Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantSome quick and dirty observations:
Wonder how many of Trump’s supporters picked up on the fact that he was nowhere to be seen during the melee, after promising them, “I’ll be there with you!” He whipped them into a frenzy — for five years — and then, when it really counted, was safely in a secure location, cheering on the mayhem. Coward and liar to the end.
Imagine Mel Gibson’s William Wallace, whipping his fellow Scots into a war frenzy, but instead of charging into the brink with them, he flees from the battle as fast as his horse can carry him.
The above also makes me think of how exhausting it must be to be a right-winger. Right-wing politicians are relentless in keeping their “base” in a state of permanent fury, with the help of right-wing media, of course. No other part of the political spectrum requires so much effort/hatred/othering to be in with the tribe.
Billy_TParticipantGood post, Cal.
Yep. Dems suck at messaging. They have from roughly Carter on. Some of the younger Dems, like AOC, are much better at it, but their message is undermined by the Dem leadership itself.
THE key to messaging for political parties is standing together, without apology. The GOP does this, regardless of the odiousness of their policies or politicians. Which tells me it isn’t the content of the message, but its delivery, and a united stand behind that delivery.
Americans respond to confidence, certainty, unwavering support for this or that agenda. If the folks at the top don’t project that, voters tend not to buy in.
Hope all is well.
Billy_TParticipantGood responses on anarchism, Zooey and ZN.
The vast majority of anarchists are non-violent. Very few exceptions. David Graeber, who recently passed, was one. Chomsky considers himself one.
They never hurt a flee. Tolstoy was a Christian anarchist. Then there’s William Morris and Petr Kropotkin. Again, they never hurt anyone. Their thing was to advocate for society free from domination by anyone, anything, any group, etc. etc. Mutual aid, cooperative, egalitarian, democratic society. And they preached getting there through non-violent, democratic means.Ironically, it’s all too frequently the case that the “authorities” use deadly force against “anarchists,” on the basis of the perceived, automatic, dangerously biased belief that anarchism is synonymous with chaos and violence, etc. etc.
Anyway, thanks to WV, I read James C. Scott on the subject. His Two Cheers for Anarchism is very good.
Also have read Kropotkin on anarchism. Some of his ebooks are available to borrow from your local library, most likely, through the Hoopla app.
He also has a lot of stuff online, at the anarchist library:
Billy_TParticipantAnother thing (or two, or three) to consider about the change:
Trump repeatedly lobbed attacks at the so-called “radical left,” putting the lives of leftists in danger — and anyone thought to be a leftist. This was echoed endlessly by his supporters and flunkies. It was concerted, revved up to eleven, and his “base” bought into it. One of the oft-cited reasons for his voters’ support was their view that “socialism” had to be crushed. Ending “communism” was a battle cry for the mob at the Capitol.
Biden won’t be our friend, of course. But he won’t call openly for the destruction of the left. He won’t incite violence against us. And his DoJ, ICE, Homeland Security, etc. etc. . . . are unlikely to be headed by political appointees with anything approaching a white nationalist agenda. The latter is the norm under Trump.
In short, POCs and leftists won’t be official policy targets after January 20th. Will that end the overall targeting, etc.? Of course not. But at least it won’t have an official stamp /support to be proactively, overtly racist and anti-left.
In a world with so few things to feel (even slightly) hopeful about . . . I’ll take the above.
Billy_TParticipantThe WaPo has some new video that puts things in much better context.
Billy_TParticipantThe Rightwing-Fascists invaded
the Neoliberal-Imperialist house.The only change i see coming during the Biden years,
is there will be even more emphasis on ‘security’.w
vI think we can expect a significant change in environmental policy. Well worth the switch from the fascist Trump to the center-right Biden. I also see a truly significant change happening in the way we deal with Covid. Going from an admin that turned mask-wearing into a culture war, shut out the science, and spun out umpteen lunatic fringe fictions, to one committed to medical science? I think that’s going to save hundreds of thousands of lives. That’s not hyperbole, IMO.
