United States Politics Thread 46

[rotting bones]

That is an excellent way to make sure neither the broader social struggle, nor the identity interests get statisfied.

A negotiation where neither side rolls over is what I call a successful compromise.

I don't know, let's consider feminism for instance. Why should feminists be satisfied with the usual idea that their complaints will be adressed after the proletarian revolution?
Then the proletarian revolution never actually comes, and male Marxists turn out to be as patriarchal as male bourgeois.

OTOH the current wave of feminism did popularize socialist ideas.

What I actually said was: "The thing is, if an idpol movement is actually emancipatory, then it subsumes the interests of that identity to a broader social struggle."

I don't know what wording you prefer, but a movement which refuses to do that is fascist. I don't support Hamas mainly because their fight is not subordinated to the broader struggle for justice.

I was taught in civics class that the only thing the British had to do to destroy India was to encourage traditional Hindu and Muslim identities. Nothing further was necessary. What makes you think encouraging minority identities will end well?

I see what you mean; plenty of conservatives call themselves feminists. In fact these days plenty of conservatives call themselves Marxists.

This doesn't discredit either socialism or feminism.

Marxism these days is not based on the writings of Marx. It's more commonly based on aesthetic feelings about what an extreme Far Leftist might have said.

[rotting bones]

If you assume that explanations are excuses, please cut that shit out. I get really tired of leftists who think that ignorance of politics is a virtue. I haven't ever hidden my personal views, and it's extremely rude to pretend that they've suddenly changed to centrism.

I don't believe that people hold eternal positions, only understandings of what is beneficial. I assumed you are promoting centrism in this instance because I can't tell what other conclusion could possibly follow.

Yes, but on the whole his record on labor is good.

I don't know how beneficial his policies have been for the working class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpmPb4ZZGUE

I don't know what "girlboss fascism" is.

It's a fun and ironic term feminists came up with to describe this phenomenon: https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles ... n-feminism

As it happens I just read a book by a dude (Ed Husain) who was taken by centrist Islamism, on the grounds that they reminded him of the Tories. I mean, I liked his insistence that Islam doesn't have to be fascist and Wahhabi, but I'd also take that as confirmation that Islamism has nothing to do with leftism.

I can guarantee you, this is not what most Muslims see in Islamism. Those who fall for it see it as the answer to all their problems: https://www.dw.com/en/hamburg-hundreds- ... a-68998121

[Ares Land]

What I actually said was: "The thing is, if an idpol movement is actually emancipatory, then it subsumes the interests of that identity to a broader social struggle."

I don't know what wording you prefer, but a movement which refuses to do that is fascist. I don't support Hamas mainly because their fight is not subordinated to the broader struggle for justice.

It all depends by what you mean by 'subsume' I guess I think the broader struggle is enriched by including other struggles, in one form or another. If you're okay with, then we have no real disagreement.

I was taught in civics class that the only thing the British had to do to destroy India was to encourage traditional Hindu and Muslim identities. Nothing further was necessary. What makes you think encouraging minority identities will end well?

I don't think you can be really neutral; if you don't encourage minority identities, you're encouraging the majority identity. I don't know if encouraging them is what I'm after though; I just don't think it right that French people of, say, North African or Turkish ancestry should reject everything about their origins to be fully accepted -- which is kind of the official line here these days.

[zompist]

If you assume that explanations are excuses, please cut that shit out. I get really tired of leftists who think that ignorance of politics is a virtue. I haven't ever hidden my personal views, and it's extremely rude to pretend that they've suddenly changed to centrism.

I don't believe that people hold eternal positions, only understandings of what is beneficial. I assumed you are promoting centrism in this instance because I can't tell what other conclusion could possibly follow.

You are trolling.

If you assume that explanations are excuses, please cut that shit out.

I don't know what "girlboss fascism" is.

It's a fun and ironic term feminists came up with to describe this phenomenon:

Fortunately we agree that TERFs and anti-sex-worker activists are bad.

As it happens I just read a book by a dude (Ed Husain) who was taken by centrist Islamism, on the grounds that they reminded him of the Tories. I mean, I liked his insistence that Islam doesn't have to be fascist and Wahhabi, but I'd also take that as confirmation that Islamism has nothing to do with leftism.

I can guarantee you, this is not what most Muslims see in Islamism. Those who fall for it see it as the answer to all their problems: https://www.dw.com/en/hamburg-hundreds- ... a-68998121

Dude obviously has a lot of wishful thinking going on about both Tories and Islamists. FWIW I believe he was thinking of Ennahda in Tunisia.

[zompist]

I was taught in civics class that the only thing the British had to do to destroy India was to encourage traditional Hindu and Muslim identities. Nothing further was necessary. What makes you think encouraging minority identities will end well?

Modi agrees with half of that: he thinks traditional Muslim identities should be suppressed. That's not "emancipatory"; in fact it's pretty much fascist.

Humans have all sorts of ways to oppress each other, and one of them is to stomp on minorities for the crime of being minorities. The emancipatory position here is to let minorities be themselves.

Minorities can oppress majorities if they happen to hold all the political power, but that is not what is happening with Muslims in France or India.

[xxx]

Minorities can oppress majorities if they happen to hold all the political power, but that is not what is happening with Muslims in France

minorities imported by force are now used by the far left
as levers of social struggle by importing Islamist ideals
used in the countries of origin against potentates
complicit in international triangular trade...

this convergence of struggles against the globalists,
in addition to its sorcerer's apprentice character,
turns against the majority, the middle classes,
economically dispossessed by globalism
and their ideals disguised ,
like a reverse colonization...

[Ares Land]

in France, minorities imported by force are now used by the far left
as levers of social struggle by importing Islamist ideals
used in the countries of origin against potentates
complicit in international triangular trade...

this convergence of struggles against the globalists,
in addition to its sorcerer's apprentice character,
turns against the majority, the middle classes,
economically dispossessed by globalism
and their ideals disguised ,
like a reverse colonization...

And that's an excellent demonstration of my and zompist's point:

I don't think you can be really neutral; if you don't encourage minority identities, you're encouraging the majority identity.

Minorities can oppress majorities if they happen to hold all the political power, but that is not what is happening with Muslims in France or India.

There are people here who see the importation of Islam as a great and present danger. Myself, I don't see it that way.
I see frustrated people blaming everything on minority. I think there is a great moral fault there but alas that sort of discourse has been encouraged by almost everyone here and it's no great surprise fascism is the next stop on the line.

[Travis B.]

Blaming Muslim immigrants for encouraging Islamism is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy, because marginalized people are more likely to adopt ideologies such as, well, Islamism. Conversely, here in the US I don't see nearly as many issues with Islamism amongst Muslim immigrants, which is likely due to the fact that (despite noise from rightist scum that Muslims are "terrorists" and whatnot) Muslim immigrants here in the US typically are not nearly as marginalized as they are in Europe.

xxx: On another note, can you write, well, like the rest of us here? Your posts are very difficult to read, and I know you probably are not a native English-speaker, but there are a good number of non-native English speakers here, and they (other than you) don't write in such a cryptic style, and their posts are actually very understandable.

[xxx]

immigration becomes a problem
when assimilation is not possible
or not desired...
or even discouraged...

Islam, like all religions, is not a problem,
it is the political use of Islam, Islamism,
that is, exploited from abroad and relayed by the far left...

if you encourage these problems you enforce the possibility of facism...

(apologize for my English, and my French too...)

[bradrn]

xxx: On another note, can you write, well, like the rest of us here? Your posts are very difficult to read, and I know you probably are not a native English-speaker, but there are a good number of non-native English speakers here, and they (other than you) don't write in such a cryptic style, and their posts are actually very understandable.

I’m pretty sure we’ve asked him this before.

[Ares Land]

if you encourage these problems you enforce the possibility of facism...

immigration becomes a problem
when assimilation is not possible
or not desired...
or even discouraged...

Islam, like all religions, is not a problem,
it is the political use of Islam, Islamism,
that is, exploited from abroad and relayed by the far left...

Immigrants find their place just find in French society; they're actually pretty well 'assimilated'.
As for the dangers of Islamism and the political use of Islam, I will be convinced when people show me the results of the Shari'ah party in the European elections. Where was the 'political Islam' list in there? On the other hand, yes, fascists lists got 40% of the vote so I'm a great deal more afraid of fascists than I'm afraid of immigrants.

if you encourage these problems you enforce the possibility of facism...

That's one line of argument I really don't get. We should pass fascist measures so that the fascists don't get in power.
It doesn't even work. Macron addressed the 'problem of immigration' with the recent immigrant law. It catered so obviously to the far right even his own party was bothered with it; did it change anything? Now, now we have an immigration law that seriously challenges human rights and fascists eager for more.

[xxx]

Islam, like all religions, is not a problem,
it is the political use of Islam, Islamism,
that is, exploited from abroad and relayed by the far left...

I'm talking about :
the rise of Islamist dress, up to and including the burqa
(not brown or black shirts),
imported imams promoting outlaw views
(not the German Nazis of the past),
massive raising of troops in our regions for Isis
(no Waffen SS for the Ukraine),
mass terrorist attacks committed by residents on our soil
(no exactions by Petainist militiamen),
slitting teachers' throats as they leave class
(no washing out their mouths with castor oil)
agit-prop pro Hamas at the National Assembly with the flag of Palestine
(no Reichstag fire)...

[TomHChappell]

….
Islam, like all religions, is not a problem,
….

I strongly disagree.
Anyone’s religion is a threat to everyone; including to the religionist.
Religion is a problem for the whole human species.

[Raphael]

….
Islam, like all religions, is not a problem,
….

I strongly disagree.
Anyone’s religion is a threat to everyone; including to the religionist.
Religion is a problem for the whole human species.

There are mountains of evidence to back up the statement "religion can often be a problem and a threat".

However, I don't see any evidence whatsoever to back up the statement "religion is always a problem and a threat".

[xxx]

I don't know of any people in human history
who doesn't have a religion of one kind or another,
a transcendence that enables man to rise above his condition...

[Travis B.]

My view of religion is that people can believe what they want to believe as long as they do not impose their beliefs on anyone else, which is the red line where religion goes from being acceptable to being unacceptable.

[rotting bones]

I strongly disagree.
Anyone’s religion is a threat to everyone; including to the religionist.
Religion is a problem for the whole human species.

Religion is a distraction from the facts of life. It's also one, but only one, way to demonstrate loyalty to a group.

Kitschy art creates toxic fandoms even when it doesn't claim to be divinely inspired. A solution to Islam would be universal art education that would allow them to see why the Quran is in bad taste.

[Travis B.]

Religion is a distraction from the facts of life. It's also one, but only one, way to demonstrate loyalty to a group.

On that count anything that is a "distraction" from teh Cause ought to be deprecated, including things like conlanging.

[rotting bones]

It all depends by what you mean by 'subsume' I guess I think the broader struggle is enriched by including other struggles, in one form or another. If you're okay with, then we have no real disagreement.

No disagreements there.

I don't think you can be really neutral; if you don't encourage minority identities, you're encouraging the majority identity. I don't know if encouraging them is what I'm after though; I just don't think it right that French people of, say, North African or Turkish ancestry should reject everything about their origins to be fully accepted -- which is kind of the official line here these days.

Humans have all sorts of ways to oppress each other, and one of them is to stomp on minorities for the crime of being minorities. The emancipatory position here is to let minorities be themselves.

Minorities can oppress majorities if they happen to hold all the political power, but that is not what is happening with Muslims in France or India.

I have a functionalist view of maximizing liberty. The purpose of supporting minority languages should be to make life easier for those who speak them, not to prop up conservative social institutions like the British Raj did. The conservatives in these communities often did not have legitimacy until the British let them enforce their regressive laws. This was ok with the British because, not only were the British themselves conservative at the time, in many ways more so than Indians, they also viewed Indians in much the same way that Israel views the Palestinians.

Modi agrees with half of that: he thinks traditional Muslim identities should be suppressed. That's not "emancipatory"; in fact it's pretty much fascist.

How is it fair to interpret half of what I said as all of what I said?

[rotting bones]

On that count anything that is a "distraction" from teh Cause ought to be deprecated, including things like conlanging.

I agree that art is a distraction from the facts of life. I prefer art to religion because it can be in better taste.

I basically agree with Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses.