Anybody's wife, daughter, girlfriend, etc march today?

My wife and I were at a local rally today. They had a couple of hundred people.

Some nice speeches.

I have some friends that went to Washington.

…i’m glad people wanna protest the Monster-Trump. But i am disheartened that the same folks didnt protest mass-murderers like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc.

Ah well.

w
v

wv wrote:

i am disheartened that the same folks didnt protest mass-murderers like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc

Some of the same people DID protest that stuff.

Now they have been joined by a large percentage of mainstreamers.

Billy_T wrote:

But “the left” has been all too willing to sit on the sidelines for decades, and too much of “the left” has abandoned the issue of “class.”

This is just more division.

I don’t know anyone who is genuinely left who “abandoned class.” I think that’s just a divisive slogan that showed up recently.

You can’t separate class and race and gender in the USA and end up with an analysis that is worth a damm. To me that includes trying to act like class has been abandoned. Well, no. It hasn’t. That’s just a thing divisive intercine warfare leftists say to other leftists to prove their “purity.”

Here’s my view. Fuck purity. Listen to everyone who has something to say and forget the litmus tests.

Frankly, if I had a conversation in the real world here where I live with leftists, none of this would ever come up. It’s only here that I get the “the left abandoned class” routines which, frankly, do not apply to any real activist I know personally.

Talking about the real left. Not party-oriented liberal types.

What screws over the left now is what has always screwed over the left. Intercine warfare caused by the “I’m more pure” motif.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

But “the left” has been all too willing to sit on the sidelines for decades, and too much of “the left” has abandoned the issue of “class.”

This is just more division.

I don’t know anyone who is genuinely left who “abandoned class.” I think that’s just a divisive slogan that showed up recently.

You can’t separate class and race and gender in the USA and end up with an analysis that is worth a damm. To me that includes trying to act like class has been abandoned. Well, no. It hasn’t. That’s just a thing divisive intercine warfare leftists say to other leftists to prove their “purity.”

Here’s my view. Fuck purity. Listen to everyone who has something to say and forget the litmus tests.

Frankly, if I had a conversation in the real world here where I live with leftists, none of this would ever come up. It’s only here that I get the “the left abandoned class” routines which, frankly, does not apply to any real activist I know personally.

Well, we disagree about that. Especially about the “purity” part. And, ironically, you injected that into the thread by saying you never bump into any leftists who believe “class” has been abandoned . . . which, of course, implies, if not outright states, those of us who feel differently can’t be “real leftists.”

Um, ZN, that’s a litmus test, as is your declaration that you can’t separate race from class, gender, etc. etc.

In reality, that’s just your own interpretation of the discussion. I don’t share it. But I do identify as a “leftist.”

Regardless . . . we’re just engaging in the very thing you said we shouldn’t. Which I don’t want to do, either.

Billy_T wrote:

if not outright states, those of us who feel differently can’t be “real leftists.”

Saying someone has an incomplete analysis does not question their “purity” it questions their analysis. (BTW another response to the idea that the left has not abandoned class is that to say “good glad to hear it.”) From what I see, the “abandoned class” complaint is often fueled these days by people who want to claim, to me completely groundlessly, that Trump appealed to something real and that was based in class. People who do that, in my view, just have an incomplete analysis—issues of race (and in different ways gender) drove Trumpism as much as anything else, and I just don’t see us getting anywhere by ignoring that.

You’re not a target. We’re supposed to be speaking together about what would lead to more effective analysis. That’s dialogue. The way that dialogue could be knocked off the tracks would be to make it personal, act like one’s own view is beyond constructive dialogue, or any of the other countless things that muddy these kinds of discussions.

nittany ram wrote:

It was a global event…

Not sure what a map revealing where one-eyed extraterrestrial invaders have taken over has to do with what we were discussing.

Nittany,

It was pretty much amazing. I may have forgotten in my old age, but I’ve never seen anything like this in terms of size, scope or passion.

The first president I can remember actually connecting to was Kennedy, and the first election I was caught up in was in 1968. From that time until now, I just don’t recall any mass demonstrations on Day Two coming close to this.

It gives me a lot of hope.

I think it’s safe to say those in power bear the bulk of the responsibility. But “the left” has been all too willing to sit on the sidelines for decades, and too much of “the left” has abandoned the issue of “class.” It’s not just the centrist/neoliberal Dems who have done this. Those of us well to their left haven’t exactly been the greatest champions for the poor, either, and our decision to (mostly) stay out of electoral politics has obviously failed.

