Migration is the inevitable cost that West should pay for fucking up the other countries throughout recent history(and I don't only mean via wars of course). — dimosthenis9

Let's look at what have been the largest refugee crisis in the World:

They have been:

1. WW2 in Europe (11 to 20 million)
2. The Partition of India (14 million)
3. The Bangladesh Liberation war (10 million)
4. The Soviet Afghan war (6,3 million)
5. Syrian Civil War (6,7 million)
6. Venezuelan Refugee Crisis (6 million)
7. The Korean War (5 million)
8. War in Indochina -wars in Vietnam, Cambodia (3 million)
9. Yugoslav civil war (2,4 million)
10. Great Lakes refugee crisis (Rwanda)

Of these basically 4, 5 and 6 are ongoing crises. But looking at the list it's not so evident that it's the West that has created all these problems. With basically Afghanistan (and Iraq, which is later) you could argue that, but for example the Venezuelan refugee crisis has happened because of Venezuelans themselves and the economic policies the ruling regime has implemented. To argue that the West is behind everything that happens simply isn't the case. You can do something, assist, have fair trade policies, but inevitably the countries and people have to solve the issues themselves. And when you look at the list, some countries have solved their problems.

I only need to look at the situation in the country I live in, and I see that democracy doesn't work. — baker

Just remember what the alternative is: authoritarianism. It is just like the alternative to individual freedom is regulation, control and supervision by some authority. Nothing in between.

I think that what matters most for a functioning society is that people (everyone, those in positions of power included) are honorable, regardless of what the officially declared system of government is. — baker

I think that people are quite similar in every country. The vast majority are honorable, decent and abide the rules of the society and in every human population there is the fraction of people who are unsocial and those who are criminals. It's not an issue of individual character. The problem is that people are highly adaptable and do adapt to situations where the society doesn't work. When it doesn't work, people adapt to the reality. It's best explained by an example:

My wife is Mexican and I've been many times in Mexico and know her relatives and friends. They are basically similar kind of people that Finns are and the cultural differences are in the end basically just small nuances. Yet the two countries are totally different with huge parts of Mexico having been collapsed into total anarchy and lawlessness. I try to explain the situation to Finns by telling that Finland would be similar - if criminals could do just whatever they want and the police wouldn't operate at all or would work with the criminals. Quite quickly the trust in the police and in officials in general would erode and social cohesion would take a hit. It would become similar to Mexico. That hasn't happened here, so the people, even the Mexicans living here, do trust the Finnish police. And Finns participate in various associations as eagerly as they take baths in saunas, so democratic participation comes naturally.

(Reality in Mexico, a town's whole police department was arrested after the killing of a mayoral candidate. Even the tourist guides warn of ever approaching the police.)


I think it's the societies themselves, which mold people to behave in a certain way. And how, why, societies change is the crucial part. How they change for the worst is the crucial issue. Key factors are the basics services any state should provide. The most basic issue that the state should give is the most important: safety of it's citizens, the monopoly over violence as Weber would put it. The argument for keeping borders intact and letting people in who have permission is a similar issue to this.

Here the crucial factor is the military and the security forces. Comparing the Finnish and Mexican armed forces and police forces and you find a difference similar to the large Atlantic ocean separating the two countries. The worrying signs of what is happening in the US make me really wonder how bad is it there.

In September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, Elliot Ackerman, an ex-CIA paramilitary officer writing about the War on Terror, makes a note that is in my view notable and important. He writes about the US armed forces in this way:

For now, the military remains one of the most trusted institutions in the United States and one of the few that the public sees as having no overt political bias. How long will this trust last under existing political conditions? As partisanship taints every facet of American life, it would seem to be only a matter of time before that infection spreads to the U.S. military. What then? From Ceasar's Rome to Napoleon's France, history shows that when a republic couples a large standing military with dysfunctional politics, democracy doesn't last long. The United States meets both conditions. Historically, this has invited the type of political crisis that leads to military involvement (or even intervention) in domestic politics. The wide divide between the military and the citizens it serves is another inheritance from the war on terror.

Do notice the reference to "partisanship tainting every facet of American life" and to "dysfunctional politics". Ackermann doesn't even have to argue for why he sees it like this, it's quite common knowledge. That the US military has had to state publicly that it basically accepts the election results and will work with the new administration is in my view a warning sign of things not being normal. And so is the text above written in the magazine published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

In my view the US is on a dangerous path, that easily could blow up again. All it take is an economic downturn, a monetary crisis or both. The immigration issue will just add to this as it will keep the sides in their "tribes". Because I see now examples of tensions easing out and things getting back to normal...whatever that was.

Viruses are alive when they have a host. Meme's aren't alive. If they would be alive, then basically "Ideas" would be alive.

Yes, ideas, the classical name that social sciences (and philosophy) has used for the phenomenon, but the natural scientist Richard Dawkins in his hubris decided to promote a more 'biological' way (as he doesn't hold social sciences in great respect).

