Hillary Haters

waterfield wrote:

< To get where you want do we just abandon the Constitution and simply start all over? I assume you would agree that is not in the works. If not then what do we do? My answer is we do the best we can to keep the wolves at bay. I mean what else can we do?

==================
Well, who knows.

I would say, in general you can always fight a multi-front-war. You can TRY to educate and organize like-minded folks for real core fundamental revolutionary change, using the internet or whatever.

But that doesn’t rule out practical, incremental, ‘reform’ activities where you join groups and vote for ‘relatively progressive’ policies, etc.
You do what you can do. Case by case. Issue by issue. Policy by Policy.
“Widening the cage” as, I think Chomsky called it.

For you that would mean helping Hillary. For someone else it would mean helping Jill….etc.

There’s the broad ‘vision’ work. And there’s the “start where we are” reform work. Maybe. I dunno.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

waterfield wrote:

zn wrote:

For better or for worse we are a country of wolves-at least in the economic sense. It is the price we pay for what we perceive as “freedom”

This is where we disagree. Like all countries our country is a country of policies. It is true that the wolf-friendly have control of the policies. But there are countries with very different or even opposite policies which have as much freedom as we do, if not more.

But I think the sheer size of our country, the huge divergence of interests, the number of people living here, the enormous assimilation of varying cultures and immigrants makes it difficult to compare the United States with other countries

W to be honest I don’t buy that. I think it;s an excuse to naturalize the status quo.

…

I disagree. Monocultures like Japan cannot correlate to the US or UK or France.

And…where did you get the idea that Japan is a “monoculture?”

Compared to the US it is.

Again, the key is this. Starting over, with a brand new legal system. Capitalism would no longer be legal. It would no longer have any legal support. Dollars would no longer have any value. Commercial transactions outside of this new dispensation would be without any legal protections or support. Bartering is fine, though. Just no capitalist exchanges or enterprises.

Also, even though we’d have a brand new Constitution, there are many parts of our current one that would allow for the transition. Like, the general welfare clause, the equal protection clause, the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause. All of those would allow us a legal way to transition away from capitalism, until we all came up with our own Constitution.

And, to me, we need to. The old one was basically written by less than a half dozen white men who owned slaves, with next to no input from the vast, vast majority of Americans.

We can do better.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.

Capitalism would be “illegal” ? I know of no “laws” that make it either legal or illegal. Do you? And how does that exactly work?. The guy on the street selling sandals so he can eat or the girl scout cookie girls or the lemonade stand kids — they’re all going to the gallows? Would you make corporations such as Ben & Jerrys, Patagonia, H & M( all noted for their contributions to the welfare of our society) illegal? Would Bill Gates be allowed to contribute millions to medical research and the hopeful cure for Autism? Or would that be left to a political committee?

What I see in this discussion is imagining a small group of professors in a small eastern college with tweed jackets and smoking pipes talking about stuff that they believe the masses cannot understand. I say nonsense. Lets get on with it in the real world.

W,

You’re making some very common errors. First, you’ve naturalized capitalism as if it’s always been with us, that it exists outside our laws, regulations, institutions, etc. etc. You’ve made it seem like it’s a part of nature, rather than a human invention, contingent on a very complex set of laws, rules, state support and so on. And, you’re confusing “commerce” with “capitalism.” In reality, “capitalism” is an entirely unique and unprecedented form of commerce that did not exist anywhere until it appeared in 17th century Britain, not being a significant factor in others parts of the world until the 19th century, and not dominant here until after the Civil War.

Prior to the Civil War, most Americans were not involved with the capitalist system. Most were self-employed, small farmers, artisans, craftspersons, etc. who worked within their own local, independent markets, not yet subsumed under the umbrella of capitalism.

(As with the previous posts, I’ll split this up)

Billy_T wrote:

Prior to the Civil War, most Americans were not involved with the capitalist system. Most were self-employed, small farmers, artisans, craftspersons, etc. who worked within their own local, independent markets, not yet subsumed under the umbrella of capitalism.

(As with the previous posts, I’ll split this up)

===============
From posting with W over the years, i ‘think’, in a nutshell, his essential view (oversimplifying here) has two components:
1 Capitalism, while bad for many, is better than the alternatives,
2 Like it or not, its not going anywhere….so…fighting it is just tilting at windmills.

I think you do a good job exploding point number one, BT,
but point number two is a more difficult target.

Point two raises all those, ‘what are you going to do about it?’ questions.

I think its fair to point out, that the no.2 issue is
not an easy one to answer. I can understand people asking it,
and wondering whether its worth it to ‘fight capitalism’ and what form exactly would such a fight take….etc.

w
v

Point two raises all those, ‘what are you going to do about it?’ questions.

I think its fair to point out, that the no.2 issue is
not an easy one to answer. I can understand people asking it,
and wondering whether its worth it to ‘fight capitalism’ and what form exactly would such a fight take….etc.

w
v

Very fair point.

My own way is to shift to a non-capitalist economy by expanding the non-profit sector in this one. Obviously, this is going to be incredibly difficult, because of all the forces set against this. I am not in favor of violent revolution. I want this to be all non-violent, and democratic. Which, of course, makes it all the more difficult.

