United States Politics Thread 46

[Travis B.]

If we say ‘dead tree’ for ‘paper’, then surely we can also ‘dead air, Uighur, Congolese, mountain and dinosaur’ for ‘electronic’, can’t we?

'Dead tree' is just programmers' slang for paper.

[Raphael]

You seem to be sceptical about that article. Is that true? If so, why?

I can't speak for Travis, but I'm generally skeptical of "everything was better in the past" texts. And I find "those new ways of doing things are ruining everything" positions especially depressing when they're held by people who are supposedly politically on the Left. To see pre-modernity as better than modernity is a fundamentally reactionary position. And of course reactionaries have great pseudo-academic talking points to bolster their positions.

[Travis B.]

You seem to be sceptical about that article. Is that true? If so, why?

I can't speak for Travis, but I'm generally skeptical of "everything was better in the past" texts. And I find "those new ways of doing things are ruining everything" positions especially depressing when they're held by people who are supposedly politically on the Left. To see pre-modernity as better than modernity is a fundamentally reactionary position. And of course reactionaries have great pseudo-academic talking points to bolster their positions.

I agree completely with this. People are good at forgetting just how much the past sucked, and picking out individual tidbits about how it was oh-so-superior to the present while ignoring the rest.

[alice]

You seem to be sceptical about that article. Is that true? If so, why?

I can't speak for Travis, but I'm generally skeptical of "everything was better in the past" texts. And I find "those new ways of doing things are ruining everything" positions especially depressing when they're held by people who are supposedly politically on the Left. To see pre-modernity as better than modernity is a fundamentally reactionary position. And of course reactionaries have great pseudo-academic talking points to bolster their positions.

I agree completely with this. People are good at forgetting just how much the past sucked, and picking out individual tidbits about how it was oh-so-superior to the present while ignoring the rest.

I believe the jargon is "rose-tinted spectacles". Unfortunately there isn't an appropriate smilie.

[MacAnDàil]

You seem to be sceptical about that article. Is that true? If so, why?

I can't speak for Travis, but I'm generally skeptical of "everything was better in the past" texts. And I find "those new ways of doing things are ruining everything" positions especially depressing when they're held by people who are supposedly politically on the Left. To see pre-modernity as better than modernity is a fundamentally reactionary position. And of course reactionaries have great pseudo-academic talking points to bolster their positions.

There is nothing about "everything was better in in the past". It's this specific point that was better in the past and can be better in the future.

Are there other scientific articles you are sceptical about?

Reactionaries are not necessarily opposed to digital technology. After all, the first French political party to have a website was the FN and the first French presidential candidate to declare his intention on Youtube was Zemmour. Reactionaries are opposed to emancipation, not novelty.

[Travis B.]

You seem to be sceptical about that article. Is that true? If so, why?

I can't speak for Travis, but I'm generally skeptical of "everything was better in the past" texts. And I find "those new ways of doing things are ruining everything" positions especially depressing when they're held by people who are supposedly politically on the Left. To see pre-modernity as better than modernity is a fundamentally reactionary position. And of course reactionaries have great pseudo-academic talking points to bolster their positions.

There is nothing about "everything was better in in the past". It's this specific point that was better in the past and can be better in the future.

You essentially imply that the whole digital revolution was bad and wrong and we should just scrap computers and go back to reading paper books and newspapers typeset on Linotype machines (as, after all, reading things on paper is 'better' than reading things on 'screens' because a 'scientific' paper tells us so).

Are there other scientific articles you are sceptical about?

You speak as if because something is positioned as 'scientific' it should be accepted without consideration.

Reactionaries are not necessarily opposed to digital technology. After all, the first French political party to have a website was the FN and the first French presidential candidate to declare his intention on Youtube was Zemmour. Reactionaries are opposed to emancipation, not novelty.

Yes, but unquestioning glorification of the past is commonly a feature of reactionary ideologies.

[Travis B.]

Are there other scientific articles you are sceptical about?

You speak as if because something is positioned as 'scientific' it should be accepted without consideration.

Case in point ─ eugenics. During the time it was popular it was widely seen as 'scientific', with many 'scientific' writings being published on it in its heyday, yet in retrospect that made it no more valid. Just because something is published in a scientific journal does not mean that it should be simply unquestioningly accepted because of that.

