United States Politics Thread 46

[jcb]

I've been the leftist economics rant guy here from around 2019. lol Once more a taste of my spiel:

I used to think the right's proto-Marxist rhetoric can be developed into scientific socialism. This might be possible in some cases. Nowadays, I'm inclined to think it's an adaptive mind virus that's more trouble than it's worth.

I'm not saying that leftists should support conspiracy theories, obviously not, but that they shouldn't let such things make them miss the forest for the trees. They still need to have empathy for these people and put forward a positive plan that actually addresses their needs, and explains to them why/how it will work.

I suspect that fascist conspiracy theories (including theology) memetically evolve to be suggestive about the interests of all classes, poor workers as well as the small proprietor peasant class.

Propaganda aimed at small business owners is disjointed because such owners:
(1) They feel oppressed by big business who can outdo them by using their economies of scale and monopoly power.
(2) They still feel superior to mere workers who simply work instead of own.

Hence how propaganda targeting them decries big business, but still glorifies ownership and cheap labor.

This is why Jesus can be made to sound like a socialist as well as an apologist for tyranny at the same time.

When does Jesus sound like an apologist for tyranny?

That mystification is what these theories are. Their purpose is to preclude scientific analysis that would let people actually solve their problems.

(1) They redirect anger away from the real targets (the rich and powerful) to alternative targets (the poor, blacks, jews, gays, drug users, etc).
(2) If someone who is rich and powerful is presented as a target, it's not because class division itself is the problem, but because this *individual* person is bad. It makes people think on an individual scale, instead of a systemic scale.
(3) Governments and powerful organizations have done awful things in the past (and present) which makes people rightfully wary of trusting them this time.
(4) Believers are often highly paranoid (which can be induced by economic hardship), if not schizophrenic, making them more likely to believe absurd things.
(5) Believers often lack an organized analysis of society, and thus have to rely on their unorganized mishmash of feelings, slogans (usually nationalist, racist, religionist, and fascist), and stereotypes that they've accumulated over their life, which are inadequate to understand the situation, which leaves them unable to diagnose the problem, which leaves them unable to form a working solution.
(6) Believing a conspiracy theory is easier than reevaluating one's own thoughts/beliefs and realizing that most of the old stuff was wrong. This would mentally hurt.

[bradrn]

maybe should we talk about capital n Nazis (NSDAP members in the interbellum and WW2 and those supporting that specific social movement at that specific time and place) and lowercase nazis (lebensraum-through-extermination-and-displacement-against-particular-genocidally-hated-groups supporters)

All I can say is, good luck getting anyone else to distinguish between the two without equivocation. I suggest finding a better word for the latter to avoid causing confusion (or offence).

[Torco]

I think it's a fine word for the class it refers to, and carries the appropriate level of implication of bad. there's a reason godwin's law works: we've culturally sort of made the Nazis, well, the iconic example of the class and that's appropriate because it's most recent and large-scale example. fascist began use this way too, used to be the name of an italian party. besides, it really is coming into general parlance given... you know.

[bradrn]

I think it's a fine word for the class it refers to, and carries the appropriate level of implication of bad. there's a reason godwin's law works: we've culturally sort of made the Nazis, well, the iconic example of the class and that's appropriate because it's most recent and large-scale example.

OK, so you’re deliberately muddying the waters to get an emotional response. Thanks for being honest about it, I guess.

[Torco]

no, i don't think it muddies the waters. i think it highlights important things, such as the oft-mentioned similarities. and the fact that they are bad and not to be defended.

[bradrn]

no, i don't think it muddies the waters. i think it highlights important things, such as the oft-mentioned similarities. and the fact that they are bad and not to be defended.

And the gross offensiveness and association of us with our mass-murderers is just an unintentional byproduct, is it?

[Travis B.]

no, i don't think it muddies the waters. i think it highlights important things, such as the oft-mentioned similarities. and the fact that they are bad and not to be defended.

And the gross offensiveness and association of us with our mass-murderers is just an unintentional byproduct, is it?

To be completely honest, what's being done in Gaza (i.e. deliberate bombing of anything that moves ─ or doesn't move ─ and deliberate mass starvation) is mass murder, as was October 7th on a much smaller scale (not as a matter of intention but as matter of capability ─ Hamas would have killed more had they the chance). And the thing is that mass murder isn't something one should defend ─ which is why I must oppose both Israel and Hamas here.

(Of course, some would ask me how I can support Harris then ─ and the matter is that Israel/Palestine is just one facet of her, with her being all around significantly better than her opponent, and her opponent has specifically given Netanyahu to "do what you have to do" in the first place.)

[bradrn]

no, i don't think it muddies the waters. i think it highlights important things, such as the oft-mentioned similarities. and the fact that they are bad and not to be defended.

And the gross offensiveness and association of us with our mass-murderers is just an unintentional byproduct, is it?

To be completely honest, what's being done in Gaza (i.e. deliberate bombing of anything that moves ─ or doesn't move ─ and deliberate mass starvation) is mass murder, as was October 7th on a much smaller scale (not as a matter of intention but as matter of capability ─ Hamas would have killed more had they the chance). And the thing is that mass murder isn't something one should defend ─ which is why I must oppose both Israel and Hamas here.

Firstly, it’s not mass-murder nor is it genocide (but we’ve been over this already). Secondly, if you can’t see why the Nazis are an especially offensive organisation to compare a Jewish state to, then I suppose there’s not much more I can say to clarify the situation.

But it’s 2am and I don’t know why I’m pursuing this. Guess I’ll go back to ignoring politics here (though really this has gotten beyond politics).

[Travis B.]

Firstly, it’s not mass-murder nor is it genocide (but we’ve been over this already). Secondly, if you can’t see why the Nazis are an especially offensive organisation to compare a Jewish state to, then I suppose there’s not much more I can say to clarify the situation.

But it’s 2am and I don’t know why I’m pursuing this. Guess I’ll go back to ignoring politics here (though really this has gotten beyond politics).

The reason why the Nazis are offensive is as a comparison is as they are seen as a special exemplar of genocidal hatred which other things should not be compared to ─ even though frankly on a historical level they are not unique in this regard. Would it be less offensive if Israel were compared to some other genocidal regime (not saying that Israel is genocidal, BTW, my use of "mass murder" and not "genocide" was intentional)?

[bradrn]

Would it be less offensive if Israel were compared to some other genocidal regime (not saying that Israel is genocidal, BTW, my use of "mass murder" and not "genocide" was intentional)?

Yes, absolutely. I would still disagree with it, but it would be far less offensive. The Nazis were obsessive about many things, but the Jews were the primary target of the Holocaust, and comparisons of Jews with Nazis play a particularly distinctive role in modern antisemitic rhetoric.

[Ares Land]

I used to think the right's proto-Marxist rhetoric can be developed into scientific socialism. This might be possible in some cases. Nowadays, I'm inclined to think it's an adaptive mind virus that's more trouble than it's worth.

Very dubious. For some reason, the right love to take bits of Marxism out of context and act like they've made some irrefutable point.

In the case of Trump, what is it exactly about giving tax cuts to billionaires that make people think it will make goods cheaper?

I still think Trump electoral base makes significantly more than the median outcome, so of course they like that part. As for working-class Trump voters... they probably don't care that much. Higher taxes for billionaires would help... but the mechanism aren't obvious.

I have read analyses suggesting the US has reached a tipping point between redistribution and capital flight.

They say that of just about every country. Most European countries redistribute more than the US do.

(When I made these arguments, I was told that market socialism is a better idea since weakening the power of the markets will cause the capitalist class to effectively sanction that country which does it. This makes no sense to me. Bits on a machine are useful IF you are creating jobs based on market efficiency. Besides, those capitalists will sanction any country that challenges the power of markets, including market socialists.

Market socialism used to sound good to me; but now I believe a planned/command economy makes more sense(*) Ideally both would coexist.

(*)One reason I changed my mind is that we seem to have reached a point where the market has trouble producing even bare minimum essential goods.

[Raphael]

we seem to have reached a point where the market has trouble producing even bare minimum essential goods.

If you had told me 20 years ago that I would read a line like that and think, "the writer has a point," I guess I would have laughed. But here we are.

[Ares Land]

we seem to have reached a point where the market has trouble producing even bare minimum essential goods.

If you had told me 20 years ago that I would read a line like that and think, "the writer has a point," I guess I would have laughed. But here we are.

In both our countries, a lot of the economy was planned (or at least regulated) 20 years ago -- in ways you sometimes don't really notice. I think the big push towards deregulation actually started in the late 80s/90s, but in 2004 it may still have been too early to see the consequences.

I don't know how to explain the US though! One thing I don't understand, for instance, is why the Silicon Valley used to be able to turn out good products in the 2000s and 2010s -- Gmail, Google Maps, even Twitter (which, surprising as it may seem, was an interesting place and not a huge troll farm back in the days). Now we get good stuff once and again, but let's admit it, it's mostly drivel.

[Raphael]

In both our countries, a lot of the economy was planned (or at least regulated) 20 years ago -- in ways you sometimes don't really notice. I think the big push towards deregulation actually started in the late 80s/90s, but in 2004 it may still have been too early to see the consequences.

I don't know how to explain the US though! One thing I don't understand, for instance, is why the Silicon Valley used to be able to turn out good products in the 2000s and 2010s -- Gmail, Google Maps, even Twitter (which, surprising as it may seem, was an interesting place and not a huge troll farm back in the days). Now we get good stuff once and again, but let's admit it, it's mostly drivel.

I'd say capitalism, whatever else you might think about it, can be quite good at providing things we use in daily life as long as the average capitalist is content with running a business on razor-thin profit margins. That used to be the case, but it no longer is, or at least not to the same extent. More and more, capitalists insist not just on profits, but on constantly growing profits, or at least constantly growing revenues. This means that they have basically forgotten how to run a saturated market.

If you start out with a business that is profitable, but just barely so, and you want to turn it into a very profitable business, your only options are either cutting costs, which inevitably hurts quality, or rising prices, which hurts your customers, too. Unless you're an established luxury brand, the only way to run a business that is very, as opposed to barely, profitable is to sell overpriced crap.

(In theory, when businesses do that, they should lose market share to competitors who don't do that, but in practice, if all the businesses are run by the same kind of person, with the same personality type and the same set of priorities, this particular corrective mechanism stops working.)

[Travis B.]

Market socialism used to sound good to me; but now I believe a planned/command economy makes more sense(*) Ideally both would coexist.

I personally am for a mixed economy, where on paper it is market socialism with production being carried out by worker cooperatives, but in reality a democratic government strongly influences things by providing significant subsidies/incentives and penalties/disincentives to steer the economy to produce things that are worthwhile for society, up to and including complete government funding for things such as FLOSS development (as FLOSS is a good for all of society, but has the problem that it by itself is not profitable, aside from things like paid support, due to software having near-zero marginal cost).

[rotting bones]

I'd say capitalism, whatever else you might think about it, can be quite good at providing things we use in daily life as long as the average capitalist is content with running a business on razor-thin profit margins. That used to be the case, but it no longer is, or at least not to the same extent. More and more, capitalists insist not just on profits, but on constantly growing profits, or at least constantly growing revenues. This means that they have basically forgotten how to run a saturated market.

If you start out with a business that is profitable, but just barely so, and you want to turn it into a very profitable business, your only options are either cutting costs, which inevitably hurts quality, or rising prices, which hurts your customers, too. Unless you're an established luxury brand, the only way to run a business that is very, as opposed to barely, profitable is to sell overpriced crap.

(In theory, when businesses do that, they should lose market share to competitors who don't do that, but in practice, if all the businesses are run by the same kind of person, with the same personality type and the same set of priorities, this particular corrective mechanism stops working.)

If you think about it, a purely capitalist economy makes no sense no matter how thin the profit margins. Over the long term, if you have anything more than zero profit, then you have prevented someone else from creating a job somewhere. Ideally, you could tax the successful and redistribute their gains, but then you wouldn't be able to attract any investment!

This is not an issue of greed. It's a matter of basic accounting. Just think of which items are going where and you'll get it. They have only been able to keep things going so far by exploiting new markets. The financial market only gives you a little bit of liquidity by extending credit.

[rotting bones]

When does Jesus sound like an apologist for tyranny?

What do you end up with if you combine the following?

1. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
2. The Law will be maintained till the end of time.
3. Turn the other cheek.

Jesus even comes back to rule as a king in the Revelations, legitimizing monarchy.

The statement most emblematic of the problem is probably, "The meek shall inherit the earth."

On the one hand, it helps the meek hope for better things. On the other hand, a revolutionary is not meek. All the meek can do is pray that the Lord will be good to them some day.

I agree that none of this is definitive. You can certainly construct a case that Jesus is for socialism. My point is that in the final analysis, you will get a definitive non-answer.

[rotting bones]

The reason why the Nazis are offensive is as a comparison is as they are seen as a special exemplar of genocidal hatred which other things should not be compared to ─ even though frankly on a historical level they are not unique in this regard. Would it be less offensive if Israel were compared to some other genocidal regime (not saying that Israel is genocidal, BTW, my use of "mass murder" and not "genocide" was intentional)?

Oh dear God.

I can understand people supporting Israel. I hate Hamas too. What I don't understand is why people feel the need to evangelize their ignorance.

I've seen Israeli politicians literally praising Hitler. (Seriously, I'd be surprised if Googling haaretz hitler doesn't turn it up.) I have seen them denigrate those of Palestinian descent as Amalekite vermin to be exterminated. I have seen Israeli rabbis judge that no mercy should be shown to the enemy, that Palestinians don't deserve a homeland, etc, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... ontroversy

If you want to know what other Nazis think, the alt right conspiracy theorist Jorjani has praised Israel as an "Aryan" nation bestowing a baptism of fire on the Arabs. The baptism of fire thing is a reference to Jorjani's belief that the Persians burning down the temple of Athena and the US nuking Japan gifted the fire of Ahura Mazda on the Greeks and the Japanese, turning them into Faustian nations gifted with the esoteric knowledge of Atlas and foresight of Prometheus. (And does "Aryan" even mean anything anymore except "cruel in a way that makes Nazis trust us"?)

I feel like I'm being forced against my will to post this stuff here.

[Travis B.]

Of course, there really are such a thing as Israeli neo-Nazis, but mind you that most of these were people of Jewish descent from the (former) Eastern Bloc who were neo-Nazis ─ yes, this is a real thing ─ who decided to immigrate to Israel just because the economy and living conditions were better there than in the former Eastern Bloc rather than because of any special love of their Jewish heritage.

[rotting bones]

Of course, there really are such a thing as Israeli neo-Nazis, but mind you that most of these were people of Jewish descent from the (former) Eastern Bloc who were neo-Nazis ─ yes, this is a real thing ─ who decided to immigrate to Israel just because the economy and living conditions were better there than in the former Eastern Bloc rather than because of any special love of their Jewish heritage.

You could argue that the recent resettlement convention was made up of those people. (Google: haaretz resettlement convention) But the official military rabbinate?