FWIS3

@Sigma

I mean, I'm somewhat further left than most of the DSA, and used to be a member. Not anymore though, because they suck.

In Boston at least, DSA is mostly full of asshole Bernie supporters who don't let you get a word in edgewise. National level DSA is an even bigger disgrace, which is why I left - a bunch of leadership people actually conspired to cover up harassment allegations, even going to so far as to nullify the votes of local chapters.

A lot of people (including socialists) seem to have trouble grasping that me and a Trotskyist can both be socialists the same way that Paul Krugman and Margaret Thatcher can both be capitalists. And that orgs like the DSA can contain people like Krugman, people like Thatcher, and all sorts of others. And unfortunately the Thatcher types are also good at gaining control, like in basically any system, because ideology and blind loyalty build political clout a lot easier than caution and critical thinking.

Anyway yeah, TL;DR the far left here in the US is pretty diverse, and not majority MLM/Trotskyist/et shit. (Not that the libertarian socialist tendencies don't also have their problems.)

@Fisher

Again I'd be very surprised if this gets anywhere, because of the issue of "How do we enforce the law against the people who are the law." Also because you don't actually need majority support from the population to be an effective despot, nor do you need to declare martial law etc. if the courts and legislature have been rendered effectively toothless. Violence, and the loyalty of people who can carry it out, are still the final fallbacks, and right now I don't trust that loyalty to side with Congress and democracy instead of Trump and autocracy.

geonuc wrote:The idea that policies are what matters, not the person, is something I've endorsed. So I can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going.

It's a little like folks who point out that Bill Clinton was person with somewhat loose morals (nowhere near as loose as the Mango Mussolini's, mind you). My response is always: I don't give a shit who he fucked in the White House or how many times Hillary had to defend him while holding nose. His policies were smart and good for the nation, and the world.

For some reason I was wondering about this geonuc, because you said you can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going (and I'm genuinely curious mind, not intending to attack). Do you feel like there's a line anywhere where your view on that would change? Like, Trump famously said he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose voters. I don't think he's all wrong with a large fraction of his supporters, really, even though that would be far more serious than (either) Clinton's indiscretions. Would you still tolerate Trump supporters if they like where the nation is going, or do you have a line somewhere you'd draw?

lady_*nix wrote:@Sigma

I mean, I'm somewhat further left than most of the DSA, and used to be a member. Not anymore though, because they suck.

In Boston at least, DSA is mostly full of asshole Bernie supporters who don't let you get a word in edgewise. National level DSA is an even bigger disgrace, which is why I left - a bunch of leadership people actually conspired to cover up harassment allegations, even going to so far as to nullify the votes of local chapters.

A lot of people (including socialists) seem to have trouble grasping that me and a Trotskyist can both be socialists the same way that Paul Krugman and Margaret Thatcher can both be capitalists. And that orgs like the DSA can contain people like Krugman, people like Thatcher, and all sorts of others. And unfortunately the Thatcher types are also good at gaining control, like in basically any system, because ideology and blind loyalty build political clout a lot easier than caution and critical thinking.

Anyway yeah, TL;DR the far left here in the US is pretty diverse, and not majority MLM/Trotskyist/et shit. (Not that the libertarian socialist tendencies don't also have their problems.)

I don't think pushing for a properly working social safety net, a progressive tax code, and common sense industry regulations is "far left". EVEN if people in the US call that "Socialism". And EVEN if that was "Socialism", YOUR saving grace is that you don't support Maduro.

@Sigma

I mean personally I'm also against the existence of stock markets, individual land ownership, and a bunch of other stuff, which does put me farther left than social democrats. But definitely fuck Maduro. And also fuck anyone who wants to abuse "no land ownership" to commit genocide, "no stock markets" to live like a king on top of an oppressed population, etc. Bad faith and authoritarianism are always bullshit, political ideology isn't a substitute for personal ethics, etc.

No society is worthwhile unless its people can say, "Hey, that's fucked up and I won't do it for you," without fear of having their lives destroyed. Authoritarian leftism fails on that as badly as capitalism, and often so do various kinds of anarchism (because implicit power structures tend to be authoritarian as fuck).

OTOH yeah I do recognize that a 100% democratized society or whatever is unlikely to happen in my lifetime if ever*, and I'd be very happy to settle for social democracy if it gets the job done.



