Is this where the West is heading? - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15191219
ckaihatsu wrote:This isn't empirically correct.

The government (and the private sector) provide *many* services like nursing, teaching, etc., which have *production costs*, namely *wage labor*, and so are therefore economic *commodities*, just like any *transportation*, utilities, etc.

I don't think that professional nurses and teachers are really *setting the political tone* for the government from their professional positions -- really it's the *other way around*, since their positions are *funded* by government expenditures.


I am sorry, but if this is directed at me I really think you are missunderstanding my point.

I am not saying teachers or nurses dont contribute to the economy (or anything like this) and I am not saying they are setting the political agenda.

I am saying we should spend tax money on them, and that the movement I would want to belong in sets their class interests first in their political agenda.

The people I am adressing that do not contribute to the production BUT have a significant influence on the political agenda are people who work with value document productions, LGBTQ certificates, anti discrimination jobs and so on.

THOSE are the people I want to be kept out of a movement, since THEIR class interests is opposed to the interests of for instance teachers when money we could spend on more teachers and higher wages instead are spent on people who help schools deal with a, largely imagined, structural racism and sexism.
#15191240
boomerintown wrote:
I am sorry, but if this is directed at me I really think you are missunderstanding my point.

I am not saying teachers or nurses dont contribute to the economy (or anything like this) and I am not saying they are setting the political agenda.

I am saying we should spend tax money on them, and that the movement I would want to belong in sets their class interests first in their political agenda.

The people I am adressing that do not contribute to the production BUT have a significant influence on the political agenda are people who work with value document productions, LGBTQ certificates, anti discrimination jobs and so on.

THOSE are the people I want to be kept out of a movement, since THEIR class interests is opposed to the interests of for instance teachers when money we could spend on more teachers and higher wages instead are spent on people who help schools deal with a, largely imagined, structural racism and sexism.



You're saying that you don't like the *political culture* around anti-racism and anti-sexism efforts, because that political culture itself is 'taking resources away' from the regular government expenditures on education.

Doesn't this sound like a *stretch* to you at all -- ?

This is the typical reactionary sudden 'concern' out-of-the-blue with a narrowly-specific budget item, in the broader context of a surging left-populist political movement / culture, meaning BLM.

What you're objecting to is the emergence of a new left-populist *power base* -- to some extent -- within the government apparatus.

What's your take on CRT?
#15191258
No, I am saying I dont think a movement including these people (an urban, educated, middle class (in the US i guess you would add coastal)) and the working class is possible, since there is a conflict of interest between them.

This is perhaps most obvious in England where Labour with Corbyn and Momentum etc is losing Labours traditional voting base of working class voters seeing them replaced by an urban middle class in central London.

So I am not specifically talking about the US since I think we see this pattern everywhere in the west right now. What I think is the future for leftwing movements who wants to stand for traditional wellfare policies and generally work for better conditions for the silent majority of ordinary people is for instance the danish Social Democratic who took into account the interests of the working class in issues such as migration and who havent succumed to identity policies. Through this they won back essentially all the voters from the populist anti migration party in DK which barely exists today.

Just some weaks ago the swedish Left Party (former communists) said that they will "stop talking about identity politics and values ​​and now focus on economic policy" with the aim of winning working class workers from the Social Democrats (who is becoming a liberal middle class party) and the populist anti migration party in Sweden.

I dont know if this is possible in US politics with the 2 party system, but this is what I think would stop someone like Trump in the future.

On CRT and critical theory in general I am not 100 % what this means in the US. My influences are mainly european in discourse analysis, deconstruction and so on going back to Nietzsche through Foucault and so som degree Derrida. Among contemporary thinkers I think Vivien Schmidt outlays a very interesting perspective. I think the late Wittgenstein is also extremly important in understanding how language works. But I also think its crucial to maintain a materialist perspective which I think is neccessary to understand the racism that developed during colonialism and the european-american slavetrade. In this sense Hegel and Marx are completly neccessary.

But I dont really see how this can be used in a political movement with ambition to grasp power.
#15191272
boomerintown wrote:
No, I am saying I dont think a movement including these people (an urban, educated, middle class (in the US i guess you would add coastal)) and the working class is possible, since there is a conflict of interest between them.

