The Dems can get rid of the filibuster on a party line basis, but the senators from Arizona and West Virginia thought it more important that congress remain an impotent body. — Mr Bee

Indeed, Manchin is pretty much a Republican. That’s well known. Its West Virginia. Not sure what Sinemas deal is either but Arizona is not known as a bastion for liberal politics either. Mainly libertarian republicans.

It's an existential problem, not political. Arguing about which party should have power is looking to the window dressing for what is essential. It is being born at all, of course, which is the problem. Until you solve the problem of survival, and how our own demands create self-perpetuated work for each other, this is just hobby-horse bullshit. All of politics is this when compared to the existential problem of subsisting itself, and the social-milieu that is created from our own demands on each other. Just bringing the philosophy back folks...

No, I agree with you.. This will happen in the short term. I am talking long term.. ten years or more.. Demographics just aren't in their favor.

I think the vital question now is, why is the Democratic party so utterly impotent in the face of the outrageous criminality of the Republicans? In a functioning political system, the Republican party would have been destroyed forever a long time ago. — hypericin

Filibuster. You need 60% not 51% to do anything at all.

The GOP of the day still had some principles, they hadn't all sold their soul for power. — Wayfarer

And there's the difference.

It's not the same old theme... — creativesoul

Why? Unless Trump's indicted with something that puts him in jail or prevents him from running, the same electorate that supports him won't care. The Republican Party benefits and some are complicit as long as it keeps them in power. No "shocking" revelation will then make them shake their heads and say, "no more". That would mean they had integrity. Party and power above all else.

Have you already seen this video in it's enitrety? — creativesoul

I watched some of it from your link. I mean, it's the same theme we've been hearing.. Party above principles. Maybe you should bullet point some specifics you want people to understand from it. No rational argument about how specific Trump people, alt-right, right-wingers, whatever you want to call them will convince, even the adjacent republicans that it was "wrong". Demographically, it's a dying party, and this is the death throws perhaps.. It will last another decade perhaps, I don't know.

The way people work around this is throwing out stuff like "But Hunter Biden.. Clinton...But BLM caused riots at various capitols, and so on". All red herring/strawmen. It's basically gaslighting and relativizing things that one would otherwise generally find wrong. They also think that because he didn't directly say "invade the Capitol", he really didn't do anything wrong. Basically it's just "my-side-ism". Principles don't matter as much as "root for team red or blue". One difference with Watergate is that at least some congressmen and senators on the same side as Nixon decided that the principle of fairness was more important than party. Clearly a dangerous cult of personality.

Was there ever a call out directly for radical change? Besides, what’s so radical about the working class controlling their path in collective will power? We consider that normal today in the form of guilds, unionization, labour parties, and practically nobody dares call themselves a Marxist.

TCM was less than a hundred pages long and it didn’t contain the itinerary for socioeconomic life in detail, but set forth the types of ideas that life would be built upon; how capitalism could revitalize itself from the core identity. I’m not an expert on Marx so someone can please correct me if I’m wrong, but the subject of Communist government did not represent a large portion of Marx’s work. — kudos

He wanted a world revolution that eventually gave power to the state which "withered away" to a classless society controlled by proletariat-led councils. It seems the lack of details lead to "appending to" his thought (e.g. Leninism, Maoism, etc.).

But either way, I personally can't get on board with most forms of Marxism because of its tendency for "group-think", its impatience (and then downright persecution of) free thought/speech/press, and its tendency towards dictatorship (Stalin/Mao) or oligarchy (Russian and Chinese politburos). Granted, no state ever "got it right", it's telling that the application ended up being various templates of the same thing.

I've sketched a quasi-convergence of "Marxism & antinatalism" in an old post (elaborated further in a second link embedded therein) to which you did not directly reply: — 180 Proof

I just didn't know how to reply to it. Interesting.

All of this just doesn't seem likely. Until then, best not throw more workers into the mix.

Do you mean a Marxist would find it immoral to raise children under a system so contrary to their version of social good? — kudos

This.

It’s not clear if Marx had ever claimed to have created a blueprint for a good world; could you define this good you claim Marxists are looking for? — kudos

Unexploited, unalienated worker paradise I guess. If it's not a better world under Marxist structure, then of course, the whole thing is meaningless as a goal to seek.

We have a future that is somewhat bleak for those who are emotionally invested in consciously building this superstructure. — kudos

Agreed there.

However, I don’t think it’s solely a personified reality-authoring that Marx and Engels had in mind. It is also a type of refinement of existing attitudes and values to their ideological core. — kudos

I don't think so. I think they had a project for a new way of socioeconomic life.

Where is the rationality in antinatalism? — kudos

What do you mean? There are lots of arguments that are coherent and "rational". I'm just saying, Marxists want a complete change in the way we do our socioeconomic-political arrangements. Until that time, it would make sense to not put more proletariats into the capitalists' grip.

rather than a historical one that can be replaced. — _db

Until then, why produce more workers? Situational AN seems appropriate. They are feeding exactly that which they loathe.

Haven’t even seen an inkling of a groundswell of Marxist anything. At best you’re getting legislation for 32 hour work weeks but doubtful. Antinatalism doesn’t need to rely on the whole system changing. Marxism most definitely does. Antinatalism is an ethic any individual can take on. There is no end goal to society, only one less person to suffer who would have. In Marxist terms..one less worker to do the struggle dance. I don’t see why Marxist’s shouldn’t use situational AN to their advantage. Boycotting more workers till true change. Not worth perpetuating capitalist goals.

Marxisms were tried and failed. All you got is the Nordic model at best.

I’m not arguing about immutable social conditions which I never brought up in the first place. Just Marxism.

Straw men. The ones that stuck weren’t Marxist. There is no us slavery, France eventually had a democracy of sorts, Haiti did become its own nation. None of these were Marxist. Russian ended in a whimper and is now owned by oligarchs and a czarist styled dictator.

social revolution — Maw

Hippies in the 60s? What are we talking? Can’t be civil rights movement.

Additionally, history is not destiny, and certainly not the last 174 years of history. — Maw

No it isn’t but I mean, where’s the revolution? Seems further away than ever before.

It is exactly such situations that offer struggle. Humans are built to engage in struggle. — universeness

This is bad faith.

Because since 1848, we’ve seen great strides in the whole Marxist revolution working out?

↪180 Proof So what, if that is the result of people's voluntary actions?

There's nothing wrong with destroying the village if all the villagers voluntary want it to be so. — Tzeentch

If the village is hostile to the villagers, then certainly one wouldn't want to expose more villagers to the village.

But not moral.
— schopenhauer1

Just like preaching against procreating —> species extinction (auto-genocide).
— 180 Proof

Without getting into desirability, mankind going extinct as a result of individuals' voluntary choice not to procreate is not immoral. — Tzeentch

:up: Yep, answered pretty much how I would.

Hey like I always say, I'm all for antinatalism. The faster you people drop dead without reproducing, the better. — Streetlight

Well, thanks for tempering that. I really appreciate your benevolence.

If there are Marxists who also believe in inevitable capitalism, then I imagine they are too busy trying to square one belief against the other ever to get busy procreating. — Cuthbert

You would think.

Do Marxists still exist? — Noble Dust

I've seen self-reported ones here and elsewhere.. Now, if that is actually the case in action, thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes outside of the forum in a very theoretical setting, I don't know.

It's not murder it'd just be delayed antinatalism. — Streetlight

You handle disagreement very well I see.

because they don't think that progress is impossible. — Jamal

But then aren't the children being used to promote a cause? If you believe in deontological ethics surrounding the idea of not using people as a means, this is problematic. Also, if Marxism is the closest ideal society, there is no proof that Marxism is closer to any kind of fruition than any other time. Marxists are acutely aware of the plight of the worker. It would also be problematic to put more workers into a world that isn't even close to achieving the ideal social setup (according to Marxists at least).

After the capitalists, after the liberals, the antinatalists get the wall after the revolution. — Streetlight

Glad to know Marxism has overcome the tendency towards Stalinist and Maoist style "reeducation" and mass murder policies...

It is intractable. The Marxist revolution is no closer to fruition then it was when Lenin and crew tried it (poorly) over 100 years ago.

But not moral.

Maybe aliens will show up and give us all little ray guns that can grow a cheeseburger into the size of a house thus solving world hunger. You don't know. — Outlander

Yep.

Read the Schopenhauer quote again by what I mean by existential boredom.

as long as I have access to some people I like and find interesting and some media to create for myself and others. — Bylaw

Your answer here contradicts your main point. The “need to create” is also just repackaged wording of the same thing. If you have a need that is behind mere survival or getting more comfortable, that is a form of boredom, albeit existential.

-You seemingly define "doing good" as preference fulfillment while I view this as shallow. I think there's a deeper level to a person beyond one's preferences. I don't feel obliged to help the alcoholic acquire drinks or the disabled facilitate their own internalized ableism. — Moses

I never said that my ethics is preference fulfillment. I did have a previous thread that discussed the idea that if this was agreed as moral then this world is morally disqualified from the start. However, this world is also morally disqualified from the start because by its nature we are using people, so pick your poison.

What grounds dignity? IMHO not anything in nature, not anything in the material world. You ever see a man in a wheelchair with spit dripping out of his mouth as he takes 30 seconds on his name? We could go on. Nature doesn't ground dignity. Neither does reason. That needs to be transcendental. Do pigs have dignity? Then why do humans if humans are just animals? Exodus 4:10 provides a grounding of dignity. — Moses

EDIT: I can't tell how you ground morality: Human reason? Nature? From where does it find its source. You say that people need to be valued in and of themselves but I don't know from where you reach this conclusion. — Moses

To me, it doesn't matter where it's grounded. You can simply base it on the hypothetical imperative:
IF
you believe it is wrong to use people and cause unnecessary, inescapable suffering on someone else's behalf
then
what follows is antinatalism.