Lotsa other areas of significant difference, in my view. Again, if we compare just the two parties, those differences matter. Compared with where we should be, what we should do, the standards we should adhere to? Biden and company will fall waaay short. But we didn’t have the choice of a Biden or a leftist. We had a choice of a Biden or a Hitler wannabe.
Personally, I’m gonna happily take the old-school centrist Dem eight days a week in that scenario.
Billy_TParticipantHey you guys ! I know what socialism is; I know my conservative friends are “nutz”; I know that calling Biden a socialist is simply “mane calling”. I get all that. My point is how can we ever come close to bridging these gaps as long as there is such a divergence of opinions
It’s not a “divergence of opinions.” They’re wrong. One side in this is not an “opinion,” it’s rational and fact-based truth.
Same with climate change deniers. I don’t want “middle ground” with deniers, they’re wrong.
Same with those who downplay covid. I don’t want to arrive at a middle ground with them. They’re wrong.
Same with those who claim Trump won the election and was robbed. I don’t want to meet them halfway. They’re wrong.
Those are all dangerous things to be wrong about.
…
Agreed, ZN. Which is why I think we’re at the point . . . well, we’ve been at that point for generations, actually . . . where is just makes no sense to even try to “understand” them, much less compromise. It comes down to maximizing our own time behind the wheel, if and when we get it. The political right wrote the book on that. It’s time the rest of the political spectrum figures out that there is no “meeting of the minds” at this point.
If our “side” gets a turn behind the wheel, it needs to max out on pushing our agenda through, without apology, without watering it down, or backing down. Make our best case, max out on policy, regs, legislation, etc. etc. . . and let the chips fall where they may.
Once one side of the aisle thinks the other side consists of satanist, baby-eating pedophiles, it’s absurd to even think of attempting any more “reaching across the aisle.” And it actually just plays into the hands of reactionaries to even bother.
Shut them out. Ignore them. Bash on, etc.
Billy_TParticipantW,
I think most of this is about filling deep, deep voids created by capitalism and its atomization of society. It’s about identity politics. People seek tribal allegiances when society creates such voids. When it can’t deliver on its promises . . . and most of this is likely on the subconscious level.
Used to be that religious ritual fulfilled that for the masses. But capitalism killed “God” and tried to replace him with “the free market.” That’s simply not sufficient for 99% of the populace. God is dead, capitalism killed him, and people need to find somewhere, someone, to fill that void, to replace that cosmic/social/personal loss.
Especially for the right, that means the reactionary (identitarian) trifecta: nationalism, fundamentalist religion, and ethnicity.
In short, as capitalism creates more and more despair, dislocation, inequality, and environmental destruction, people will struggle harder and harder to “belong” in some other way. That means a hell of a tough row to hoe for the foreseeable future.
Billy_TParticipantI’m following up Todd McGowan’s excellent Universality and Identity Politics with his Capitalism and Desire, and it might be even better. About a third to go. Just makes all sorts of brilliant observations about our current system, with a major focus on capitalism’s promises and endless inability to deliver them. At the same time, capitalism has this amazing ability to make the vast majority of folks believe it does, that it has, that it will continue to deliver, even though it can’t, won’t, doesn’t intend to.
Also, that it atomizes society, turns us all into monads of desire, denying our freedom(s) while gaslighting us into thinking it sets us free.
He brings in Freud and Lacan a ton, as well as Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, Marx, Von Mises, Rand, Hayek, among others. His criticism of our system is (justifiably) devastating . . . but he goes beyond Marx by bringing in psychoanalytical aspects as well. Fascinating.
Our system, basically, puts us in mental (and physical) chains, endlessly lies to us about what it can do for us, how supposedly free we are, while at the same time radically reducing our ability to fight back. It separates and segregates us, in our own little consumerist bubbles, which obviously makes collective action far, far more difficult. Makes me think about how deluded the entire political right is, in its vision of “liberty and freedom.” They espouse their idea of “individualism” because the system makes them believe this is the case.