[jcb]

What grievances are these, specifically? Is it about immigration and trans right? Then these are right-wing concerns.

Their grievance is that their lives suck. Immigration and trans rights are just what they're *told* is the problem by the right. Left parties need to offer an alternative explanation (the true explanation) about why their lives suck: billionaires and capitalist accumulation.

The far-right is essentially a scam. They'll say just about anything to get your votes. They'll even claim to be in favor of left-wing economic policies.
Here in France, the far-right supported economically left-wing policies right until the point where it hurt them electorally; they immediately dropped these.
Trump sounded like he was on the side of the American working class; but during his last four-year term, did he do anything about it? As far as I can his policies were what you'd expect from a Republican president.

Yes, the right pretends to care about the workers, which is more than what the "left" does; Nowdays, the "left" doesn't even bother to pretend.

Some people change their views. It happens; people's views getting conservative as they age is a well-known trope. Clearly Wagenknecht got more conservative on several political issues; why not on the others?

So, when Democrats strategically abandon working class economics/voters to try to attract more suburban voters, they're they're still left-wing, but when Wagenknecht abandons some cultural issues (but keeps the economics) to keep working class voters, she's no longer left-wing? Again, this is exactly what I mean by the deletion of economics from politics. Wagenknecht is also aware of this, and it's the reason why she declines to use the word "left" to describe her party, because she knows that the word has become unanchored from economics, and will only confuse voters, who know only its cultural definition.

Immigration particularly so. You can't be conservative on immigration and socialist when it comes to the economy; or conversely liberal on immigration and conservative on economics. It just doesn't work that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

[alice]

Project 2025 has a few minor hurdles to overcome first: https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/20/clin ... new-rattle

[Travis B.]

Some people change their views. It happens; people's views getting conservative as they age is a well-known trope. Clearly Wagenknecht got more conservative on several political issues; why not on the others?

So, when Democrats strategically abandon working class economics/voters to try to attract more suburban voters, they're they're still left-wing, but when Wagenknecht abandons some cultural issues (but keeps the economics) to keep working class voters, she's no longer left-wing? Again, this is exactly what I mean by the deletion of economics from politics. Wagenknecht is also aware of this, and it's the reason why she declines to use the word "left" to describe her party, because she knows that the word has become unanchored from economics, and will only confuse voters, who know only its cultural definition.

Being purportedly "economically left-wing" but being culturally right-wing is essentially what right-wing populism is. Not being overtly socialist per se but being culturally left-wing is essentially what social liberalism is.

[rotting bones]

Project 2025 has a few minor hurdles to overcome first: https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/20/clin ... new-rattle

I hope he's right.

Trump is not into the Project 2025 document. I heard he's technically for the America First policy proposal, which is much worse than Project 2025.

For some reason, academics these days imagine contradiction is some great sin. In reality, it's the driver of all success. Especially in authoritarian movements, where loyalty is prized over all else. For most of the contradictions in Project 2025, it would be terrible no matter which side Trump comes down on. I'm worried all the absurdities will win out. There's a groundswell of support for the antivax agenda within MAGA.

[rotting bones]

First step when someone makes an affirmation should be “is this true?” before thinking “what should be done about the stated problem”. Also, realise that others see you differently from how you see yourself.

Yes, and I don't believe voters don't know what Trump stands for after how loud he's been about it for 8 years.

If production falls, there would still be more than enough to go around because so much is wasted e.g. food thrown in the bucket. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1148036

At least for food, they have the excuse that a lot of it will go bad on the way. A much bigger problem is that capitalist industries typically refuse to donate the results of overproduction. Their primary concern is that if scarcity falls, prices will fall, and they won't be able to recover their losses.

Under capitalism, even the term "overproduction" means too much production to sell at a profit, not too much production for people to use.

And food doesn’t come from the economy, it comes from ecology. After all, having no money and food growing all around is much better than having trillions of dollars on a burning infertile planet.

I didn't argue against environmentalism. Under socialism, it may really be the case that goods come primarily from environmental factors rather than work.

Besides, I don't believe you think this. If the economy doesn't do anything, abolish copyright law. If you care about what happens, stop boosting signals that no one believes. Please stop romanticizing the environment so that we can save it.