You don't get it. It isn't about me. It's about making things better and life is good. Morality can conflict with one's personal wishes so this isn't about what I want. It's just about the good. — Moses

This seems like paternalism at its worst. If the universe was devoid of people, so what? If God had no one to foist "life, the game of" onto, so what? Will he pull a zombie resurrection and then scold everyone for not procreating and continuing his plan? But God wills it right? But he doesn't, YOU will it. You can will to not procreate. Good doesn't matter if no one is here to be good or bad. And I don't know what disambiguated "Good" is. However, using people to me is not good.

By dignity here I mean that harming a person to see X outcome come about (overcoming some struggle to build character, build empathy or whatever else you choose), is indeed using people as a means to some ends and that means precludes the person qua person. When someone doesn't even exist yet to have wants or needs, creating suffering wholesale, for no reason outside of a pet project (the OUTCOME.. character building, or what not), is thus overlooking the person for the thing you want to see from the person. It is then post-facto couched as something that was "good" for the person.. But it was UNNECESSARY as that person didn't NEED to suffer FROM THE START. So no.

yet instead they prefer to stay, suffer and push their decrepit view onto other people. — M777

Yet antinatalists LITERALLY don't do anything to ANYONE. Pushing a view versus pushing a whole life onto someone else. Let's see which one profoundly affects someone ELSE more.

What if I just don't care that life guarantees suffering? — Moses

Well, I'd say the suffering has to be qualified..
As you said:
Can it be consented? (No)
Is it trivial suffering (No)
Can it be escaped (no)

Then it is certainly not moral to put this upon someone else.

What if I don't view all suffering as bad? — Moses

Then you are simply using people because suffering is the basis for ethics. If not suffering and it is another X reason, I can only see that as using people.
"You need to learn X thing".. is YOUR pet project above and beyond the dignity of the other person (dignity as represented by not seeing them suffer for X cause, thus using them).
And nobody needs to learn anything a priori.

Suffering can be a great teacher. — Moses

Then you are using people to bring about some messianic cause of yours (to teach people X).

Morality should not be based on USING people to see some ends come about. Already disqualified.

Suffering allows one to empathize. — Moses

Even if this is true, CAUSING someone to suffer so that they can empathize is wrong. It is moral paternalism in its worst sense to believe that YOU are here so that you can bring ANOTHER PERSON into the worlds so that THEY can produce X outcome that YOU want to see out of them. No.

Life is wrong to start irrespective of circumstances. Procreation itself violates the dignity of the person born into a game of comply (must learn to play the game at least well enough) or die. It also puts them into a state of guaranteed suffering. None of this is moral to create for someone else. So..

Why do people have children? — Agent Smith

Many bad reasons one of which is the messianic impulse to be the arbiter for creating someone else a game of overcoming obstacles. No one needs to be born for X reason.

There is no need for anyone to have to experience anything. There is nothing wrong with the state of affairs of”no person”.

more fundamental animal facts about life. — M777

Morality out of bad faith. The animal can’t help but do. Humans have the burden of choice, reflection, analysis.

I was simply stating philosophy often questions what is often taken for granted as just true because it is long held belief. Argument from tradition or authority. But long held assumptions should be questioned. Socrates and justice or beauty or good.

Unexamined tradition = procreation is good, necessary, or acceptable
Examined analysis = procreation maybe not so good

Yeah I don’t need to go into every argument I’ve ever made.

Philosophy isn't for an answer but to critically analyze assumptions and givens.
Critically analyzing givens often take the form of "What is commonly held as good, might not be". For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop.

It can help you develop a worldview.. how things operate, what to focus on.. Thus, if procreation is bad, what are the implications of this.. What is it about life that makes procreation prohibitive. What does it tell us of ethics.

Argumentation is thus going to involve people that challenge your views. This leads to a dialectic that can make the original view come into question or strengthen it because now the objection has been met with an even stronger defense that bolsters the view that much more. The power of dialectic is the possibility of exploring all the potentials for flaws and all the rebuttals to those purported flaws revealing that they perhaps weren't flaws but simply objections based on misunderstanding, prejudice, or ignorance. Sometimes arguments can reveal people arguing out of bad faith. They have no desire to get to a resolution, just trolling. Ad hom and red herrings will be indicative of this. General snarkiness generally precludes a free flowing dialectic.

There is also the trend to view quick quips as good philosophy. Economy of words is advisable, but they don't take the place of careful argumentation. You can only get away with quick quips a few times before the style reveals not much thought behind the attempt at being clever. It is often couched as "too cool for school" but may be hiding a lack of any interesting thoughts on a particular subject. You can only fool people for a short time with the quip-only responses.