So, basically, we’d go in the direction of Denmark (with its Social Democratic policies), but rather than seeing that as our end goal, we’d use that as proof that an expanded non-profit, publicly held economy is preferable to a for-profit, privately held economy. We’d point out the better results in that public sector, and use logic to demonstrate, if 30% results in X, 50% will bring those results to an even larger number of citizens. It then follows that 75% would increase it still further. And that 100% would leave no one out. No one would be left out in the cold — or, as I’m hearing about incredibly hot temps in Arizona right now — the heat.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.

w,

Give it up. The real world has never meshed with Neverland. You’re only going to give yourself a headache. For some people the very fact that someone else owns something is enough to indict them for some perceived ill against mankind.

You adroitly brought up property rights in the US constitution which was a huge game changer in the governance of man. In all previous systems whether it be collectivism or despotism the right to private property was never recognized. People motivated to work for themselves came here and when they achieved their goal they were in a better position to help others. That spirit continues to this day.

C-M-C and use value: C for commodity. M for money. C for commodity. Use value meaning a product with a specific use, not dependent upon its ability to be bought or sold or resold.

M-C-M and exchange value: M for money. C for commodity. M for money. And exchange value. Commodities under capitalism are produced primarily for their exchange value, not their use value.

The capitalist purchases labor power, as a commodity, in order to produce commodities for money the capitalist appropriates. He or she takes what workers make for him or herself. Basically, theft. Workers have no control over the fruits of their own labor under capitalism. It’s legally not theirs, from the get go, which is also unique to capitalism. Under capitalism, for the first time, actual, direct producers (workers) don’t own their own work. They did under feudalism, even though they had to give the local lord a cut of the action. They still received the vast majority of the fruits of their own labor, and their production was not, by rights, the local lord’s from the get go.

Capitalism basically gives the local lord — now the capitalist — far greater rights than he previously had. All of the work, every last bit of it, is the capitalist’s, even though very few capitalists do the actual production themselves. It’s extremely rare that they’re involved in direct production, and it’s impossible for them to ever, ever do as much as their workforce.

And, remember. A single proprietor is not a capitalist, 99% of the time. A self-employed person is not a capitalist, 99% of the time. Lone wolf hedge fund managers, yeah. They do the M-C-M thing by basically bypassing the purchase of labor power, though they take advantage, of course, of all the labor power making the financial system go. So, indirectly, they, too, purchase it. But they’re primarily capitalists because they do M for M and perpetually in the exchange value mode, and their “job” is to keep the capitalist system as is, concentrating wealth, power, privilege and access at the very top. They don’t do C-M-C and use value.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.

waterfield wrote:

I’m turning into a curmudgeon. So I’m headed to the beach to count the bikinis.

I’m so jealous. Is this you?

waterfield wrote:

I suppose when it comes to politics and religion we all become “dogmatic”. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe that those on the “left” and those on the “right” tend to follow what has been called a process of “group think”. Meaning there is a far greater consensus on political issues than one might find in a group of so called centrists. At it’s worst there can be the “let me know what my group thinks of this so I can be consistent and won’t ruffle the feathers of those I know”. By definition a “moderate” or “centrist” does not have a “group” to measure his views on issues. I suspect when it comes to abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc there is far more divergence among moderates than you would find on the “left” and the “right”, especially as one approaches the polar ends of both these bodies.

As far as “socialism” goes-your right it’s far more complicated than what we give it. Growing up in the 50s words like “communism”, “socialism” were dirty words that few of us knew anything about other than these were the bad guys. Today with globalization we see bits and pieces of socialism everywhere including here in the U.S. The word doesn’t carry with it the stigma it once did-although talking to some of my friends my age you wouldn’t know that.
My problem with it is the ideology not the end game. To me the weakness in the system is in the “planners”. A collectivist planned economy means there must be central planners. And the only way that will work is if there is total commitment to the “plan”. And how does that exactly work in a society of free people. What do you do with the dissenters or those who are not on the same page? Who will choose the planners and what plans take priority when there are competing legitimate interests? Who will make these decisions. And those dissenters cannot get in the way if the system is to work. Would there be debate or would that be look upon as subversion? Would dissenters be eliminated? (not an entirely shocking expectation) Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.

I get the second paragraph, but that first paragraph was so…offensive that I had to leave my perch and actually post.

That entire first paragraph was what? stream of consciousness mixed with random anecdote? I’ve followed this crew on various boards for 17 years now and I can tell you that there’s no meetings. There’s PLENTY of disagreements. Hell, I used to be a moderate conservative (slightly upper right quadrant, iirc the first time I took that test). I’ve moved to and seemingly deep within the Left as I better learn how to align my ideals, beliefs and principles within the political biosphere.

If anything, this is the LEAST dogmatic place I’ve ever encountered online with people being willing to challenge their own biases as well as challenge one another. And often, that’s WITHIN matters that would be wholly on the left. Like, in conversations about Single Payer, we can have significant disagreements in principle about how best to achieve that and THAT conversation can only happen HERE because… you sure as hell ain’t gonna see it in the MSM or allowed to be fully explored the way we have.

Moreover, I would challenge that the dogma is much more prevalent in the “centrist”. You speak of derision and yeah, there is plenty and often for good reason.

A person on the right may be for or against a policy because of the merits of a policy.

A person on the left may be for or against a policy because of the merits of a policy.

All too often (not everytime, of course), a person in the center is for or against a policy because of the person they like or admire who’s for or against the policy.

The Center doesn’t protest. The Center doesn’t advocate. The Center doesn’t push for change. Why? Because the Center lives…in the damn center. And even if the Center isn’t great, it’s not on the fringes and in succumbing to fear where success is a zero sum game (as politics is always played), why would anyone in the Center advocate for anything OTHER than the Status Quo?

Of course centrists want Hillary and Jeb. Of course they do. Why should it matter that even as we sign treaties that ban targeted assassination and if we tied a man to the bottom of a helicopter with a sniper rifle, that our killings would be illegal, but with terribly faulty intelligence, we can indiscriminately kill people in sovereign countries (according to DoD estimates between 6-9 out of 10 people killed in drone strikes are completely innocent)? Why should it matter to a Centrist that we kill innocent people for no reason? Why should it matter that we’re STILL overthrowing democratically elected governments? I mean it’s not like the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 had any blowback… oh wait. Why would any of that matter? It’s not like we can choose someone else. The two wings of The Party have their candidate and you’re either Gryffindor or Slytherin. Team Jacob or Team Edward. You’re not allowed to say, “I don’t trust a magician” or “I don’t want mythical creatures.”

I mean President Obama was responsible as Commander in Chief for the targeted killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocents via the drone program in sovereign nations outside of our jurisdiction and outside of International Law. Why is that not a war crime? Why are Centrists of principle not standing up about the killing in innocents? Wrong fucking team?

So, yeah. There’s derision because there’s so much magical, team-first, unprincipled nonsense in the center that the Daily show had fodder for 15 years. Worse, rather than shame anyone, the problem only got worse because not enough people in the Center gave enough of a damn to want to change it.

Dogma? really? A rigid adherence to an ideal or belief? Of every “leftist” on this board, I can’t think of anyone who’s in total agreement with any other, not even on a single topic. Moreover, I can’t think of a single topic where one person would wait to ask someone else what they thought prior to forming an opinion. Further, when presented with challenging evidence or argument, we’ve seen time and again people move their thoughts and ideas based on those exchanges. That isn’t the same as having an unwavering support for a principle or ideal. Like unequivocally, I don’t support slavery in any form. It’s not dogma for me to not listen to arguments FOR slavery. And I run into that a LOT online with Clinton apologists who run into issues on principle where she has significant problems. It’s not dogma to be unyielding about Climate Catastrophe. It’s not dogma to be unyielding about human rights abuses in countries where she’s taken money from their dictators. It’s not dogma… , I could go on for days. Principle is not dogma. Politicos like to conflate the two because politicos don’t have principles. We, outside of the Beltway, have the option of having principles. Apparently, it’s not an option inside, based on all available evidence.

I dunno that this is a dogma free zone, but I’d say that if we’re not allergic to dogma, we’ve built up a terrible intolerance to it.

On principle, as the Huey Lewis song goes, “sometimes bad is bad”. And both candidates are that.

Again, I could go on for days.

Now, it’s one thing to passionately have moderate views and promote those. The Center hasn’t been doing that. The Center has been the the most culpable of the abdication of the single biggest part of our responsibilities as citizens, democracy, be it voting, participating in government or holding our government accountable. Our government was designed and implemented to be of, by, and for the people. It was ALWAYS meant to require an engaged citizenry. Well, the periphery has always been engaged. It’s sort of a necessity. It’s anathema to hold passionate views and be casual about it. Which is why you see partisans on both the right and left working hard to get their messages out.

The Center? The center has treated our democracy like it’s just another part of our service economy, like they can order it with their morning Starbucks. It’s taken those with money and power taking it from them bit by bit for SOME waking up… I mean enough that only 29% register now as Dems and only 21% register as Reps according to the latest data… so SOME have woken up that we now live in a functional corporate oligarchy. We don’t even live in a functional democracy anymore.

That Princeton Study essentially proved that the will of the people means nothing. Irrespective of voter approval of a bill, the chances of it passing were 30%. Represent.us has a great 5 minute short video on it that lays it all out. It’s super.

I don’t know how to address how you see left and right because they’re just not…that. I’ve been on both. I may be one of the only ones here who has. I’ve NEVER been in the Center… Even as moderate Conservative, I was a social liberal and fiscal conservative. That made me a nicer asshole on the Right… It’s true, I know. But what you say about how you see left and right just so don’t match with what the actual Left and Right represent that… I dunno where to even begin.

I’m sorry if this was overly harsh. If it helps, much harsher stuff was deleted in attempts to appear more evenhanded. Maybe that’s less helpful, I dunno.