wv wrote:

I dunno. But i think about the ‘why’ of ‘it’ ALL the fucking time. I dont see a lot of good articles on the ‘why’. The articles are usually mainstream neoliberal smear-job articles. They always end up saying “whats wrong with these crazy people” instead of “whats wrong with the system that lied to people so much and for so long, that the people went crazy.”

w
v

I just finished reading an excellent book which may not seem relevant to this topic, but it is:

Written by the author of The Evolution of God, which I also loved, it’s basically a very intelligent pitch for a kind of secular Buddhism, with mindfulness meditation at its heart. Wright is an evolutionary psychologist, and gets scienzy (at times) in the service of the Buddhist Way, showing how it fits with natural selection, and can offset the “environmental mismatches” our evolution has created. Where it becomes relevant to the above discussion is via psychological studies regarding how easily we humans are led, misled, our opinions (re)shaped, altered, via (at times) very simple suggestions. And that’s all of us. We all are subject to this, to conditioned responses, etc.

(Wright asserts that strong meditation practices can help us break free of that conditioning to one degree or another).

Capitalist marketing weaponized/weaponizes all of the above to a degree we’ve never seen before, and the right does capitalist marketing far, far better than the left. It’s not even close.

But we’re all “naturally” susceptible to this, for these illusions and delusions, cuz they once helped us stay alive/spread our genes into the next generation. Passing on our genes is our Prime Directive, as biological units. Wright contends that the secular Buddhist Way can help us get beyond that Prime Directive, rebel against it if need be, and it often is needed, given those increasing environmental mismatches.

Exit polls in 2016 all but confirmed the polling prior to those polls. I wish the media would stop saying that the polling was all wrong four years ago. It wasn’t. It was basically just fine. It fairly accurately predicted the Clinton victory that actually happened in the popular vote, and the Clinton victory that actually happened in the swing states, if not for the massive voter purging there — see Greg Palast.

If the US were not the hegemon, if it were some “third world” nation instead, our elections would have been monitored internationally and confirmed as “rigged” by the GOP and Trump. No question about that, in my view. And he and they are doing it again for 2020, but on a much, much larger (and more violent) scale, given Trump’s power now.

Of course, Republican Comey, dropping the (bogus) announcement, with 10 days to go, that Clinton was under (bogus) investigation again — for emails!! — hurt the accuracy of the polling a bit . . . but she still should have won even the EC.

(Of course, he never told Americans that Trump was also under investigation. Logically, if he had, the 11th hour announcement about Clinton would have been pretty much a wash).

I can’t stand the Clintons, but I think it’s abundantly clear that if she had won, instead of Trump, we would have done most of the right things to get control of Covid-19, and our death-count would have been a few thousand, rather than 152,000 and counting. For that alone, it would have been worth electing a “corporatist Dem” over the monster Trump.

Zooey wrote:

Yeah…there is literally nothing to stop the boogaloo boys and all the neo-nazis from just going into protests and throwing people into vans and driving off. We’ve seen pretty clearly this summer that the actual cops are totally down with white supremacists. What would stop them from doing this?

This worries me too.

Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, said the same thing. He also mentioned how we’ve known for a long, long time that the vast majority of “domestic terrorism” comes from right-wing militias, et al, Nearly 99% of it. There is zero evidence that “antifa” has ever committed any of it.

But the current administration has done nothing about the far right. Has in fact stoked it for political gain. Is stoking it now, as we speak. And their supposed rationale for sending in federal jack boots is to put down “the radical left.”

That’s going to be the theme song Election Day, too. And beyond. Whether or not Trump loses, he’s gonna keep this stuff going. Our sociopath in chief wants blood on the streets so he can avoid jail himself — or so he likely believes. He wants to create this violence, so the right-wing echo chamber will televise it, lie about it, scream to the heavens about it. And if they don’t get the footage they want, they’ll just use old footage from elsewhere, like the Ukraine (2014), which they’re currently doing on FB.

Folks, we’re in truly dark times, and “the left” needs to focus entirely, IMO, on legally, non-violently destroying Trump, all of his enablers and the entire right. No mercy. No prisoners. Non-violently, legally.

Mounting Evidence Suggests Coronavirus is Airborne—but Health Advice Has Not Caught Up After months of denying the importance of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the World Health Organization is reconsidering its stance​ By Dyani Lewis, Nature magazine on July 8, 2020

This is why “Social Distancing” is never enough, especially inside. But outside too — to a lesser degree. Airborne transmission means if you keep your distance from others, but you’re moving through a room, and folks aren’t wearing masks, the virus is there, in the air folks walk through. Some of them will become infected.

Even outside, there’s a danger, though it’s reduced. But if you’re, say, walking along a path, and someone is coming the other way, and no one is wearing a mask? You both pass into each other’s aerosols, etc. etc.

Social distancing alone won’t cut it.

Another interesting aspect of this, to me, anyway:

What kind of society/system change do leftists want? Where/when do we think it’s time to say, “We found our milk and honey. Let’s stop here and enjoy it”?

As in, do we want to push for social democracy as a stage on the way to getting rid of capitalism entirely? Pragmatism of one sort or another may come into play here.

Or is social democracy as far as we should go?

My own take, which a few recent reads have helped crystallize: If capitalism is the economic system, it will always require large sacrifice zones, domestically, internationally. It will always need places to go, geographically and into the future, to offload pain, to exploit, to keep profits and executive salaries high and business costs low.

So there really is no way, IMO, to have even a mixed economy serve all. If we have it in, say, Scandinavia, it can’t also exist all over Africa, Latin America, Asia or in the good old USA. There must always be that surplus army of unemployed and radically underpaid. There must always been rampant inequality or you can’t have millionaires, much less billionaires. You have to have metaphorical trash cans and very real dead zones strategically placed, or there is no “capital formation,” much less “wealth accumulation.”

Martin Hagglund (This Life) thinks social democracy is superior to what we have now. But he also thinks it’s not possible to sustain or extend all that far for some of the reasons above. Reading Jason Hickel’s The Divide, makes that even clearer. The Global North can enact this or that social program, protection, benefit for itself, etc. etc. because those are blocked elsewhere. It can do its capital formation because it rips off so much of the rest of the world.

To make a long story short, it’s complicated.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

“you can define leftism as rejecting capitalism”

Is that true of social democracy? I don’t even think social democracy is anti small business. I think that social democracy–which is left/progressive, of course–supports a mixed economy where large wealthy interests don’t and can’t dominate public and economic life.

I have recently found myself in arguments many times with righties who assume social democracy is socialism and I then have to explain the difference.

It’s funny if some leftists don’t even make the same distinction.

I may be misreading you . . . but being anticapitalist isn’t “anti small business.” At least not necessarily. Capitalism, as you know, is just one form/mode of production, and fairly recent on the scene, relatively speaking. You can have small businesses thrive in non-capitalist settings, as we had all over America before the Civil War.

I’ve used the example before. If you build custom chairs, say, for a living, don’t have employees, take care of the entire process yourself, you’re not a capitalist. It’s not a capitalist business. It becomes capitalist, however, if you purchase labor power to make those chairs for you, appropriate all the money they generate — cuz that theft is legal under capitalism — and allocate it in any manner you want. M-C-M and exchange value . . . instead of something like C-M-C and use-value, which predated capitalism.

You can also scale up business and keep it non-capitalist if no one is an employee, everyone is a co-owner, you share the fruits of your labor, etc. etc. A basic co-op or Wolff’s WSDE are examples of that.

The difference between left and right anticapitalism tends to come down to this: Is the replacement egalitarian, democratic, eco-friendly? It’s a basic assumption for leftists that the business will be non-profit too.

A right-wing anticapitalist, OTOH, isn’t going to give a damn about those things. You could be a tyrannical sole proprietor, with no leftist values/vision/moral compass, and still be anticapitalist, etc. etc.

Good riff (by Max Stirner) on one of my favorite shows, Peaky Blinders.

Kinda rare for a TV series to deal directly with an historical figure like Oswald Mosley, the English fascist. But it does. And with some pretty interesting results, twists and turns.

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

The question remains though.

Define what is meant by “leftist/progressive.” Waterfield asked that a couple of times.

BT gave one try at it and I gave another. But…no one person is going to nail that.

I learn a lot from people giving that an effort.

================
I’ll get around to it eventually. Its a hard question to keep simple, and message-board-sized. Its also not the easiest thing to answer, in general. What is a leftist?

The basics havent changed for me since the 90’s but I think I’m more focused on Imperialism now than i was in my earlier-leftist-life. I dunno why.

w
v

Personally, I think you were a much better leftist when your focus was on Sarah Michelle Gellar. Matt Taibbi thought so too, back in the day, cuz he needed help slaying Vampire Squids.

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

— John Keats

Some more on ZN’s question. The usual qualifiers apply. Just speaking for myself, etc.

