Forum Replies Created
-
I know it’s just a word, and there is no King of Words to nail it down to one definition. But I’m not a fan of using “progressive” to describe leftists. Primarily because I’m so used to the word being applied to Democrats. It’s basically a word used as a substitute for “liberal,” though it’s sometimes even taken up by DLC folks like the Clintons. All around the web, you’ll find people who support Hillary and call themselves “progressives,” and they reject pretty much everything we “leftists” stand for.
For me, support would be contingent on “no other choice.” I am always going to prefer someone not associated at all with the duopoly at this point in my life. But if I have to choose, I’d go with FDR. I don’t think he does something as monstrous as interning the Japanese in the context of 2016, and he wouldn’t have chosen austerity in the midst of an economic crisis, as did Obama.
But I’d probably support someone who never got a chance to be prez, above all the rest associated with either major party: RFK. The RFK of 1968, not JFK’s hatchet man from a few years earlier. I think he had a true Road to Damascus moment after his brother was murdered, and by the time 1968 came around, he wasn’t the same guy. Easily the most “progressive” candidate in the last 70 years or so, from the two parties.
Thanks, Zooey.
Pilger is excellent, and damn brave.
Agree with pretty much everything he said in the article, with this one quibble:
I think some people are using two different prisms for the two candidates. To be overly simplistic about it, “best case scenario” and “worst case scenario.” I think the latter is a good way to view any potential leader given great power. Big time skepticism, no suspension of disbelief, no automatic trust, not even “trust but verify.” They have to earn our vote, and it’s up to them to erase our doubts, etc. No givens, etc. But this should apply to both of them. To Clinton and Trump.
I think some are rebelling against the idea of Trump as media monster by going too far the other way. Almost to the “He won’t be nearly as bad as folks are saying” point. They don’t say that about Clinton. And they shouldn’t, IMO. But they also shouldn’t say it about Trump. Just because he hasn’t done all the horrible things Pilger lists, doesn’t mean he won’t once in power. And I see no indication from his words or his temperament that he would buck U.S tradition when it comes to the violent, brutal expansion/protection of empire.
Though he did say the invasion of Iraq was wrong, I think that’s just pandering to his right-libertarian base, the Ron Pauliacs among them, especially, etc. When you pair this with his all too frequent calls for getting tough on the rest of the world, including using nukes, I don’t think it really matches up.
In short, I think Trump is every bit as likely to take us to war as Clinton and do crazy, violent shit, and both will. The only difference is, where. We really are screwed.
Clinton was honest about how deeply at odds with any democratic-socialist movement she is. “We’re not Denmark,” she said, praising the “opportunity” and “freedom” of American capitalism. With this bit of frankness, Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist—indeed, no non-millionaire—should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark—yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way.
Denmark has a much, much better system than ours, and its results in pretty much every quality of life metric show this. It’s not at all close.
My own preference is to go beyond Denmark. Well beyond it. But if the choice is between our current system and theirs, there is no question which is head and shoulders better. They pretty much kick our butts every which way. And their people typically score highest in the world for happiness.
When Hillary mocked the idea of being more like Denmark, I cringed. And when she said “capitalism built the middle class,” or something to that effect. No, it didn’t. It was anticapitalist agitation that did that. Reformist liberals got stuff passed. But without leftist agitation, they never would have bothered. Basically, we built a middle class despite capitalism, not because of it. The mechanics of capitalism itself lead to rich and poor, if left unchecked. Virtually no middle class, and most people very poor indeed.
I’ve read a lot of his writing in book, essay and blog form, so I’m confident he takes that as a given. Saw this as another indication:
(Bumped into all of this through an article in Salon, Socialism or barbarism: Only the left can defeat the rise of the radical right )
https://www.facebook.com/corey.robin1
Corey Robin
13 hrs ·I’ve known Cornel West’s work and ideas since I took his African-American intellectual history course in college and had him as my senior thesis advisor (for a thesis on Freud and the Frankfurt School). That was before he really became Cornel West, but he was already on his way. I’ve heard him talk about — and I’ve read him on — the practice of prophetic criticism, based in love and a sense of the tragic, for over a quarter-century. But I don’t know that I ever really understood what he was talking about till these past few days, when I saw him put those ideas into action before the DNC platform committee. I’ve seen West speak at rallies, I’ve watched him get arrested, but I never really saw him confront actual power, face to face, and show just how much greater power his mode of moral witness can actually wield. West is one of those political actors in the old sense: you really have to see him in action — not read him, not read about him, not listen to him in a lecture, but see him, and hear him, in action — to understand what he’s talking about. He looks directly in the eye of power, and without flinching, and without hate, stares it down and speaks the truth. And somewhere, I have to believe, makes it feel, not ashamed, but afraid.
Zooey,
I don’t know the right word for this, as a shortcut. But it’s kind of a 1% “diversity” movement. It’s the absence of class critique, IMO, that makes this all so absurd.
In essence, the deal with the ruling elite is this: “You diversify your ranks a bit, and we’ll run interference for you by making this the focus of debate” — instead of the fact that there shouldn’t be a 1% in the first place. Cuz, the women and minorities who end up being let into the club are rarely, ever going to work against that club once they’re there.
Corey Robin puts it really well here
The Clinton forces want nothing more than to make all of American politics — not just in this election but for the foreseeable future — into a battle between a racist, ethno-nationalist right and a multicultural, neoliberal center. Our job is to make politics into a struggle between a multicultural neoliberal center and a multicultural, multiracial socialist left.”
I would add, and I think Robin takes this as a given: We also need to do battle with that racist, ethno-nationalist right. But the left needs to offer “the people” a concrete action plan so they don’t ever even want to join forces with the right.
Of course, a general discussion of systems doesn’t preclude discussions of specifics under the current regime. As ZN mentions, we can do both/and.
But, IMO, it’s very important to zoom out, think in terms of systems, and ultimate goals. Attacking just the issues, without some kind of overall “prize” in mind, some kind of horizon to aspire to . . . . can lead to a very bad sort of “pragmatics.” A “crackpot realism” that eschews taking any chances, doing anything that might appear out of the box and upset people. That kind of pragmatics often seems far more worried about appearances, and “What will people say!!” than actually ending suffering. It seeks the appearance of being “sensible” above concrete, effective actions that benefit the many.
That’s my take, anyway.
In my opinion what we can do is -instead of debating the intellectualism of whether socialism is a better form of government than capitalism or whatever etc-is to look across the street at our neighbor who is less fortunate and suffering and say: what can I do.
Waterfield,
One of the biggest reasons for my passionate belief in real socialism replacing our current system is just that. That person across the street who suffers. Or anyone suffering anywhere. I see the vast majority of the suffering as due to capitalism. And from my POV, it’s not a matter of “unbridled capitalism.” It’s not something we can tame or reform. It’s the thing itself. It’s the way it unleashed competitive laws of motion on the world that weren’t there before it, how it destroyed local markets and local ways of life in order to unify all markets under one thumb. It did this violently when it rose. It still uses violence today, but, because it’s already conquered nearly everything, we don’t see that as blatantly as before. But its effects never go away. No economic system prior to it ever caused so much widespread suffering, as no previous economic system was inherently imperialistic like capitalism. No previous system ever had its imperatives to Grow or Die . . . so that it must take over time and space — the future and all geography, near and far.
Boiled down: I think real socialism is the answer. The real deal. Which means the people own the means of production directly, not through proxies like political parties. The entire economy is fully democratic, with everyone having an equal say, an equal voice, an equal share. No bosses. No gods, no masters. We are all co-owners. No employees. No employers.
No economic system in which everyone has an equal say, an equal share, an equal stake, is going to allow the kind of suffering you speak of. It will have its own problems, conflicts, make its own set of errors. But with the end of the class system, with all of the old hierarchies toppled, it’s not going to be a matter of haves and have-nots anymore. That’s the road to a better world, and it’s a “pragmatic” road, too.
Oh, and then along comes Trump to prove once again he’s a serial liar and piece of garbage:
Donald Trump told NBC News that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is “racist” and “a total fraud”
“She made up her heritage, which I think is racist. I think she’s a racist, actually because what she did was very racist,” Trump said in a phone interview
“She used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud. I know it. Other people who work with her know it. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud,” Trump said.
First off, he lied about what Warren said regarding her Native American heritage. Second, it’s not “racist” to claim Native American heritage, and it’s pretty common for a lot of Americans that they were told they had Native American blood. I learned this about my own family as well. Genealogical research uncovered Cherokee blood for us.
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one’s “race” — a social construct, to begin with — and that it should rightfully dominate the nation or the world. It’s not in the slightest bit “racist” to claim one’s ancestors had this or that ethnic makeup. Trump is just being his usual asshole, lying self.
That is a weird exchange. Reminds me of some of the discussions I had or witnessed on a Lakers forum. I’ve been a Lakers fan just about as long as a Rams’ fan, and I’m pushing 50 years for that. But I was also critical of Kobe at times, cuz I think he took far too many dumb shots, and rarely tried to work the ball in for better ones. My own preference is for team-ball to the degree possible. Pass it. Set up others for the highest percentage shot, etc. And tried to explain that. Nothing was directed at any posters. Nothing was said about anyone other than Kobe, and I qualified that with a great deal of respect for his talents. “He’s one of the best, ever, but I wish . . . ” etc. etc. That caused an instant kind of rage, which turned personal and ugly.
I just don’t get that kind of response. And, IMO, it’s a lot worse online, cuz, well, people feel empowered cuz of the anonymity of it all, and they aren’t seeing the other person while speaking.
Oh, well.
How does that work exactly? How do Bernie and Trump supporters get thrown in the same boat? And how do leftists become ‘extremists’ ? And how does a closet-neocon like Hillary become a “non-extremist” to the mass-media ?
Good questions.
I think it’s pretty much who controls the narrative. Sometimes, just a matter of who has the numbers in their favor. But, yeah. From my POV, “leftists” are the sane, rational, logical folks, and centrists, the center-right and especially the far right are the crazies, in general. Again, in general. Like, Single Payer to me is just a “duh” kind of thing. Not “extreme” in the slightest, though it was portrayed that way by some.
Bart Ehrman wrote a really good book on early Christianity, Lost Christianities. In it he talks about the way various factions took control of the Christian narrative, booted out others who thought differently, and sometimes were themselves booted out in turn. The folks who ended up writing the history (and putting together the canon) called all of the losers everything from “extremists” to heretics. And that was when they were being really nice. And, he points out, most of those losers were lost to history, so we never got the chance to hear their side of the story. Not prior to their losing, or in response to their banishment. They were basically erased from history.
By way of contrast . . . I think the leftists here have it pretty much spot on. Big contrast with those other sites.
Also, a qualification: It goes without saying that my descriptions above aren’t meant to be definitive — or claim that. They’re just anecdotal, and just my own experience — so far.
I recently had an interesting set of experiences online, regarding the Clinton/Sanders food fight. It shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did. And just when I thought I had gotten some idea about the lay of the land, I was surprised again.
I left two sites because they seemed completely intolerant when it came to Sanders supporters. There wasn’t any middle ground. You were either a Clinton supporter, or you were some deranged “Bernie bro,” basically automatically thought of as sexist and racist and always rude to everyone else.
I found another site that seemed, at least at first, to be far more welcoming to we leftists. But, bit by bit, I discovered this place was basically just the flipside of the previous two. If you weren’t howling at the moon angry with Clinton, 24/7, you were some secret ringer for her. And if you responded by talking about leftist ideals, you were supposedly making all of that up.
Fear, suspicion and paranoia beset all three sites. Snap judgments, massive assumptions and a complete inability to read beset both.
I thought the Clinton supporters on the first two sites were crazy, the way they described “Bernie bros.” But the third site made their descriptions a bit closer to reality. Any general claim about the far right’s racism and xenophobia almost instantly caused a ruckus and howls of protest. Even the mildest criticism of Trump was all but forbidden. Again, this really surprised me.
Anyway, to make a long story short: I think some of the most passionate Sanders supporters online are right-wingers, including ex-Ron Paul supporters, and people who really like Trump too. Leftists and liberals as well, of course. And they’re likely the majority by a good margin. But I think his most vocal fans online are often righties.
It’s a very strange mix — the folks whom Hillary has pissed off to no end.
It probably has the biggest body count on TV. Which, if we stop and think about it, should make us stop watching it. Along with several other problematics, mostly involved with its treatment of women. Though I have a feeling the show runners have finally accepted that as a problem.
Anyway . . . it’s a guilty pleasure. And it really is a magnificently done guilty pleasure.
First impressions of the finale? Wow. Just wow. What is the term? Prestige TV? Sheesh. This show epitomizes that and more. I don’t think anything can actually touch it for its range, its cinematography, locations, drama, climatic moments, suspense, etc. etc.
Love the aesthetics of the show and pretty much everything about it. My only quibble is something it really can’t help. The nature of the books forces them to move from story arc to story arc, and sometimes this feels like . . . wait a second. Stay with what you’re doing and don’t shift to another story arc!! But I can forgive them for this, because I pretty much love all of them . . . . well, with the exception of the Dorne stuff, which is better in the books than it is on TV . . . and it really should be great on TV. The source material is there, especially with the Sand Snakes. Great material, kinda squandered on the show.
Anyway . . . loved all kinds of moments, but especially when the little Mormont queen declared for Jon Snow. And the final scene of the armada on its way to Westeros. Too cool. Dragons, Daenarys, etc. etc. Now, seriously, how on earth is Cersei going to stop that! And, personally, I don’t want her to, at all.
A bummer that I have to wait a year to find out.
;>)
Thanks, WV.
In Kristin Ross’s excellent Communal Luxury, she talks of Marx’s discovering Russian evolutionists, and their quite different theory of the rise of humans. Rather than seeing it all as “survival of the fittest,” they tended to view it as “survival of the cooperative.” That humans lived on if they banded together to fight the elements, not each other. My own take from this was that perhaps Darwin and others in Britain had been unduly influenced by Capitalism and its laws of competitive motion — consciously or unconsciously. Perhaps they read the present back into the past, at least a bit.
It’s also the case that inside any business with employees, they can’t survive via internal competition. If they don’t have cooperation, they fall. So there are dueling aspects happening, even under capitalism, constantly. And that internal cooperation, its necessity, tells me that the external, competitive kind isn’t at all necessary, because it (cooperation) could be scaled up between businesses. Though that would, of course, mean the end of capitalism, which I fervently desire.
So, anyway . . . . I just think it’s really interesting that the Brits and the Russians had wildly different ideas about what “evolution” actually meant for human beings.
