United States Politics Thread 46

[MacAnDàil]

There is of course a problem with racism and violence and this should be sorted with all 4 points identified by bradrn and many more, but that does not prevent there being other political issues worth discussing.

[Linguoboy]

Note that peaceful is the key word, because violent demonstrations are easily exploited by the right to discredit the left - as much as far left-wingers like to think that targeting capitalists' property is okay, property destruction is readily latched onto by the right and used as propaganda against the left.

The thing is the right will always accuse demonstrators of property destruction regardless how peaceful their demonstrations are--to the point that they will manufacture evidence as needed or even send in covert instigators (such as Minneapolis' infamous umbrella man--who was never arrested, btw) to create violence and destruction where it wasn't present before. Trying to craft a protest that will so perfectly satisfy right-wingers that it will be immune to their criticism is a complete mug's game. Moreover, it rests on the unproved assumption that the taint of violence somehow prevents demonstrations from accomplishing their objectives. It doesn't. Often it's the threat of greater violence which makes demonstrations effective at all. "You can deal with us reasonable people or you can deal with rioters. Your call."

[Travis B.]

Note that peaceful is the key word, because violent demonstrations are easily exploited by the right to discredit the left - as much as far left-wingers like to think that targeting capitalists' property is okay, property destruction is readily latched onto by the right and used as propaganda against the left.

The thing is the right will always accuse demonstrators of property destruction regardless how peaceful their demonstrations are--to the point that they will manufacture evidence as needed or even send in covert instigators (such as Minneapolis' infamous umbrella man--who was never arrested, btw) to create violence and destruction where it wasn't present before. Trying to craft a protest that will so perfectly satisfy right-wingers that it will be immune to their criticism is a complete mug's game. Moreover, it rests on the unproved assumption that the taint of violence somehow prevents demonstrations from accomplishing their objectives. It doesn't. Often it's the threat of greater violence which makes demonstrations effective at all. "You can deal with us reasonable people or you can deal with rioters. Your call."

This is certainly true, but we shouldn't be helping the right by giving them material to propagandize with ourselves. What we should be doing is limiting the ability for the right to incite violence or property destruction by shutting down and denouncing agents provocateur and making it very clear that such things are the work of rightists to incite trouble for their own purposes. Joining in property destruction just because some people are already doing it is exactly the wrong thing to do, and makes the job of the rightists easier.

[Linguoboy]

This is certainly true, but we shouldn't be helping the right by giving them material to propagandize with ourselves. What we should be doing is limiting the ability for the right to incite violence or property destruction by shutting down and denouncing agents provocateur and making it very clear that such things are the work of rightists to incite trouble for their own purposes. Joining in property destruction just because some people are already doing it is exactly the wrong thing to do, and makes the job of the rightists easier.

Privileged white people policing how poorer people protest (particularly POC) is a really good look on the left as well as the right.

How many street protests have you organised, btw?

[Travis B.]

Privileged white people policing how poorer people protest (particularly POC) is a really good look on the left as well as the right.

So we are more concerned about "tone policing" issues than the fact that rioting really does not look good for us? And this is not simply policing poorer people, this policing anyone - I remember back in the days of antiglobalization protests ages ago, where anticapitalists had the brilliant idea that smashing windows made good propaganda (it did not), and these anticapitalists certainly were not poorer people, since poorer people would likely not have the means to travel to these protests.

How many street protests have you organised, btw?

I have not organized any street protests, but I was involved a bunch of them when I was an activist back when. They were all peaceful. (People were arrested at a few of them, but that is besides the point.)

[Travis B.]

If anything, the assumption that poorer people, and especially POC's, can't protest peacefully looks bad to me, because it is essentially assuming the worst of such individuals, and saying that they should be allowed to riot because we shouldn't expect better of them, because they can't behave better than that.

[Linguoboy]

If anything, the assumption that poorer people, and especially POC's, can't protest peacefully looks bad to me

Good thing I wasn't saying that!

What I was saying that it's not up to people like you and me to dictate how other people protest. If they want to police their protests themselves to keep them completely peaceful, great. If they decide perhaps their energies would be better spent keeping themselves from being brutalised by police and other security forces, again, that's their call. And if they want to destroy some shit either because they think that'll bring their point home better than chants and blocking intersections or they're just that fucking furious about how this society has shat on them, once again, it's their call. We are not the ones putting our bodies on the line so we shouldn't be telling them what to do with them from the comfort of our keyboards.

Great, so you've marched in a few protests. So have I. That doesn't make us experts in how street protests work or what makes them most effective. So maybe consider taking your advice no one asked for and just sitting on it for now, 'kay?

[Travis B.]

If anything, the assumption that poorer people, and especially POC's, can't protest peacefully looks bad to me

Good thing I wasn't saying that!

What I was saying that it's not up to people like you and me to dictate how other people protest. If they want to police their protests themselves to keep them completely peaceful, great. If they decide perhaps their energies would be better spent keeping themselves from being brutalised by police and other security forces, again, that's their call. And if they want to destroy some shit either because they think that'll bring their point home better than chants and blocking intersections or they're just that fucking furious about how this society has shat on them, once again, it's their call. We are not the ones putting our bodies on the line so we shouldn't be telling them what to do with them from the comfort of our keyboards.

Great, so you've marched in a few protests. So have I. That doesn't make us experts in how street protests work or what makes them most effective. So maybe consider taking your advice no one asked for and just sitting on it for now, 'kay?

So in essence you're saying that it is wrong to expect any kind of discipline from demonstrators, that it is wrong for both groups with leadership to put pressure on demonstrators from above and for demonstrators to put pressure on each other horizontally to be disciplined in their demonstrating.

Back when I was an activist there was a definite collective pressure, even though it was generally not explicitly stated, to demonstrate peacefully, both from above from groups that had any kind of leaders such as Peace Action, and horizontally from other activists, and it worked - none of the demonstrations I attended had any kind of violence, even those that had arrests. And I do not see what is wrong with this.

[Linguoboy]

So in essence you're saying that it is wrong to expect any kind of discipline from demonstrators, that it is wrong for both groups with leadership to put pressure on demonstrators from above and for demonstrators to put pressure on each other horizontally to be disciplined in their demonstrating.

No, that's what you're saying. (Suggestion: Stop trying to restate everything I say. You're bad at it.)

For the millionth time, I'm telling you to listen to the people most directly impacted by oppression and trust that they have more expertise in this area than you do, but I don't see you having the humility to do that.

Back when I was an activist there was a definite collective pressure, even though it was generally not explicitly stated, to demonstrate peacefully, both from above from groups that had any kind of leaders such as Peace Action, and horizontally from other activists, and it worked - none of the demonstrations I attended had any kind of violence, even those that had arrests. And I do not see what is wrong with this.

Did I say anything was? No I did not. You said that any amount of violence associated with a protest discredits that protest and protesting in general and that therefore all protest organisers should run their protests exactly the way Peace Action and the other groups you marched with ran yours. What I'm saying that perhaps a one-size-fits-all approach is not always appropriate for every group of protesters in every circumstance.

(But, hey, it's those other leftists who are enforcing orthodoxy and squelching all other opinions.)

[Linguoboy]

So many ideas that originated in the left have been turned against it by the right, e.g. the right now loves to talk about people "canceling" this and "canceling" that, as propaganda, when the idea of "canceling" something originated in the left.

Actually, it originates with the right. (I say this as someone who has a long history of experience with being "cancelled" by conservatives on account of being a big fag.) What rightwing propagandists are extremely good at is accusing their opponents of exactly the things they are guilty of and then getting those accusations to stick. The way to combat this is not to keep circumscribing our own actions in the hopes of behaving so perfectly that they can't find any grounds for attacking us; if those grounds don't exist, they will not hesitate to invent them. This is why deplatforming is such a vital strategy going forward.

[Travis B.]

So many ideas that originated in the left have been turned against it by the right, e.g. the right now loves to talk about people "canceling" this and "canceling" that, as propaganda, when the idea of "canceling" something originated in the left.

