Noumenon wrote:
I think such consciousness is built precisely by the conscious crafting of a political message by the more-political to bring the less-political on board too. Consciousness is not spontaneous. Its a result of ideological warfare in symbolic space. Propaganda is not necessarily a bad word, if it is done the right way. I.e. not in a patronizing way. I don't see where opposition to this would come from. Communists have always propagandized. I think they've just gotten really bad at it cause they've lost the plot.
Many people would actually *disagree* with you here, saying instead that it's *social conditions* that create class consciousness -- those who have to work full-time, and more, are *very* conscious of the fact that they're being exploited by their boss.
Noumenon wrote:
Ok, yes anti-capitalist and neoliberal sentiment has been mobilized significantly, yes.
These are contradictory to each other -- anti-capitalist sentiment is for the *empowerment* of the working class, because capitalism *exploits* and *oppresses* the working class, so workers have an intrinsic material interest in controlling social production collectively *themselves*, without the capitalists. Neoliberalism is *austerity* in government spending, meaning even *less* public funds are directed towards people, for their everyday kinds of needs.
Noumenon wrote:
But not effectively, in a way that translates into actual gains. I think in the US context we almost got somewhere with Bernie. But turnout failed, young people didn't show up to vote for him in the 2020 primaries. There is something missing in the message. Despite all the compromises, he has made things like universal health care and green new deal a centerpiece of the conversation. We weren't anywhere close to that before 2016, we were like talking about a 1% rise in the minimum wage or something, whatever would be palatable to the Hillary-type people. The space has been opened up for I think a new universalist politics which has the potential to bring everyone into the fold as much as possible. It is critical that the politics we craft is external-facing and appropriate to the current consciousness of the broad electorate, while at the same time providing something exciting and new.
Populism, in other words. Understandable, but I have to note that it's no threat whatsoever to the bourgeois nation-state because it leaves that entire apparatus intact, just as we saw with Occupy Wall Street. (Also Myanmar, currently.)
History, Macro-Micro -- simplified
---
Noumenon wrote:
Intersectionalism I think is utopian when it relies on the fantasy of recognition as a sufficient politics unto itself. The handwringing about not giving the slightest offense we saw in the OP video is an example.
*Or*, we could just call it 'common civil courtesy', extended to the acknowledgement of people's gender and transgender identities, since that's current in politics.
Noumenon wrote:
It is materialist when it focuses on the actually-existing antagonisms which exist along racial, gender etc. lines.
You may want to *advance*, then, to these actual larger-world antagonisms / politics, regarding issues of race, gender, etc. Black Lives Matter and the women's march (2017) come to mind right away.
Noumenon wrote:
Its economic policies I think are generally reasonable and not utopian. But I think that because it exists in a certain ideological left microcosm, it doesn't really give fair consideration to say, cap and trade for carbon emissions, nuclear energy, or a Universal Basic Income. Because these are symbolically coded as neoliberal and therefore rejected out of hand.
No, sorry, you're mixed-up -- these are *political* issues primarily, not economic / neoliberal ones.
Noumenon wrote:
What is really needed for the next stage of universalist politics is to shatter this bubble of radically-inclined white millennial (my demographic) domination of the allowable parameters of discussion. There exists a dialectic with the broader liberal discussion, that the radleft-sphere should not close itself off from and therefore limit its appeal.
Now you're beginning to sound just as obsessed as UM is, regarding the DSA's internal political culture.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Corporate taxation is now an international bourgeois-politics phenomenon, so at least that's momentum in the correct direction.
Noumenon wrote:
Agreed.
---
Noumenon wrote:
Basically everything in the core tenets of Marxism, except for the existence of class antagonism and stratification which is a concrete reality no matter which way you look at it. Tendency of profit rate to fall, labor theory of value, rate of surplus value, we don't need any of that.
Well, the class antagonism only exists *because* of the economics of capitalism -- which includes capitalism's recurring internal economic crises, like 1929, the '70s, 2000, 2008-2009, 2019, and 2020.
Why do you have problems with the labor theory of value? What's your argument?
[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
---
Noumenon wrote:
Politics should be oriented around all existing antagonisms, with the acknowledgment that class antagonism is a very central one (but not so central that it overshadows or obscures the others).
'Very central', 'but not so central that it overshadows or obscures the others' -- doesn't this sound at all *arrogant* to yourself? Do you really think that you can just *make shit up* about the real world and the way it works, to suit your own tastes?
Noumenon wrote:
A major advantage of 99% versus 1% is its universalist appeal, which mitigates against the balkanization inherent in the current incarnation of identity politics. But we can't afford to ignore identity either. That's why it is not enough to just rely on some spontaneous awakening of consciousness. Unifying all these disparate elements across different divides actually requires a positive construction of how to accomplish that.
Okay, so you prefer populism over identity politics. Understandable, but still *incremental*, leftwards.
Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals
---
Noumenon wrote:
He did everything that it was possible to do in the current circumstances, and made the most realpolitik possible choices to amplify his chances of gaining real power. Which he came closer to achieving than anyone since Eugene Debs 100 years ago. He's a gangster with a heart of gold. So he definitely gets way more respect in my eyes than people standing on the sidelines throwing shade.
If there's any chance of creating a multiparty system, it will be after Republicans in their current form are vanquished, and Democrats become the center-right party. That will open up a space for new parties. Hate to be the "lesser of two evils" guy as I was deadset against that logic in 2016 and voted for Jill Stein. But Biden, sadly, was the best option in 2020. Its a reflection of how much work needs to be done to offer people real and not imaginary alternatives.