This is perhaps most obvious in England where Labour with Corbyn and Momentum etc is losing Labours traditional voting base of working class voters seeing them replaced by an urban middle class in central London.

So I am not specifically talking about the US since I think we see this pattern everywhere in the west right now. What I think is the future for leftwing movements who wants to stand for traditional wellfare policies and generally work for better conditions for the silent majority of ordinary people is for instance the danish Social Democratic who took into account the interests of the working class in issues such as migration and who havent succumed to identity policies. Through this they won back essentially all the voters from the populist anti migration party in DK which barely exists today.

Just some weaks ago the swedish Left Party (former communists) said that they will "stop talking about identity politics and values ​​and now focus on economic policy" with the aim of winning working class workers from the Social Democrats (who is becoming a liberal middle class party) and the populist anti migration party in Sweden.

I dont know if this is possible in US politics with the 2 party system, but this is what I think would stop someone like Trump in the future.

On CRT and critical theory in general I am not 100 % what this means in the US. My influences are mainly european in discourse analysis, deconstruction and so on going back to Nietzsche through Foucault and so som degree Derrida. Among contemporary thinkers I think Vivien Schmidt outlays a very interesting perspective. I think the late Wittgenstein is also extremly important in understanding how language works. But I also think its crucial to maintain a materialist perspective which I think is neccessary to understand the racism that developed during colonialism and the european-american slavetrade. In this sense Hegel and Marx are completly neccessary.

But I dont really see how this can be used in a political movement with ambition to grasp power.



Well, as you're noting, the official political culture in the developed / Western world has moved on to *economic* issues (as with Biden partially rolling-back Trump's alt-class-warfare policies).

Biden, though, has been lackluster at addressing Trump's *immigration* policy legacy, so that's still festering, unfortunately. (I would also point to the coup and continued military rule in Myanmar.)

You're indicating that you want 'economic policy' to the *exclusion* of social policies, and you think there is a 'conflict of interest' between anti-racist / anti-sexist left-populist social movements, and the working class -- in other words your desire is to *drive a wedge* between on-the-ground left-populist movements, and working-class economic interests, for higher wages and benefits.

These are 'political', and 'economic' spheres, respectively, and, in this case, I don't see where the alleged "conflict of interest" is. Why can't there be a (funded, even) anti-racist / anti-sexist prevailing political culture in the schools, while also having higher wages and benefits for teachers and nurses -- ?

I'll remind that every dollar (or whatever currency) from revenues in the private sector, and every dollar received as taxes by government, can only either go to *labor*, or else that dollar will be controlled by *capitalists* / owners / employers / bosses.

Labor's economic interests are *not threatened by* any anti-racist / anti-sexist political culture out there that may be socially prevailing -- in fact those on the far-left, like myself, argue that working class interests are *mitigated* by any official / mainstream culture that *protects* racist or sexist practice / policies, like anti-abortion efforts (which punish *poor* women, by class and gender), or government-supported police brutality / killer-cops, which results in *dead workers* since those of the *wealthy* class aren't killed by police.
#15191274
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, as you're noting, the official political culture in the developed / Western world has moved on to *economic* issues (as with Biden partially rolling-back Trump's alt-class-warfare policies).

Biden, though, has been lackluster at addressing Trump's *immigration* policy legacy, so that's still festering, unfortunately. (I would also point to the coup and continued military rule in Myanmar.)

You're indicating that you want 'economic policy' to the *exclusion* of social policies, and you think there is a 'conflict of interest' between anti-racist / anti-sexist left-populist social movements, and the working class -- in other words your desire is to *drive a wedge* between on-the-ground left-populist movements, and working-class economic interests, for higher wages and benefits.

These are 'political', and 'economic' spheres, respectively, and, in this case, I don't see where the alleged "conflict of interest" is. Why can't there be a (funded, even) anti-racist / anti-sexist prevailing political culture in the schools, while also having higher wages and benefits for teachers and nurses -- ?

I'll remind that every dollar (or whatever currency) from revenues in the private sector, and every dollar received as taxes by government, can only either go to *labor*, or else that dollar will be controlled by *capitalists* / owners / employers / bosses.

Labor's economic interests are *not threatened by* any anti-racist / anti-sexist political culture out there that may be socially prevailing -- in fact those on the far-left, like myself, argue that working class interests are *mitigated* by any official / mainstream culture that *protects* racist or sexist practice / policies, like anti-abortion efforts (which punish *poor* women, by class and gender), or government-supported police brutality / killer-cops, which results in *dead workers* since those of the *wealthy* class aren't killed by police.


I really dont know how I am supposed to explain this. I am not saying anything about conflict of interests between anti-racism and economic policies. I think it is the complete opposite. Discrimination, racism and sexism is completly unacceptable and I believe the most important things in fighting it IS economic policies in order to give everyone a good education, free healthcare, security, roof over their heads, money for food, clothes, vacation, good working conditions, parental leave, and so on.

What I am adressing over and over is that I think there is a CLASS conflict within what is percieved as the left today between an urban educated middle class and ordinary people in working class jobs. This is where I want to draw a line in the sand, this is a movement that needs to talk about economic policies - NOT identity politics ("structural racism", "gender is a social construction", "west is inherently evil", "we need safe-spaces", "trans-genderism", "saying negro means you should lose your job" and so on). This is a class ideology that serves to produce jobs for these people, not anti-racism. Anti-racism that actuall works is what I described above. Not replacing police with socialworkers or hiring anti-racist consultants in schools.
#15191276
boomerintown wrote:
I really dont know how I am supposed to explain this. I am not saying anything about conflict of interests between anti-racism and economic policies. I think it is the complete opposite. Discrimination, racism and sexism is completly unacceptable and I believe the most important things in fighting it IS economic policies in order to give everyone a good education, free healthcare, security, roof over their heads, money for food, clothes, vacation, good working conditions, parental leave, and so on.



Okay.


boomerintown wrote:
What I am adressing over and over is that I think there is a CLASS conflict within what is percieved as the left today between an urban educated middle class and ordinary people in working class jobs. This is where I want to draw a line in the sand, this is a movement that needs to talk about economic policies - NOT identity politics ("structural racism", "gender is a social construction", "west is inherently evil", "we need safe-spaces", "trans-genderism", "saying negro means you should lose your job" and so on). This is a class ideology that serves to produce jobs for these people, not anti-racism. Anti-racism that actuall works is what I described above. Not replacing police with socialworkers or hiring anti-racist consultants in schools.



Technically speaking what you're describing *isn't* a class conflict, because anyone who receives a wage or salary, whether in cities or rural areas, are all *wage workers* (white-, pink-, blue-collar), and they have no say-so over how social production takes place.

What you're taking-exception to is simply the prevailing left-populist political *culture* in urban 'middle class' work environments.

Sure, I think universal humane social policies -- like what you listed -- would go a long way to *curtail* structural racism and structural sexism, simply by giving all people *material options* for life choices that they simply don't have today, due to substandard standards of living -- and even outright *poverty* -- under the status-quo.

Killer-cops can't be tolerated, though, and that's *another* issue, along with immigration, that's continuing to go unaddressed by official government policy.

I'd say just take a deep breath and maybe come to the realization that much of what you call 'identity politics' is just 'civil society' / civil rights, for those who have typically been marginalized and oppressed. Yes, making changes to the political culture of the broader official and everyday civil-society *will* have an economic impact, but again, should those dollars really be going to the *rich*, through tax breaks and bailouts, instead of to such 'urban educated middle class' workers -- ?

Your list of welfare-state social policies would cost money, too.
#15191283
ckaihatsu wrote:

Technically speaking what you're describing *isn't* a class conflict, because anyone who receives a wage or salary, whether in cities or rural areas, are all *wage workers* (white-, pink-, blue-collar), and they have no say-so over how social production takes place.

Killer-cops can't be tolerated, though, and that's *another* issue, along with immigration, that's continuing to go unaddressed by official government policy.

I'd say just take a deep breath and maybe come to the realization that much of what you call 'identity politics' is just 'civil society' / civil rights, for those who have typically been marginalized and oppressed. Yes, making changes to the political culture of the broader official and everyday civil-society *will* have an economic impact, but again, should those dollars really be going to the *rich*, through tax breaks and bailouts, instead of to such 'urban educated middle class' workers -- ?