Really? When has AOC, or any Democrat, put themselves in a situation where they have to debate someone on the other side, or not on any side as they now exist in the U.S. (the number of independents now outnumber both Reps and Dems), like Maher, Rogan and Rubin? Will AOC accept the invitation of Maher to be on his show - doubt it — Harry Hindu

.
Why do something that might make you look bad, get you into trouble, and in the current American political climate you don't have to do?

Even some Trump supporters felt disappointed when their hero backed off from having a debate with Bernie (which, now knowing the guy would been a disappointment). But then why would Trump do it? Attacking a caricature of the opposing politicians seems to be all what you need to do, not have a debate about actual policies with them. Or then trying to get points from being 'viciously attacked'.

Just think about this thread. In a way proof of it.

What's the use of discussing a problem if no workable solution is in sight, or worse, when there's reason to believe that there is no workable solution at all? — baker

It never will be perfect, but democracy has worked up until now somehow. I guess the point is to notice the vicious-circles where can really go downhill compared to those times that were just "more restless" than others. In my view open discussion in a democracy upholds the system. Democracy is the best safety valve we have. It's also the best way we have to legitimize the state as not many of us believe in monarchs having been given the rule by God.

Worth doing something about it, at least getting informed, wouldn't you agree?

That is, if a vicious regime in South or Central America is causing a refugee crisis even a thousand miles to its North, the US and the other affected countries can, should, and we're coming to must, say to to the offending regime that they get their house in order now or their neighbors will put their house in order for them now - details for another discussion. — tim wood

The problem is that the US only threaten of making more of a mess, instill more disorder, it simply cannot threaten to get countries that are verge of collapse to "into order".

And since the US has only one nation at it's southern border and the level of engagement with this country is at the level of "We'll build a wall and you will pay for it", where the country correctly gave the finger to such idiotic nonsense, then it's totally understandable that things don't work. In fact, Trump's famous election promise of 'Building a wall and Mexico paying for it' is a perfect example of the rhetoric that is purely focused on the domestic voters without any thought being given into it actually working as real foreign policy. No thought is given for the idea to actually to work on another sovereign state. It is pure show for an eager audience.

This approach obviously won't work in Europe, unless by combined European pressure against, e.g., countries like Syria. — tim wood

Again, Syria is already under sanctions. In fact, Belarus is already under EU sanctions, so there already is combined preassure.

Since October 2020, the EU has progressively imposed restrictive measures against Belarus. The measures were adopted in response to the fraudulent nature of the August 2020 presidential elections in Belarus, and the intimidation and violent repression of peaceful protesters, opposition members and journalists. The EU does not recognize results of the Belarus elections, condemning them as neither free, nor fair.

A total of 166 individuals and 15 entities are now designated under the sanctions regime on Belarus. These include Belarusian President, Alexandr Lukashenko and his son and National Security Adviser, Viktor Lukashenko, as well as other key figures of the political leadership and of the government, high-level members of the judicial system and several prominent economic actors.

This of course may well be the reason just why suddenly there happens a refugee crisis on the Belarussian-Polish border.

And do note it's not the countries that have the refugee problem. In them creating a refugee problem might be one strategy to win the war (which in rather ugly way seems to be what is happening in Syria), but wars, crime and poverty creates on it's own these problems naturally. It's more about those transit countries that can create a problem. And of course in the case of Libya, it is doubtful that the country with two governments fighting each other can perform the basic task of border control as other countries in the first place. The plight of the refugees is real, but so is that they are sometimes pawns in a political game between countries. Admitting both can make it difficult to come up with simple solutions that can be used as political slogans.

The liars, propagandists, manipulators are simply very good at what they do, and as well undertake their efforts with corporate strength and purpose. — tim wood

I agree. And now thanks to the way media has been reorganized by social media and the internet. The much hated "mainstream media", the journalism that intended to be non-aligned and objective, isn't the gatekeeper anymore and media seems to go back to the classical times of the 19th Century "Yellow Paper" journalism and people following the media of their own echo chambers. It seems to work so well.

Can't believe he'd follow a coward like Trump, but it's not my party. — James Riley

Dan Crenshaw? He has criticized Trump's actions on Jan 6th and basically for the ex-soldier Trump "isn't the Devil, but isn't Jesus either". I think that is actually a very representative attitude of how Republicans really think of Trump, when you toned down the hype.

Never underestimate the tribalism of US politics (and how that tribalism is instigated and perpetuated by both sides). The vast majority of Americans put their party before the consistency of their values, just as the politically oriented media shows them. And they just love the politicians who make the other side fuming in anger and NEVER, ever agree that the other side would have a point. That would be like giving your little finger to the devil. And naturally Trump makes democrats and other pinko-liberals like those in Hollywood absolutely crazy. For many that is the real thing they like in Trump.

I learned the tribalism actually when Obama came into power. During the Bush years, the democrats and left-leaning media were in my view totally correctly pointing out the illegalities of the War on Terror. But when Obama came into power and basically continued the same policies, they all fell silent. Totally silent. Suddenly such investigative reporters like Seymour Hersh didn't continue reporting on the War on Terror. He uhh...had some other book to write. That Obama permitted the killing in a drone strike a 16 year old American citizen who hadn't done anything else than had been borne to his father (who had radicalized only after being tortured in an Egyptian prison, and then himself been killed by a drone strike), was hardly reported. Did not stir up a debate on how even American nationals ought to be treated. And all that time Afghanistan was getting worse and worse. Many become suddenly defenders of their side when in power and "understand" things that if it was the other party in power, would be totally against.

If there are others, they need to stand up and push back. — James Riley

I think Mitt Romney is another of those rare Republicans.

Again, I'm hoping that local politicians here don't mimic the ways of US politicians. The Media surely tries to...

I can't imagine being a Holocaust survivor listening to all these equations. :roll: — James Riley

They tend to be old and rare these days. When you make an international investment here, they don't ask anymore if you have participated in the holocaust or not anymore (something obviously that American legislators had successfully pushed forward earlier in Europe).

These people are still colleagues regardless of the fact they represent different interests — Benkei

...and should be terminated for harassment or?

Double standards is the other name for politics.

And then the reality check of what the true policies are:

President Joe Biden, concerned that gasoline prices at a seven-year high are stoking inflation in America, has called on the 23-nation alliance (OPEC) to turn on the taps and bring down crude prices.

But perhaps a response to this more in line with COP26?

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates signaled OPEC+ will continue raising oil output cautiously and won’t bow to U.S. pressure to pump faster. - OPEC+, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, is currently increasing daily output by 400,000 barrels per month.

“That should be enough,” UAE Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei said in an interview in Abu Dhabi, where he’s attending the ADIPEC oil and gas conference.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and partners next meet on Dec. 2. Crude prices have climbed around 60% this year to more than $80 a barrel, with several energy executives and leaders such as Vladimir Putin saying they could get to $100.

Let's hope awareness continues to spread and that businesses, investors and consumers continue to make better choices so that environmental friendly products are no longer optional but necessary to survive as a company. — Benkei

People do make the link from the political leadership to the economic performance: if the economy is bad, it's the fault of the politicians. People don't make this link with the climate or weather... especially when it's trend that matters, not individual specific years.

It may be too much to ask (as people do take the climate and weather as an act of God), but should we start similarly check the performance of our politicians as with the economy?

That's when ordinary politics becomes religionized --- that is, sacred enough to kill for.. But Left and Right hold different things sacred. So a democratic society must somehow bow to all gods, and honor all belief systems, and avoid dishonoring any particular sacred cow. — Gnomon

I'm not sure if I'd call it to become religionized. In a way it's the opposite, people who believed in the government/politics/democracy having their faith in the system erased. So it's more like a religious person becoming an atheist. Revolutions happen because of desperation when people who have nothing to lose lose it. Hence it's not just that something dear is threatened. You can have a lot that is important to you threatened and you will tolerate it, if you have something more important to lose. Starting from things like your freedom or your life. A lot of people can tolerate dictatorships as they fear more what will happen to them and their loved ones. Hence you can have system where everybody doesn't believe in the system, but the system just carries on. Hence dictatorships can unravel very quickly basically without bloodshed when that fear evaporates away.

To resort to violence there simply is a firm conviction that dialogue doesn't work, nothing will change things without resorting to violence. If a person individually thinks so while nobody else agrees with him, he is a madman. If a group of people think so, they are terrorists. If a large part of the population think so, it's called a revolution or civil war.

In our day, even non-theistic religions like Fascism & Communism have become the "other gods" in some cases. That's because they demand the same kind of loyalty to nation or party, that used to be reserved for the gods of chosen people. — Gnomon

More like political discussion becomes a lithurgy, one basically has to declare one's true faith by following the lithurgy. It is a religion in the way that people aren't open to other ideas, they hold them as issues of faith.

Unfortunately, all too often, one extreme is more ruthless (don't play fair) than the other : e.g. the extreme patriotism of Hitler's National Socialism and Trump's America First ; or the impractical (extreme idealism) ideology of Communism.. — Gnomon

History remembers Hitler's brownshirts, the SA, yet history commonly doens't remember the Roter Frontkämpferbund of the Communist Party, or the other various paramilitary groups starting with the Freikorps.

(You didn't have only Nazi paramilitaries in Weimar Germany...before Hitler came into power.)


The problem usually isn't that one side uses 'extra-parliamentary' action and others don't, what is the likely event is that the democratic system simply disintegrates into using violence, election rigging and other unlawful means. It simply becomes "the new reality", the norm how political competition happens. In third world countries it's quite 'normal'. The worst option is that democracy is replaced by guns without any trace to a democratic system.

I think one canary in the coal mine is when you start to have far too many different flags in different marches, people with gear in order to participate in a riot and openly carried weapons in political rallies.

And due to the geographic divide will lead to the inevitable outcome of a more literal split. In other countries the political division is generally scattered in the US you can pretty much see borders in the map. — I like sushi

This is true. What is happening is that you are getting areas with vast amounts of either Republican voters or Democrat voters. Typically you can guess where the large cities are and what is rural area, yet in the US this is even more visible.

The two party system is a house of cards that seem to be laid in concrete by three ideas that Americans cherish as self evident truths:

1) The amazing idea that democracy would work through the machinations of the two political parties, inside from them in the "primaries" in Presidential elections, as the position of the president is given near mythical status.

2) The idea that any other "third" party will either not have any chance or will simply be a spoiler, which is enforced by a media that only focuses on the two parties. The parties at least tell they have a huge following, the DNC with 48 million and the GOP with 36 million members, which is quite a lot.

3) The instigation of political polarization and tribalization by the two parties has lead Americans to think that they are divided by the lines of these two parties. As the two parties are quite close to each other on many issues (as noted earlier by the quote from Gore Vidal by @Tom Storm), they cannot compete with different policy options, but simply portray the other party in the worst way and instill fear about the other. This leads to what some could say amounts to inciting political violence, but this also has the effect that it divides the opposition of the two-party system into separate camps. The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. A divided opposition to the two-party system will not be threat to the two parties.

It would be much like the current adminstration, except it will make liberals uncomfortable enough to say something because it will be honest about its depravity. — StreetlightX

Comes to mind the best reasoning given by Trump supporter why Trump should be elected in 2016. He said the following: "If Trump is elected, the media will do it's job and watch every move Trump makes. With Hillary they will be her lapdogs."

Some truth to that.

You may be right. Trump is a simple man. Really, really simple. One has to remind oneself about that.

Yep. True wealth creation comes from using leverage.

And not only for the rich. Same way the middle class becomes a middle class.

People have gotten prosperous in many countries with buying their home and then their children inheriting something from their parents. One of the reasons why poor countries stay poor is that the ordinary people cannot get a loan, banks don't loan to them and hence they cannot buy a house or a flat and are forced to live on a rental flat for all their life. You don't leave anything for your children when you have paid rent all your life and everything goes into simply feeding the family.

Or to say it otherwise, people are sentenced into povetry when they don't have the ability to take loans for buying a home or starting a business, and/or the loans aren't affordable to be paid back by normal income.

Some countries lure them and their money like a U.S. city giving Amazon a tax-free ride if they locate in town. The world is their oyster. I could go on. — James Riley

Not just other countries, you have the tax havens inside the US. Huge industry to hide the income.

Well, some call it tax planning. If it's legal, many people say it's just being smart and you are simply stupid if you don't take into account what is legal to do. To hell with it, I say. To hell with the deductions, all those bizarre ways you can decrease your taxes and with the complexity of taxation.

My view is that paying taxes and the tax system ought to be as simple, as transparent as possible so every bozo would understand it. Even better when it's automatic, that you only need to check that things are correct. And that avoiding taxes or doing anything else is simply a criminal issue.

I think one of the best improvements that happened here was that the tax official has to himself or herself to tax the person in the most convenient way for the taxpayer or otherwise the tax official is in difficulties. Earlier it was only up to the taxpayer to demand change to his or her taxation if their was a mistake or if the taxes hadn't been calculated in the best way possible for him or her. Hence a tax official could be sloppy as it didn't matter for him or her.

However, why is their money not paying taxes like all other workers? Withholding for SS, medicare, unemployment, income (state and federal), etc.? Can the money unionize? Go on strike against the billionaires and seek better working conditions? Make it's own investments? Vote? Etc. All independent of the asshole it works for? Just curious. Or is the money simply a slave? — James Riley

It's quite logical to pay taxes when either you get dividends or you cash out your investments.

If you own one stock you bought for 1 dollar and later someone is ready to 100 dollars for it, you will have that 100 dollars and make the 99 dollar profit only when you sell the stock...to that someone. Not when you are just holding on to it as then nothing has changed as you don't have income. And if it comes out that the whole company behind the stock was a ponzi scheme and in the end the actual prize is 1 cent or nothing, how would you think about paying taxes of a few dollars when it was valued 100 dollars?

It's actually quite similar to the farmer that barely makes a living and hardly makes an income after expenses equivalent to working at McDonalds, but if he would sell everything, the farm, the fields and the livestock he would be a millionaire. Oh but the farmer is so filthy rich because he has all that land! (Many of my neighbors in the countryside where we have a summer cottage have stopped farming and never wanted their children to carry on farming the estate for this reason.)

