Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: Febbolution

Topic: Reds in America: a discussion (Read 2596 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Talkfreethought about...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Bilirubin
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #176
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-give-socialism-a-try/2018/03/06/c603a1b6-2164-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html?utm_term=.ebc2cac68638

owns:

Quote
Contemporary supporters of liberalism are often subject, I think, to what I call "everyday Fukuyama-ism" -- the idea, explicitly stated or not, that the end of the Cold War really signaled the end of history, and that we can only look forward to the unceasing rise of Western-style liberal-democratic capitalism. (As the leftist scholar Mark Fisher recounted: "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.")


  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #178
on the other hand



Indeed, commenter-who-identifies-with-fictional-emotionless-alien, we can see you might think that tidbit of american history settles the issue.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #179
Also LOL at the idea that traditional capitalism is merit based.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #180

Quote
Still, new computer screenshots released by the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday made clear that Russian state hackers had the foothold they would have needed to manipulate or shut down power plants.

"We now have evidence they're sitting on the machines, connected to industrial control infrastructure, that allow them to effectively turn the power off or effect sabotage," said Eric Chien, a security technology director at Symantec, a digital security firm.

"From what we can see, they were there. They have the ability to shut the power off. All that's missing is some political motivation," Mr. Chien said.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #181
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21018/socialists_anti_capitalism_denver_democratic_party_america_bernie_sanders

Quote
The move was spurred by members of the Denver chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who petitioned Denver County Democratic Assembly delegates to vote for an amendment to the official party platform. The language states:

"We believe the economy should be democratically owned and controlled in order to serve the needs of the many, not to make profits for the few.

On March 24, the amendment passed with overwhelming support, and it will now be listed in the Democratic Party of Denver's platform preamble. Denver DSA chair Kristofer Dubbels tells In These Times that there was initially some open opposition to the proposal, including a number of delegates who told him it "would never pass." When the vote came up, however, of the nearly 1,000 delegates present, roughly 90 percent raised their cards in approval.   

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #182
Hey guys I think capitalism might be... Bad??


Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #183
didn't know where else to post this unexpectedly epic rendition of the internationale

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ognMPZByOiE

eta: if communism were an anime this would be its opening song
  • Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 03:23:38 PM by the idea of Harambe

  • dinosaurs!
  • Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #184

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #185
I for one appreciate Thomas Piketty's new obsession with (((Globalists)))

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #186
tl;dr af

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #187
all you gotta do is skim his abstract:

Quote
I also discuss the origins of this evolution (rise of globalization/migration cleavage, and/or educational expansion per se) as well as future prospects: "multiple-elite" stabilization; complete realignment of the party system along a "globalists" (high-education, high-income) vs "nativists" (low-education, low-income) cleavage; return to class-based redistributive conflict (either from an internationalist or nativist perspective)

He goes on later to complain about immigration making it difficult to effectively do redistribution of wealth and therefore is blaming immigration for economic anxiety etc.  But his insistence on using the word "Globalist" with associated scarequotes to talk about high-education parts of society should be an obvious red flag, too.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #188
all you gotta do is skim his abstract:

Quote
I also discuss the origins of this evolution (rise of globalization/migration cleavage, and/or educational expansion per se) as well as future prospects: "multiple-elite" stabilization; complete realignment of the party system along a "globalists" (high-education, high-income) vs "nativists" (low-education, low-income) cleavage; return to class-based redistributive conflict (either from an internationalist or nativist perspective)

He goes on later to complain about immigration making it difficult to effectively do redistribution of wealth and therefore is blaming immigration for economic anxiety etc.  But his insistence on using the word "Globalist" with associated scarequotes to talk about high-education parts of society should be an obvious red flag, too.
I think you are finding demons in your garage.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #189
Have you read his analysis?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #190
I did. A lot of his analysis hinges on the argument that immigration issues and the will of the globalist elite make redistribution ineffective, rather than that Old Wealth is pushing racism in the public sphere in order to maintain social relevance and control. It's bullshit and he says a lot of stuff elsewhere from his eagerness to use (((globalist))) to explain the failure of class politics that also borders on racism, including blaming the poor US class consciousness on racial awareness in the US left.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #191
Hmm. I read a lot more of than I had time to. But I don't think it's as easy to dismiss as you seem to be implying. The problem of priors plagues all economic and political analysis, but as much as I read seemed interesting not least because of his datasets. I will need to give it a closer look which I don't have time for today but I think your objection is generally a simplistic conflicting assumptions dismissal. Mass migration in an age without frontiers is a pretty new issue for humans to deal with and part of what is unequally distributed among peoples is environmental resources. For natural monopoly resources like oil or water, that has tended towards strongman government but with distributed resources like good farmland or lumber, that has tended towards community organizing. What happens when the latter type are overwhelmed by refugees from the former has historically been unhappiness all around. As much as you like to imagine people mean Jew when they say globalist, that is not the case when the person literally means globalist. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't see the jew hating that you do in this particular piece and the topic is actually really important for policy because in order to provide the best humanitarian aid to refugees,  we really need to figure out how to mitigate their impact on local societies so that those societies will still have resources to help those refugees. Of course,  the right solution is to kill all billionaires and nationalize their assets. But there are operational challenges to that plan.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #192
I feel like the whole of human society should collectively agree to never use the term "globalist" again. Not because it's sometimes a dog-whistle (I mean, that too, though), but because I personally dislike the term, because it makes me think of Alex Jones, and nobody wants to think about Alex Jones.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #193
good point.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #194


