is not beneficial to most. A small percentage of wealth redistribution and perhaps "cap on total net wealth" could be advocated? I don't think a lot of people with that kind of money (10s of billions) would allow it to happen, but it can be made possible through capping capital gains.
Redistributing wealth is pointless if you don’t reform other systems at the same time. I’m not particularly in favour of capping wealth arbitrarily either.
I’ll avoid too much specifics, more general strokes in terms of tweaking things without going full socialist market economy.
1. If you want to operate in x country you can’t avoid your tax obligations in said country. You get taxed on whatever you earn in any specific country and whatever their rates are.
2. If you want to live in a country no overshore shit. Go live in the Cayman Islands if you want to put your assets there.
3. Non-domiciles shouldn’t be able to own additional residential property outside of their residence in whatever country.
4. Proper reform of the financial system. Tax the bullshit transactions.
5. A more widespread adoption of the cooperative model over the shareholder method, although not exclusively.
6. Nationalise public transport fully.
7. Nationalise the entire property rental market.
|
On January 22 2020 01:31 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 01:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 22 2020 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?” I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done. I think one reason specific policy doesn't get discussed is because the first point made about it is that Republicans (or centrist Democrats) won't support it so it's pointless to talk about. Then comes "well we should replace them" then "but we can't because money in politics" then "then get the money out" then "we can't, they need it to beat Republicans/the people with the power to change take it out are dependent on keeping it in and we can't expect them to act against their self-interests in that way" Then we circle back to needing a new system to implement policy we all agree is better than what we have. Which brings us to "Socialism never works". Then complaints that we're talking about socialism and the people in opposition don't know what it is. EDIT: One benefit to this latest round is that we know that the biggest advocates for capitalism/opponents of socialism don't really know what capitalism is either. The constant focus on central planning and belief that socialism doesn't have markets as well as the inability to see many problems are capitalism working as intended and the need for supplementary systems like socialist healthcare serve as recent and clear examples this is the case. I'll be quick. Let's leave money in politics out of it. It's a wash. Let's focus solely on what policies would be good, how/who would install those policies, and what would be the preferred outcome. It can be mixed markets, social democracy, or capitalism reworked to better serve most rather than few. I think once we set some hard areas with which we can agree upon, then we can move forward. So for starters: The need to retain/gather absurd wealth is not something that should be condoned since that same absurd wealth is not beneficial to most. A small percentage of wealth redistribution and perhaps "cap on total net wealth" could be advocated? I don't think a lot of people with that kind of money (10s of billions) would allow it to happen, but it can be made possible through capping capital gains. Redistributing wealth is pointless if you don’t reform other systems at the same time. I’m not particularly in favour of capping wealth arbitrarily either. I’ll avoid too much specifics, more general strokes in terms of tweaking things without going full socialist market economy. 1. If you want to operate in x country you can’t avoid your tax obligations in said country. You get taxed on whatever you earn in any specific country and whatever their rates are. 2. If you want to live in a country no overshore shit. Go live in the Cayman Islands if you want to put your assets there. 3. Non-domiciles shouldn’t be able to own additional residential property outside of their residence in whatever country. 4. Proper reform of the financial system. Tax the bullshit transactions. 5. A more widespread adoption of the cooperative model over the shareholder method, although not exclusively. 6. Nationalise public transport fully. 7. Nationalise the entire property rental market.
I don't want to get on this ride (that was the point of the post) but I do want to agree with your first point and just say that's why I think Freireian critical pedagogy is a crucial first step. I don't believe a critical class consciousness can be raised without it and I don't believe we can analyze and deal with the issues you mention and the many more that need to be addressed in the comprehensive way we need to without that critical class consciousness.