Actually, it originates with the right. (I say this as someone who has a long history of experience with being "cancelled" by conservatives on account of being a big fag.) What rightwing propagandists are extremely good at is accusing their opponents of exactly the things they are guilty of and then getting those accusations to stick. The way to combat this is not to keep circumscribing our own actions in the hopes of behaving so perfectly that they can't find any grounds for attacking us; if those grounds don't exist, they will not hesitate to invent them. This is why deplatforming is such a vital strategy going forward.

I agree that the right will make up shit about us if they can't find any themselves - they have done this on many occasions (I remember stuff like the "War on Christmas" in the past) - but we shouldn't be giving them grounds to attack us, because things with some basis, however thin, in truth will be more believed than things that are concocted with no basis in reality. The key thing is that what is a bigger problem is not right-wing propaganda aimed at their own base, who will believe anything their propagandists make up and whom we have no real hope of converting in the first place, but rather right-wing propaganda that will be believed by people closer to the center - and this is where things that have some basis in reality become a real problem, as they make it more likely that people in the center will be swayed by it. We need to win over the center so we can shift it leftwards, and thus move the Overton window to the left.

About deplatforming, I have mixed feelings about it, because while deplatforming when the right people are deplatformed can certainly deny the right a voice that will reach other people, at the same time it can set a precedent for deplatforming people on the left too, which certainly will hurt us. We need to make sure that left-wing voices aren't deplatformed as well - what stops the right from attempting to instigate our being deplatformed?

[Travis B.]

Arguing with right-wingers was discussed earlier, and I've slightly reconsidered what I said earlier. Arguing with right-wingers may not convert many right-wingers, but it can serve as propaganda aimed at other people than the people we are arguing with, by showing them we are standing up to the right and are not allowing them to go unchallenged, and making ourselves more visible to the public. Hence what I said about counterprotests - the whole point is to show that the right will not be allowed to go about their business unanswered. One key thing, though, is we need to consistently paint the right as illegitimate - attempting to argue with them as if they had valid positions which one just happens to disagree with does not serve our purposes and rather makes them stronger by legitimizing them.

[Linguoboy]

We need to win over the center so we can shift it leftwards, and thus move the Overton window to the left.

Actually all we really need is for the center not to stop us from yanking it leftwards.

About deplatforming, I have mixed feelings about it, because while deplatforming when the right people are deplatformed can certainly deny the right a voice that will reach other people, at the same time it can set a precedent for deplatforming people on the left too, which certainly will hurt us. We need to make sure that left-wing voices aren't deplatformed as well - what stops the right from attempting to instigate our being deplatformed?

Nothing at all, which is why they're already doing this (and have been for over a century already).

In fact, I find it very hard to think of any tactic we could possibly use to defeat reactionaries and revanchists that they aren't already using against us. Can you?

[Travis B.]

One thing to consider is that the right is much better at propaganda than the left is, and have put massive amounts of effort into building their own sources of propaganda (Fox News being only the most prominent of many), whereas left-wing propaganda sources are currently rather marginal. Also, much writing by left-wingers is aimed at existing dedicated left-wingers rather than at attempting to expand the left-wing base, which accomplishes little with regard to propagating our views. (To be honest, much of what I see written by left-wingers on places like Medium are alienating to me, so if that is how I react to it, it is certainly not going to be bringing anyone into the fold, and rather is likely to drive away potential converts.)

[Linguoboy]

(To be honest, much of what I see written by left-wingers on places like Medium are alienating to me, so if that is how I react to it, it is certainly not going to be bringing anyone into the fold, and rather is likely to drive away potential converts.)

This assessment isn't quite as damning as you think it is. I'm sure many activists would lump you together with the feckless centrists they simply have to work around in order to achieve their goals.

[Travis B.]

(To be honest, much of what I see written by left-wingers on places like Medium are alienating to me, so if that is how I react to it, it is certainly not going to be bringing anyone into the fold, and rather is likely to drive away potential converts.)

This assessment isn't quite as damning as you think it is. I'm sure many activists would lump you together with the feckless centrists they simply have to work around in order to achieve their goals.

I can admit to being feckless - it's been ages since I've actually been politically active. Centrist, well, I'm a centrist who believes in replacing capitalism with worker ownership and self-management of capital, a centrist who believes in forming federations of workplaces over competition, a centrist who believes in replacing private property with possession based on use, a centrist who believes that the natural environment and resources should be collectively owned by the people, a centrist who believes in socialized medicine, education, and childcare, a centrist who believes in universal basic income, a centrist who believes in workers' councils for running enterprises and local government and parliamentary government with proportional representation for running national government, a centrist who believes in replacing citizenship in a given state with citizenship in wherever one currently resides, and so on. If that is centrism, certainly the vast majority of liberals are far on the right.

[Travis B.]

Of course one could interpret centrist a different way, i.e. not believing in social justice. That is a bit closer to the truth. I believe in equal rights and equal opportunities for all people regardless of class, ability, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender orientation, and so on. But I do admit I see these things in rather traditionally liberal terms, i.e. rights and opportunities belonging to individuals who happen to belong to groups, not to groups themselves. Hence why, in the discussion about appropriation, I tend to see things such as intellectual property as belonging to individuals who created them, not to groups based on things such as race or ethnicity (hence why I see taking a picture of someone's textile and recreating it as plagiarism, while I see no problem with a white person playing music originally written by a black person provided they pay the requisite royalties).

[KathTheDragon]

(To be honest, much of what I see written by left-wingers on places like Medium are alienating to me, so if that is how I react to it, it is certainly not going to be bringing anyone into the fold, and rather is likely to drive away potential converts.)

This assessment isn't quite as damning as you think it is. I'm sure many activists would lump you together with the feckless centrists they simply have to work around in order to achieve their goals.

I can admit to being feckless - it's been ages since I've actually been politically active. Centrist, well, I'm a centrist who believes in replacing capitalism with worker ownership and self-management of capital, a centrist who believes in forming federations of workplaces over competition, a centrist who believes in replacing private property with possession based on use, a centrist who believes that the natural environment and resources should be collectively owned by the people, a centrist who believes in socialized medicine, education, and childcare, a centrist who believes in universal basic income, a centrist who believes in workers' councils for running enterprises and local government and parliamentary government with proportional representation for running national government, a centrist who believes in replacing citizenship in a given state with citizenship in wherever one currently resides, and so on. If that is centrism, certainly the vast majority of liberals are far on the right.

Linguoboy is not calling you a centrist, note.

[Moose-tache]

(To be honest, much of what I see written by left-wingers on places like Medium are alienating to me, so if that is how I react to it, it is certainly not going to be bringing anyone into the fold, and rather is likely to drive away potential converts.)

This assessment isn't quite as damning as you think it is. I'm sure many activists would lump you together with the feckless centrists they simply have to work around in order to achieve their goals.

There are always people around the edges of any political spectrum who see those slightly to the center of themselves as the real enemy, while those at the opposite end of the spectrum are non-entities, forces of nature, or background noise. I had a falling out with a socialist friend of mine who wouldn't stop praising Trump for giving Clinton a good thumping. Personally I find those people to be insufferable and counterproductive (especially if the "other side" is better equipped to rally and work together), but I certainly understand why they think they're the only heroes left fighting the good fight, and all the Quizlings be damned.

[Travis B.]

There are always people around the edges of any political spectrum who see those slightly to the center of themselves as the real enemy, while those at the opposite end of the spectrum are non-entities, forces of nature, or background noise. I had a falling out with a socialist friend of mine who wouldn't stop praising Trump for giving Clinton a good thumping. Personally I find those people to be insufferable and counterproductive (especially if the "other side" is better equipped to rally and work together), but I certainly understand why they think they're the only heroes left fighting the good fight, and all the Quizlings be damned.

Agreed completely. At the same time, one might be more critical of people "on one's own side" rather than people at the opposite end of the spectrum because you believe that they actually are worth arguing with, that they might actually listen, that they can actually be brought over to one's own positions, while the people at the opposite end of the spectrum are beyond reasoning with, beyond even speaking with, much the less actually being potential converts. This is why I tend to criticize people on the left more than people on the right - people on the left still can be spoken to and reasoned with, whereas people on the right in many cases are beyond the pale of any kind of discussion, and there is no point in attempting to bring them over to one's views.