|
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 |
So I'm curious, while everyone's saying that socialists should just man up and vote for Biden despite him publically telling them to fuck off, do people feel the same about African Americans? Should a Democratic candidate not have to do anything to earn their vote either, on the logic that "We're not going to do anything to help you, and it might get slightly worse in fact because of that, but it'll actively be worse if the other guy gets in so fuck you and vote for us!"
I think if you look at it like that you see the problem with the attitude. One thing you can say about the Republican platform, it does at least aim to please its core voters, even when that's a pain and those people want massively different things.
The Democrats seem to operate on the principle they don't have to because it'll be way worse if the Republicans get in.
This is not a recipe to create the kind of enthusiasm and ground support needed to win a Presidential election. I mean, I appreciate that America is long past the point of being led by the best but right now we're talking about not only not being led by the best, not being led by the average, being led by the worst choice except for the other one that's even worse than that. Presidency - the leader of the free world - reduced to a Hobson's Choice.
That's disgusting. And all the arguments to vote for Biden despite him doing nothing to earn it feed into that even more.
|
On April 16 2020 08:00 iamthedave wrote:
So I'm curious, while everyone's saying that socialists should just man up and vote for Biden despite him publically telling them to fuck off, do people feel the same about African Americans? Should a Democratic candidate not have to do anything to earn their vote either, on the logic that "We're not going to do anything to help you, and it might get slightly worse in fact because of that, but it'll actively be worse if the other guy gets in so fuck you and vote for us!"
I think if you look at it like that you see the problem with the attitude. One thing you can say about the Republican platform, it does at least aim to please its core voters, even when that's a pain and those people want massively different things.
The Democrats seem to operate on the principle they don't have to because it'll be way worse if the Republicans get in.
This is not a recipe to create the kind of enthusiasm and ground support needed to win a Presidential election. I mean, I appreciate that America is long past the point of being led by the best but right now we're talking about not only not being led by the best, not being led by the average, being led by the worst choice except for the other one that's even worse than that. Presidency - the leader of the free world - reduced to a Hobson's Choice.
That's disgusting. And all the arguments to vote for Biden despite him doing nothing to earn it feed into that even more. By what reasoning do you think the Democrats are ignoring their core voters?
How is this core voter block they are ignoring not able to vote through their own candidate?
Could it be because they are in fact not a core voter block but hold a minority within the party?
Remember the GOP didn't want Trump and tried hard to keep him from getting the nomination. Core voters defying the party and pushing through the candidate they want happened the last election. Sanders failing to do so twice in a row should perhaps be a signal that he doesn't represent the majority.
|
On April 16 2020 08:00 iamthedave wrote:
So I'm curious, while everyone's saying that socialists should just man up and vote for Biden despite him publically telling them to fuck off, do people feel the same about African Americans? Should a Democratic candidate not have to do anything to earn their vote either, on the logic that "We're not going to do anything to help you, and it might get slightly worse in fact because of that, but it'll actively be worse if the other guy gets in so fuck you and vote for us!"
I think if you look at it like that you see the problem with the attitude. One thing you can say about the Republican platform, it does at least aim to please its core voters, even when that's a pain and those people want massively different things.
The Democrats seem to operate on the principle they don't have to because it'll be way worse if the Republicans get in.
This is not a recipe to create the kind of enthusiasm and ground support needed to win a Presidential election. I mean, I appreciate that America is long past the point of being led by the best but right now we're talking about not only not being led by the best, not being led by the average, being led by the worst choice except for the other one that's even worse than that. Presidency - the leader of the free world - reduced to a Hobson's Choice.
That's disgusting. And all the arguments to vote for Biden despite him doing nothing to earn it feed into that even more.
I don’t think Democrats should address African-Americans’ problems because they want their votes, I think they should do it because it’s the right thing to do. There’s tyranny of the majority problems that make it hard to incentivize politicians to deal with these problems, but abstaining/voting third party doesn’t obviously address any of those problems.
What I’d like to see is greater public awareness of and attention to problems that only affect specific communities. If everyone wants these problems solved, not just African-Americans, the tyranny of the majority problem goes away. How to achieve this, I don’t know.
|
Fully agree that everyone should vote,even its a vote between 2 evils they should vote the lesser of the 2 instead of not voting. Anything else makes no sense at all so the progressives should vote biden and i think they will this time. People have woken up and progressives not voting like in 2016 wont happen again.
But just for the sake of argument we can extend this line of thought with the following hypothetical situation.
