haha this sucks ass

"Socialism is the people! If you afraid of socialism, you afraid of yourself." - Fred Hampton

who gives a shit

• The Color of Money, Mehrsa Baradaran — 180 Proof

Heard wonderful things about this

Power

You still haven't explained the distinction you are making between the self and individual. — Harry Hindu

That's because I never made such as distinction, or said that we are defined by social interactions. I'm not sure how I can make it more clearly to you. Perhaps the only other analogy I can offer is that an individual comes to understand and speak a language through socialization, yet what she says isn't directed by some abstract societal force, or whatever concept you have in mind. She has agency to say what she ever she wants to say.

ok but please tell fishfry to do better.

Too bad you still haven't heard it. — fishfry

I literally commented about it over a year ago here. And 6 months ago we had this exact same conversation here, where even then I told you we had had this conversation before and that you routinely forget and bring it up, honestly are you OK? Do you have memory problems?

Today AOC voted to renew the PATRIOT act. [It was cynically buried in a larger appropriations bill]. So goes what passes for the left in this country. — fishfry

God damn, AOC, Ilhan and Tlaib voted against the bill, you are an embarrassment. Just log off and go away, please.

If the self is socially constructed, then how can you say that the individual has autonomy? What relationship does the constructed self have with the individual self? It seems to me that if what you are saying is true, then the constructed self would dictate the actions of the individual. — Harry Hindu

How did you come to understand and speak language? Behavioral norms? Ideology? Concepts? Where did you get food and water? How did you form an identity or character? Personality? Through a complete lack of social interactivity? With an absolute deprivation of other people? Did you pull your Self up like Baron Munchausen? No, the development of who you are is made possible only by being a social and natal being. This does not entail that your individual actions are dictated by some background collective as if you were a member of the Borg. I could digress into how socialization, material opportunities and lack thereof affect an individual, their character and actions, but that's unnecessary.

It means that if you get your news from MSM sources you're missing a lot. — fishfry

I get my news from a wide number of sources, but thanks for your concern. I've already pointed out in this very thread that mainstream sources such as the New York Times, CNN, WaPo, etc. ran stories about Obama's immigration policies, as well as the criticisms of it that came from immigration advocacy groups. You're like a broken record on this subject, it's the only thing you've talked about in the last year.

I see that focus as basing political thinking on false premises; i.e. some form or other of tribal thinking. — Janus

Nothing false or bad about building a political movement in order to support groups who have historically suffered from prejudice, discrimination, and disfranchisement and material privation.

Since identity politics is false, does it follow that the atomistic self is true? Well, of course not! — Janus

People who think identity politics is false might as well have been born yesterday, no understanding of history or politics whatsoever.

Here's what I would like to point out. Namely, that despite growing inequality, and hatred towards Boomers by my generation, that the rich still desire what the poor might as well desire too (please don't confuse this with trickle-down). They are neither malicious, nor alien lizards hoarding all the wealth in the world. And, if what they desire is the same as what one poor bloke may want, then the realization of that want is made easier by economies of scale and other deflationary tendencies that make goods cheaper and better, relatively speaking, than they were 10 or 100 years ago. — Wallows

Millions of Americans struggle to pay for medical bills and hundreds of thousands go bankrupt from it, but sure yeah they aren't that bad, in fact owning more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans is great.

It doesn't make sense to say that we don't own our selves in a world where we have plagiarism and copyright laws. What are those laws based on if not some atomistic view of the self? If we didn't have those laws, sure I could pass someone else's work as my own, but that would be wrong in the ontological sense, not in some moral/ethical sense. What about the right to have an abortion? Isn't that based on the idea that the woman owns her body? — Harry Hindu

That individuals have autonomy and agency is separate from the construction and development of a self, which is inherently social and socialized (which is a byproduct of a body). An atomistic self is as incoherent as private language, nevertheless specific languages exist.

Also, what is identity politics if the atomistic self is a false ontology? — Harry Hindu

Identity politics is predicated on the idea that the atomistic self is false.....

Curious how your adversary never defines a "self", which is the paramount issue of his argument

In addition to what Streetlight said regarding the awkward application of legalese to selfhood, any sense of self is natally given, so he's starting from a false ontology of an atomistic self.

It's tragic that I'm your only source of information about the world. — fishfry

What does this even mean?

First, if it's coming from college students who hold very little power or influence, particularly regarding political and social matters, then who cares? Second, in some of these stories, such as the incident at Oberlin and sushi, and Vietnamese banh mi sandwich, the truth is far more banal than the various publications, ranging from The Atlantic, The New York Times, and right-wing publications such as National Review and Breitbart led on. No one was demanding that these food be "banned" from campus. A Vietnamese student was disappointed that a cafeteria dish advertised as a traditional Banh Mi Vietnamese sandwich was made with the wrong type of bread, the wrong type of pork, and the wrong type of other fillings and that it was disrespectful to advertise it as such despite complete lack of authenticity. According to the original article from the Oberlin Review, several students who initially raised complaints wanted to meet and collaborate with the Oberlin dining service and cultural student organizations in order to rework the dishes. The way I think of it for myself, is if my school had 'New York Pastrami Sandwiches' but it was served on potato bread instead of traditional rye bread, I would seek to have it corrected. If someone unfamiliar with your cultural foods were given a very inauthentic version of it, you'd seek to have it corrected, surely. This happens across cultures. — Maw

Here is a new article on this exact story, how it was manufactured and framed as an apotheosis of whiny woke college students, despite being largly overblown at best, and shaped by lies at worst.

The Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America by Bruce Gibney

Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy VI
Baldur's Gate 2
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
Age of Empires 2
Xenogears
Resident Evil 4
Red Dead Redemption
Breath of the Wild
Super Mario Galaxy 2

I suspect my views would be more anarcho-capitalist — NOS4A2

That sounds like you're just choosing to ignore the problem then, if you admit that unregulated "free" markets inevitably cause runaway inequality, but you're against both regulation and fixing the structural problems of the market. — Pfhorrest

Yeah right-wing libertarians typically argue for capitalism on deontological grounds, fully understanding that the consequences of capitalism often don't benefit people (this is why libertarianism often goes hand-in-hand with virulant racism).

"Socialism" just means any system that avoids the consequences described in OP, of runaway wealth concentration. — Pfhorrest

I wouldn't loosely categorize Socialism as merely restraining the power of capital, as this doesn't necessarily strike at the heart of the power relations structured within capitalism viz., the relationship between an ownership class and a class of wage laborers. Otherwise, the capitalist class retains the power to disencumber restraints on capital and well...we all know what Marx said about Hegel's statement regarding history and repetition. Socialism requires overcoming the struggle between Capital vs. Labor, so that there is only Labor (or more broadly, the citizenry, or the people) that is in (democratic) control of Capital. To my mind, this would require restructuring ownership of means of production into worker cooperatives, and state ownership (within free, fair, universal democratic elections) of non-competitive industries (e.g. land, transportation, healthcare, education).

Marxism is old news.... It assumes that economic inequities are the result of intentional exploitation of the masses by an evil minority. — Gnomon

Except Marx's argument in Capital is that, under the basic assumptions outlined in a free market economy, a Capitalist system will inherently produce inequality because of the social relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the latter's drive towards profit in order to remain within the bourgeois class, not necessarily or exclusively the "intentionality" to exploit or immiserate.

Armed with this mathematical information, economists and politicians, plus national and world banks, can work together to tweak the economy to maintain a better balance — Gnomon

A new cri du cœur for rabble everywhere: "With mathematics (e.g. statistical mechanics) for us, who can stand against us?" — 180 Proof

Agree with the latter, not so much the former. The way to push for la revolución! is through mass movements and the politicians elected by them, not by a crossed-fingers faith in bourgeois economists, politicians and the...IMF.

Armed with this mathematical information, economists and politicians, plus national and world banks, can work together to tweak the economy to maintain a better balance. — Gnomon

Ah yes, just like with Climate Change the powers that be will totally happy to change the system they benefit from, for sure.

you gotta tell me how you like the Brown book. — StreetlightX

Finished it a few days back and really enjoyed it. Quite pithy, which I always appreciate. The chapters on the dissolution of the social and the political, replaced by an expanding private sphere was compelling. They are variants on themes I've heard before. I found the last chapter particularity intriguing with Brown's analysis that Capitalism dissolves moral values that would otherwise act as a conscience barrier restraining aggressive acts. With this nihilism in place it then opens a lacuna for nihilism, power as politics, viz., the Alt-Right, to rush in, which explains our contemporary political climate.

However, thinking about the final chapter more in depth, and in a historical context, the political violence in the USA has in fact decreased in the past 40 years. And it's not as if political history isn't abound with moral sublimation between colonialism, slavery, torture, genocide, etc., I'd have to think about it more, but I would say that a conscience isn't a given - which I think Wendy Brown somewhat presupposes here - something that is then subsequently eroded, by neoliberalism. Rather, a conscience is something to be developed, and neoliberalism works to ensure that it doesn't. There are more layers here than explain the political climate, rather than just neoliberal hegemony.

I've already read Capital twice, most recently last year, so I don't think I want to be part of a reading group, but I can chime in and offer my 2 cents

Like I say I find argumentum at linkum, or argument by flinging links at each other, tedious.There are sources out there to support pretty much everything. I have in fact read several credible articles supporting the idea that Trump has African-American and Hispanic support. I'd ask you to stipulate that I'm making that statement in good faith and good will. I don't feel like going out on Google and curating the links for you, which you could just dismiss anyway as being not from approved sources, or outright lies or whatever. I'm just choosing to not even start that game. — fishfry

My original response to this was deleted, but I do want you to know this is exceptionally pitiful.

And here's my source.