|
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On January 22 2020 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 01:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 22 2020 01:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 22 2020 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?” I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done. I think one reason specific policy doesn't get discussed is because the first point made about it is that Republicans (or centrist Democrats) won't support it so it's pointless to talk about. Then comes "well we should replace them" then "but we can't because money in politics" then "then get the money out" then "we can't, they need it to beat Republicans/the people with the power to change take it out are dependent on keeping it in and we can't expect them to act against their self-interests in that way" Then we circle back to needing a new system to implement policy we all agree is better than what we have. Which brings us to "Socialism never works". Then complaints that we're talking about socialism and the people in opposition don't know what it is. EDIT: One benefit to this latest round is that we know that the biggest advocates for capitalism/opponents of socialism don't really know what capitalism is either. The constant focus on central planning and belief that socialism doesn't have markets as well as the inability to see many problems are capitalism working as intended and the need for supplementary systems like socialist healthcare serve as recent and clear examples this is the case. I'll be quick. Let's leave money in politics out of it. It's a wash. Let's focus solely on what policies would be good, how/who would install those policies, and what would be the preferred outcome. It can be mixed markets, social democracy, or capitalism reworked to better serve most rather than few. I think once we set some hard areas with which we can agree upon, then we can move forward. So for starters: The need to retain/gather absurd wealth is not something that should be condoned since that same absurd wealth is not beneficial to most. A small percentage of wealth redistribution and perhaps "cap on total net wealth" could be advocated? I don't think a lot of people with that kind of money (10s of billions) would allow it to happen, but it can be made possible through capping capital gains. Redistributing wealth is pointless if you don’t reform other systems at the same time. I’m not particularly in favour of capping wealth arbitrarily either. I’ll avoid too much specifics, more general strokes in terms of tweaking things without going full socialist market economy. 1. If you want to operate in x country you can’t avoid your tax obligations in said country. You get taxed on whatever you earn in any specific country and whatever their rates are. 2. If you want to live in a country no overshore shit. Go live in the Cayman Islands if you want to put your assets there. 3. Non-domiciles shouldn’t be able to own additional residential property outside of their residence in whatever country. 4. Proper reform of the financial system. Tax the bullshit transactions. 5. A more widespread adoption of the cooperative model over the shareholder method, although not exclusively. 6. Nationalise public transport fully. 7. Nationalise the entire property rental market. I don't want to get on this ride (that was the point of the post) but I do want to agree with your first point and just say that's why I think Freireian critical pedagogy is a crucial first step. I don't believe a critical class consciousness can be raised without it and I don't believe we can analyze and deal with the issues you mention and the many more that need to be addressed in the comprehensive way we need to without that critical class consciousness.
I believe we’re aligned on that anyway.
To solve whatever problem one first must realise not just that it’s a problem, but why it is a problem and what a potential solution would look like.
That’s somewhat lacking in a lot of modern discourse.
Capitalism isn’t an economic system anymore, it’s culturally ingrained as the norm, the default so any reformation requires a reframing of that.
|
On January 22 2020 01:15 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:[quote] Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me." I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you. I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us. Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage. I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him? That's going to need to be answered by someone who thinks fascists can be reasoned with or "defeated in the marketplace of ideas" or whatever. I wouldn't hold your breath though. As to the general "why" of your questions, as Wombat pointed out about Vivax's "nurses need to be poor" (paraphrase) argument the beliefs are hegemonic and incoherent and the people that hold them are able to insulate themselves with people that believe it too. Wombat won't be able to inform Vivax's hypothetical nurse that he thinks her being poor is the best way to leverage her into taking care of him because proximity to poverty will kill him first. So instead she'll be thankful to have a job not knowing that the precariousness of her survival is a feature, not a bug. Killing children in the Middle East is obviously wrong but we get away with killing thousands and thousands of them because the hegemonic belief is that it's the best option. Which is reinforced by a cascade of other hegemonic ideas that, like premises in capitalism, people don't critically engage with unless forced to (which is nearly impossible to do, at some level they have to choose to). Ireland (the South) has a shortage of nurses that they can’t redress because they lose so many to either emigrating to the UK or switching professions entirely. There’s a breaking point on how much you can squeeze even people with a vocational calling before they end up doing something else. It’s not purely a wage thing either, it’s both hours worked as well as job security. People can reconcile themself to working a lot if it’s regular and guaranteed, if it’s not and it’s consistently changeable then people can’t even plan a week ahead in terms of social lives and whatnot. I was dating a nurse for a bit and we dropped it because it was utterly unworkable on a schedule sense. Managing 2 times together in 2 months because they switched her rota every week and our schedules took that long to align, just wasn’t workable. Currently they’re plugging the gap with agency nurses, who cost the state more per hour because the obvious solution of better pay and conditions is not being pursued.
Seems to be more of an issue with (anglosaxon)labour laws. Not that everything is fine and dandy here but you come in hells kitchen if you overstep as an employer. In the health sector its also really easy to find another job due to a general shortage. The pay for a teained(!!!) nurse is also not bad.
|
Clinton saying no one likes Bernie is perhaps his most significant endorsement yet. The enemy of Clinton is the ally of most voters both left and right
|
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On January 22 2020 03:41 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 01:15 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 22 2020 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force.
Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me." I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you. I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us. Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage. I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him? That's going to need to be answered by someone who thinks fascists can be reasoned with or "defeated in the marketplace of ideas" or whatever. I wouldn't hold your breath though. As to the general "why" of your questions, as Wombat pointed out about Vivax's "nurses need to be poor" (paraphrase) argument the beliefs are hegemonic and incoherent and the people that hold them are able to insulate themselves with people that believe it too. Wombat won't be able to inform Vivax's hypothetical nurse that he thinks her being poor is the best way to leverage her into taking care of him because proximity to poverty will kill him first. So instead she'll be thankful to have a job not knowing that the precariousness of her survival is a feature, not a bug. Killing children in the Middle East is obviously wrong but we get away with killing thousands and thousands of them because the hegemonic belief is that it's the best option. Which is reinforced by a cascade of other hegemonic ideas that, like premises in capitalism, people don't critically engage with unless forced to (which is nearly impossible to do, at some level they have to choose to). Ireland (the South) has a shortage of nurses that they can’t redress because they lose so many to either emigrating to the UK or switching professions entirely. There’s a breaking point on how much you can squeeze even people with a vocational calling before they end up doing something else. It’s not purely a wage thing either, it’s both hours worked as well as job security. People can reconcile themself to working a lot if it’s regular and guaranteed, if it’s not and it’s consistently changeable then people can’t even plan a week ahead in terms of social lives and whatnot. I was dating a nurse for a bit and we dropped it because it was utterly unworkable on a schedule sense. Managing 2 times together in 2 months because they switched her rota every week and our schedules took that long to align, just wasn’t workable. Currently they’re plugging the gap with agency nurses, who cost the state more per hour because the obvious solution of better pay and conditions is not being pursued. Seems to be more of an issue with (anglosaxon)labour laws. Not that everything is fine and dandy here but you come in hells kitchen if you overstep as an employer. In the health sector its also really easy to find another job due to a general shortage. The pay for a teained(!!!) nurse is also not bad.
Utter bollocks.
User was warned for this post.
|
I know that a lot of people have been annoyed at GreenHorizons' "refusal to answer questions and only talk about revolution," and I'm not really sure what side of that argument I fall on. However, I've thought of two questions that I think would be interesting to hear his opinion on that concern policy, and two that he might feel compelled to answer.
1. You mention Friereian critical pedagogy a whole lot, and not many people ever go into detail on it here. What would an education system look like if it was based on that model instead of what you see and the "banking" or "pitcher" model of education in place today, and how would it be applicable to such a large scale as the United States? Additionally, could executive actions and the power the executive branch has over the department of education help move our country onto that path, or must it be done though means outside of the government?
2. Would the reinstatement of FDR's fireside chat, adapted to a global medium, help this goal of critical pedagogy or be part of the end goal? I've been thinking about how something like the fireside chat could be very effective on today's digital mediums and help inform the public about what's going on.
|
Hell yeah, I am all-in on bringing fireside chat-modeled government-populace interactions back to the forefront.
|
On January 22 2020 01:31 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 01:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 22 2020 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?” I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done. I think one reason specific policy doesn't get discussed is because the first point made about it is that Republicans (or centrist Democrats) won't support it so it's pointless to talk about. Then comes "well we should replace them" then "but we can't because money in politics" then "then get the money out" then "we can't, they need it to beat Republicans/the people with the power to change take it out are dependent on keeping it in and we can't expect them to act against their self-interests in that way" Then we circle back to needing a new system to implement policy we all agree is better than what we have. Which brings us to "Socialism never works". Then complaints that we're talking about socialism and the people in opposition don't know what it is. EDIT: One benefit to this latest round is that we know that the biggest advocates for capitalism/opponents of socialism don't really know what capitalism is either. The constant focus on central planning and belief that socialism doesn't have markets as well as the inability to see many problems are capitalism working as intended and the need for supplementary systems like socialist healthcare serve as recent and clear examples this is the case. I'll be quick. Let's leave money in politics out of it. It's a wash. Let's focus solely on what policies would be good, how/who would install those policies, and what would be the preferred outcome. It can be mixed markets, social democracy, or capitalism reworked to better serve most rather than few. I think once we set some hard areas with which we can agree upon, then we can move forward. So for starters: The need to retain/gather absurd wealth is not something that should be condoned since that same absurd wealth is not beneficial to most. A small percentage of wealth redistribution and perhaps "cap on total net wealth" could be advocated? I don't think a lot of people with that kind of money (10s of billions) would allow it to happen, but it can be made possible through capping capital gains. Redistributing wealth is pointless if you don’t reform other systems at the same time. I’m not particularly in favour of capping wealth arbitrarily either. I’ll avoid too much specifics, more general strokes in terms of tweaking things without going full socialist market economy. 1. If you want to operate in x country you can’t avoid your tax obligations in said country. You get taxed on whatever you earn in any specific country and whatever their rates are. 2. If you want to live in a country no overshore shit. Go live in the Cayman Islands if you want to put your assets there. 3. Non-domiciles shouldn’t be able to own additional residential property outside of their residence in whatever country. 4. Proper reform of the financial system. Tax the bullshit transactions. 5. A more widespread adoption of the cooperative model over the shareholder method, although not exclusively. 6. Nationalise public transport fully. 7. Nationalise the entire property rental market.
Just to get the conversation started on proposals is why I mentioned it. A lot of people have mentioned it as something they would like. I wanted to know what they would do to see it come to fruition and what the details (or general framework) would look like. I don't know myself. But this gets us to the meat and bones and gets the political philosophy out of the way as much as possible and forces people to articulate their ideas. We've been fed generalizations and half-ass notions. Now let's say what we think would be the best way and hold firm on those ideas. I believe only then can we really create an open discussion to point at the errors or barriers to getting those done.
I think your quick list is a good summary and we can start picking those apart or adding to it as needed.
|
Never heard of this fireside chat and I'm at work, so this is the perfect moment to learn =). Can someone link me something to start?
|
On January 22 2020 05:21 Nebuchad wrote:
Never heard of this fireside chat and I'm at work, so this is the perfect moment to learn =). Can someone link me something to start?
The FDR fireside chats? Here's a quick wiki lookup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_chats
|
On January 22 2020 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019.
I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something.
I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law.
Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me." I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you. I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us. Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage. I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him? That's going to need to be answered by someone who thinks fascists can be reasoned with or "defeated in the marketplace of ideas" or whatever. I wouldn't hold your breath though. As to the general "why" of your questions, as Wombat pointed out about Vivax's "nurses need to be poor" (paraphrase) argument the beliefs are hegemonic and incoherent and the people that hold them are able to insulate themselves with people that believe it too. Wombat won't be able to inform Vivax's hypothetical nurse that he thinks her being poor is the best way to leverage her into taking care of him because proximity to poverty will kill him first. So instead she'll be thankful to have a job not knowing that the precariousness of her survival is a feature, not a bug. Killing children in the Middle East is obviously wrong but we get away with killing thousands and thousands of them because the hegemonic belief is that it's the best option. Which is reinforced by a cascade of other hegemonic ideas that, like premises in capitalism, people don't critically engage with unless forced to (which is nearly impossible to do, at some level they have to choose to).
No, I’m not holding my breath on “convincing” anyone either. Maybe a few years ago I might have thought, “look how wrong this person is! I’m going to crucify this person’s position, and my logic will be so ironclad they’ll have to concede!” These days I think I mostly aim to understand others’ positions better, and maybe spur them to consider their position a little more thoughtfully. I don’t know that convincing them is impossible, but I doubt it is any special talent of mine.
I don’t want to derail the thread too much further (or maybe people like the “ChristianS Asks GH How Fascism Works” show, idk), so for now I’ll just say thank you for your thoughts!
|
On January 22 2020 01:31 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 01:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 22 2020 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?” I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done. I think one reason specific policy doesn't get discussed is because the first point made about it is that Republicans (or centrist Democrats) won't support it so it's pointless to talk about. Then comes "well we should replace them" then "but we can't because money in politics" then "then get the money out" then "we can't, they need it to beat Republicans/the people with the power to change take it out are dependent on keeping it in and we can't expect them to act against their self-interests in that way" Then we circle back to needing a new system to implement policy we all agree is better than what we have. Which brings us to "Socialism never works". Then complaints that we're talking about socialism and the people in opposition don't know what it is. EDIT: One benefit to this latest round is that we know that the biggest advocates for capitalism/opponents of socialism don't really know what capitalism is either. The constant focus on central planning and belief that socialism doesn't have markets as well as the inability to see many problems are capitalism working as intended and the need for supplementary systems like socialist healthcare serve as recent and clear examples this is the case. I'll be quick. Let's leave money in politics out of it. It's a wash. Let's focus solely on what policies would be good, how/who would install those policies, and what would be the preferred outcome. It can be mixed markets, social democracy, or capitalism reworked to better serve most rather than few. I think once we set some hard areas with which we can agree upon, then we can move forward. So for starters: The need to retain/gather absurd wealth is not something that should be condoned since that same absurd wealth is not beneficial to most. A small percentage of wealth redistribution and perhaps "cap on total net wealth" could be advocated? I don't think a lot of people with that kind of money (10s of billions) would allow it to happen, but it can be made possible through capping capital gains. Redistributing wealth is pointless if you don’t reform other systems at the same time. I’m not particularly in favour of capping wealth arbitrarily either. I’ll avoid too much specifics, more general strokes in terms of tweaking things without going full socialist market economy. 1. If you want to operate in x country you can’t avoid your tax obligations in said country. You get taxed on whatever you earn in any specific country and whatever their rates are. 2. If you want to live in a country no overshore shit. Go live in the Cayman Islands if you want to put your assets there. 3. Non-domiciles shouldn’t be able to own additional residential property outside of their residence in whatever country. 4. Proper reform of the financial system. Tax the bullshit transactions. 5. A more widespread adoption of the cooperative model over the shareholder method, although not exclusively. 6. Nationalise public transport fully. 7. Nationalise the entire property rental market.
If you don't mind indulging me, what do you mean by "socialist market economy" exactly? Wikipedia says it's the Chinese model of state-owned companies undertaking for-profit mandates, but it doesn't seem that's what you mean (though I could be wrong).
|
On January 22 2020 04:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I know that a lot of people have been annoyed at GreenHorizons' "refusal to answer questions and only talk about revolution," and I'm not really sure what side of that argument I fall on. However, I've thought of two questions that I think would be interesting to hear his opinion on that concern policy, and two that he might feel compelled to answer.
1. You mention Friereian critical pedagogy a whole lot, and not many people ever go into detail on it here. What would an education system look like if it was based on that model instead of what you see and the "banking" or "pitcher" model of education in place today, and how would it be applicable to such a large scale as the United States? Additionally, could executive actions and the power the executive branch has over the department of education help move our country onto that path, or must it be done though means outside of the government?
2. Would the reinstatement of FDR's fireside chat, adapted to a global medium, help this goal of critical pedagogy or be part of the end goal? I've been thinking about how something like the fireside chat could be very effective on today's digital mediums and help inform the public about what's going on.
1.It's a bit hard to describe from scratch but presuming others understand the basic differences between the banking model and critical pedagogy it reshapes the entire social construction of education.
People are familiar with the banking model, an example being the forced wrote memorization geography we talked about here before. Critical pedagogy is the formally thought out (pedagogically) conception of what everyone was saying they would prefer.
Chapter 3 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is what you'll want to read if you want to get into the more gritty details, but generally speaking it's a dialogical engagement where everyone are students and everyone teachers the curriculum is determined by them collectively, and at it's heart it functions to empower people with the steadfast belief that the world is what we make it, not a void we can only reactively adapt to.
Critical pedagogy isn't like a tech school or something, it's a way of life if that makes sense?
I don't think about the president in relation to critical pedagogy it's much more of a ground up operation. It's mass movement education along the style of the Panther's breakfast program.
2.Like redistributing wealth the fireside chat without the pedagogical underpinnings is pretty useless but generally speaking yeah. The idea is that we're all able to dialogue about the issues of the day in such a way that when we're done we arrive at a more enlightened vision/description of the world.
EDIT: As an example I'd like/think it would be instructive if someone wants to know more about critical pedagogy to pick a page (at random if they wish) from Pedagogy of the Oppressed to ask about/discuss.
|
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On January 22 2020 04:03 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 03:41 Velr wrote:On January 22 2020 01:15 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 22 2020 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong.
edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me." I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you. I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us. Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage. I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him? That's going to need to be answered by someone who thinks fascists can be reasoned with or "defeated in the marketplace of ideas" or whatever. I wouldn't hold your breath though. As to the general "why" of your questions, as Wombat pointed out about Vivax's "nurses need to be poor" (paraphrase) argument the beliefs are hegemonic and incoherent and the people that hold them are able to insulate themselves with people that believe it too. Wombat won't be able to inform Vivax's hypothetical nurse that he thinks her being poor is the best way to leverage her into taking care of him because proximity to poverty will kill him first. So instead she'll be thankful to have a job not knowing that the precariousness of her survival is a feature, not a bug. Killing children in the Middle East is obviously wrong but we get away with killing thousands and thousands of them because the hegemonic belief is that it's the best option. Which is reinforced by a cascade of other hegemonic ideas that, like premises in capitalism, people don't critically engage with unless forced to (which is nearly impossible to do, at some level they have to choose to). Ireland (the South) has a shortage of nurses that they can’t redress because they lose so many to either emigrating to the UK or switching professions entirely. There’s a breaking point on how much you can squeeze even people with a vocational calling before they end up doing something else. It’s not purely a wage thing either, it’s both hours worked as well as job security. People can reconcile themself to working a lot if it’s regular and guaranteed, if it’s not and it’s consistently changeable then people can’t even plan a week ahead in terms of social lives and whatnot. I was dating a nurse for a bit and we dropped it because it was utterly unworkable on a schedule sense. Managing 2 times together in 2 months because they switched her rota every week and our schedules took that long to align, just wasn’t workable. Currently they’re plugging the gap with agency nurses, who cost the state more per hour because the obvious solution of better pay and conditions is not being pursued. Seems to be more of an issue with (anglosaxon)labour laws. Not that everything is fine and dandy here but you come in hells kitchen if you overstep as an employer. In the health sector its also really easy to find another job due to a general shortage. The pay for a teained(!!!) nurse is also not bad. Utter bollocks. User was warned for this post.
It’s not?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 22 2020 07:58 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 04:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 22 2020 03:41 Velr wrote:On January 22 2020 01:15 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 22 2020 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean.
Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me." I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you. I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us. Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage. I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him? That's going to need to be answered by someone who thinks fascists can be reasoned with or "defeated in the marketplace of ideas" or whatever. I wouldn't hold your breath though. As to the general "why" of your questions, as Wombat pointed out about Vivax's "nurses need to be poor" (paraphrase) argument the beliefs are hegemonic and incoherent and the people that hold them are able to insulate themselves with people that believe it too. Wombat won't be able to inform Vivax's hypothetical nurse that he thinks her being poor is the best way to leverage her into taking care of him because proximity to poverty will kill him first. So instead she'll be thankful to have a job not knowing that the precariousness of her survival is a feature, not a bug. Killing children in the Middle East is obviously wrong but we get away with killing thousands and thousands of them because the hegemonic belief is that it's the best option. Which is reinforced by a cascade of other hegemonic ideas that, like premises in capitalism, people don't critically engage with unless forced to (which is nearly impossible to do, at some level they have to choose to). Ireland (the South) has a shortage of nurses that they can’t redress because they lose so many to either emigrating to the UK or switching professions entirely. There’s a breaking point on how much you can squeeze even people with a vocational calling before they end up doing something else. It’s not purely a wage thing either, it’s both hours worked as well as job security. People can reconcile themself to working a lot if it’s regular and guaranteed, if it’s not and it’s consistently changeable then people can’t even plan a week ahead in terms of social lives and whatnot. I was dating a nurse for a bit and we dropped it because it was utterly unworkable on a schedule sense. Managing 2 times together in 2 months because they switched her rota every week and our schedules took that long to align, just wasn’t workable. Currently they’re plugging the gap with agency nurses, who cost the state more per hour because the obvious solution of better pay and conditions is not being pursued. Seems to be more of an issue with (anglosaxon)labour laws. Not that everything is fine and dandy here but you come in hells kitchen if you overstep as an employer. In the health sector its also really easy to find another job due to a general shortage. The pay for a teained(!!!) nurse is also not bad. Utter bollocks. User was warned for this post. It’s not?
Website feedback mate ^^
|
Another avenue of critical pedagogy might be looking at something like Classic's conscription and investigating if we can find any connections between that and US foreign policy past and/or present.
|
On January 22 2020 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:
There's a neoliberal subreddit. I'm amazed. It seems like everything there is said unironically
The Donald exists. You have to believe the insanity now. Because those guys do.
|
On January 22 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
Another avenue of critical pedagogy might be looking at something like Classic's conscription and investigating if we can find any connections between that and US foreign policy past and/or present.
What is Classic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