What if there where 3 candidates in november. Trump with 41% support,biden with 39% support and a hypothetical progressive candidate with 20% support. What should progressives vote this time?
It basicly is the exact same situation as with 2 candidates because the 3rd candidate is not relevant in this hypothetical situation.
But in this situation it feels much more difficult to vote for biden as a progressive,even though it is equally important and not doing so will lead to the exact same outcomes as in the first situation.
So my question kinda is:if you are of the opinion that progressives should vote biden instead of not voting in the current situation,then doesnt that also imply that they should always vote strategically even if there is a progressive candidate?
I dont know,its a kinda interesting situation and this is a bit random but i do wonder how people see this.
|
On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead.
I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism).
The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized (class-consciousness) and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle (mass direct action).
Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized.
|
On April 16 2020 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead. I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism). The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized.
Then we’re at “abandon democracy and find another means of seizing power.” But if we’re revolting anyway, what does it matter how we vote? It sounds like what you actually want is to overthrow the government, so why don’t you argue for that? Everybody staying home on November 3rd but otherwise going about their lives like normal is a pretty shitty revolution.
It kinda sounds like you wanna use “don’t vote for Biden” as a step 1 to convincing everyone to join your revolution. But don’t bait and switch me, man. Advocate for what you actually want, otherwise you just come across as disingenuous and it makes me want to ignore you.
Edit: don’t know the Kwark post you’re referring to, so that part is lost on me.
|
On April 16 2020 08:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead. I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism). The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized. Then we’re at “abandon democracy and find another means of seizing power.” But if we’re revolting anyway, what does it matter how we vote? It sounds like what you actually want is to overthrow the government, so why don’t you argue for that? Everybody staying home on November 3rd but otherwise going about their lives like normal is a pretty shitty revolution. It kinda sounds like you wanna use “don’t vote for Biden” as a step 1 to convincing everyone to join your revolution. But don’t bait and switch me, man. Advocate for what you actually want, otherwise you just come across as disingenuous and it makes me want to ignore you.
I didn't say abandon democracy. I do say voting in bourgeoisie elections for most people in this country has already been stripped of any meaningful impact because of the nature of fptp, two-party, gerrymandering, etc. I also am saying that democratically directed mass direct action is required.
+ Show Spoiler +I might have to add "I'm not arguing people should stay home" to my sig if I have to address that errant charge again.
Not voting for Biden can be a step toward joining international proletariat struggle (one that long predates my existence, so please don't call it mine) imo but it isn't some sort of bait and switch. I think voting for Biden conflicts with reasonable ethical behavior on its own merits though, independent of my more revolutionary politics.
|
On April 16 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 08:27 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead. I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism). The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized. Then we’re at “abandon democracy and find another means of seizing power.” But if we’re revolting anyway, what does it matter how we vote? It sounds like what you actually want is to overthrow the government, so why don’t you argue for that? Everybody staying home on November 3rd but otherwise going about their lives like normal is a pretty shitty revolution. It kinda sounds like you wanna use “don’t vote for Biden” as a step 1 to convincing everyone to join your revolution. But don’t bait and switch me, man. Advocate for what you actually want, otherwise you just come across as disingenuous and it makes me want to ignore you. I didn't say abandon democracy. I do say voting in bourgeoisie elections for most people in this country has already been stripped of any meaningful impact because of the nature of fptp, two-party, gerrymandering, etc. I also am saying that democratically directed mass direct action is required. + Show Spoiler +I might have to add "I'm not arguing people should stay home" to my sig if I have to address that errant charge again. Not voting for Biden can be a step toward joining international proletariat struggle (one that long predates my existence, so please don't call it mine) imo but it isn't some sort of bait and switch. I think voting for Biden conflicts with reasonable ethical behavior on its own merits though, independent of my more revolutionary politics.
Let’s just get this out of the way: what are you saying people should do with their ballots? Leave the presidential election part blank? Vote third party? If you’ve said, I definitely missed it. And are you saying that choice will produce better outcomes for the world (if so, how?) or under what moral/ethical framework are you advocating it?
|
This is the Kwark post
On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned.