I do object to your statement that I'm making things up. That's a negative personal characterization and it's quite false. — fishfry

You stated that, "millions of blacks and Hispanics are doing much better in Trump's economy than they did in Obama's. You think they don't know that?" (my emphasis). Yet a dismal 4% of Black Americans and 19% of Hispanic Americans believe that Trump has been good for their respective communities (particularly given that Black unemployment rate was halved under Obama). So please explain to me where this substantive block of ethnic minorities are that believe Trump has been good for them. Because it seems impossible for anyone who "reads and does research obsessively", as you claim, to suggest as much, when it seems transparent to anyone keeping just a finger on political discourse that Trump has considerable issues with racial minorities (given, you know, all the racism).

Whimsical bullshit. Marxism is as failed as it was from the start, there is just a new generation that hasn't ever seen Marxism-Leninism in reality and hence the left can blissfully forget everything about all the failed experiments that all ended up in tragedy. — ssu

Marxism was also influential for late nineteenth and early twentieth century European political parties and American labor movements which fought for and obtained worker rights ranging from paid vacation, reduced working hours, safety regulations, etc. Ahistorical to suggest that the only politically reification Marxism actually achieved was through failed communist states, notwithstanding the fact that Marxism as a critique of Capitalism remains perennially relevant.

As for the economy, 40 years of neoliberalism has proven that it is not benefiting most Americans.

Hard to believe the GOP aren't heavily leaning into autocracy between this latest development and the several dozen GOP house members attempting to derail and impede the impeachment inquiry.

4% of Black Americans think Trumps been good for them and 19% of Hispanic Americans think Trump has been good for them @fishfry is just making stuff up

But its not that insisting morals play a role is naive - morals always 'play a role' - but that you simply can't play politics as a morality game. — StreetlightX

Maybe I'm missing something because I haven't been following all the posts here, but what would you call Sanders' political ascension?

I have this explanation for my politics:

Hillary was 100% correct when she said that half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables. Racist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic. It's a fact, I totally agree. About 30% of the American electorate falls into that category.

Now what the Dems and the left have NEVER been willing to ask themselves is: Who are the half of Trump supporters who are NOT in that basket of deplorables? Who are the lifelong social liberals, lifelong registered Democrats, who can no longer support what the Democratic party and the left have become?

I put myself firmly in that category. I stand for peace. The left now supports war. I stand for free speech. The left now stands for no-platforming and spitting in the face (literally, if you caught that news last week) of anyone who dares to disagree with them. I stand opposed to the illiberal, corrupt, warmongering left and the Democratic party they've taken over.

Ask yourself: If half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, who are the other half? The Dems won't ask themselves that question because to ask the question requires looking in the mirror at what they've become. — fishfry

I love how none of this explains your politics. Most teenagers today are more politically comprehensive than simply being anti-war and pro-free speech (although this would certainly explain many of your posts). You are just stomping on mud and pretending this forms a clearer image of what you stand for.

Scoop is that AOC will be endorsing Bernie at a rally in Queens on Saturday (and possibly Ilhan Omar and Tlaib)

Start with The Philosopher's Toolkit by Julian Baggini

really?

Again you show your arrogance quite well — ssu

Feel free to refute the counterpoints I provided! — Maw

So if there's nothing else I'm going to just continue to be arrogant on this subject.

I think it makes sense to get real and precise about what policies help people, which could very well be leftist options (in fact I think this is the case!) But introducing these leftist options after shaming many of the people they'd benefit, means they won't vote for them. so its a bad approach. I don't know why this controversial. — csalisbury

As I said, only about 25% of the voting population voted for Trump. Layer on the fact that a certain percentage of people within this segment will not vote for any Democrat whatsoever, and you start to get a fairly slim voting block, relative to the general voting population. Why then focus on or appease this voting block that is simultaneously become more irrelevant with time (given age and demographic shifts)? As you yourself point out, we should "get real and precise about what policies help people", which, as we both agree, are leftist policies, in order to organize and stimulate a voting block that is not only above Trump's voting block, but beyond Hillary's as well (which had about 4 million fewer voters than Obama did in 2008). There is simply no need to appease Trump supporters or moderate our condemnation of the policies they advocate, thereby normalizing them.

EDIT: And again, Trump supporters belittle and shame liberals in their own ways as well, and yet....crickets. Why isn't this a "bad approach"?

Also Maw I was really careful here so its frustrating when you bulldoze over it. I wouldn't have qualified population with 'voting' if I didn't understand the stats you posted. — csalisbury

Not sure what you mean here.

This is demanded by people who don’t want Trump to win. If you wish to encourage Trump to moderate his tone to pull in people leaning more in the other direction then you’re effectively in favour of Trump winning. — I like sushi

Sure, which is why no one is saying this, other than perhaps "Never Trumpers". Certainly democrats/liberals/leftists aren't suggesting that Trump moderate his tone and policy because they know he won't so why bother, and his supporters aren't about to encourage it either because it's precisely why they support him.