Billy_TParticipantNone of that is on the table in any way…with maybe the one exception of government health insurance…and Biden opposes that.
So…again…name a socialist policy or system that Biden supports.
And by the “strict definition of policies” test, of course, not a single member of the Dem party is a “socialist” though some are progressives who advocate policies (such as M4A) which fit within a “New Deal reborn” model that is still essentially amended capitalism and not strictly socialist.
And as I said Biden shut those people out and does not identify with any of their policies.
Though you know of course that to a lot of righties the word “socialist” is not used in anything remotely like its real sense. It’s just a pejorative buzz term for anyone who advocates any social and economic policies that are not “shrink the government” style right-wing policies.
It reminds me of the days of Martin Luther King when many opposed to civil rights called the typical policy ideas of the civil rights movement “communist.” It’s just a big broad form of name-calling.
…
To me, this is self-evident. But it’s not for all too many Americans: There is a huge difference between socialist “ideas,” policies, agendas, and an actually existing socialist society. Every OECD country has implemented a host of the former, but there has never been a socialist society, nation-state, etc. Not. Ever. Never. That would require at least these three things:
1. Economic democracy (socialism, in a nutshell) replaces economic apartheid (capitalism)
2. The entire economy (down to individual businesses and the shop floor) is democratized.
3. We the people, not “the state,” not any political party, person, junta, own the means of production, together, hold it in common, directly. No proxies.And we strive to end all vestiges of class society, together, democratically.
No such scenario has ever existed beyond small enclaves like the Paris Commune of 1871, parts of Republican Spain in the 1930s, old-school Israeli Kibbutzes, etc. etc.
To bring it back to Biden and the Dems . . . Not a single member of that party advocates for an end to capitalism, though I wish to goddess the entire party would. Even the furthest leftward faction doesn’t. The Squad doesn’t. Sanders, the indie, doesn’t. And Biden is well to their right.
In short, W, your conservative friends are nutz.
Billy_TParticipantDon’t know if anyone else noticed this. Was watching coverage on CNN and MSNBC as events were unfolding. Not all day, of course, so I likely missed some stuff . . .
Anyway, not sure if they just couldn’t get cameras inside much to film, or if it was a management decision not to, but they really didn’t show the mayhem that actually occurred, or the potential dangers from heavily armed nutcases . . . whereas a British film crew did. I think it was ITV, or sumpthin.
Very strange. The massive contrast. If people only watched CNN and MSNBC — I have no idea what Fox showed — they wouldn’t think it was all that big a deal. Well, aside from the shock of the total takeover of the building, etc. A bunch of kooks milling about, mostly, with scattered folks going further, climbing up the Capitol, with some ugly, crazy-tree signs about “communism” and so forth.
But it was primarily that British crew that showed the true violence of the right-wing mob. And today we’re learning a lot more about just how far-right this was, and how much planning there was, and how they intended to kill whomever got in their way.
This is beyond the twilight zone, and Trump’s departure won’t end it.
Billy_TParticipantArtist, revolutionary, anti-imperialist, communist.
And oh, btw, he tried to murder Trotsky.
art:https://www.pbs.org/video/siqueiros-walls-of-passion-eiuwap/
Thanks, WV. Surprised that PBS has this.
Have bookmarked the video.
Hope all is well, and Happy New Year!
December 31, 2020 at 7:18 pm in reply to: Excellent book: Universality and Identity Politics #126216Billy_TParticipantJust finished it.
So many lights went on throughout the reading process. But I think I must be getting old, because in each moment, I thought I’d remember all the insights and details, the thinkers mentioned, the rationales, retain these moments, but I really haven’t. Should have taken notes!!
And it’s not that long a book!
Anyway, he’s definitely on Team Leftist. Very strong critique of capitalism, which he eviscerates. He knows his Marx, too, it would appear, and the Frankfurt School as well. Seems to be a friend of Zizek’s, and speaks highly of Alain Badiou and the Fields sisters, among others. Too many citations to list. Good notes, references, websites, etc
Gonna try to contact him for my own website. He teaches at the University of Vermont. Maybe Nittany knows him?