On April 16 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 08:27 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead. I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism). The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized. Then we’re at “abandon democracy and find another means of seizing power.” But if we’re revolting anyway, what does it matter how we vote? It sounds like what you actually want is to overthrow the government, so why don’t you argue for that? Everybody staying home on November 3rd but otherwise going about their lives like normal is a pretty shitty revolution. It kinda sounds like you wanna use “don’t vote for Biden” as a step 1 to convincing everyone to join your revolution. But don’t bait and switch me, man. Advocate for what you actually want, otherwise you just come across as disingenuous and it makes me want to ignore you. I didn't say abandon democracy. I do say voting in bourgeoisie elections for most people in this country has already been stripped of any meaningful impact because of the nature of fptp, two-party, gerrymandering, etc. I also am saying that democratically directed mass direct action is required. + Show Spoiler +I might have to add "I'm not arguing people should stay home" to my sig if I have to address that errant charge again. Not voting for Biden can be a step toward joining international proletariat struggle (one that long predates my existence, so please don't call it mine) imo but it isn't some sort of bait and switch. I think voting for Biden conflicts with reasonable ethical behavior on its own merits though, independent of my more revolutionary politics. Let’s just get this out of the way: what are you saying people should do with their ballots? Leave the presidential election part blank? Vote third party? If you’ve said, I definitely missed it. And are you saying that choice will produce better outcomes for the world (if so, how?) or under what moral/ethical framework are you advocating it?
I said they should vote for the people that best represents their politics. I feel like the ethics of voting for the person that best represents your politics to be your political representative is self-evident?
|
On April 16 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:This is the Kwark postShow nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned. Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 08:27 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead. I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism). The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized. Then we’re at “abandon democracy and find another means of seizing power.” But if we’re revolting anyway, what does it matter how we vote? It sounds like what you actually want is to overthrow the government, so why don’t you argue for that? Everybody staying home on November 3rd but otherwise going about their lives like normal is a pretty shitty revolution. It kinda sounds like you wanna use “don’t vote for Biden” as a step 1 to convincing everyone to join your revolution. But don’t bait and switch me, man. Advocate for what you actually want, otherwise you just come across as disingenuous and it makes me want to ignore you. I didn't say abandon democracy. I do say voting in bourgeoisie elections for most people in this country has already been stripped of any meaningful impact because of the nature of fptp, two-party, gerrymandering, etc. I also am saying that democratically directed mass direct action is required. + Show Spoiler +I might have to add "I'm not arguing people should stay home" to my sig if I have to address that errant charge again. Not voting for Biden can be a step toward joining international proletariat struggle (one that long predates my existence, so please don't call it mine) imo but it isn't some sort of bait and switch. I think voting for Biden conflicts with reasonable ethical behavior on its own merits though, independent of my more revolutionary politics. Let’s just get this out of the way: what are you saying people should do with their ballots? Leave the presidential election part blank? Vote third party? If you’ve said, I definitely missed it. And are you saying that choice will produce better outcomes for the world (if so, how?) or under what moral/ethical framework are you advocating it? I said they should vote for the people that best represents their politics. I feel like the ethics of voting for the person that best represents your politics to be your political representative is self-evident?
So if I think the third parties would be even worse for the country than Biden even if they won, is it still unethical to vote Biden?
Edit: if I tried hard enough I could probably find someone 35+ whose politics more closely match mine. Am I obligated to write them in?
|
On April 16 2020 07:56 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 07:36 Zambrah wrote:On April 16 2020 07:21 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 07:07 Zambrah wrote:
Is it still the moral choice if it almost guarantees that same number of people if not more people will be tied to the tracks at the next intersection? As opposed to the more people getting hit and maybe next time the people tying the slightly less people to the tracks will switch to tying significantly less people to the tracks? Is the risk worth it? See, this is part of why I don’t think you guys are actually coming from the same place. What you are making here is an argument that not pulling the lever *will* produce better outcomes in the long run. If you think so, we should talk about why. But in doing so, you’re accepting all the negative outcomes of a second Trump term as regrettable costs that will be outweighed by the benefits you think it will achieve down the line. Perhaps we can come up with a sequential game that will serve as a better analogy in subsequent elections (but since it came up, the dollar auction seems like a terrible analogy to me). But that doesn’t seem to be GH’s argument. So in responding to GH I’ll inevitably say something you’ll bristle at, thinking I’m mischaracterizing your position, while in responding to you, he’ll think I’m missing his point. That’s why I think it would be useful to peel apart your motivations and reasoning, so we don’t waste too much time arguing against a position that the person we’re talking to doesn’t even hold. As much as I like the weird complicated discussions with trains, and feces, and dollars we get into, Im not sure theyve really been too productive to anyone's understanding given how often we subvert the point of the exercises, lol. And yeah, if I thought that the DNC would learn from losing to one of the least electable, most despicable presidents of all time twice with their centrist conservatives old white people then I'd accept one more Trump presidency since it would at least mean that people would stop thinking "conservatism is the only way to win an election!" and maybe stop considering progressive candidates as "unelectable" despite generally favoring policy that most of America seems to poll pretty favorably.The problem with Biden (aside from him being the most Trump-like candidate that the DNC could possibly have nominated which really feels like they not only aren't willing to learn shit, but are willing to really enjoy the benefits of a race-to-the-bottom candidate style.) in my eyes is that noone gives two shit about his policies, they almost exclusively refer to their preferences for him via the "electability" argument, and I find that to be a self fulfilling prophecy of "we can only vote for centrists because they're electible, and we'll only ever try to get elected with centrists, and if they lose we'll just pretend it didnt happen because only centrists are electible." I mean realistically I should give up and move to another country, the odds that America ever embraces the kind of change I believe it needs are nigh, I think its more likely people just vote in their corporatist candidates ad infinitum til the populace is bled dry, but I dunno, I might as well grasp at straws in the meantime and maybe someone will eventually make the uprising we need happen. Here’s my biggest issue with the bolded: nothing about forcing a general election loss will provide even weak evidence that more progressive candidates will have a better chance. It’ll just mean that 4 years later, once again progressives will argue “our candidate would have done better” and centrists will argue “your candidate would have done even worse.” There’s no way to evaluate the counterfactual, whether Biden wins or loses.I should say, without accusing anyone, that there’s an obvious strategy to loudly proclaiming “I don’t know if I’ll be able to vote Biden in the general, he better make LOTS of concessions to progressives to convince me,” especially if you think Joe Biden is within earshot. But I think that sucks. One of my least favorite things about the Trump era is everyone playing weird poker mindgames with what they say vs. what they actually think. Again, I’m not saying anyone in particular is doing this, but I’d encourage everyone to act under the assumption that nobody of any importance reads TL or will ever hear about our discussions; it makes the discussion better, and honestly you’re usually more persuasive just speaking your mind than trying to play games to persuade people anyway.
At least progressives will be able to argue that centrists lost to Trump twice, I don't need to prove progressive electability, I just need to disprove centrist electability to dispel the notion that being a centrist makes you more likely to be elected.
Obviously I believe that if we move past the idea that only centrists are electable I believe progressives will do better, but in the end I don't need to prove they'll do better, they never get the chance to prove themselves in the face of the centrists (in presidential elections anyways) so before they get that chance we have to break down the idiotic arbitrary barriers that people will erect in order to protect their centrist bullshit.
|
On April 16 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:This is the Kwark postOn April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned. On April 16 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 08:27 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that.
As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead. I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism). The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized. Then we’re at “abandon democracy and find another means of seizing power.” But if we’re revolting anyway, what does it matter how we vote? It sounds like what you actually want is to overthrow the government, so why don’t you argue for that? Everybody staying home on November 3rd but otherwise going about their lives like normal is a pretty shitty revolution. It kinda sounds like you wanna use “don’t vote for Biden” as a step 1 to convincing everyone to join your revolution. But don’t bait and switch me, man. Advocate for what you actually want, otherwise you just come across as disingenuous and it makes me want to ignore you. I didn't say abandon democracy. I do say voting in bourgeoisie elections for most people in this country has already been stripped of any meaningful impact because of the nature of fptp, two-party, gerrymandering, etc. I also am saying that democratically directed mass direct action is required. + Show Spoiler +I might have to add "I'm not arguing people should stay home" to my sig if I have to address that errant charge again. Not voting for Biden can be a step toward joining international proletariat struggle (one that long predates my existence, so please don't call it mine) imo but it isn't some sort of bait and switch. I think voting for Biden conflicts with reasonable ethical behavior on its own merits though, independent of my more revolutionary politics. Let’s just get this out of the way: what are you saying people should do with their ballots? Leave the presidential election part blank? Vote third party? If you’ve said, I definitely missed it. And are you saying that choice will produce better outcomes for the world (if so, how?) or under what moral/ethical framework are you advocating it? I said they should vote for the people that best represents their politics. I feel like the ethics of voting for the person that best represents your politics to be your political representative is self-evident? So if I think the third parties would be even worse for the country than Biden even if they won, is it still unethical to vote Biden?
You can think whatever you want and subscribe to whatever ethical framework you'd like. Looking back at the Kwark post I find this informative to the issue regarding people advocating their own oppression (and calling for others to do the same):
Consider the practice of decimation of the Roman Legion. Divide it into groups of ten, have them draw lots, and then the nine lucky members beat the unlucky tenth to death with clubs. It might have been rational for the group to collectively refuse, after all, it's five thousand heavily armed soldiers, it's pretty hard to make them do anything they don't want to do. But they're all hoping that they won't be the unlucky one, the only ones arguing for solidarity and resistance are the ones who have already drawn short straws, and their luckier comrades gain nothing from listening to them. They've already survived the decimation, the last thing they need is another display of insubordination.
The game is fucked. It's individually rational for the members of the group to oppress itself.
Stop playing the game by their rules by engaging in mass direct action (instead of fixating on how beating the 10th to death protects the other 9) would be my advice, but Kwark's right that it tends to only resonate with short straw holders. Long straw people want to argue beating 1 person to death is better than 2 or more for insubordination.
|
Northern Ireland25419 Posts
Who knows really? Stories are out in the British press that various Labour folks actively fucked Corbyn and cheered his loss.
So even if leftists actually win our equivalent of primaries, the whole solidarity thing doesn’t really apply when the policy concessions are to the left.
Not that Corbyn wins either, but Labour preferred to destroy itself than live up to the election mandate.
So when the left wins in terms of primary platforms the centrist apparatus will actively self-sabotage.
But yet when a centrist wins, the left is expected to tow the line and if they don’t vote it’s their fault if something worse gets in.
|
On April 16 2020 09:02 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 07:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 07:36 Zambrah wrote:On April 16 2020 07:21 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 07:07 Zambrah wrote:
Is it still the moral choice if it almost guarantees that same number of people if not more people will be tied to the tracks at the next intersection? As opposed to the more people getting hit and maybe next time the people tying the slightly less people to the tracks will switch to tying significantly less people to the tracks? Is the risk worth it? See, this is part of why I don’t think you guys are actually coming from the same place. What you are making here is an argument that not pulling the lever *will* produce better outcomes in the long run. If you think so, we should talk about why. But in doing so, you’re accepting all the negative outcomes of a second Trump term as regrettable costs that will be outweighed by the benefits you think it will achieve down the line. Perhaps we can come up with a sequential game that will serve as a better analogy in subsequent elections (but since it came up, the dollar auction seems like a terrible analogy to me). But that doesn’t seem to be GH’s argument. So in responding to GH I’ll inevitably say something you’ll bristle at, thinking I’m mischaracterizing your position, while in responding to you, he’ll think I’m missing his point. That’s why I think it would be useful to peel apart your motivations and reasoning, so we don’t waste too much time arguing against a position that the person we’re talking to doesn’t even hold. As much as I like the weird complicated discussions with trains, and feces, and dollars we get into, Im not sure theyve really been too productive to anyone's understanding given how often we subvert the point of the exercises, lol. And yeah, if I thought that the DNC would learn from losing to one of the least electable, most despicable presidents of all time twice with their centrist conservatives old white people then I'd accept one more Trump presidency since it would at least mean that people would stop thinking "conservatism is the only way to win an election!" and maybe stop considering progressive candidates as "unelectable" despite generally favoring policy that most of America seems to poll pretty favorably.The problem with Biden (aside from him being the most Trump-like candidate that the DNC could possibly have nominated which really feels like they not only aren't willing to learn shit, but are willing to really enjoy the benefits of a race-to-the-bottom candidate style.) in my eyes is that noone gives two shit about his policies, they almost exclusively refer to their preferences for him via the "electability" argument, and I find that to be a self fulfilling prophecy of "we can only vote for centrists because they're electible, and we'll only ever try to get elected with centrists, and if they lose we'll just pretend it didnt happen because only centrists are electible." I mean realistically I should give up and move to another country, the odds that America ever embraces the kind of change I believe it needs are nigh, I think its more likely people just vote in their corporatist candidates ad infinitum til the populace is bled dry, but I dunno, I might as well grasp at straws in the meantime and maybe someone will eventually make the uprising we need happen. Here’s my biggest issue with the bolded: nothing about forcing a general election loss will provide even weak evidence that more progressive candidates will have a better chance. It’ll just mean that 4 years later, once again progressives will argue “our candidate would have done better” and centrists will argue “your candidate would have done even worse.” There’s no way to evaluate the counterfactual, whether Biden wins or loses.I should say, without accusing anyone, that there’s an obvious strategy to loudly proclaiming “I don’t know if I’ll be able to vote Biden in the general, he better make LOTS of concessions to progressives to convince me,” especially if you think Joe Biden is within earshot. But I think that sucks. One of my least favorite things about the Trump era is everyone playing weird poker mindgames with what they say vs. what they actually think. Again, I’m not saying anyone in particular is doing this, but I’d encourage everyone to act under the assumption that nobody of any importance reads TL or will ever hear about our discussions; it makes the discussion better, and honestly you’re usually more persuasive just speaking your mind than trying to play games to persuade people anyway. At least progressives will be able to argue that centrists lost to Trump twice, I don't need to prove progressive electability, I just need to disprove centrist electability to dispel the notion that being a centrist makes you more likely to be elected. Obviously I believe that if we move past the idea that only centrists are electable I believe progressives will do better, but in the end I don't need to prove they'll do better, they never get the chance to prove themselves in the face of the centrists (in presidential elections anyways) so before they get that chance we have to break down the idiotic arbitrary barriers that people will erect in order to protect their centrist bullshit.
So in short, you want to spike this general election to improve progressives’ position in the next primary. Obviously I think this election is really important, so I don’t like that plan. But is your position universalizable? That is, wouldn’t people who favor centrist policies be just as justified in spiking the next general election if a progressive won the primary? It would be the obvious strategic response after all, and 2 lost elections later you’d be no closer to achieving your progressive goals. All the while, I’d add, we have to keep adding the consequences of these lost elections to the “costs” column in the cost/benefit analysis of this plan.
Part of the trouble is that people tend to use “electability” to mask advocating policies they actually just like better as policies. When was the last time you heard someone say “I’d prefer this policy, but I’m voting for that one because I think it’s more electable?” Centrists say it sometimes about why they don’t support more radical reform, but honestly I think they’re usually just advocating the policy they like better and think the electability angle is more convincing.
People mostly think their favorite policy is also the most electable policy. It convinced them, after all. I’d rather people just argue the policy on its merits; consider it a real-time empirical test of which policy is easier to convince people with!
On April 16 2020 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:This is the Kwark postOn April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned. On April 16 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 08:27 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:48 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:[quote] Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question. + Show Spoiler +Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead. I've said electoralism isn't going to solve the problems we absolutely have to solve (climate change) or the ones that matter to me (the exploitation/death/suffering under imperialist capitalism). The people that couldn't even be swayed to support electoralisms last hope (Bernie Sanders) have to be stopped or we risk human society (according to the best available science). The reasonable people that think voting Biden is an acceptable stop-gap have to be radicalized and prepare themselves for revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, Kwark is right and they might as well practice swinging their clubs by vote-shaming people that won't support Biden or Trump. The people they club with the "you have to vote for the Blue monster (or worse they sell them as actually good) over the worse Red monster " rhetoric might as well get used to getting beat over the head with it too if they aren't going to get radicalized. Then we’re at “abandon democracy and find another means of seizing power.” But if we’re revolting anyway, what does it matter how we vote? It sounds like what you actually want is to overthrow the government, so why don’t you argue for that? Everybody staying home on November 3rd but otherwise going about their lives like normal is a pretty shitty revolution. It kinda sounds like you wanna use “don’t vote for Biden” as a step 1 to convincing everyone to join your revolution. But don’t bait and switch me, man. Advocate for what you actually want, otherwise you just come across as disingenuous and it makes me want to ignore you. I didn't say abandon democracy. I do say voting in bourgeoisie elections for most people in this country has already been stripped of any meaningful impact because of the nature of fptp, two-party, gerrymandering, etc. I also am saying that democratically directed mass direct action is required. + Show Spoiler +I might have to add "I'm not arguing people should stay home" to my sig if I have to address that errant charge again. Not voting for Biden can be a step toward joining international proletariat struggle (one that long predates my existence, so please don't call it mine) imo but it isn't some sort of bait and switch. I think voting for Biden conflicts with reasonable ethical behavior on its own merits though, independent of my more revolutionary politics. Let’s just get this out of the way: what are you saying people should do with their ballots? Leave the presidential election part blank? Vote third party? If you’ve said, I definitely missed it. And are you saying that choice will produce better outcomes for the world (if so, how?) or under what moral/ethical framework are you advocating it? I said they should vote for the people that best represents their politics. I feel like the ethics of voting for the person that best represents your politics to be your political representative is self-evident? So if I think the third parties would be even worse for the country than Biden even if they won, is it still unethical to vote Biden? You can think whatever you want and subscribe to whatever ethical framework you'd like. Looking back at the Kwark post I find this informative to the issue regarding people advocating their own oppression (and calling for others to do the same): Show nested quote +Consider the practice of decimation of the Roman Legion. Divide it into groups of ten, have them draw lots, and then the nine lucky members beat the unlucky tenth to death with clubs. It might have been rational for the group to collectively refuse, after all, it's five thousand heavily armed soldiers, it's pretty hard to make them do anything they don't want to do. But they're all hoping that they won't be the unlucky one, the only ones arguing for solidarity and resistance are the ones who have already drawn short straws, and their luckier comrades gain nothing from listening to them. They've already survived the decimation, the last thing they need is another display of insubordination.
The game is fucked. It's individually rational for the members of the group to oppress itself. Stop playing the game by their rules by engaging in mass direct action (instead of fixating on how beating the 10th to death protects the other 9) would be my advice, but Kwark's right that it tends to only resonate with short straw holders. Long straw people want to argue beating 1 person to death is better than 2 or more for insubordination.
Ah, I remember that post after all. I’ll try to work within his decimation metaphor: presumably you’re saying “vote Biden” is the analog of complying with your commanding officer’s order to beat the guy to death. (Voting Trump would be what, beating 2 guys to death?) Then not voting is... refusing to participate in the beating, and just watching? Presumably the real alternative is rallying your fellow soldiers to rebel against the government.
But then we’re back at “what you actually want is revolution.” If what you want is revolution then let’s stop distracting ourselves with the “Biden v. Trump v. 3rd party v. Not voting” question, since none of the above are going to stop the guy from getting beaten to death.
|
I haven't been shy about my advocacy of revolutionary mass direct action?
|
So in short, you want to spike this general election to improve progressives’ position in the next primary. Obviously I think this election is really important, so I don’t like that plan. But is your position universalizable? That is, wouldn’t people who favor centrist policies be just as justified in spiking the next general election if a progressive won the primary? It would be the obvious strategic response after all, and 2 lost elections later you’d be no closer to achieving your progressive goals. All the while, I’d add, we have to keep adding the consequences of these lost elections to the “costs” column in the cost/benefit analysis of this plan.
Part of the trouble is that people tend to use “electability” to mask advocating policies they actually just like better as policies. When was the last time you heard someone say “I’d prefer this policy, but I’m voting for that one because I think it’s more electable?” Centrists say it sometimes about why they don’t support more radical reform, but honestly I think they’re usually just advocating the policy they like better and think the electability angle is more convincing.
People mostly think their favorite policy is also the most electable policy. It convinced them, after all. I’d rather people just argue the policy on its merits; consider it a real-time empirical test of which policy is easier to convince people with!
Yeah, if people favor centrist policies that much I wouldn't expect them to vote for a progressive candidate. That being said tbh I dont think a lot of voters give two shits about policy, I would expect them to "vote blue no matter who" because they care more about winning then any specific policy or anything, so long as Blue comes out on top I think a sizable chunk of the electorate will vote for what-the-fuck-ever, and then beyond that you have the Never-Republicans who will probably just vote for whoever isnt the Republicans, I'd consider this group of people to be the sort of people that are still voting Biden despite having serious reservations (these are not the people that are pro-Biden 'cause electability.)
Generally I'm on the opinion that a lot of Democrat voters will probably vote Democrat no matter what, and I'd like to see them attempt to work on promoting voter turnout for ALL elections (theres that thing about how half assed Democrat turnout during smaller elections is) and try appealing to voting bases that they take for granted and never want to give the time of day to.
But uh, tbh I believe they dont want to do the progressive thing because the Democrat leadership is bought-and-fucking-sold by the monied class, so I 100% expect them to continue protecting their rich bitch club at the expense of any and everything, and I think the only thing I can feasibly do is to help influence midterm elections with more and more progressives to establish a strong enough progressive wing that the Democrats have to work with if they want to do shit. Exert what power we may have and all that, even if we aren't a majority.
EDIT: I should say Im open to doing anything that isnt "sit down, shut up, vote for who we say and progress can and will wait until we tell you," by the way.
|
On April 16 2020 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't been shy about my advocacy of revolutionary mass direct action?
I guess my point is that mass “not supporting a major party candidate” doesn’t qualify, so I don’t know why it keeps getting brought up in discussions of how to vote in November. I’d understand if you were criticizing people for not doing enough and they were using “well I’m voting for Biden, aren’t I?” as a defense. But you’re making a big point that people shouldn’t support Biden because revolutionary mass direct action is needed to address the real problems of our time. If revolutionary mass direct action is the only thing that matters, why are we even talking about election day? What does it matter if people vote for Biden?