As mentioned countless times before, there are lotsa differences within and among leftist indies, cohorts, camps, schools, or whatever the best word might be for a bunch of unruly folks who may be tougher to herd than cats, and harder to define than “beauty, wisdom, truth,” and so on.

Narrowing that down a bit (in no particular order or range): We got your anarchist-communists, anarchist-socialists, communists, socialists, libertarian communists, libertarian socialists, left-libertarians, democratic socialists . . . and, WV’s “mild leftists.” One possible interpretation of the latter, judging by WV’s examples, could be:

Folks in the democratic socialist camp (especially, but not exclusively) who don’t think America is ready yet for full-on democratic socialism — which would entail actual economic democracy — so they push for social democratic reforms and policies instead. IMO, social democracy isn’t leftist. But we’re good friends. We can hang out together, easily. Shoot the shit, etc. Contrary to all too much of the critique against “mild leftists,” they’re more than willing to dial back on vision/goals in exchange for important wins now. They won’t sell out. But they will be “pragmatic” when it’s needed.

MLK did that. Orwell and Camus did that later in life. I think AOC and Bernie do that as well. All the time.

Just a hunch? I think AOC is actually to Bernie’s left, and wants to go much further than he does (thank goddess!). I’m hoping she never, ever gets co-opted or stops fighting for real justice, equality, peace, human rights for everyone, actual democracy for everyone, and an end to empire.

wv wrote:

A simple way to think of Progressivism (or mild-leftism) vs Not-Leftism would be:
—
Biden vs FDR.
or
Hillary vs Bernie
or
Pelosi vs AOC
or
Obama vs MLK
—-

Not perfect analogies but its nice hack-sized.

Progressivism is about helping poor people.
Democrat-ism is about helping middle-class and wealthy.

w
v

That’s excellent, WV. Especially the “mild-leftism” part. I think it’s safe to say the leftists here aren’t “mild.” Thank goddess!!

;>)

I’d put myself in the category of “harsh” leftist, but with a big old heart and still-functioning moral compass. Another smile symbol added, etc. etc.

That said, how would you place the Republicans in this mix? If you added to your Hack-sized post, setting up a kinda tripartite comp, perhaps — or would it need a coupla more ites?

Leftist -> mild-leftist -> left-liberal -> liberal -> moderate -> centrist -> conservadem -> moderate Republican -> old school conservative -> Gingrich conservative -> Tea Party conservative -> right-libertarian -> Trumpist (“mild”-fascist) -> outright fascist.

The above diagram is just an approximation, and everyone’s mileage may vary, etc.

Anyway, how would the Republicans fit your scenario?

This one moved me too. At least from high school on, I’ve known this is a deeply personal issue for black Americans. Damn personal. Obviously, I can’t possibly know all the whys and wherefores from their perspective, but I’ve always known it matters.

Am proud of Virginia for doing this.

Marwa Eltaib stands in front of the Robert E Lee statue in Richmond, Virginia. The Crown Act was passed unanimously and was signed into law in 2019. Photograph: Dee Dwyer/The Guardian

‘Wear your crown, because change is coming’: Virginia joins states banning hair discrimination

(Lotsa cool pics online via the article)

Excerpt:

Virginia’s Crown Act goes into effect on Wednesday – and other southern states could follow

Kenya Evelyn in Richmond and photographs by Dee Dwyer Jonts
@LiveFromKenya

Wed 1 Jul 2020 07.46 EDT
Last modified on Thu 2 Jul 2020 03.05 EDT

Shares
1,074

Carmen Davis went natural in 2004, motivated by her mother to do the “big chop”, a phrase commonly used to describe cutting off chemically straightened Black hair in favor of naturally textured kinks, coils or curls.
Cut and run: the underground hairdressers of lockdown
Read more

Standing in front of the recently defaced statue of the Confederate leader Robert E Lee in Richmond, Virginia, she recalled the backlash against her decision.

“My roommate in college stopped talking me,” she said, noting how even in college at the time, being natural was rare. “She told me it was embarrassing to be seen with me and that I’d regret it.”

Today, Davis is a natural hairstylist, helping women in the Richmond area transition from chemical processing. Her former roommate eventually became one of her many clients.

Business is growing for Davis, but she admits change is slow in the “conservative, southern” state where, in many places, wearing natural hair could mean being denied a job or socially ostracized.

“Society overall frowns upon Black hair, but here it can still be uncommon for people to embrace it because of judgment or just the every day exhaustion of having to explain your Blackness,” she said.