December 31, 2020 at 4:58 pm in reply to: Excellent book: Universality and Identity Politics #126213Billy_TParticipantIt’s difficult to do the book justice in short summaries, primarily because he develops his arguments over time, and I’ve noticed that these developments sometimes overturn what I assumed he meant at earlier points along the way. He cites and quotes dozens of key thinkers to build his case, left, right and center, so I’d bet you’d eventually be on the same page — regarding the possible strawman and much else.
Anyway, your quote, I’m guessing, comes from the book blurb which I posted. It reads in full:
The great political ideas and movements of the modern world were founded on a promise of universal emancipation. But in recent decades, much of the Left has grown suspicious of such aspirations. Critics see the invocation of universality as a form of domination or a way of speaking for others, and have come to favor a politics of particularism — often derided as “identity politics.” Others, both centrists and conservatives, associate universalism with twentieth-century totalitarianism and hold that it is bound to lead to catastrophe.
This book develops a new conception of universality that helps us rethink political thought and action. Todd McGowan argues that universals such as equality and freedom are not imposed on us. They emerge from our shared experience of their absence and our struggle to attain them. McGowan reconsiders the history of Nazism and Stalinism and reclaims the universalism of movements fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia.
He demonstrates that the divide between Right and Left comes down to particularity versus universality. Despite the accusation of identity politics directed against leftists, every emancipatory political project is fundamentally a universal one — and the real proponents of identity politics are the right wing. Through a wide range of examples in contemporary politics, film, and history, Universality and Identity Politics offers an antidote to the impasses of identity and an inspiring vision of twenty-first-century collective struggle.
Right now, am in a very interesting section about BLM and the reactionary response to that . . . McGowan makes a great case for the former being universalist, and the latter, particularist, which echoes back to an earlier section on the Haitian Revolution.
Basically, the conservative accusation that the left is mired in “identity politics” is a projection/confession scenario. McGowan sees “identity politics” as fundamentally a right-wing project, the term misused, misapplied, etc. etc.
Identity formation needs external limits and “othering” to various degrees. When it hits the point of identity politics, it needs enemies. A true “universalist” project can’t have them. Potential converts, yes. Enemies, no. That’s another way McGowan thinks the left and right are so different.
More anon . . .
December 31, 2020 at 9:55 am in reply to: Wolford … Rams pre-season vids from 2019 & a vid-heavy draft report #126199Billy_TParticipantI don’t know anything about Wolford. But I’m almost to the point of giving up on Goff.
Also not a cap guy, so don’t know if it’s even possible for the Rams to trade Goff in the offseason, but I suspect it’s not, given such a recent mega-contract. Would likely put the Rams in cap-hell for years, right?
That said, if it could be done, and the Rams could reload on some early draft picks and/or good young players at key positions? I’d be for it.
I think it may be time to move on. The window is shrinking for a — paradoxically, perhaps — ascending defense, with Aaron Donald turning 30 for next season. They need a QB who doesn’t lose games for them. IMO, that’s more important than having one with the potential to carry the team on his back — which Goff can do at times. He just is too erratic and offers the flipside of that: carrying the team to a loss, etc.
Happy I get to watch last game of the regular season on live TV.
Billy_TParticipantHappy Belated Winter Solstice, everyone!!
May your 2021 be incredible, healthy, happy and safe!
And may we all get to watch the Rams win the Super Bowl!!
Billy_TParticipantI like Akers and Henderson both. Hope the Rams find a way to keep them happy. In today’s NFL, you really can’t get by with just one running back. Ya need at least two you can count on.
I like em both too but just assessing them, Akers has more feature back qualities than Henderson.
Just from what I have seen. Both have great initial burst and excellent contact balance (and that’s a big deal with both of them). From what I have seen, both have good vision.
But Akers is a bit bigger and more solid, AND has incredible feet and shifty movement in traffic.
I take that to mean that Akers is the 1A and Henderson more of a complementary back. That’s what he was intended to be with Gurley, though that didn’t work out.