Okay. But I think you missed the qualifier here.

I think it’s safe to say those in power bear the bulk of the responsibility. But “the left” has been all too willing to sit on the sidelines for decades, and too much of “the left” has abandoned the issue of “class.” It’s not just the centrist/neoliberal Dems who have done this. Those of us well to their left haven’t exactly been the greatest champions for the poor, either, and our decision to (mostly) stay out of electoral politics has obviously failed.

Admittedly, I wasn’t consistent in my attempt to say not the entire left was guilty of this, and it’s perhaps lazy to even say “too much of the left.” But if I were to break it down, person by person, or group by group, I’d probably overload the servers and Western Civilization would collapse as we know it. In the immortal words of Otter, from Animal House.

Now, we could fight ’em with conventional weapons. That could take years and cost millions of lives

Billy_T wrote:

Boiled down, I took a shortcut, generalized too much, and didn’t use enough qualifiers.

You ALWAYS DO THAT, every time.

Kidding.

See in my first line I displayed the very sin you confess to! (!)

Anyway.

My own personal take on all of this is that it is next to impossible to separate class, race, and gender, particularly in an analysis of the present political issues.

waterfield wrote:

I’m not smart enough to understand the argument over “class” that you two are waging. But I know the people that went with my wife cover the entire political spectrum. The common denominators were they are women and they are smart.

Hard to respond to that.

First, you characterize a difference in analytic emphasis as “war.” That’s just hyperbole W. And if you want to understand what we’re debating, just ask.

Second, you then add the idea that people who went to the rallies were from all over the political spectrum. Not clear how that connects to the issue of “class.” It’s as if you said “I don’t want to get into your debate about condiments, ketchup and mustard. BESIDES, some cars these days are electric.” That is you put 2 completely unrelated ideas together in a way that is just flat confusing.

Third, we weren’t discussing the marches anyway so who went is not relevant. So that’s a third non-sequitur. Now, in addition to the electric cars, you add “and besides the Rams aren’t what they used to be.”

It looks to me like you didn’t follow the discussion at all but needed somehow to refute it in some way.

So it’s as if we said, yes McVay will be implementing a classic WCO offense. And you said, oh yeah well the civil war was fought in the 19th century not the 18th.

zn wrote:

<b
This is just more division.

I don’t know anyone who is genuinely left who “abandoned class.” I think that’s just a divisive slogan that showed up recently.

——————
See, i think ‘what screws over the left’ is that there ISNT one.

There’s Dems and Reps.

Jill got one percent of the vote. One percent.

Where’s ‘the left’ ?

w
v

Oh, man. Just noticed my post with the Animal House video is really messed up as far as quotes and formatting.

I don’t know how I did it . . . but, the first quote is my own. I was arguing with myself!!

Isn’t it enough that you were arguing with ZN, Billy_T?
No. I disagree, Billy_T. You’re wrong!!!
No, you’re wrong, Billy_T!!!

I voted for Stein, too. But it’s worth noting that my own political philosophy is to her left as well. She doesn’t represent my views on capitalism, for instance, or on matters of equality.

There is a great deal of diversity on “the left,” and even among “leftists.” Not all leftists, for instance, are anticapitalists, though I think most are. And not all leftists favor the destruction of hierarchies, though I think pretty much all of them want them to be far less stark.

My own view of the left to right continuum, compressed and simplified to save time:

The total rejection of inequality versus the total acceptance of it. I think where one sits along the political spectrum is, in one way or another, dependent upon that. I think pretty much all the other stances on the issues start there, consciously or not.

Personally, I’m not comfortable with even, say, millionaires in society. That’s far too much inequality and hierarchy for me. I can see slight differences in income and net wealth, based on time on the job, willingness to seek additional skill sets and knowledge, or taking on extra tasks, voluntarily. But I don’t think the differences should ever rise above small percentages. I don’t think we should even have something as large as a 2 to 1 ratio, much less our current 300 to 1 ratio on average.

And I reject the idea that we should continue with any economic forms that involve private ownership of the means of production, or any employer/employee relationships. To me, we all should be co-owners. All means of production directly in our hands. No proxies. No “representatives” for this. Direct, legal, Constitutional ownership of the means of production for all of us, with equal say, voice, choice, rights, etc.

That’s not Stein or the Green Party. Though she’s closer to me by a ton than the Dems, and the Dems are closer to me than the GOP, etc. etc.