Your list of welfare-state social policies would cost money, too.


It is a class conflict when these movements portray themselves as representatives of the working class and talk about various agendas, but then end up prioritizing issues such as paying off their student depts with tax money and "fighting structural racism" by replacing police with their own people (or "social workers").

And when you talk about "structural racism", it is exacly this ideology I am referring to. Structural racism is in my eyes a complete nonsence term that means everything and nothing. If you can point at specific problems, lets deal with them. But this entire discourse of set of ideas which should be defined better but roughly goes under the "woke agenda" and so on is exacly the kind of discourse that cannot be a part of the sort of political movement I am advocating.

As for "killer-cops", the one thing that will solve this is investing a lot more money into the police for better education, higher salaries and improved working conditions. Defunding the police is one of the most insane ideas Ive heard of (not saying you advocate this, just adressing the discourse Ive seen in USA).
#15191287
boomerintown wrote:
It is a class conflict when these movements portray themselves as representatives of the working class and talk about various agendas, but then end up prioritizing issues such as paying off their student depts with tax money and "fighting structural racism" by replacing police with their own people (or "social workers").



I have *no problem* with the use of government spending to pay off everyone's student debts, and to provide free community college, etc. Again, it's about *social priorities* in funding -- the *money* is already there, so if it's not for the *social good* altogether, then what *should* it be for? 'Tax the rich' is unobjectionable to me.


boomerintown wrote:
And when you talk about "structural racism", it is exacly this ideology I am referring to. Structural racism is in my eyes a complete nonsence term that means everything and nothing. If you can point at specific problems, lets deal with them.



Police brutality / killer-cops, which affects the BIPOC demographic disproportionately, and which *never* is directed at the wealthy.


boomerintown wrote:
But this entire discourse of set of ideas which should be defined better but roughly goes under the "woke agenda" and so on is exacly the kind of discourse that cannot be a part of the sort of political movement I am advocating.



Name one issue that's commonly identified with the 'woke agenda'.


boomerintown wrote:
As for "killer-cops", the one thing that will solve this is investing a lot more money into the police for better education, higher salaries and improved working conditions. Defunding the police is one of the most insane ideas Ive heard of (not saying you advocate this, just adressing the discourse Ive seen in USA).



I *do* advocate for the defunding of police, to be replaced by social workers, for reasons I've already covered.
#15191290
ckaihatsu wrote:I have *no problem* with the use of government spending to pay off everyone's student debts, and to provide free community college, etc. Again, it's about *social priorities* in funding -- the *money* is already there, so if it's not for the *social good* altogether, then what *should* it be for? 'Tax the rich' is unobjectionable to me.


Police brutality / killer-cops, which affects the BIPOC demographic disproportionately, and which *never* is directed at the wealthy.


Name one issue that's commonly identified with the 'woke agenda'.


I *do* advocate for the defunding of police, to be replaced by social workers, for reasons I've already covered.


Well I think we are starting to see how vastly different political agendas you and me will advocate, and I think a lot of it has to do with looking at it from different class interests.

In the long run, I advocate free education. But to now use the working classes tax money to pay off student debt for an educated middle class? That is not the kind of policies I would advocate in a working class movement. This is not a moral issue, it is a material conflict.

Replacing police with social workers? I am sorry, I think this will lead to a complete disaster for the people living in poor areas with a lot of criminality and this is the opposite of what I would advocate. I am advocating spending more money on education of police, gradually increasing the standards of how they act. An educated and well financed police is neccessary to keep crime down and to end unjustified police violence.

The complex of ideas thats often called woke or identity politics and so on is extremly hard to define in a post like this. Woke seems to be a broader term, mainly an umbrella term to encompass over certain discourses, ideas, theories, claims and so on which is used in, somewhat, everyday language. Identity politics is usually used in a similar way, but I think it is at least possible to see some kind of ideological content that can be adressed.

So what should be observed when talking about any ideology is this: what kind of issues in society is it adressing and kind of issues is it ignoring? But if we start with the ideas themselves, I think the essential ingredience in all identity political theory is standpoint epistemology, that the position and perspective of an individual as a subject within the hierachy of society creates knowledge that cannot be transferred to other individuals that doesnt share the same kind of subjective position and perspective.