Akers is a true first round feature back, IMO, and fell to the 2nd round because his OL and qb at FSU were really just THAT bad.
…
I can see that. It’s also important that they’re both young. Just 21 and 23, respectively. They’re gonna get better.
They don’t have Gurley’s long speed, but are probably quicker. Not as big, but likely make more defenders miss, etc. It’s a good “problem” the Rams have on their hands . . .
With rare exceptions, the NFL is just too hard on bell-cow backs, and grinds them down pretty quickly. So I’m just happy they have them on the team, and Brown is no slouch, either. I still can’t really fathom someone like Adrian Peterson, lasting as long as he has. Or Smith from Dallas. Or Walter Payton.
It really is the Not For Long league.
Billy_TParticipantI like Akers and Henderson both. Hope the Rams find a way to keep them happy. In today’s NFL, you really can’t get by with just one running back. Ya need at least two you can count on.
Wouldn’t mind them drafting, late, a big pile-driver, though.
Also, Edgerrin James. I remember watching him and thinking, he’s the best at following his blockers, ever. Just had great vision for that, and knew when to bounce off that protection into the right hole. Speed, power, instincts, vision. Injuries derailed what could have been a HOF career.
ED, on the other hand . . . had speed all day, ran like a gazelle, and was always just one crease away from taking it to the house. But he tended not to wait for his blockers to set things up for him.
Different styles, etc.
Also always wondered about Dickerson’s lack of putting in weight-room time. What he could have been if he had trained like a Jerry Rice, etc. Without any serious weight-training, he was all-world. So much “natural” ability, size, etc. Seemed effortless for him. My guess is he wonders about that too. Perhaps regrets a bit here and there.
Billy_TParticipantEnjoyable game, though it never seemed like the offense was in a groove. Perhaps due to Akers running well, there was no reason to do their usual setting up the next play, and the next, and the next.
This defense is really good, and surprisingly so. Oddly enough, with future HOF Donald, and consistent pro-bowler Ramsey, it’s really a “no-name” group beyond that, meshing really well. Coached really well. I hope it doesn’t happen, but the Rams could lose Staley next season.
(The McVay tree and so on.)
I also like their move to tall, athletic linebackers. They swarm. They sack. They knock down passes. And SJ-D seems to be developing up front. This is a team on the rise.
IMO, they’re a Super Bowl team if Goff plays well, steady, error-free.
Billy_TParticipantLoved it too. Very strong performances, especially by the lead, whom I remembered from “The Witch.” Well written, paced, directed. Very compelling.
The series spurred me to read the novel it was based on, by Walter Tevis. It’s pretty good so far, though a few early scenes made me cringe. Won’t give anything away, except to say I think the TV folks made some wise decisions regarding what to keep and what to leave out.
Some talk about a second series, but I don’t think it needs that at all. Apparently, Tevis was thinking about writing a sequel before he died.
Seriously good “peak TV.”
Billy_TParticipantAgreed.
Fight Club speaks the truth.
Trump knows he needs the presidency to protect him from jail, and/or to cut a deal. He’s always known this. He admitted it way back at the start of the Mueller investigation when he said he was “fucked” after finding out how much they had on him. He didn’t think he’d survive any of that, and he wouldn’t have, if Republicans had even a shred of spine, courage or decency.
Trump has always been the Blanche DuBois of politics, forever relying on the
“kindness of strangers” to cover for his endless, record-shattering corruption, self-dealing, lies, grift, etc. etc. But unlike DuBois, he’s also needed obscene levels of credulity, bordering on idiocy, from his marks, his fans, and now his cult.Billy_TParticipantLooking forward to watching it “live.” Beating Brady is a must. Their DBs will definitely be put to the test, cuz the Bucs are loaded.
Am watching a replay (NFL Network) of the Rams/Seahawks game as I type this. Have decided to save money this year, not pay anyone any extra dough to watch the Rams, and just take my chances. They’re on nationally a lot, and since their division is muy competivo, NFL Network should replay their games.