Goods come from the pipeline: Nuclear power, raw materials/tools and industry (and distribution, but that's another topic). What you call "ecology" provides raw materials, only one factor in production. Without industry, energy and materials can't be shaped into the forms sapient beings need for sustenance.

The default source of nuclear power is the sun. The default source of raw materials and tools is the immediate environment (i.e. ecology). Whatever animation you observe in the environment is thanks to the sun's nuclear power.

However, nothing prevents us from substituting these with other sources. The sun can be replaced with thorium reactors. Ecology can be replaced with imported materials and artificial tools. If materials are imported from under the ground or outer space, it may technically no longer be a part of any ecological closed loop.

Neither economy nor ecology are real, only particles interacting in space. There is ultimately no balance or primordial harmony to return to.

Money is not a shorthand for goods at all. It may be a means to obtain them but it is not the goods itself.

In context, "we need money" actually means "we need goods".

Producing more goods is a problem on a planet with limited resources where the resources have been overused for more than half a century.

An ecology without economies of scale can no longer support our current population.

If you are not willing to make essential goods cheaper, you have nothing to offer the majority of humanity. They will vote for the other side whether they are fascist or not, whether they save the environment or destroy it, whether or not they will be directly responsible for the slaughter of their own grandkids.

That article argues for the importance of cities, not their lower ecological impact.

I'm positive zompist had something on this. If humans restrict themselves to cities, that could be better for the environment than us cutting down forests and spreading out all over the map. Of course, this would mean making the cities environmentally friendly first. Was it called Cities of the Future?

What do mean by capitalism?

Production through the profit motive.

So your approach to morality involves minimising harm?

It's not a moral position, just a Nash equilibrium.

What does redistribution mean to you?

Under capitalism, redistribution means snatching profits out of the mouths of ravenous business owners. If there is no profit, then the owners of nature will not be motivated to feed the people. If you redistribute this profit, then that lowers their incentive to produce. There is nothing wrong with redistribution from socialized industries.

If you redistribute their earnings, the businesses will become less profitable. If businesses become less profitable, it will be harder for people to find jobs. Even if the corporations manage to produce enough for everyone, they will artificially restrict distribution to prevent prices from falling.

For some reason, contemporary leftist intellectuals feel that these are weird, out of the way concerns compared to things like the environment. If you take away anything from my posts, I want to impress upon you that most of humanity would rather destroy the environment and wipe out all life if they can't fix these factors. Until the ivory tower left puts this at the center of their discourse, the world will keep sliding farther and farther towards fascism.

What is your alternative? Is it mutually incompatible with redistribution?

The problem is that production is currently skewed towards the interests of the wealthy. We need to measure demand by the popular vote instead of currency.

That's the basic idea. If you search, I have it elaborated in various degrees of detail in the past.

For background reading, try Classical Econophysics by Paul Cockshott: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15v5e44 ... sp=sharing

Generally, the more coherent and thought-out moral positions make less exceptions and less arbitrary ones.

Note that the Marx suggestion is not a moral argument as such. The argument is that it's coldly rational for the dispossessed to unite and dethrone their bosses.

Morality is subjective, of course, which is why we may at most accept that some moral stances may lead to genocide, not all. One’s identity may involve one’s class, or species or anything else. Life is not just about social class. Social class may be defined in different ways, including money, identity, education or any combination thereof. That is perhaps part of the subjectivity of morality.

If morality is subjective, what does it mean to make society more moral?

I'm worried that women and minority empowerment programs are leading dispossessed groups to see each other as powerful rather than the actual puppet masters.

I think the Marxist emphasis on work is much better at bringing the disempowered together. I think today's aversion to work is a passing fad. According to Marx, one's work is what gives meaning to human life. People's aversion to work is caused by capitalism, which incentivizes both underworking and overworking at the same time for no rationally justifiable reason.

I know other people I know think differently, as neighbour, friend, family member and activist. I do not believe in the interest of moorality because it is the only thing I am exposed to but because it is among the most convincing things that I am exposed to. When Zompist proposes to base our ideas and practices on science and moral philosophy, I get him on that. When Ryan Holiday, following on from Stoics and other ancient philosophers suggests basing our decisions on virtue, I get him too. Likewise with Stephen R. Covey and the importance on aligning oneself with one’s values. These are somewhat different positions but share characteristics: 1° based on morality, ethics, virtue 2° things I have read 3° things I have recently and rarely been exposed to 4° are convincing

Do you realize that the people who want mass deportations think they are enforcing moral principles? Do you realize that the Roman elites who opposed the grain dole based their ideology on Stoic principles?

Basically, it's not enough to appeal to abstract morality, which most people don't care about anyway. What we need is action in favor of the disadvantaged.

This is not to say you can't use morality, even Stoic morality, to draw inspiration.

I'm too poor to have books without screens.

How?

How will we get enough paper to educate everyone? Dead Congolese is at least reusable Congolese.

If books can't be spread through screens, books would be rare. If books were rare, people like me wouldn't have access to books. If we didn't have access to books, we would be uneducated. If we were uneducated, we'd vote for fascists even more than we do now. The actual solution is more education by any means necessary, and more critical thinking as opposed to memorizing textbooks.

[rotting bones]

If we say ‘dead tree’ for ‘paper’, then surely we can also ‘dead air, Uighur, Congolese, mountain and dinosaur’ for ‘electronic’, can’t we?

'Dead tree' is just programmers' slang for paper.

There's definitely an environmentalist implication in there. Offices used to print entire phone directories' worth of paper and shred it on a routine basis.

[rotting bones]

Their grievance is that their lives suck. Immigration and trans rights are just what they're *told* is the problem by the right. Left parties need to offer an alternative explanation (the true explanation) about why their lives suck: billionaires and capitalist accumulation.

In my experience, the center-left encouraged religion and traditionalism at every turn. It's funny they're surprised that Robbers Cave psychology has come back to bite them in the ass.

[keenir]

Their grievance is that their lives suck. Immigration and trans rights are just what they're *told* is the problem by the right. Left parties need to offer an alternative explanation (the true explanation) about why their lives suck: billionaires and capitalist accumulation.

In my experience, the center-left encouraged religion and traditionalism at every turn. It's funny they're surprised that Robbers Cave psychology has come back to bite them in the ass.

I am unfamiliar with the Robbers Cave, but would like to hear about it; I know only of Plato's Cave. Thank you.

[rotting bones]

Their grievance is that their lives suck. Immigration and trans rights are just what they're *told* is the problem by the right. Left parties need to offer an alternative explanation (the true explanation) about why their lives suck: billionaires and capitalist accumulation.

In my experience, the center-left encouraged religion and traditionalism at every turn. It's funny they're surprised that Robbers Cave psychology has come back to bite them in the ass.

I am unfamiliar with the Robbers Cave, but would like to hear about it; I know only of Plato's Cave. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory

[Raphael]

jcb: Wagenknecht might be left-wing, or she might be right-wing, or whatever - in any case she's pretty bad. She started out as a Stalinist, and now she's flirting with Nazis. Neither of those two positions is in any way defensible.

So is president-unelect Musk running the show now?

It might be a good idea to focus on Musk being bad a lot in the near future. "Unelected idiot billionaires who try to destroy the working class are running things" and so on.

[Raphael]

That article argues for the importance of cities, not their lower ecological impact.

You can derive the lower ecological impact of cities from plain common sense. It takes less energy to heat up a small apartment than a big house. Even if the apartment and the house are the same same size, if the apartment is surrounded by other apartments, it is still easier to heat.

And then there's the fact that there's generally less physical infrastructure per person in the city - fewer meters of roads and rails per person, fewer buses to serve more people, and so on.

[Raphael]

Just noticed this:

Yes, indeed, and so too much attention is paid to them.

I'm too poor to have books without screens.

How?

Really, Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, anyone? If you read paper books, you know what they cost. I trust you to have some familiarity with the financial situation of poor people, both in the richer and in the poorer parts of the world. So how can you ask this question?

Now, if you don't visit online stores as a matter of principle, you might not know this, but when a place sells both paper books and electronic books, the electronic versions are usually cheaper - sometimes they cost only half as much as the paper version, or even less. And that's before we get to the possibility of breaking laws.

You might object that the device with the screen costs money, too, which is true, but for an intense reader, it won't take long to recover that money by saving money on individual books.

Frankly, that "How?" made you look a bit like a hostile opponent's stereotypical version of people with your kinds of political views.

[Travis B.]

But but paper is better than screens so poor people would pay for paper books if only they knew what's best for them!