I wonder if you can still order additional copies of this poster.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #195
Hmm. I read a lot more of than I had time to. But I don't think it's as easy to dismiss as you seem to be implying. The problem of priors plagues all economic and political analysis, but as much as I read seemed interesting not least because of his datasets. I will need to give it a closer look which I don't have time for today but I think your objection is generally a simplistic conflicting assumptions dismissal. Mass migration in an age without frontiers is a pretty new issue for humans to deal with and part of what is unequally distributed among peoples is environmental resources. For natural monopoly resources like oil or water, that has tended towards strongman government but with distributed resources like good farmland or lumber, that has tended towards community organizing. What happens when the latter type are overwhelmed by refugees from the former has historically been unhappiness all around. As much as you like to imagine people mean Jew when they say globalist, that is not the case when the person literally means globalist. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't see the jew hating that you do in this particular piece and the topic is actually really important for policy because in order to provide the best humanitarian aid to refugees,  we really need to figure out how to mitigate their impact on local societies so that those societies will still have resources to help those refugees. Of course,  the right solution is to kill all billionaires and nationalize their assets. But there are operational challenges to that plan.

I think the problem is that you like the conclusions (we need to redistribute wealth) and are not really looking at how Piketty is getting to those conclusions.

A few things that really don't follow.

1. Piketty argues that racial awareness and catering to racial minorities by the Democrats creates a barrier to minority Americans developing a class consciousness and that this is why minority communities repeatedly vote for a globalist agenda on subjects like immigration that undercut efforts for effective wealth redistribution. This is obviously false and misleading: the issue is actually the opposite. Minorities traditionally have voted in favor of wealth redistribution policies; white racialists are the ones who vote actively against wealth redistribution policies, and those policies are ineffective not because of migration but because conservativism promises both retention of conservative wealth distribution AND racial power dynamics.

2. Piketty argues that the main skin that "highly educated globalists" have in the game is money for the education system, and that this is why they lobby for wealth redistribution policies. In actuality, most people who work in education/research institutions do not make a ton of money personally and instead are advocating for education spending because affordable education prepares more people for job and class mobility at a time where deskwork is increasingly becoming the new labor (especially jobs that used to be elite but no longer are, such as coding and IT).

3. In addition to implicitly arguing that increased education is "elitist" Pitketty argues that immigration is an underhanded means of undercutting attempts to redistribute wealth by the educated "globalist" elite in order to...whatever. In reality, immigration generally serves one of four purposes: family reunification, acquisition of skills with high demand and low national supply, humanitarian concerns, and temporary work in specific industries such as agriculture where lifestyle expectations of white Americans mean that there is no one who wants to do those jobs even though those industries are heavily subsidized. Here Pitketty directly accepts nativist rhetoric as economic fact, when the reality is much more nuanced and probably does not perform the way he models it.

The underlying argument that Pitketty makes, then, ends up being very right-wing: "Globalists" are mobilizing uneducated people of color to enrich themselves by funneling taxpayer dollars into the education system while swamping out white labor with immigration. If not for the globalist elite, black people wouldn't have racial awareness and could make common cause with poor whites who are really just experiencing economic anxiety because the immigrants keep taking their jobs for less pay.

I mean, come on, I know people are in love with Pitketty, but it's time to start seriously asking what it is he's actually saying.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #196
Fair enough. I will need to read for those critiques.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #197
I found this article on capitalism and Marx's ideas interesting and enlightening. Not knowing much about it (I'm really lacking in that part of my history and general knowledge).

https://freethoughtblogs.com/stderr/2018/04/19/capital-valuations-and-market-caps-101/

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #198


the NYT somehow found space to cover outsider politics that wasn't nazis!