Cheers to all. Stay safe.
Billy_TParticipantThe latter bit reminds me also of Zooey’s tweet from Daoud(sp?), who disagrees with Obama’s claim that the Internet is the biggest threat to democracy (?).
My quick read on that is Obama and Daoud are both correct, in their own way, perhaps for wildly different reasons.
Oligarchy is a massive threat, obviously. Though I’ll put on my scratched up broken record and say, yet again, that capitalism is the bigger threat cuz it contains oligarchy, generates it, guarantees it. No previous economic system has produced it at such high rates or so quickly.
And, the Internet itself is oligarchy’s/capitalism’s wet-dream vehicle for propaganda, indoctrination, deflection and distraction. Never before in human history have plutocrats controlled such a powerful weapon to shape minds, or dumb them down, and never before have they had one with this reach.
They own it. They control it. They can shut it down if they want to. And I wonder if the small “d” democratic opposition it’s enabled hasn’t been, on balance, so overwhelmed by anti-democratic forces — establishment, establishment-backed (overt and covert), “organically” grown reactionaries, astro-turfed reactionaries . . . and so on . . . . Is it really a net positive for leftists and our allies?
I’m conflicted about its net effects — pun not not intended.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV.
I’ve bookmarked it and will read it shortly.
Billy_TParticipantAs mentioned, I’m not on twitter. But was wondering if this is trending at all. Have seen articles about it in the WaPo and other newspapers, but they’re usually behind a firewall, so I won’t use their links here. This is worth putting in the twitter thread, if you guys have anything on it:
Republican secretary of state in Georgia says Graham and other Republicans are pressuring him to throw out legal votes, and he and his wife have gotten death threats because Trump lost the state.
Billy_TParticipantI’m not worried about a handful of window breakers in Portland. I am worried about the continued lies coming from the MSM regarding “anarchists,” where they literally get everything wrong about the philosophy possible, and just aid and abet Trump and his fellow fascists
I’m appalled that so many Americans fall for these lies, and ignore the fact that far-right groups overwhelm them in number, and are protected by the police.
Here’s an article about a photographer for the MAGA rallies talking about how the police never arrest the Proud Boys, and they and their fellow fascists may now be half the crowd at Trump rallies:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/donald-trump-rally-photographer-interview.html
“Anarchists” get arrested for just existing. They’ve even been executed under Trump’s orders. No trial. Just executed. Proud Boys and company get a wink and a nod and are increasingly emboldened to commit violence in the streets and send death threats to health officials, people counting election votes, etc. etc.
The focus on “anarchists” is bullshit.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 3 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantTough to make the alliteration work when it’s in the thousands.
The thug thousand?
There ya go!!
Billy_TParticipantI think the US Parks service estimated 11,666, total. I think that also included counter-protestors.
Tough to make the alliteration work when it’s in the thousands.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
You’ve done a great job of posting evidence and pertinent articles. I’d be very interested in your own views, especially regarding the relative effectiveness of the US response to this crisis — local, state, federal.
Straight up. No holds barred. What’s your honest assessment regarding how we’ve faced or failed to face this existential threat? And how to do see our response impacting the rest of the world?
Same goes with everyone else who posts here.
Billy_TParticipantQuick note on the political systems that have been paired with capitalism, past and present.
There is disagreement among scholars of capitalism regarding its origins, rise, timeline, etc. But most place its beginnings somewhere between Columbus’s voyages and early 17th century Britain, with a range of nations — Spain, Portugal, Holland and Britain, especially — at the forefront. Plus their colonies, of course.
So, for its first three or four centuries, it operated under monarchies, not democracies, with ultra rare exceptions. Contrary to the myth that it brought us “freedom and liberty,” it wasn’t linked to anything resembling that, even indirectly, until recent times, and it’s never escaped the need to enslave, oppress or dominate to this day.
We may not see it, from our relatively privileged perch. But it’s never been able to allocate resources or compensation adequately to more than a fraction of the people under its thumb. And it can’t make rich people without making poor people.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 3 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