Now they won’t have to. Virginia became the fourth US state, and the first in the south, to pass legislation banning hair discrimination based on racial identifiers including hair texture and hair type, as well as “protective hairstyles such as braids, [locs] and twists”. The law, known as the Crown Act, goes into effect on Wednesday.

For those who can’t get to the NYT:

By Caroline Randall Williams

Ms. Williams is a poet.

June 26, 2020

NASHVILLE — I have rape-colored skin. My light-brown-blackness is a living testament to the rules, the practices, the causes of the Old South.

If there are those who want to remember the legacy of the Confederacy, if they want monuments, well, then, my body is a monument. My skin is a monument.

Dead Confederates are honored all over this country — with cartoonish private statues, solemn public monuments and even in the names of United States Army bases. It fortifies and heartens me to witness the protests against this practice and the growing clamor from serious, nonpartisan public servants to redress it. But there are still those — like President Trump and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell — who cannot understand the difference between rewriting and reframing the past. I say it is not a matter of “airbrushing” history, but of adding a new perspective.
Instagram Live
Caroline Randall Williams will be doing a reading of this essay and answering questions on Instagram (@nytopinion) on Tuesday, June 30 at 7 p.m. Eastern.

I am a black, Southern woman, and of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists. My very existence is a relic of slavery and Jim Crow.

According to the rule of hypodescent (the social and legal practice of assigning a genetically mixed-race person to the race with less social power) I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people. Go back one more generation and it gets less straightforward, and more sinister. As far as family history has always told, and as modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help.

It is an extraordinary truth of my life that I am biologically more than half white, and yet I have no white people in my genealogy in living memory. No. Voluntary. Whiteness. I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual. White Southern men — my ancestors — took what they wanted from women they did not love, over whom they had extraordinary power, and then failed to claim their children.

What is a monument but a standing memory? An artifact to make tangible the truth of the past. My body and blood are a tangible truth of the South and its past. The black people I come from were owned by the white people I come from. The white people I come from fought and died for their Lost Cause. And I ask you now, who dares to tell me to celebrate them? Who dares to ask me to accept their mounted pedestals?

You cannot dismiss me as someone who doesn’t understand. You cannot say it wasn’t my family members who fought and died. My blackness does not put me on the other side of anything. It puts me squarely at the heart of the debate. I don’t just come from the South. I come from Confederates. I’ve got rebel-gray blue blood coursing my veins. My great-grandfather Will was raised with the knowledge that Edmund Pettus was his father. Pettus, the storied Confederate general, the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, the man for whom Selma’s Bloody Sunday Bridge is named. So I am not an outsider who makes these demands. I am a great-great-granddaughter.

And here I’m called to say that there is much about the South that is precious to me. I do my best teaching and writing here. There is, however, a peculiar model of Southern pride that must now, at long last, be reckoned with.

This is not an ignorant pride but a defiant one. It is a pride that says, “Our history is rich, our causes are justified, our ancestors lie beyond reproach.” It is a pining for greatness, if you will, a wish again for a certain kind of American memory. A monument-worthy memory.

But here’s the thing: Our ancestors don’t deserve your unconditional pride. Yes, I am proud of every one of my black ancestors who survived slavery. They earned that pride, by any decent person’s reckoning. But I am not proud of the white ancestors whom I know, by virtue of my very existence, to be bad actors.

Among the apologists for the Southern cause and for its monuments, there are those who dismiss the hardships of the past. They imagine a world of benevolent masters, and speak with misty eyes of gentility and honor and the land. They deny plantation rape, or explain it away, or question the degree of frequency with which it occurred.

To those people it is my privilege to say, I am proof. I am proof that whatever else the South might have been, or might believe itself to be, it was and is a space whose prosperity and sense of romance and nostalgia were built upon the grievous exploitation of black life.

The dream version of the Old South never existed. Any manufactured monument to that time in that place tells half a truth at best. The ideas and ideals it purports to honor are not real. To those who have embraced these delusions: Now is the time to re-examine your position.

Either you have been blind to a truth that my body’s story forces you to see, or you really do mean to honor the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed, and you must at last acknowledge your emotional investment in a legacy of hate.

Either way, I say the monuments of stone and metal, the monuments of cloth and wood, all the man-made monuments, must come down. I defy any sentimental Southerner to defend our ancestors to me. I am quite literally made of the reasons to strip them of their laurels.

Caroline Randall Williams (@caroranwill) is the author of “Lucy Negro, Redux” and “Soul Food Love,” and a writer in residence at Vanderbilt University.