But bourgeois electoralist politics is still *ruling class* politics.
---
Noumenon wrote:
No. My utopian vision I believe has the potential to unify all radical strands of political thought (as a compromise, none of them get completely what they want). No matter how radical you are, I would hope that you'd recognize someone like Bernie would be a concrete improvement over someone like Trump. So, as long as your preferred total revolutionary solution isn't quite in the cards, social democracy on the macro level is a reasonable compromise. Anarchists want autonomous zones free of police etc. in order to create cooperate forms of political economy. Great, they can have their own micro-spheres for that. Right-leaning libertarians (however flawed their ideology) also want to be free to do their own thing independent of the government. They can have their own spheres for that.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Funny. What about *civil society* -- ? Who has the authority to put people in jail?
Noumenon wrote:
Control over the macro-sphere would still be contested the same way it is now. So the "utopian" part of my vision exists more in the micro-spheres which are spaces for free experimentation. You would have to obtain enough power in the first place to implement this autonomous zones though.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I'll *rephrase*, for the sake of clarity -- what would prevent a person committing an anti-social crime in *one* locality / 'micro-sphere', and then just traipsing over to *another* 'micro-sphere' to escape any potential government 'justice' -- ?
---
Noumenon wrote:
Its inherently a pluralistic vision. But also it acknowledges monism in that it aims for solving the universal problems confronting all humankind, most of which involve the problem of the commons, as communists are very much correct in identifying.
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking of the *right wing* -- communists, like myself, don't see any "problem" with a fully anti-capitalist, de-privatized commons, for all to contribute to, and to take from.
An easy way to conceptualize it is to think about what is *already*, today, de-privatized, like public education, civil society, roads, infrastructure, etc. Then just *expand* that sphere to include everything that's *currently* in the private sector today, like manufacturing, housing, transportation, etc.
Noumenon wrote:
I think this is where communism is behind the times. No one really believes that state control is some magical implementation of the people's will. Again, that doesn't mean its inherently bad. I do think that we should have a greatly expanded public sphere. But I think creating micro spaces where people can *actually* implement their will, without the intermediary of a state, is 1000% more empowering and inspiring than turning everything into the DMV. And I think these spaces will eventually expand our imagination with what is possible on the macro scale as well. So its not like I'm neglecting that as a utopian possibility.
So you're a *hippie*, then.
Outside of *lifestylism*, though, how would this formulation of yours conceivably address actual material *political* and *economic* issues, like the class divide?
Noumenon wrote:
Well, his defeat (twice) proved that even a New Deal Democrat time-warped from the 1940's was too radical and forward thinking for the sad dystopian nightmare of US politics today. So yes, he ultimately was utopian. But the closest thing within our reach. We need to experience being able to grasp the demonstrably possible before we can think about reaching further. The working class needs some real victories.
Noumenon wrote:
The federal government in the US is way more powerful than state and city governments, of course. But nonetheless these localities have some freedom to implement policy for their geographical region. What I'm proposing would be like that but way more autonomous from either federal or state governments. Police would have no jurisdiction there, except insofar as to ensure people aren't held as slaves and have the freedom to move from sphere to sphere. I'm not saying this would be easy to implement or that the current existence state and police powers would like it one bit. That's what makes it a radical reform.
So, regarding a 'universal' pluralistic vision, you're content to let such be *locally balkanized*, into 'micro-spheres' -- ? Doesn't it occur to you that these are *contradictory* sentiments? Recall:
Noumenon wrote:
Its inherently a pluralistic vision. But also it acknowledges monism in that it aims for solving the universal problems confronting all humankind,
Your universal baseline here is simply *anti-chattel-slavery*. Here in 2021 are you certain that we can't be more socially progressive than *that*, universally, over *all* localities / 'micro-spheres' -- ?
---
Noumenon wrote:
State and capital I agree, we have to unify to fight against their hegemony. But the autonomous spheres can be places within which to build up that power, which is just inherently difficult with people leading hyper-alienated consumerist existences.
Um, what "power", exactly -- ?
Noumenon wrote:
I think that was the original conception of revolution in the 19th century. But it didn't happen, at least not in the way people thought. And the rest of Marxist thought in the 20th century has been trying to grapple with that fact.
So what's changed, since then? Has the class divide gone away now?
Noumenon wrote:
The power to say "no" to capitalist exploitation, to escape it, I think is the way forward. Whether it is autonomous zones or a UBI or a living wage or universal healthcare, anything that empowers workers to refuse work on the capitalist's terms is good. And in my view, that is the path history is taking going forward. If there is a revolution in the cards, I don't see it. Or it is too far in the future to see.
'Escapism' is the way-forward?
If all workers somehow *abstain* from laboring, and still manage to have a decent standard of living that way, who then does the actual *work* for the production of commodities that people need, as consumers?
And who exactly decides what should be made, and how to make it, while workers are 'escaping' -- ?
How does 'escapism' advance the 'universal' progressive social norms that you advocate?
Do you really think that capitalism can be made to be *suitable* for everyone, universally, while still economically *exploiting* the working class and *oppressing* its social minorities (blacks, women, LGBTQ, etc.) -- ?
The issue is Socialism versus Capitalism. I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough. Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization. The time has come to regenerate society — we are on the eve of universal change.
Open letter to the American Railway Union, Chicago Railway Times (1 January 1897)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs