Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 8:41 am

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 8:32 am So one part of is that every country voting in 2024 has rejected their current governments because of inflation due to Putin and megacorps. What if Putin did it deliberately?

Possible, but on balance, I don't think he intended for the Ukraine War to take so long. He intended it to be over in a few days.

Yes - his original plan was to seize Kiev, re-install Yanukovich, and then help him take over the country, not expecting much resistance.

who can say what shady plans powerful men concoct... then again, i don't think the guy's playing that level of 5D chess. the failed blitzkrieg on hostomel and the rest of it doesn't make sense if he anticipated a protracted war from the beggining. once it became clear that the war would be long, however, it seems reasonable to assume that putin came to think he could sustain it for a decent while. he started annexing bits pretty early.

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:23 am who can say what shady plans powerful men concoct... then again, i don't think the guy's playing that level of 5D chess. the failed blitzkrieg on hostomel and the rest of it doesn't make sense if he anticipated a protracted war from the beggining. once it became clear that the war would be long, however, it seems reasonable to assume that putin came to think he could sustain it for a decent while. he started annexing bits pretty early.

Also, he cannot go back. If he loses the war, his political career (and perhaps also his life, at least as a free man) will be over. He must win the war in order to get his head out of the noose he put around it himself. (Not that I consider a Russian victory in Ukraine in any way desirable, though, of course.)

So, what do you all make of Putin's new nuclear doctrine?

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:39 pm Also, he cannot go back. If he loses the war, his political career (and perhaps also his life, at least as a free man) will be over. He must win the war in order to get his head out of the noose he put around it himself. (Not that I consider a Russian victory in Ukraine in any way desirable, though, of course.)

he needs something he can spin to sound like a win, yeah. that could be something that the us leadership could also spin as a win, resulting in both sides saying "we won", which is honestly a likely outcome.

We have precedent for nuclear brinksmanship enough, I don't think the new nuclear doctrine will change a lot. I do think it's a move by biden to make it hard for trump to each an agreement and end the war, as it makes putin lose face to sign a ceasefire right after the enemy starts shooting missiles at russian cities.

Some more thoughts of mine about the election, since some time has passed:

There used to be a streamer called Destiny who has been debating the alt right since before 2016. He was very gentle at first. He even avoided woke language and tried to make friends with communities of alt right hosts. By now, he's totally blackpilled. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The American right has completely different standards for what someone like Trump can do vs. everyone else. You can gently show them the error of their ways (Trump is a city slicker who fucks over rural Americans all the time by withholding aid), and they will go, "Yes, but what about...?" Meanwhile, Trump can constantly contradict himself and take credit for everything good, and they will think it's brave of him to voice uncomfortable truths. You can be 100% accurate about everything, but people just won't listen when they don't trust you.

(1)
I haven't watched Destiny, but I've come to similar conclusions.

(2)
Indeed, you can't reason somebody out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. This is why Democrats must very seriously consider the institutions that support them, and more specifically, rebuild unions as a institutional base of power, because they are institutions that people INSTICTIVELY know fights for them (partly because they interact with the union almost every day), and they will remember this when they're in the voting booth!

The average voter is very "low-information", doesn't have a coherent view of the world, nor a coherent political ideology. They have only a mish-mash of selfish interests, a couple of hobby horses that they are slightly educated in (if you're lucky), some wishful thinking, and a bunch of lizard brain tribalisms.

(3)
As a corollary, appealing to just eggheads isn't enough. Not everyone has a PHD. Get over it. Expect it and take people as they are. Democrats used to know and accept this:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10561704-someone-heard-stevenson-s-impressive-speech-and-said-every-thinking-person wrote:“Someone heard Stevenson’s impressive speech and said, “Every thinking person in America will be voting for you.” Stevenson replied, “I’m afraid that won’t do—I need a majority.”
― Adlai E. Stevenson II

(4)
The desire for a real populism (as opposed to Trump's fake populism) is there. Case in point, Alaska: https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_M ... ive_(2024)
Alaska voted for Trump, but they also voted to raise the min wage to 15$ / hour, for guaranteed sick leave, and against retaliation against workers that don't attend employer-sponsored meetings.

(5)
Focus your message on economics, because it's something that almost everybody can sympathize with. Almost everybody has, had, or will have a job at some point in their life. On the other hand, most people will never personally experience being trans or gay.

(6)
Don't rely on mainstream media to spread your message. Mainstream media people are weak, stupid, timid sycophants that think that objectivity equals neutrality, live in a bubble that leaves them ignorant about how most people live, and are beholden to the whims of their billionaire overlords. Build your own media to spread your message.

The fact is, lots of people voted for Trump because of Joe Rogan. There is no reliable strategy for creating an alternative to Joe Rogan with the same reach within 4 years, so this is the next best thing I can think of.

I don't listen to Rogan often, but I don't think that he's a chud. Two pieces of evidence: https://berniesanders.com/video-index-d ... ng-bernie/ , https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comme ... socialism/

(7)
Embrace outrage. Being calm makes you seem clueless, aloof, timid, and weak. People are living shitty lives, and you need to match their energy and emotion to let them know that you understand their plight and are going to do something to fix it.

Also, acting calm associates you with management in the mind of the worker, because that's exactly how managers and HR departments act and talk, and as any savvy worker knows, management and HR are not your friend.

(8)
Norms don't matter. Democrats keep kneecapping themselves by adhering to the "norms", while Republicans gleefully ignore them, reaping the benefits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mifg84XJsWc Democrats need to start playing hardball immediately, pushing for every inch, everywhere, always. Democrats' theory of politics being about following norms and finding common ground is wrong and needs to be thrown away.

(9)
Democrats probably could've won this if they had better turn-out. I guess 5 million people felt not motivated enough to bother voting after 4 years of Biden made them forget how awful Trump was.

(10)
Apparently "left-wing" now means supporting unfetterred free trade no matter what: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpqXHKKpGuI I expect this guy would have supported slavery 200 years ago, because freeing the slaves and giving them wages would have raised the price of cotton, which would have been unacceptable! Also, it's easy for him to be satisfied with saying "We're good at making apps!" when it wasn't his good union job that got sent to Mexico or China, and he isn't now working at Amazon and having to pee in bottles and shit in bags to keep his job. ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherineh ... n-bottles/ )

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 8:32 am So one part of is that every country voting in 2024 has rejected their current governments because of inflation due to Putin and megacorps. What if Putin did it deliberately?

Inflation in these past few years has many causes; the chief ones being COVID and energy prices (corporate greed also, but that's kind of a constant.) Putin of course isn't responsible for COVID; the energy crisis Putin has some leverage on.
It's a certainty Russia is doing their best to apply pressure on the West. On the whole, Putin didn't do it but he's certainly trying to make it worse.

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 11:11 pm Some more thoughts of mine about the election, since some time has passed:

All interesting ideas but aren't you worried right-wingers are inherently better at populism? I'm personally afraid they are. There's something in the conservative belief system that lends itself to Trumpism, I think -- conservativism is kind of simple and intuitive; socialism (if that's what you're after) can be counter-intuitive (especially these days when mainstream thought, on economic matters in particular is definitely conservative.)

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 6:15 am So, what do you all make of Putin's new nuclear doctrine?

Mostly posturing; he's trying to discourage European countries and the US. One idea I had is that he's specifically trying to scare the voters, who may or may not care strongly about Ukraine and could pressure their governments for peace.

Trump's position on this is not very clear to me -- on one hand I hear he and Biden were in agreement over the long range missiles; on the other hand the Trump side is scaring people off with talk of World War Three.

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 11:11 pm [a lot of obviously true things and also]
(10)
Apparently "left-wing" now means supporting unfetterred free trade no matter what: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpqXHKKpGuI I expect this guy would have supported slavery 200 years ago, because freeing the slaves and giving them wages would have raised the price of cotton, which would have been unacceptable!

not only that, being "centerleft" means absolute support for america world police, it means being anti immigration, it means being the party of law and order, and it means absolute support for american warhawkery.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:11 am All interesting ideas but aren't you worried right-wingers are inherently better at populism? I'm personally afraid they are. There's something in the conservative belief system that lends itself to Trumpism, I think -- conservativism is kind of simple and intuitive; socialism (if that's what you're after) can be counter-intuitive (especially these days when mainstream thought, on economic matters in particular is definitely conservative.)

they shouldn't be: the only reason that they are is that they're the only ones trying to be (anyone but far leftists rather outside the political system are commited to neoliberal technocracy) and they're so amazingly well funded by billionaires. there's obviously something in the conservative mind that lends itself to trumpism, but that's cause trumpism is designed to appeal to the conservative mind. and as for the counter-intuitiveness of socialism... dude, the right wing propagandists got people to believe the earth is flat and the correct diet is eating nothing but beef. you can make people believe anything if you put it in a package that appeals to their feelings. and flat-earthism is a lot more counterintuitive than "the economy is a scam built to keep you desperate, exhausted and doing whatever the nobles want"... mostly cause it's true.

Torco wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 6:28 am and as for the counter-intuitiveness of socialism... dude, the right wing propagandists got people to believe the earth is flat and the correct diet is eating nothing but beef. you can make people believe anything if you put it in a package that appeals to their feelings.

I suspect that by "counter-intuitive", Ares Land meant pretty much "goes against people's feelings".

Torco wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 6:28 am and as for the counter-intuitiveness of socialism... dude, the right wing propagandists got people to believe the earth is flat and the correct diet is eating nothing but beef. you can make people believe anything if you put it in a package that appeals to their feelings. and flat-earthism is a lot more counterintuitive than "the economy is a scam built to keep you desperate, exhausted and doing whatever the nobles want"... mostly cause it's true.

It feels like right-wing propaganda is easier to produce and digest. Keeping things as they are, only more so and any problem you might have are to be blamed on foreigners or govenrment -- that seems to appeal directly to human biases.

But, you know, it's one of those cases where I'd be happy to be wrong!

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:48 am

It feels like right-wing propaganda is easier to produce and digest. Keeping things as they are, only more so and any problem you might have are to be blamed on foreigners or govenrment -- that seems to appeal directly to human biases.

And regarding the "blame it all on foreigners" thing, I've got the impression that in times and places when socialist movements have been successful, it has all to often been because economic conditions were such that socialism could become an expression of the local nationalism, with a message like "Those powerful foreigners are oppressing us all, and we should throw them out!"

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:21 amI suspect that by "counter-intuitive", Ares Land meant pretty much "goes against people's feelings".

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:48 amIt feels like right-wing propaganda is easier to produce and digest. Keeping things as they are, only more so and any problem you might have are to be blamed on foreigners or govenrment -- that seems to appeal directly to human biases.

But, you know, it's one of those cases where I'd be happy to be wrong!

I mean, I don't disagree if we look at the actual propa being produced and consumed but that's kind of the point: the reason why current fash propa jives so well with people's feelings is that the fash are the only ones, within the mainstream discourse at least, that are saying "this whole system is wrong and we have to change it quite a bit". I think that's the key thing: people think about this in very different terms, but the thing is that people's feelings is something similar to "this whole thing is wrong" and what they're faced with, especially in the west is a) crazy angry and exhuberant guys who say the whole thing is wrong and that they will change everything and b) serene people who say we should trust in institutions, make minor reforms perhaps to this and that, who say that the crazy guys are crazy and bad, and who two years later end up echoing the same points the crazy guys were making anyway.

that being said, the fash do have a distinct advantage in that they are extremely well funded, but that was the case in the past as well: difference was, in the past leftos used to have their own media outlets, and weren't afraid to put forward relatively radical ideas.

"those damned foreigners and their imperialistic meddling" tends to work well in the third world... regrettably, since those foreigners are generally yanks (though also spanish, french, germans and brits etcetera) it's hard to make that case in the first world (though you can make it in concrete cases, such as the shameful enabling of the israeli regime's crimes against humanity)

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 8:44 am And regarding the "blame it all on foreigners" thing, I've got the impression that in times and places when socialist movements have been successful, it has all to often been because economic conditions were such that socialism could become an expression of the local nationalism, with a message like "Those powerful foreigners are oppressing us all, and we should throw them out!"

I disagree, but I'm not sure we're thinking of the same time and places
Socialist ideas were successfully implemented in Western Europe immediately after WWII - in France or Britain there was probably an element of nationalistic pride in there but I believe in the more positive sense of the whole nation coming together. As for the social market economy in, say, Austria, I don't think anti-foreigner sentiment played a part. Ditto for social-democracy in Sweden.
(Keeping in mind that social democracy in Austria and Nordic countries was pretty radical in those days!)

Torco wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 8:53 am
I mean, I don't disagree if we look at the actual propa being produced and consumed but that's kind of the point: the reason why current fash propa jives so well with people's feelings is that the fash are the only ones, within the mainstream discourse at least, that are saying "this whole system is wrong and we have to change it quite a bit". I think that's the key thing: people think about this in very different terms, but the thing is that people's feelings is something similar to "this whole thing is wrong" and what they're faced with, especially in the west is a) crazy angry and exhuberant guys who say the whole thing is wrong and that they will change everything and b) serene people who say we should trust in institutions, make minor reforms perhaps to this and that, who say that the crazy guys are crazy and bad, and who two years later end up echoing the same points the crazy guys were making anyway.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. It's hard to get excited about bland technocracy.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:07 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 8:44 am And regarding the "blame it all on foreigners" thing, I've got the impression that in times and places when socialist movements have been successful, it has all to often been because economic conditions were such that socialism could become an expression of the local nationalism, with a message like "Those powerful foreigners are oppressing us all, and we should throw them out!"

I disagree, but I'm not sure we're thinking of the same time and places
Socialist ideas were successfully implemented in Western Europe immediately after WWII - in France or Britain there was probably an element of nationalistic pride in there but I believe in the more positive sense of the whole nation coming together. As for the social market economy in, say, Austria, I don't think anti-foreigner sentiment played a part. Ditto for social-democracy in Sweden.
(Keeping in mind that social democracy in Austria and Nordic countries was pretty radical in those days!)

I was mainly thinking of Asian, African, and Latin American countries.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:12 am
I was mainly thinking of Asian, African, and Latin American countries.

Ah, yeah, definitely. But I'd say nationalism is a very different thing in former colonies, or basically the playground of world superpowers then it is in the US.
In post-independance Algeria, of course France was at fault for the oppression. The reverse claim that Algerians are somewhat responsible for oppression in French is a very different thing.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:19 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:12 am
I was mainly thinking of Asian, African, and Latin American countries.

Ah, yeah, definitely. But I'd say nationalism is a very different thing in former colonies, or basically the playground of world superpowers then it is in the US.

In terms of its impact and consequences, as well as from a "What should we think about it?" perspective, yes. But I suspect the psychological mechanisms are fairly similar.

All interesting ideas but aren't you worried right-wingers are inherently better at populism? I'm personally afraid they are. There's something in the conservative belief system that lends itself to Trumpism, I think -- conservativism is kind of simple and intuitive; socialism (if that's what you're after) can be counter-intuitive (especially these days when mainstream thought, on economic matters in particular is definitely conservative.)

No, because real populism has a big advantage over fake populism: It actually works. Fake populism can never deliver on the promise of improving (most) people's lives. It can only kick the can down the road and create more scapegoats.

Socialist economics are not inherently counter-intuitive. People are just not used to hearing the arguments, because the side that should be saying them refuses to, and instead says out-of-touch things like "America is already great." ( https://x.com/HillaryClinton/status/758501814945869824 )

i'd even be more radical: socialist economics (in the lato sensu of from each according to their capacity to each according to their will, somewhat consensus based resource allocation and economic decisionmaking, etcetera) is the natural state of man: it's how small bands organize, it's how healthy and non-abuse families organize, it's how you'd figure out spending and who pays what and so on if you and six friends lived together etcetera. it's capitalism that's weird as fuck:

what? so teams of people are "owned" by a person and that person is king and whatever he says goes? king of what, of the team of people who work together? really? and so the only thing the economy can do is things that make kings wealthier? ah, and it 'regulates itself' you say. what about all those people starving and/or homeless? ah, right, fuck em, got it. weird system tbh. and in order to get anything you need to survive you have to give people these point, is it? and who decides how many points you get? ah, right, the king gives you as few points as he can get away with giving you. got it.

The thing about socialism is that people in the Western world have no memory, or even a memory of having had a memory, anymore of life before capitalism so they do not see anything else as being possible. Furthermore, the existence of big-C Communist states trained people to reflexively associate what is actually state capitalism with socialism, such that people readily confuse the two, and have no concept of socialism distinct from big-C Communism. Consequently they easily accept arguments made by supporters of capitalism against socialism despite that capitalism does not actually serve their self-interest and socialism does.