* Read this as: "Not only do I expect it not to happen, I expect at absolute best to die in my 50s from social fallout of the climate crisis, and I expect the same for most of humanity." I might be a bourgeois pig-dog etc., but my medical problems make me super vulnerable to supply chain crises, and also really bad at dealing with heat waves and air pollution. Plus being a Jew in the US is... rapidly starting to become scary, even in a relatively very liberal state. (And I'm not pleased with the radical left either as far as antisemitism and resistance to it; the solidarity has been profoundly lacking, and more authoritarian socialist tendencies tend to be actively antisemitic.)

Rommie wrote:

geonuc wrote:The idea that policies are what matters, not the person, is something I've endorsed. So I can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going.

It's a little like folks who point out that Bill Clinton was person with somewhat loose morals (nowhere near as loose as the Mango Mussolini's, mind you). My response is always: I don't give a shit who he fucked in the White House or how many times Hillary had to defend him while holding nose. His policies were smart and good for the nation, and the world.

For some reason I was wondering about this geonuc, because you said you can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going (and I'm genuinely curious mind, not intending to attack). Do you feel like there's a line anywhere where your view on that would change? Like, Trump famously said he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose voters. I don't think he's all wrong with a large fraction of his supporters, really, even though that would be far more serious than (either) Clinton's indiscretions. Would you still tolerate Trump supporters if they like where the nation is going, or do you have a line somewhere you'd draw?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Would I still tolerate ... if what? If you're asking about the president crossing a line that I could not tolerate (i.e., shooting someone on 5th Avenue), I have expressed no opinion on that. It's not what I was talking about. If you're asking about a line in terms of where the country is going, yes, I do. Not sure where it is but for example, if someone expressed the opinion that the policies of the country should revert to pre-Civil War (e.g., legal slavery), then that would be over the line. Pre-19th Amendment too. Lots of stuff.

The crux of my opinion is that, in the final analysis, policies are what matters to the people who are governed, not the personal behavior of their leader. And to that end, I can tolerate* someone has a different view of how the country should be governed. I may not agree with them (and in the case of Republicans in this time, I obviously don't) but at least you might be able to have a rational dialog about what is and what is not good for the country.

*Part of any confusion in this regard may lie in how I have phrased this. When I say "I can tolerate", I mean "It is possible to tolerate". It doesn't mean "I do tolerate".

@geonuc

"Rational dialog" is only possible when all parties are prepared to discuss things in good faith. The current Republican party is for the most part well past that.

lady_*nix wrote:@Sigma

I mean personally I'm also against the existence of stock markets, individual land ownership, and a bunch of other stuff, which does put me farther left than social democrats. But definitely fuck Maduro. And also fuck anyone who wants to abuse "no land ownership" to commit genocide, "no stock markets" to live like a king on top of an oppressed population, etc. Bad faith and authoritarianism are always bullshit, political ideology isn't a substitute for personal ethics, etc.

No society is worthwhile unless its people can say, "Hey, that's fucked up and I won't do it for you," without fear of having their lives destroyed. Authoritarian leftism fails on that as badly as capitalism, and often so do various kinds of anarchism (because implicit power structures tend to be authoritarian as fuck).

OTOH yeah I do recognize that a 100% democratized society or whatever is unlikely to happen in my lifetime if ever*, and I'd be very happy to settle for social democracy if it gets the job done.



* Read this as: "Not only do I expect it not to happen, I expect at absolute best to die in my 50s from social fallout of the climate crisis, and I expect the same for most of humanity." I might be a bourgeois pig-dog etc., but my medical problems make me super vulnerable to supply chain crises, and also really bad at dealing with heat waves and air pollution. Plus being a Jew in the US is... rapidly starting to become scary, even in a relatively very liberal state. (And I'm not pleased with the radical left either as far as antisemitism and resistance to it; the solidarity has been profoundly lacking, and more authoritarian socialist tendencies tend to be actively antisemitic.)

Well, good to know that your idealism has a streak of pragmatism in it And hope you're wrong because by the time you're 50 I'll be in my 80s. Lousy way to go.

