Yeah I'm having a hard time finding a word that fits who I'm specifically talking about.
Broalist or just plane Jacobin seems the best.
The only argument I might make against that is Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was Governor of Virginia, Ambassador to France, Secretary of State and Vice President. And that doesn't include writing the Declaration of Independence.
I appreciate these thoughts, again. I'm not a marxist (I mainly disagree from the start, don't think the Historical Materialism analysis is the be all end all) but I think a lot of his ideas are great and extremely useful for analysis society.Who knew you were a Maoist-Third Worldist!
I understand what you mean and it's something that has been debated a long time in the first world's left (because what else do we do but debate things since the 70s?). The problem is that socialist movements have always historically arisen in areas on the global periphery because the first world's workers essentially have radicalism chopped off at the knees by government programs and unions, which get them a relatively comfortable life, which most people are fine with stopping at instead of pushing for total power as the end goal. But these movements have constantly failed since they tried to leapfrog capitalism into socialism, which probably can't really be pulled off. It was a worthwhile attempt on the part of the oppressed, exploited, colonized, and so forth but doesn't really accord with Marxist logic, since socialism comes out of capitalism. That's one of the main reasons why socialist movements kept ending up turning into brutally deformed workers' states. So from that perspective - the idea that socialism has to come out of an advanced capitalist system first - I think that's part of the reason why there's a lot of focus on first world workers.
I think there's also still too much of an attachment to the old communist movements. Socialists are supposed to be critical and self-critical, but too often that turns into apologism instead of rational inquiry. I think it's undeniable that globalization has caused a great reduction in poverty across the world; I also think, however, that it is undeniable that there are massive infringements on labor rights in countries that are rapidly industrializing; and as a socialist I also obviously believe that capitalism is exploitative of workers (although obviously capitalists will disagree), and I would prefer to see a globalization that doesn't benefit the proletariat secondarily but primarily by giving them control over the means of production. I think the fact that world revolution seems further away than it's ever been has caused some Internet Communists to flip their mindsets to defending anything that could be leftist, including bourgeois and petite bourgeois social democratic policies from the pre-neoliberal age. I mean, Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, much less a communist, but he was latched on to because what the hell else is there right now.
So yeah, they're not perfect, and we've got work to do building a new socialism. But thankfully there's always a diversity of opinions on the far left.
edit: Ha, I hadn't even seen that Maoism-Third Worldism already got mentioned by the time I finished typing this.
How about every incumbent president? Easily more qualified.The only argument I might make against that is Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was Governor of Virginia, Ambassador to France, Secretary of State and Vice President. And that doesn't include writing the Declaration of Independence.
Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas and America, US Senator, and Secretary of State.
But that's still overwhelmingly qualified. I'm just a stickler.
what does this even mean
NYCMetsfan said:I'm a capitalist and probably like the German model the best IMO
Social market economy
How about every incumbent president? Easily more qualified.
Maoist third worldist? This is the basical liberal argument, not socialist or Maoist
And you're not really addressing my point. I've not said they don't have concerns. I'm saying the socialists are inconstant by actively, in their professed policy and political goals, choosing better off people at the expense of the worst off because they tend to relate more. In many cases they actually castigate and threaten these poor workers (as in low-income).
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139718/bernie-sanders-trade-global-poverty
It's a reference to Hillary not being in favor of amnesty for children from refugee families that were fleeing Central America; IIRC she told Christiane Amanpour a few years ago that kids shouldn't get the ability to automatically stay in the US or something like that, but I think she backtracked on that earlier this year.
Throw an "ist" on the end of "social" and I'll shake your hand.
Am I the only one who doesn't really think it was that bad for the Clinton campaign? No one is getting indicted. Sure, the FBI director said some shit, but I think these things were already baked in. I feel like this could have gone a lot worse. The Obama/Hillary event over shadowed it. He "vouched" for her. (insomuch as that matters?)
We knew this was going to come out and I don't think it was that terrible.
Am I the only one who doesn't really think it was that bad for the Clinton campaign? No one is getting indicted. Sure, the FBI director said some shit, but I think these things were already baked in. I feel like this could have gone a lot worse. The Obama/Hillary event over shadowed it. He "vouched" for her. (insomuch as that matters?)
We knew this was going to come out and I don't think it was that terrible.
It's a reference to Hillary not being in favor of amnesty for children from refugee families that were fleeing Central America; IIRC she told Christiane Amanpour a few years ago that kids shouldn't get the ability to automatically stay in the US or something like that, but I think she backtracked on that earlier this year.
But my problem is these movements are favoring these workers at the EXPENSE of the global poor.The problem with the Marxist left is that it doesn't really have the ability to make much reasonable change in terms of global wealth redistribution. Cuba and Rojava seem to be the only societies which have any interest in promoting such equality, and neither has much influence outside its borders. Socialist and labor parties within nations chiefly serve the workers of those nations. This isn't any kind of rejection of internationalism. Since the days of Thatcher and Reagan, the left has been on retreat. While class consciousness is slowly rising, it's tactically foolish to focus so heavily on international wealth redistribution when there is such heinous inequality within one's own nation.
I think there's a CDC advisory against that. I might catch poverty.Throw an "ist" on the end of "social" and I'll shake your hand.
I never realized the bolded before. Again its one of a lot of internal inconsistencies in modern socialist thought or at least their political goals
Can Obama just campaign every day
Ryan: GOP will hold hearings on Clinton probe
I think there's a CDC advisory against that. I might catch poverty.
I know exactly the type. Have a friend who is super prvieledged, grew up in Manhattan, PhD in literature, written for Jacobin a couple times, and every post on FB is a screed against global capitalism and neoliberalism. He's almost a charicature of the type
Well no fucking shit. I'm talking about their qualifications prior to running for president.How about every incumbent president? Easily more qualified.
Yeah, fuck privileged socialists. Educated academics who fight to keep the poor in poverty are so much better, because at least they're consistent with stereotypes of class.
@SteveDeaceShow 27m27 minutes ago West Des Moines, IA
Little Birdie just now: "Trump has never reached out to Cruz. I've never heard of a presumptive nominee not reaching out to closest rival."
@SteveDeaceShow 26m26 minutes ago West Des Moines, IA
More from my Little Biride: "I'm not sure Trump has reached out to any of his significant primary challengers. Yet he calls for unity."
@SteveDeaceShow 20m20 minutes ago West Des Moines, IA
1 more from Little Birdie: "I don't care what Trump says. It's like he doesn't want to win. He just wants to rant and rave."
What a small, petty man. Trump needs people like Cruz, Kasich, etc on his side yet he doesn't seem to give a damn.
I do hope thy put Comey (a fellow republican) on the stand.
I mean.....I shouldn't be surprised but I kind of am.
In all serious this is clearly a fishing exercise to get quotes from Comey that blast clinton they can use in ads.
I think there's a CDC advisory against that. I might catch poverty.
NYCMetsfan said:I have a love hate relationship with the concept of private property. I like it but it has limits the people/state should have final say but it should be subject to stringent requirements and socialism IMO, or what I've seen of it, often ignores this.
NYCMetsfan said:But my problem is these movements are favoring these workers at the EXPENSE of the global poor.
and I think any reasoned socialist even if they believe the end goal of socialism and communism would see the current system (with reforms) as directed that way and attempts to sever global ties by dismantling unions and transnational organizations (which is what the article wanted) and promoting nationalism is contrary to that goal and is more about score settling with the %.01 rather than ameliorating the inequality in the rich countries just makes everyone worse off.
The argument is these socialists aren't helping
To elaborate on that:That makes more sense. Thanks. I can't even keep up with all of her supposed offenses these days.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that unaccompanied minors who crossed the border illegally in a massive influx over recent months should be sent back to their native countries, but also that they should be reunited with their families which sometimes requires them to stay in the United States.
They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns about whether all of them should be sent back, the potential 2016 presidential candidate said in an interview with CNNs Christiane Amanpour. But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.
Clintons answer mirrored the Obama administrations tough position on how to deal with unaccompanied minors, who are entering the country through the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas at rates some have called a humanitarian crisis. Those minors are put into deportation proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security, but then are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services. That department looks for family members in the United States who can care for the children, although that does not mean they wont be deported later.
But faced with reports of misperceptions in Central America that minors have a free pass to stay if they make it to the United States, the administration is playing damage control, repeatedly urging parents not to send their children. Clinton made the same point.
We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesnt mean the child gets to stay, she said. So, we dont want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.
Clinton said the main reason minors are coming is to escape violence in their home countries, predominantly Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.
...
Clinton also spoke on CNN about immigration reform, which she supports, and about President Barack Obamas immigration record. She said Obama is in a difficult position because there are laws that impose certain obligations on him to enforce immigration law, and that those laws should change.
I would be very open to trying to figure out ways to change the law, even if we dont get to comprehensive immigration reform to provide more leeway and more discretion for the executive branch, she said.
I don't think you've really captured the argument well, whatever that is. If you can find a large group of elite leftists that are anti-trade in principle then fair game. But it's not incoherent to accept trade under the conditions that cambodian police don't arrest and shoot textile laborers with water cannons when they go on strike.The argument is these socialists aren't helping
I hope you realize that academic Marxism has traditionally been the only refuge of socialism in the United States? Even if Richard Wolff isn't playing the revolutionary and actively liberating workers in the developing world, their efforts are pretty necessary for promoting class consciousness and analyzing the successes and failures of past socialist experiments.
Yeah it's something that frustrates me a lot, because when you look at the map of the countries that went red in the twentieth century, these weren't a bunch of privileged kids sitting around on their laptops posting about revolution from a Starbucks or whatever, these were desperate people who were being brutalized by capitalists, imperialists, foreign exploiters and colonizers, monarchies, etc. - you can run the gamut. And socialism promised them that they could have power and democracy. That they, the people, if they just stood up and fought, could take down their oppressors. But without already having advanced economic structures in place, the only way to rapidly industrialize was to either make yourself a client state of the US (who at the time was allied with a bunch of white supremacist empires and colonizers and not exactly a bastion of workers rights when unions weren't pushing for them) or of the USSR (who were just as brutal but at least believed in you). And if you weren't going to let your people be exploited by the capitalists, you were going to have to adopt a centralized state to try to force your way through industrialization to get to the promised land. Sacrifice one generation to build another. And any time someone tried to do something more humane (like the anti-Soviet socialist uprisings in Hungary, or anarchist movements) the USSR was there to stomp them down because the USSR genuinely believed itself to be the bulwark against world imperialism. So a lot of the failure was what Marx would have thought: the material conditions weren't there for socialism to happen.
I think the hope is that now that we live in a world that is part industrialized/industrializing and post-industrial, we can move into a socialism that does not require those kind of actions, but since there's no strong far-left anymore people will glomp on to whatever they can take to at least preserve the legacy of what's already been done by workers and unions.
I don't think he's referring to academics but specifically to socialists who are in favor of protectionism.
That said, I do also find the venom directed at people who don't want to go along with "realistic" and "pragmatic" liberal solutions to everything uncritically really bizarre, and there's been a lot of that in PoliGAF recently. People spitting on "idealists" etc. Without idealists there'd never be advancement in anything since they push the overton window and come up with the theories that allow the more cynical types to work within that space. (Classical) liberalism was once the revolutionary underdog going up against the big, established, realistic philosophies and governmental systems. Why not just try to make progress within that framework? Bunch of rabble-rousers!
The heart of my issue with socialism is that... I think it's kind of missing the point? Selling labor for capital is not an inequitable relationship, because of the subjective nature of value. You value your labor less than your employer values the money they pay you, and thus both parties profit. This relationship becomes broken with desperation and circumstance force people to deliberately sell their labor for sub-worthy wages, which is a problem much more easily fixed with the current welfare-capitalism solution than by upending the relationship people have to the means of production. And not just because it's repeatedly proven itself to be a bitch of a transition.
And that's not even looking at NYCMetsfan's probably accurate point that in practice, a lot of socialists are more concerned with screwing the rich than helping the poor. Admittedly, the argument there is that by screwing the rich they ARE helping the poor, but generally it's not nearly that clean.
People aren't pushing against idealists, they're pushing against ideologues. Ideologues get nothing done and just like the smell of their own farts. Idealists are perfectly fine, not every idealist is an ideologue.
It's like they learn nothing.
I mean we're all shitting on Trump for saying something about Saddam, but this is just like the 90s all over again. They can't actually be this dumb to repeat all of Gingrich's mistakes.
They are so unbelievably self absorbed into the right wing echo chamber that they can't see the forest through the trees. They KNEW that Clinton broke the law because EVERYONE they talked to said she broke the law and ALL of the news they watched and read said that she broke the law. So when all of a sudden she is not indicted, their immediate and (in their warped view of reality) rational view, the FBI must have been corrupted. Thus, since everyone they talk to want it to happen, they decide they need to investigate the FBI.
The right wing echo chamber has done more harm to the GOP than anything else. Thank god Bernie's not the nominee so we don't have our left wing version of Fox News like he wanted.
We do but it's not on TV
That's an imaginary distinction. Sanders and Warren constantly get flak for being overly idealistic, simply for proposing solutions more radical than the Democratic party line.
I'm not sure I've seen anyone here criticize Warren for anything, let alone being too idealistic. Sanders gets flack because his proposed solutions to the problems are terrible and he has zero interest in making the numbers work or proposing how he would really get them passed at all, which is a legitimate cause for concern when his best answer was "I'll get a bunch of college students to protest and then it'll happen".That's an imaginary distinction. Sanders and Warren constantly get flak for being overly idealistic, simply for proposing solutions more radical than the Democratic party line.