United States Politics Thread 46

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Wait, is he serious?

[MacAnDàil]

The statements "workers' solidarity is great when it exists" and "workers' solidarity doesn't really exist" don't necessarily contradict each other.

I think you're partly moving goalposts to make Marx look better, though. The Communist Manifesto asserted (quoting from memory) "All history is the history of class struggles", not "It would be great if all history would be the history of class struggles, because that would advance the interests of the oppressed classes most". Marx was pretty explicit about describing what he saw as unavoidable historical necessities.

I may have been insufficiently clear: while Marx did notice this factor, he overgeneralised from Central and Western Europe of his time and somewhat earlier. He also overly focussed on the economy, among other faults.

[Raphael]

MacAnDàil: thank you for the clarification.

Wait, is he serious?

Yup, Nort is an authentic right-wing Trumper with most of the standard beliefs of that lot. Apparently secular rather than religious, though; focused on being a xenophobe; and I think I remember him saying a while ago that he doesn't see himself as a conservative.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Wait, is he serious?

Yup, Nort is an authentic right-wing Trumper with most of the standard beliefs of that lot. Apparently secular rather than religious, though; focused on being a xenophobe; and I think I remember him saying a while ago that he doesn't see himself as a conservative.

That's unfortunate. I've found his character confusing, and a perhaps vaguely trollish, but I'd never suspected him of that.

Incidentally, I do find "conservative" odd, on a semantic, or perhaps etymological, level, as a term for those sorts of views. Trump supporters seem to have extremely silly but also fairly radical ideas, as opposed to being somehow old-fashioned. They don't much seem to care for things that were common in the past, like the breakup of monopolies, or the institution of policies to give the economy more long-term stability, and neither do they seem to like the sort of United States that mobilised in the face of large-scale perceived threats with a great deal of efficacy, which would fit better with a more narrow definition of "conservative".

[bradrn]

Wait, is he serious?

Yup, Nort is an authentic right-wing Trumper with most of the standard beliefs of that lot. Apparently secular rather than religious, though; focused on being a xenophobe; and I think I remember him saying a while ago that he doesn't see himself as a conservative.

That's unfortunate. I've found his character confusing, and a perhaps vaguely trollish, but I'd never suspected him of that.

Devil’s advocate: why is it unfortunate? Being Trumpist doesn’t mean you support all of his policies; it just means you dislike the other side more. I’m sure there’s plenty of Trumpeters going around right now talking about all the poor misguided crackpotty Bidenistas, and we know they’re wrong to talk like that…

(For context, I think it would be hard to find a democratic politician I hate more than Trump and his ilk. I don’t make this argument because I like the movement, that’s for sure.)

[Vardelm]

They don't much seem to care for things that were common in the past, like the breakup of monopolies, or the institution of policies to give the economy more long-term stability, and neither do they seem to like the sort of United States that mobilised in the face of large-scale perceived threats with a great deal of efficacy...

That's because "gub'ment".

[Raphael]

I'd say if you do believe that a politician is very bad, then it follows that it would be better if that politician would have no supporters, and thus, it's unfortunate that they do.

[Raphael]

They don't much seem to care for things that were common in the past, like the breakup of monopolies, or the institution of policies to give the economy more long-term stability, and neither do they seem to like the sort of United States that mobilised in the face of large-scale perceived threats with a great deal of efficacy...

That's because "gub'ment".

Sure about that? How much are US right-wingers still talking about the evils of "big government" these days? My impression is that many have switched completely to culture wars issues, where at least some would love to see a government run by their side force their positions on everyone.

[Vardelm]

Sure about that? How much are US right-wingers still talking about the evils of "big government" these days? My impression is that many have switched completely to culture wars issues, where at least some would love to see a government run by their side force their positions on everyone.

Quite sure, but you're right to point out that it's a weird, mixed bag. I think it's similar to support for the police: if the police are beating up brown people, then it's great and they're promoting law & order. "Blue Lives Matter", right? However, if the police are enforcing gun laws, use of public property, or keeping gaggles of peasants armed insurrectionists out of the U.S. Capitol, etc., then they are part of the Satanic, NWO, sex-trafficking, Muslim, atheist, Socialist-Commie, pro-immigrant, gay-sex-promoting, cancel-culture Establishment that is squashing freedom everywhere.

[Vardelm]

Devil’s advocate: why is it unfortunate? Being Trumpist doesn’t mean you support all of his policies; it just means you dislike the other side more.

I think you're vastly underestimating the political divide in the U.S. Also, the type Raphael was talking about would support all of his policies, or very close to it. We're not talking about political moderates who pay little attention to politics and happened to vote for Trump.

[Linguoboy]

Sure about that? How much are US right-wingers still talking about the evils of "big government" these days? My impression is that many have switched completely to culture wars issues, where at least some would love to see a government run by their side force their positions on everyone.

Quite sure, but you're right to point out that it's a weird, mixed bag. I think it's similar to support for the police: if the police are beating up brown people, then it's great and they're promoting law & order. "Blue Lives Matter", right? However, if the police are enforcing gun laws, use of public property, or keeping gaggles of peasants armed insurrectionists out of the U.S. Capitol, etc., then they are part of the Satanic, NWO, sex-trafficking, Muslim, atheist, Socialist-Commie, pro-immigrant, gay-sex-promoting, cancel-culture Establishment that is squashing freedom everywhere.

Yeah, I think looking for philosophical consistency among ordinary Trump-supporters is as much a mug's game as, well, looking for philosophical consistency from anyone who isn't a philosopher. Not to get all both-sidesy or anything, but most self-described "liberals" I know are pretty heterogeneous in their beliefs. And since a lot of Trumpism is really "whatever the libs like we hate", that only further contributes to its incoherence.

Aside from extremists like libertarians and leftists, aren't most people broadly pro-state when it serves their interests and anti-authoritarian when it doesn't (in much the same way as members of mainstream religious movements tend to ignore the parts of their faith that are inconvenient and lean into the ones that validate them)?

[Raphael]

[...] is as much a mug's game as, well, looking for philosophical consistency from anyone who isn't a philosopher. Not to get all both-sidesy or anything, but most self-described "liberals" I know are pretty heterogeneous in their beliefs.

Fair enough, but I'm not even sure that you can easily tell whether someone is consistent or inconsistent in their politics, religion, or philosophy. For instance, a person might be perceived as "inconsistent" by other people because she agrees with different political camps, or, for that matter, schools of philosophy on different matters, but might still try to derive her own stances more or less consistently from her own set of values, ideas, or principles.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Yup, Nort is an authentic right-wing Trumper with most of the standard beliefs of that lot. Apparently secular rather than religious, though; focused on being a xenophobe; and I think I remember him saying a while ago that he doesn't see himself as a conservative.

That's unfortunate. I've found his character confusing, and a perhaps vaguely trollish, but I'd never suspected him of that.

Devil’s advocate: why is it unfortunate? Being Trumpist doesn’t mean you support all of his policies; it just means you dislike the other side more. I’m sure there’s plenty of Trumpeters going around right now talking about all the poor misguided crackpotty Bidenistas, and we know they’re wrong to talk like that…

I would rather ask how it wasn't. It would imply that he is either (1) callous enough not to care about the broad harm caused by Trump's social policies, including his politicisation of a pandemic that's killed hundreds of thousands; or (2) not somehow aware enough of reality to understand who Trump actually is. He also seems to approve of acts of violence Trump instigated. In a reasonable person, it also implies either overt racism, or callousness towards it.

They don't much seem to care for things that were common in the past, like the breakup of monopolies, or the institution of policies to give the economy more long-term stability, and neither do they seem to like the sort of United States that mobilised in the face of large-scale perceived threats with a great deal of efficacy...

That's because "gub'ment".

Sure about that? How much are US right-wingers still talking about the evils of "big government" these days? My impression is that many have switched completely to culture wars issues, where at least some would love to see a government run by their side force their positions on everyone.

In my understanding, worries about "big government" are really a dogwhistle (non-white individuals are, again in my understanding, usually those first and worst hit by austerity); the true believers on that point tend to veer towards the very ironically-named and ultracapitalist "Libertarian" party, while the Republicans tend to be an alliance of convenience between religious extremists and other unsavoury elements of society who would never be able to do anything on their own. They seem to oscillate between the two non-issues where they can. They love big government when they're instituting authoritarian laws (some right-wingers, either disingenuously or unironically, refer to taxing the wealthy and helping people with the money as "authoritarian" and see it as "regrettable"; either having become true believers in, or parroting, red scare nonsense), but not when somebody who can't "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" (this incidentally describes an action which is physically impossible) might need a little help towards a better life.

Of course "small government" is also a synonym of "big corporate power" (the way they conceive of "government" is baffling — it looks to me like there are power- and institution-shaped holes that crop up in society, and that we can either fill them with democratic institutions, or allow for authoritarian private entities to fill them instead; lest we forget, most businesses, especially in states with weak labour protections, are micro-dictatorships) with the way our economy currently operates. If we had a different socioeconomic structure (if the means of production were widely-spread, so that standards were not as difficult to enforce, and no one private group could gain too much power), we would probably need "less government" in that "cooking the books" and other forms of business fraud could not be carried out on grand scales, and neither could large-scale abuses (as with Amazon) be swept under the rug by companies that are bigger economically than some countries.

It's also a very silly idea that capitalism runs well without regulation. Without heavy intervention from a State actor, it tends to be exceedingly fond of crashing itself, and taking the rest of society down with it. Of course, some people are okay with this, but my chief political position is generally, "Human suffering is bad, and things that sustainably reduce human suffering broadly and over the long term are good; things that cause it, however, are also bad. Also, let's not kill the Earth because we kind-of need it."

[Raphael]

No serious disagreements on any of those points.

[Travis B.]

Definitely agreed.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Glad they seem sensible.

[rotting bones]

Rounin Ryuuji: I broadly agree with this. If I were to go out of my way to find problems, I could mention, for example:

If we had a different socioeconomic structure (if the means of production were widely-spread, so that standards were not as difficult to enforce, and no one private group could gain too much power), we would probably need "less government" in that "cooking the books" and other forms of business fraud could not be carried out on grand scales, and neither could large-scale abuses (as with Amazon) be swept under the rug by companies that are bigger economically than some countries.

It's not obvious that standards would be easier to enforce if means of production were distributed more widely. While each potential perpetrator would have less power, the state would have to police more people.

Also, capital concentration is a self-perpetuating process, though the absolute concentration Marx imagined was a figment of his imagination. Even if the means of production were widely distributed initially, they would be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands over time as they are acquired by businessmen to get an edge over the competition. The initial equilibrium would be unstable over significant periods of time.

It's also a very silly idea that capitalism runs well without regulation. Without heavy intervention from a State actor, it tends to be exceedingly fond of crashing itself, and taking the rest of society down with it. Of course, some people are okay with this, but my chief political position is generally, "Human suffering is bad, and things that sustainably reduce human suffering broadly and over the long term are good; things that cause it, however, are also bad. Also, let's not kill the Earth because we kind-of need it."

Reducing suffering is a good rule of thumb in some situations, but it's terrible as a strong first principle from both theoretical and practical standpoints.

Theory: If reincarnation does not occur, then optimizing for bringing suffering close to zero leads to practices that are not very nice. For example, misleading people, drugging them, lobotomizing them, killing them, etc. If you can kill entire groups of people who care about each other, the suffering experienced by the whole clan drops to zero in a single instant.

Practice: It is very common for shy people like me to greedily "reduce suffering" by avoiding awkward situations. This very frequently leads to much greater suffering in the long run. Of course, you could say that what we should do is to reduce suffering over time rather than immediately, but that leads to difficulties related to limited investigative, computational and ultimately, metaphysical resources. There may be cases where ripping off the bandaid does more good than harm, and other cases where it does more harm than good. Not only can't we tell which is which because we don't know all the facts or can't apply logical inferences lucidly enough, but moreover, there is no universally agreed on way to compare the different kinds of suffering caused by different courses of action in a quantitative sense.

This is why I usually refer to survival rather than reducing suffering.

[Vardelm]

This is why I usually refer to survival rather than reducing suffering.

Survival without reduced suffering just prolongs the suffering, which means there is more suffering.

[rotting bones]

Survival without reduced suffering just prolongs the suffering, which means there is more suffering.

People usually enjoy certain kinds of suffering. Compare a thriving city to a blast crater where the city used to be. There may be less suffering in the blast crater than in the city, but I hate it regardless. What I infer from this is that whatever principles regulate my enjoyment, reducing suffering is not part of its ultimate horizon. One of the principles that bind enjoyment is survival, and it's fairly universal. Another one is knowing the truth regardless of whether it brings pain.

Nevertheless, there are cases where reducing suffering is a good rule of thumb. I suspect that "reducing suffering" is a false generalization from one of the principles of enjoyment: Being kind to others regardless of whether it causes or prevents suffering.

[Vardelm]

People usually enjoy certain kinds of suffering.

Grad school....