I didn't think it was strange. Putin is precisely the kind of charismatic, unconstrained 'strong man' Trump would see himself as aspiring to be. Since Trump scorned most conventional Western democratic politics, where else would he go for models? — Tom Storm

The most logical reason I can think of is simply appeasing to the populist crowd, but it simply doesn't make sense. To be tough on the allies and then to "make an openings" to those that see the US as a threat. Not actually a great way to go. You will have estranged allies and rivals that take advantage of you. But what else can such an inept politician do?

It simply wasn't normal. Yet what is noteworthy is the speed that the pro-Russia people were whisked away from the Trump administration.

Wonder what it's going to be like in the second Trump administration. That really would be the thing...

This scandal was spread worldwide, and though its dismantling will sound as a whimper in comparison to the fevered reporting of the big lie, the truth is nonetheless prevailing in the end. — NOS4A2

Uh, that actually could be seen that the Mueller Report didn't find similar things...

(AP/The Washington Times, April 22 2019) The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians and journalists, is officially debunked, according to a review of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page investigative report.

Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates.

Virtually all his information came from Kremlin intelligence, according to the dossier. Mrs. Clinton’s operatives spread the document to the Justice Department, the FBI and news outlets.

A Washington Times review shows that not one of his conspiracy charges 0-for-12 was proved true and most were outright rejected by Mr. Mueller. The Mueller report also puts to rest four other non-dossier conspiracy charges tied to Mr. Trump.

However, the Mueller report did not clear Trump totally, as we know.

Anyway, I watched Trump meet Putin here. Strange that the US President was a total toadie for the Russian President. It simply is bizarre.

End of story.

As I said, when there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to conspiracy, sometimes a duck is just a duck, and not a reasonable facilely. — boagie

I think the bombing of USS Liberty was a conspiracy.

So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Admin knew about. — Bylaw

The vast inspections done after the country was invaded actually showed just how successful Operation Desert Fox actually was under Clinton. But then Saddam himself kept the myth alive...and their were people keen to attack Iraq in the Bush Whitehouse. But prior to that (and the Gulf war), Saddam did had chemical weapons, yes. Not so much as Nazi Germany had during WW2, but still. And an nuclear program that would likely have produced a nuclear weapon if the Gulf war hadn't happened (even with the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor).

Plato's Parmenides character is not Parmenides. Uncovering the foibles of the primitive logic of opposites and pluralities and how this evolved from Parmenides to Plato is what reading Plato's Parmenides is mostly about. — magritte

I agree. Which makes the actual Parmenides interesting. Zeno's paradoxes are themselves interesting, highly popular and lead to math that surfaced far later.

And wasn't during this time the belief in Greece that all numbers were rational broken by the observations that not all geometric magnitudes can be expressed by rational numbers? Which also begs the question.

Everyone that doesn't share your views is a bogie. Or a bougie. We know.

No, it isn’t, because China and Vietnam rejected neoliberalism. So your statement to the contrary makes no sense, because it isn’t true. — Xtrix

Ok, I think you misunderstood me.

What I meant that this, China and Vietnam rejecting neoliberalism, is a very important thing to understand here. Basically China opening up and emerging to become the second largest economy from the size of the Dutch economy in the start of the 1980's has been the real driving force in globalization. However, as this, as you agree, hasn't been because of a neoliberal policy in China, it's wrong to argue that events in China (or Vietnam) have happened because of neoliberalism. It has been marketed in the West as a success of neoliberalism as the US has had this false idea that China opening up would bring also political change (and make it more like, uh, Taiwan).

Hopefully you understood my point. As I think you are open to real discussion (unlike some others).

Exactly right. — NOS4A2

And that's how democracy works.

Except that WWI did not "prove them wrong" because worker solidarity literally flourished in the wake of WWI like no other time in the history of the planet. — StreetlightX

After millions of workers had killed each other and rallied to the flag of their country in 1914 and not have gone on strike everywhere...as the labour movement had thought prior.

They are socialists to me. So-called “social” legislation and other mollycoddling adopted by governments these days are but the successive steps to a socialist regime, if they’re not there already. — NOS4A2

Well, for example the US Republican party has a long tradition of that. Just to name few examples from some Republican Presidents:

Ronald Reagan:

- signed into law the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. The act has been the most significant factor in recent growth of SSDI usage. The share of the U.S. population receiving SSDI benefits has risen rapidly over the past two decades, from 2.2 percent of adults age 25 to 64 in 1985 to 4.1 percent in 2005.

- with Native policy in 1983 instituted direct funding rights for block grants for the tribes and special assistance for small tribes to help build managerial capacities and also seed money to attract funding for economic development projects on reservations.

George W. Bush:

- instituted the most significant reforms to Medicare in nearly 40 years, most notably through a prescription drug benefit, which has provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs.

- Increased funding for veterans' medical care by more than 115 percent since 2001 and committed more than $6 billion to modernize and expand VA medical facilities, ensuring more veterans could receive quality care close to home.

So there you have your socialists, NOS4A2, Reagan and George Bush. And I think with a little looking in the net similar "socialist" laws are found done by Eisenhower, Nixon and older Bush.

And since your initial comment was to the effect that WWI somehow put a damper on worker solidarity — StreetlightX

LOL!

Talk about a desperate urge to find a strawman. But let's make it as simple as possible: PRIOR to WW1 the labor & socialist movement thought that the workers would unite against wars of the imperialists. THEN WW1 happened, which proved them wrong.

Understand now what I meant? Oh I forget, that isn't your agenda here, to listen what others say. Your just here to rant...

But it seems to me that leftists didn't abandon labor, both labor and the left were just beaten into the ground by the 1980s and 90s.

Obliterated. — frank

The left didn't abandon the organizations, but organized trade unions have not succeed in the US. The working class or people who think of them as being part of the working class do exist. That they haven't found a voice in the left is the problem. Usually the left has very crappy ideas how to fix problems.

I wonder if you get off on just making things up for fun or if you genuinely are completely ignorant of the fact that the interwar period was a literal golden age of worker power the likes of which have never been seen since. — StreetlightX

And that was after WW1. Perhaps something like the Soviet revolution had an effect on socialist ideas, you know. Otherwise, please inform yourself of the actual history before accusing others of making things up:

During the early twentieth century, the Second International, composed primarily of European socialist and labor organizations that sometimes included U.S. representatives, often declared its opposition to bourgeois and imperialist wars and discussed tactics for opposing such wars. Yet proposals for a general strike in the event of the outbreak of war were voted down and constituent groups failed to agree upon any other concrete plans of action to stop war. Following the cascading series of events that led European powers to declare war against each other in August 1914, labor and socialist organizations in belligerent countries found themselves in a conundrum. They opposed the war in principle, but had no unified plan for ending it.

The US is very, very different in this issue with things like mobsters running trade unions etc. The netflix documentary "American Factory" displays quite well the dismal position of the US workforce and the attitude towards labour unions in the country. Hence the differences are huge from country to country. For example in my country the vast majority of all in work belong to a trade union. For example all the officers in the Finnish Armed Forces belong to a trade union and believe me, they really, really aren't socialists.

A bit difficult to explain, but basically it is the leftist push on woke issues and emphasizing the causes of the "new left", which don't see the labour movement as so important. At least the populists and the right have successfully painted "the woke new left" to have abandoned the working (male).

Basically it's the phenomena like Trump having success with blue collar workers voters in 2016 or the labour voters who voted for the Conservatives because the party lead by Boris Johnson pushed for Brexit (and Labour was against it). At least Boris was smart enough to understand to be humble with these new "conservatives". Even here in Finland the traditional left has lost support to the populist "True Finns" party, which apart of it's anti-immigrant stance is basically quite centrist.

Yes. I was wondering if there is some way past that, but I think it would require a global government to ironically limit the ill effects of globalization. — frank

You don't need a global government, just few simple agreements between independent governments with ways to punish those that brake the agreement. Start from things like universal safety standards, work hours etc.

This is the real failure of the labour movement. Those idealists really thought at the start of the 20th Century that "all workers would unite", but then happened WW1 and the workers happily rallied to their flags killed each other. So perhaps those objectives or ideas of global solidarity were far too rosy, even if the salaries, work safety and work hours got improved (which is a huge thing, actually). Yet these, again, were fought in the national level, never on an international level. How these movements could cooperate at the international level has not yet happened.

And have to make the criticism that the political left has abandoned this classical support group and hence many in the working class have been lured by right-wing populism in many countries. Populism, of course, is extensively nationalistic in this view and naturally see's foreigners (and foreign workers) as a huge problem. Not something that can help here.

Easy to dissolve everything in the acid bath of cynicism. There’s a few specialists of that around. — Wayfarer

Let's look at that agreement. It's noteworthy to actually read those texts. They usually aren't thousands of pages as both countries have had to agree on every term and phrasing. And do tell a lot more than the media hype around the talks.

From the State department website:

1. The United States and China recall their Joint Statement Addressing the Climate Crisis of April 17th, 2021. They are committed to its effective implementation and appreciate the intensive work that has taken place to date and the value of continued discussion.

2. The United States and China, alarmed by reports including the Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report released on August 9th, 2021, further recognize the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis. They are committed to tackling it through their respective accelerated actions in the critical decade of the 2020s, as well as through cooperation in multilateral processes, including the UNFCCC process, to avoid catastrophic impacts.

3. The United States and China recall their firm commitment to work together and with other Parties to strengthen implementation of the Paris Agreement. The two sides also recall the Agreement’s aim in accordance with Article 2 to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C. In that regard, they are committed to pursuing such efforts, including by taking enhanced climate actions that raise ambition in the 2020s in the context of the Paris Agreement, with the aim of keeping the above temperature limit within reach and cooperating to identify and address related challenges and opportunities.

4. Moving forward, the United States and China welcome the significant efforts being made around the world to address the climate crisis. They nevertheless recognize that there remains a significant gap between such efforts, including their aggregate effect, and those that need to be taken to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. The two sides stress the vital importance of closing that gap as soon as possible, particularly through stepped-up efforts. They declare their intention to work individually, jointly, and with other countries during this decisive decade, in accordance with different national circumstances, to strengthen and accelerate climate action and cooperation aimed at closing the gap, including accelerating the green and low-carbon transition and climate technology innovation.

5. The two sides are intent on seizing this critical moment to engage in expanded individual and combined efforts to accelerate the transition to a global net zero economy.

6. The two sides recall their intention to continue discussing, both on the road to COP 26 and beyond, concrete actions in the 2020s to reduce emissions aimed at keeping the Paris Agreement-aligned temperature limit within reach. With that clear purpose, and anticipating that particular forms of cooperation will have the effect of significantly accelerating emission reductions and limitations, including in the form of specific goals, targets, policies, and measures, the two sides intend to engage in the actions and cooperative activities set forth below.

7. The two sides intend to cooperate on:
regulatory frameworks and environmental standards related to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the 2020s; maximizing the societal benefits of the clean energy transition;
policies to encourage decarbonization and electrification of end-use sectors; key areas related to the circular economy, such as green design and renewable resource utilization; and
deployment and application of technology such as CCUS and direct air capture.

8. Recognizing specifically the significant role that emissions of methane play in increasing temperatures, both countries consider increased action to control and reduce such emissions to be a matter of necessity in the 2020s. To this end:

The two countries intend to cooperate to enhance the measurement of methane emissions; to exchange information on their respective policies and programs for strengthening management and control of methane; and to foster joint research into methane emission reduction challenges and solutions.

The United States has announced the U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan.
Taking into account the above cooperation, as appropriate, the two sides intend to do the following before COP 27:

They intend to develop additional measures to enhance methane emission control, at both the national and sub-national levels.

In addition to its recently communicated NDC, China intends to develop a comprehensive and ambitious National Action Plan on methane, aiming to achieve a significant effect on methane emissions control and reductions in the 2020s.

The United States and China intend to convene a meeting in the first half of 2022 to focus on the specifics of enhancing measurement and mitigation of methane, including through standards to reduce methane from the fossil and waste sectors, as well as incentives and programs to reduce methane from the agricultural sector.

9. In order to reduce CO2 emissions:

The two countries intend to cooperate on:
Policies that support the effective integration of high shares of low-cost intermittent renewable energy;
Transmission policies that encourage efficient balancing of electricity supply and demand across broad geographies;
Distributed generation policies that encourage integration of solar, storage, and other clean power solutions closer to electricity users; and
Energy efficiency policies and standards to reduce electricity waste.

B. The United States has set a goal to reach 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035.

C. China will phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work.

Recognizing that eliminating global illegal deforestation would contribute meaningfully to the effort to reach the Paris goals, the two countries welcome the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. The two sides intend to engage collaboratively in support of eliminating global illegal deforestation through effectively enforcing their respective laws on banning illegal imports.

The two sides recall their respective commitments regarding the elimination of support for unabated international thermal coal power generation.

With respect to COP 26, both countries support an ambitious, balanced, and inclusive outcome on mitigation, adaptation, and support. It must send a clear signal that the Parties to the Paris Agreement:

Are committed to tackling the climate crisis by strengthening implementation of the Paris Agreement, reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances;

Recall the Paris Agreement’s aim to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C and are committed to pursuing such efforts, including by taking ambitious action during this critical decade to keep the above temperature limit within reach, including as necessary communicating or updating 2030 NDCs and long-term strategies;

Recognize the significance of adaptation in addressing the climate crisis, including further discussion on the global goal on adaptation and promoting its effective implementation, as well as the scaling up of financial and capacity-building support for adaptation in developing countries; and Resolve to ensure that their collective and individual efforts are informed by, inter alia, the best available science.

Both countries recognize the importance of the commitment made by developed countries to the goal of mobilizing jointly $100b per year by 2020 and annually through 2025 to address the needs of developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and stress the importance of meeting that goal as soon as possible.
Both countries will work cooperatively to complete at COP 26 the implementing arrangements (“rulebook”) for Articles 6 and 13 of the Paris Agreement, as well as common time frames for NDCs.

Both countries intend to communicate 2035 NDCs in 2025.

The two sides intend to establish a “Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s,” which will meet regularly to address the climate crisis and advance the multilateral process, focusing on enhancing concrete actions in this decade. This may include, inter alia, continued policy and technical exchanges, identification of programs and projects in areas of mutual interest, meetings of governmental and non-governmental experts, facilitating participation by local governments, enterprises, think tanks, academics, and other experts, exchanging updates on their respective national efforts, considering the need for additional efforts, and reviewing the implementation of the Joint Statement and this Joint Declaration.

Yeah, at first glance I can say that the above is much more than a lousy Trump bullshit deal.

He was equating a massive transfer of wealth and power with “every advance the people have made in the last 20 years”. As is common, he confuses the state’s aggrandizement with that of their subjects. Insofar as socialism routinely pretends that state ownership is social ownership, his critics are not far off the mark. — NOS4A2

Democracy has this often resented feature that political movements do sometimes get their objectives and accepted by all sides. Hence if you refer to wealth transfers and social welfare nets being socialist, then both parties in the US (or parties in Canada) are all socialists. That hardly is the case. Yet when you look at how the UK, Finland or your country Canada actually spends the tax income (or the new debt), a lot of it goes into wealth transfers with systems similar to those implemented by Roosevelt and Truman in the US.

And so labor, which had become very effective and powerful in the UK and the US was left with nothing. — frank

And this is the important thing. Of course, one could naively think that this would be the most important issue for organized labour or the labour movement. Yet labour movements look out for their national workforces, not the way ideologically they say they would in old slogans (All workers unites and stuff...). Foreign workforces are the competitors who steal jobs!

The Chinese and Vietnamese rejected neoliberalism. So the example makes little sense. — Xtrix

On the contrary, it's the crucial building block here just why things are the way they are. Neoliberals praise free markets and free trade in the West while countries like China eagerly exploit the openings, but in no way endorse neoliberalism. And even if you look at various other South Asian "tigers" that endorse free market capitalism like South Korea or Taiwan, you can find them also having long term planned industrialization programs that basically started to bear fruit in the 1980's and onward. Not so as the preachers of free markets often declare just to let the "invisible hand" to invest where markets want.

The push came out of the corporate sector, who rallied together in the 70s very openly. The Powell memo is partly the catalyst. — Xtrix

And here you again with one narrative from the US, which put one memo from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1971 as the pinnacle thing here, which is eagerly promoted by leftist thinkers who want to have culprits to accuse. (Just looking at the actual memo just shows how things were viewed in the 1970s)

Again remember your own observation about China and Vietnam. The US centric view simply doesn't explain the globalization and the present "neoliberalism" of today. We aren't living in the 1950's where everybody else was either in ruins after WW2, still colonized or enjoying the fruits of the socialist experiment.

Globalization allowed liberalism to be disembedded. It was a tool for undermining labor. — frank

Exactly.

Opening the barriers for money and financial capital to move around freely and then have competition with labor costs basically undermined the previous system where labor regulation and wages were done at the nation level. To have global labor laws etc. simply wasn't as easy as opening the trade barriers or banking. And who would have an incentive to push through such a thing?

My point is that since you have such a multitude of different actors in this, it simply isn't so that all actors adhered to one "socioeconomic program" of neoliberalism. I doubt that the Chinese or Vietnamese leaders were preaching the same mantra as people in the US, but they were keen to have a growing export sector. But people usually just look at the issue from their own perspective or that of the "West". And of course it's the typical narrative of telling large scale events happening all because of one certain program of a few people.

That's because neoliberalism is not the same as globalization. Neoliberalism is a program involving deregulating industry, cutting taxes, and increasing privatization. — Xtrix

And what do you think has been the engine for globalization, for companies going off to other countries at ease other than the deregulation of industry, cutting taxes, making the trade barriers go away? Sorry, but having more trade has also made the World more prosperous.

Besides, a change that has happened all over the World isn't because one specific program (by Reagan and Thatcher). The changes have happened in China (that is still controlled by the CCP) and India, various countries lead by social democrats etc. It's a myth that there's this "neoliberal program" just like it is a myth that Universities have been taken over a program of the Frankfurt School: a broad loose change thought to be implemented by a small cabal that fits a specific narrative.

It’s a regretful quote. — NOS4A2

On the contrary. A Democrat with balls saying the truth. And of course, why wouldn't Truman be for the New Deal? Odd if he would be against it. Tells actually also a lot about the Democrats, in fact.

Except neoliberalism is a socioeconomic program that we've been living with for 40 years — Xtrix

Calling basically globalization a socioeconomic program isn't the way I would put it. But of course some want to see it as this "specific program" instigated by (whoever they don't like) to the entire globe. Anyone will do to be neoliberal, just if they are in power and the economy policy hasn't been the one in Venezuela.

Clinton and Obama were neoliberals as well, yes. — Xtrix

More precise would be to talk of Democrats trying to adapt to a neoliberal global economy.

But are they really Reaganites? Did they have the same discourse? Rosy small government speak?

Don't forget socialism. — James Riley

Harry S. Truman, October 10th 1952.

HA! That's perfect, @James Riley, absolutely perfect.