This creates an ideology obsessed on identifying more and more unique positions of different forms of unique subjective positions in society exposed to opression only they can know. So it is important to keep in mind that ideology is not something we are aware of, as Slavoj Zizek says we enjoy our ideology, therefore it is almost tragic to see people like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson trying to adress this with rational arguments - as if politics is a competition between idea.

No, what is important to focus on with identity politics as an ideology, just as it is with neo-liberalism, is the class interests it serves by looking at what issues it shifts focus to, in what issues it ignores or obfuscate and in what solutions for society seems rational within the inherent logic of the ideology.

This is where I come from when I claim that identity politics as an ideology is incompatible with working class interests. The working class interests lies within the field of universal solutions based on classic values such as solidarity with your class within a nation, where ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on is not relevant leading to goals such as the ones I wrote about above.
#15191292
boomerintown wrote:Well I think we are starting to see how vastly different political agendas you and me will advocate, and I think a lot of it has to do with looking at it from different class interests.

In the long run, I advocate free education. But to now use the working classes tax money to pay off student debt for an educated middle class? That is not the kind of policies I would advocate in a working class movement. This is not a moral issue, it is a material conflict.

Replacing police with social workers? I am sorry, I think this will lead to a complete disaster for the people living in poor areas with a lot of criminality and this is the opposite of what I would advocate. I am advocating spending more money on education of police, gradually increasing the standards of how they act. An educated and well financed police is neccessary to keep crime down and to end unjustified police violence.

The complex of ideas thats often called woke or identity politics and so on is extremly hard to define in a post like this. Woke seems to be a broader term, mainly an umbrella term to encompass over certain discourses, ideas, theories, claims and so on which is used in, somewhat, everyday language. Identity politics is usually used in a similar way, but I think it is at least possible to see some kind of ideological content that can be adressed.

So what should be observed when talking about any ideology is this: what kind of issues in society is it adressing and kind of issues is it ignoring? But if we start with the ideas themselves, I think the essential ingredience in all identity political theory is standpoint epistemology, that the position and perspective of an individual as a subject within the hierachy of society creates knowledge that cannot be transferred to other individuals that doesnt share the same kind of subjective position and perspective.

This creates an ideology obsessed on identifying more and more unique positions of different forms of unique subjective positions in society exposed to opression only they can know. So it is important to keep in mind that ideology is not something we are aware of, as Slavoj Zizek says we enjoy our ideology, therefore it is almost tragic to see people like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson trying to adress this with rational arguments - as if politics is a competition between idea.

No, what is important to focus on with identity politics as an ideology, just as it is with neo-liberalism, is the class interests it serves by looking at what issues it shifts focus to, in what issues it ignores or obfuscate and in what solutions for society seems rational within the inherent logic of the ideology.

This is where I come from when I claim that identity politics as an ideology is incompatible with working class interests. The working class interests lies within the field of universal solutions based on classic values such as solidarity with your class within a nation, where ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on is not relevant leading to goals such as the ones I wrote about above.

You're 'Old Left' rather than 'New Left', @boomerintown. The New Left's point of departure back in the 1960s was the belief that the working class lack the subjectivity required to be an agent for revolutionary change in late-capitalist society. The conclusion they drew from this belief was that they - the enlightened middle-class leftists - would have to pick up the slack on behalf of the dullard workers who were mired in sexist, racist and reactionary attitudes. Needless to say, this has led to some friction between the working class and these bright-eyed middle-class student types who claim to speak on their behalf. The New Left was born out of a loss of faith in the revolutionary potential of the working class, and therefore has no future other than as an integral element in the ideological superstructure of late capitalism itself.
#15191297
boomerintown wrote:
Well I think we are starting to see how vastly different political agendas you and me will advocate, and I think a lot of it has to do with looking at it from different class interests.



The 'middle class' is not its own *class*, in the sense of fundamental material interests that are antagonistic to its class enemy -- working class vs. ruling class, or proletariat vs. bourgeoisie.


boomerintown wrote:
In the long run, I advocate free education. But to now use the working classes tax money to pay off student debt for an educated middle class? That is not the kind of policies I would advocate in a working class movement. This is not a moral issue, it is a material conflict.



You're using a false dichotomy here, as though it's a 'zero sum' situation -- again, just get the money from the rich since they're the ones who have it.


boomerintown wrote:
Replacing police with social workers? I am sorry, I think this will lead to a complete disaster for the people living in poor areas with a lot of criminality and this is the opposite of what I would advocate. I am advocating spending more money on education of police, gradually increasing the standards of how they act. An educated and well financed police is neccessary to keep crime down and to end unjustified police violence.



Can we criminalize killer cops, according to you -- ?


boomerintown wrote:
The complex of ideas thats often called woke or identity politics and so on is extremly hard to define in a post like this. Woke seems to be a broader term, mainly an umbrella term to encompass over certain discourses, ideas, theories, claims and so on which is used in, somewhat, everyday language. Identity politics is usually used in a similar way, but I think it is at least possible to see some kind of ideological content that can be adressed.

So what should be observed when talking about any ideology is this: what kind of issues in society is it adressing and kind of issues is it ignoring? But if we start with the ideas themselves, I think the essential ingredience in all identity political theory is standpoint epistemology, that the position and perspective of an individual as a subject within the hierachy of society creates knowledge that cannot be transferred to other individuals that doesnt share the same kind of subjective position and perspective.



You're describing the *postmodernist* outlook, which I don't subscribe to because it's hyper-subjectivist to the point of saying that objective shared-social reality doesn't exist. Here's my own worldview:


[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


boomerintown wrote:
This creates an ideology obsessed on identifying more and more unique positions of different forms of unique subjective positions in society exposed to opression only they can know.



True -- you're correct here.

(It may be a socio-material outgrowth / culture of *academia*, where each new participant / player has to carve out their own ever-increasingly-specialized academic-intellectual 'turf'.) (Ever-more-balkanized subcultural splintering.)


boomerintown wrote:
So it is important to keep in mind that ideology is not something we are aware of, as Slavoj Zizek says we enjoy our ideology, therefore it is almost tragic to see people like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson trying to adress this with rational arguments - as if politics is a competition between idea.

No, what is important to focus on with identity politics as an ideology, just as it is with neo-liberalism, is the class interests it serves by looking at what issues it shifts focus to, in what issues it ignores or obfuscate and in what solutions for society seems rational within the inherent logic of the ideology.

This is where I come from when I claim that identity politics as an ideology is incompatible with working class interests. The working class interests lies within the field of universal solutions based on classic values such as solidarity with your class within a nation, where ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on is not relevant leading to goals such as the ones I wrote about above.



'Solidarity-with-your-class-within-a-nation' is a curious terming here. What do you think of the Hong Kong extradition bill?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong ... ition_bill
#15191322
Potemkin wrote:You're 'Old Left' rather than 'New Left', @boomerintown. The New Left's point of departure back in the 1960s was the belief that the working class lack the subjectivity required to be an agent for revolutionary change in late-capitalist society. The conclusion they drew from this belief was that they - the enlightened middle-class leftists - would have to pick up the slack on behalf of the dullard workers who were mired in sexist, racist and reactionary attitudes. Needless to say, this has led to some friction between the working class and these bright-eyed middle-class student types who claim to speak on their behalf. The New Left was born out of a loss of faith in the revolutionary potential of the working class, and therefore has no future other than as an integral element in the ideological superstructure of late capitalism itself.


Agreed, and you are right in the sense that I am in many ways old left. As a swede I am largely influenced by the ideas behind the early reforms by our Social Democrats. But also going back much further in history than democracy in Sweden with many of the central institutions still existing today going back the the 16th and 17th century. So in a way I am also, lack of better terms, conservative in the sense that I advocate a very strong, unpolitical, state.

ckaihatsu wrote: The 'middle class' is not its own *class*, in the sense of fundamental material interests that are antagonistic to its class enemy -- working class vs. ruling class, or proletariat vs. bourgeoisie.


It is harder to define the middle class, but it is obviously a votingbase with material interests, but it is also a class convinced that they have no own interests. I am however pointing an observable phenomenom here, several leftist parties are changing their votingbase from traditional working class people to an urban middle class.

ckaihatsu wrote: You're using a false dichotomy here, as though it's a 'zero sum' situation -- again, just get the money from the rich since they're the ones who have it.


Public spending is always a zero sum game. The resources are always limited, so if you want to spend money on one thing you need to take money from another thing. If you can get additional money from the rich, you can still choose to spend it on better training for police and higher wages for teachers instead of paying of student depts.


ckaihatsu wrote:Can we criminalize killer cops, according to you -- ?

I wont get into a discussion about what american cops does and what they are sentenced for since I dont know enough about it. But obviously, any kind of unjustified violence should be punished.

My point is just that the risk of this will decrease with better trained police, which is why I advocate additional funding. That doesnt mean other things should change too.



ckaihatsu wrote:'Solidarity-with-your-class-within-a-nation' is a curious terming here. What do you think of the Hong Kong extradition bill?


This was a very weird formulation, Ill agree to that. Anyway, I am describing this from my own perspective as living in a well defined, democratic nationstate and the point I wanted to make was that the working class needs solidarity within these ranks, some kind of "international solidarity" is not possible in this sense. That doesnt mean we shouldnt show a different form of solidarity with people on the globe. But we need to understand that in issues such as migration, trade and so on the agenda must be set based on the interests of citizens the country this movement is active in (it can be Sweden, USA, France and so on, but its not translatable that easily into some parts of the world, as you show).
#15191324

Much of the left around the world had enthused at the Cultural Revolution. In many countries opponents of the US war in Vietnam carried portraits of Mao Zedong as well as the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. The trite sayings in the Little Red Book of ‘Mao’s thoughts’ were presented as a guide to socialist activity. Yet in 1972, as more US bombers hit targets in Vietnam than ever before, Mao greeted US president Nixon in Beijing, and by 1977, under Deng, China was beginning to embrace the market more furiously than Russia under Stalin’s successors.

The Western media saw such twists and turns as a result of wild irrationality. By the late 1970s many of those on the left who had identified with Maoism in the 1960s agreed, and turned their backs on socialism. A whole school of ex-Maoist ‘New Philosophers’ emerged in France, who taught that revolution automatically leads to tyranny and that the revolutionary left are as bad as the fascist right. Yet there is a simple, rational explanation for the apparently irrational course of Chinese history over a quarter of a century. China simply did not have the internal resources to pursue the Stalinist path of forced industrialisation successfully, however much its rulers starved the peasants and squeezed the workers. But there were no other easy options after a century of imperialist plundering. Unable to find rational solutions, the country’s rulers were tempted by irrational ones.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 576
#15191329
boomerintown wrote:
If you can get additional money from the rich, you can still choose to spend it on better training for police and higher wages for teachers instead of paying of student depts.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Can we criminalize killer cops, according to you -- ?



boomerintown wrote:
I wont get into a discussion about what american cops does and what they are sentenced for since I dont know enough about it. But obviously, any kind of unjustified violence should be punished.

My point is just that the risk of this will decrease with better trained police, which is why I advocate additional funding. That doesnt mean other things should change too.



It's great-and-everything that you want to be all-things-to-all-people, but in *this* case it's just *not* gonna work.

Punishing killer cops means, in part, *defunding* police departments, so that the *risk* of further fatalities is *minimized* -- less cops on the street, less chances for incidents, less chances for cops to become killers by killing someone.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's no more *patience* for a typical wait-and-see kind of attitude on this, as for 'retraining' -- it's gone on far too long, which is what the Black Lives Matter movement of summer 2020 was all about.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Solidarity-with-your-class-within-a-nation' is a curious terming here. What do you think of the Hong Kong extradition bill?



boomerintown wrote:
This was a very weird formulation, Ill agree to that. Anyway, I am describing this from my own perspective as living in a well defined, democratic nationstate and the point I wanted to make was that the working class needs solidarity within these ranks, some kind of "international solidarity" is not possible in this sense.



Potemkin wrote:
The New Left's point of departure back in the 1960s was the belief that the working class lack the subjectivity required to be an agent for revolutionary change in late-capitalist society.



---


boomerintown wrote:
That doesnt mean we shouldnt show a different form of solidarity with people on the globe. But we need to understand that in issues such as migration, trade and so on the agenda must be set based on the interests of citizens the country this movement is active in (it can be Sweden, USA, France and so on, but its not translatable that easily into some parts of the world, as you show).



Potemkin wrote:
[The New Left] therefore has no future other than as an integral element in the ideological superstructure of late capitalism itself.



My own comment is that you're thinking that current international / global politics (global warming, pandemic, etc.) can somehow be adequately addressed at the national-localist level.

What do you think about Brexit? How's that going? Frexit, too, maybe -- ?
#15191334
I think Ive already said what I think about BLM and how to solve the problems with police violence in USA so Ill move on to this:

ckaihatsu wrote:What do you think about Brexit? How's that going? Frexit, too, maybe -- ?


I am pretty ambivalent regarding to EU right now. The flaws are extreme and it is extremly poorly organized. But given the geopolitical situation in the world right now, I think it might be neccessary for Europe in order to organize a common strategy for military, intelligence, research, alternatives to chinese and american global tech and big data and so on.

On brexit I think it is a pretty good case to study to understand some of the dynamics in the class conflict I am talking about. The urban middle class is obviously not happy about it, but for working class groups wages go up when international competition about their job decreased. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-57656327). So it is interesting to note that how anti brexit Labour have been, even asking for a new referendum. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48919695)

"Jeremy Corbyn has challenged the next Tory leader to hold another referendum before taking Britain out of the EU, saying Labour will campaign for Remain."

Democracy really is at its best when you can make people vote again if they vote wrong.
#15191341
boomerintown wrote:
That doesnt mean we shouldnt show a different form of solidarity with people on the globe. But we need to understand that in issues such as migration, trade and so on the agenda must be set based on the interests of citizens the country this movement is active in (it can be Sweden, USA, France and so on, but its not translatable that easily into some parts of the world, as you show).



---


boomerintown wrote:
I think it might be neccessary for Europe in order to organize a common strategy for military, intelligence, research, alternatives to chinese and american global tech and big data and so on.



Jeez, you got me running in *two opposite directions* -- ! (grin)

So which *is* it -- should some issues be country-by-country, or might it be necessary for Europe to organize a common strategy -- ?
#15191345
I am simply being a realist. In order for Europe to be a global power that can defend itself and have strong influence in the world we need to be united in issues such as this.

The common european market is a good example of this, in the sense that it essentially sets the standard for any global company. From GDPR in USA to japanese cars sold in Saudi Arabia and Mexico it more or less follows EU laws, since it would be too expensive with different production chains depending - and therefore you adjust your product to the strongest regulations of any big market which is that of EU.
#15191348
boomerintown wrote:
I am simply being a realist. In order for Europe to be a global power that can defend itself and have strong influence in the world we need to be united in issues such as this.

The common european market is a good example of this, in the sense that it essentially sets the standard for any global company. From GDPR in USA to japanese cars sold in Saudi Arabia and Mexico it more or less follows EU laws, since it would be too expensive with different production chains depending - and therefore you adjust your product to the strongest regulations of any big market which is that of EU.



Okay, so from your list, we've just covered 'trade'. What about *migration*?


boomerintown wrote:
migration, trade


boomerintown wrote:
military, intelligence, research, alternatives to chinese and american global tech and big data
#15191350
Need to go to bed, so I dont have time to outlay a military strategy. :)

But generally, we need to protect our borders and other european countries such as Ukraine from Russia. We need to controll mass migration from Africa and Middle East and so on.

I think research is pretty obvious, we need to cooperate in projects.

Intelligence is also neccessary, we managed to make a big bust against organized crime in Sweden thanks to french security intelligence.

We need to have own alternatives for cloud data, for instance so that we can store patient data in hospitals. Since the US state can legally demand any data from american companies we cant use american cloud services for this. And obviously China isnt a better alternative.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 18
Even our shoes are racist.

@Unthinking Majority Okay. Please note that […]

Colin Powell....

It goes against my upbringing to throw rocks at th[…]

Tibet. And of course the China Sea. Bro, 'ca[…]

A just 5 min. video about how wages are too low, s[…]