@Zambrah: I think I agree with 99% of what you wrote there.
|
On April 16 2020 10:05 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't been shy about my advocacy of revolutionary mass direct action? I guess my point is that mass “not supporting a major party candidate” doesn’t qualify, so I don’t know why it keeps getting brought up in discussions of how to vote in November. I’d understand if you were criticizing people for not doing enough and they were using “well I’m voting for Biden, aren’t I?” as a defense. But you’re making a big point that people shouldn’t support Biden because revolutionary mass direct action is needed to address the real problems of our time. If revolutionary mass direct action is the only thing that matters, why are we even talking about election day? What does it matter if people vote for Biden? @Zambrah: I think I agree with 99% of what you wrote there.
Is it that if Biden is elected, people will become more complacent and less likely to revolt?
|
On April 16 2020 10:08 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 10:05 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't been shy about my advocacy of revolutionary mass direct action? I guess my point is that mass “not supporting a major party candidate” doesn’t qualify, so I don’t know why it keeps getting brought up in discussions of how to vote in November. I’d understand if you were criticizing people for not doing enough and they were using “well I’m voting for Biden, aren’t I?” as a defense. But you’re making a big point that people shouldn’t support Biden because revolutionary mass direct action is needed to address the real problems of our time. If revolutionary mass direct action is the only thing that matters, why are we even talking about election day? What does it matter if people vote for Biden? @Zambrah: I think I agree with 99% of what you wrote there. Is it that if Biden is elected, people will become more complacent and less likely to revolt?
Maybe. I’ve heard that position (that we need to intentionally make the system’s problems faster and more severe so people will see the need for radical change) called “accelerationism.” In that case, there’d be a case for voting Trump!
I don’t think that’s GH though.
|
On April 16 2020 10:05 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't been shy about my advocacy of revolutionary mass direct action? I guess my point is that mass “not supporting a major party candidate” doesn’t qualify, so I don’t know why it keeps getting brought up in discussions of how to vote in November. I’d understand if you were criticizing people for not doing enough and they were using “well I’m voting for Biden, aren’t I?” as a defense. But you’re making a big point that people shouldn’t support Biden because revolutionary mass direct action is needed to address the real problems of our time. If revolutionary mass direct action is the only thing that matters, why are we even talking about election day? What does it matter if people vote for Biden? @Zambrah: I think I agree with 99% of what you wrote there.
I'm arguing they shouldn't support Biden for a lot of reasons, not the least among them his horrific history and policy. Then the question becomes what is the alternative, and I say revolutionary mass action (and voting for the candidate that most closely reflects their politics if they'd like). Then people say they prefer beating the person with the short straw to death over organized mass action. I point that out, then it's pretty much all downhill from there most of the time. Every so often though, something clicks, and the person realizes they themselves are the kind of person they've been waiting to say it's time to stop falling in line and start organizing mass actions. No one can convince of them of that but themselves imo, but there's plenty folks like myself can do to share in that experience.
EDIT: Alternatively they say (though usually not publicly unless they are unusually honest as a result of disillusionment) something like Kwark did or want it that way like Republicans
On April 25 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution? I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked.
He already made a good post about more or less why this is the case in the US
The problem is America's cultural sickness. People who have something to lose, no matter how small, don't side with their brethren who have nothing to lose, despite being separated only by luck. Lets assume that technological unemployment continues and, for the purpose of argument, who gets to keep their job is decided by lot. Those who are fortunate enough to still have jobs are in every way identical to those who drew the short straw and yet, this being America, they will feel no sense of comradeship with them. + Show Spoiler +They'll say "well I need to take care of myself, I can't afford to lose what I still have". They'll worry that if they speak out then they'll lose the job and that one of the people on whose behalf they spoke out will steal it from them. And they're not especially wrong to, game theory would make it rational to do so.
The system creates dependence but Americans are loathed to acknowledge dependence and power relationships. The fact that they can be fired at any time, and that they only escaped the previous wave by the luck of the draw, will be ignored because it's an uncomfortable reality that does not fit into the world view of the self made free American. They will concluded that those who got unlucky must have been guilty of some kind of failing of character because the alternative, that they are identical, is far more frightening.
This is a country that doesn't even acknowledge that a working class exists. The working class is classically defined as anyone who sells their labour for a wage (middle class works for themselves, creates the product (lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, who own their own practice), upper class doesn't work at all) and yet you'll have a lot of trouble finding any working class Americans. Without class consciousness and a willingness of individuals to risk themselves for their class you'll never have change.
Which is why I mention the importance of Freireian education and class-consciousness frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