IDK Sigma, I have a hard time imagining a more idealistic stance than assuming the market will figure everything out just in time to save us.

geonuc wrote:

Rommie wrote:

geonuc wrote:The idea that policies are what matters, not the person, is something I've endorsed. So I can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going.

It's a little like folks who point out that Bill Clinton was person with somewhat loose morals (nowhere near as loose as the Mango Mussolini's, mind you). My response is always: I don't give a shit who he fucked in the White House or how many times Hillary had to defend him while holding nose. His policies were smart and good for the nation, and the world.

For some reason I was wondering about this geonuc, because you said you can tolerate a Republican who despises Trump but likes where the nation is going (and I'm genuinely curious mind, not intending to attack). Do you feel like there's a line anywhere where your view on that would change? Like, Trump famously said he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose voters. I don't think he's all wrong with a large fraction of his supporters, really, even though that would be far more serious than (either) Clinton's indiscretions. Would you still tolerate Trump supporters if they like where the nation is going, or do you have a line somewhere you'd draw?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Would I still tolerate ... if what? If you're asking about the president crossing a line that I could not tolerate (i.e., shooting someone on 5th Avenue), I have expressed no opinion on that. It's not what I was talking about. If you're asking about a line in terms of where the country is going, yes, I do. Not sure where it is but for example, if someone expressed the opinion that the policies of the country should revert to pre-Civil War (e.g., legal slavery), then that would be over the line. Pre-19th Amendment too. Lots of stuff.

The crux of my opinion is that, in the final analysis, policies are what matters to the people who are governed, not the personal behavior of their leader. And to that end, I can tolerate* someone has a different view of how the country should be governed. I may not agree with them (and in the case of Republicans in this time, I obviously don't) but at least you might be able to have a rational dialog about what is and what is not good for the country.

*Part of any confusion in this regard may lie in how I have phrased this. When I say "I can tolerate", I mean "It is possible to tolerate". It doesn't mean "I do tolerate".

I think you cleared up my question with your asterisk comment. Thanks.

Well, it's official. The House voted to impeach Trump on two counts. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... p-n1103576

lady_*nix wrote:IDK Sigma, I have a hard time imagining a more idealistic stance than assuming the market will figure everything out just in time to save us.

That's not idealistic, that's dumb. The market exists for one and only one purpose: produce money. That's why we need Regulations. That's why we need a Social safety net. No actual economy, not even the one in your country is completely market driven. And, despite what Libertarians and similar species say, It can be as inefficient and corrupt as anything else. Just like in IT all systems can AND will be hacked, any Economic or Political system can and will be abused. And, the more it gets there, the more appealing Communism looks BTW. What happened in your country, that sociopaths took over your Republican party and that 30% of the population of your country cheers them now as heroes. Happened for only one reason: "Joe Average" checked out and let the country run on automatic pilot. What happened to us was that the old system was so discredited that we, (collectively that is. I personally never voted for any Chavista candidate) believed an SOB in a white horse and kept voting him in for 15 years. That's the next stage for you guys. Hope you don't fall into that.

SciFiFisher wrote:Well, it's official. The House voted to impeach Trump on two counts. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... p-n1103576

And by Monday, your Senate will acquit him 53 to 47 (at best). As everyone is expecting. The big question of course is how is this going to affect your November 2020 elections.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next year. Will the "conservative" movement become even more monolithic? Will the 100 million eligible voters who don 't vote finally realize they need to get off their ass and vote? There is still a chance that we can pull back from the brink and stop the slide into fascism. If he wins another term I suspect we will see the middle of the end. It will be interesting to see if we go the way of Germany with no effective resistance to stopping the dismantling of our republic. Or if it will result in an actual civil war. Interesting, being of course, interchangeable with other words such as terrifying, horrible, fascinating, grim, and apocalyptic.

Yeah, I've been really news weary right now because I just don't know if I can focus on the next inevitable part without getting upset and a little depressed. I dunno I just keep thinking lately Trump is probably going to get re-elected anyway seeing as how the Dems seem perfectly happy to tear themselves apart for a few more months and choose a terrible candidate like Biden who will lose.

Rommie wrote:Yeah, I've been really news weary right now because I just don't know if I can focus on the next inevitable part without getting upset and a little depressed. I dunno I just keep thinking lately Trump is probably going to get re-elected anyway seeing as how the Dems seem perfectly happy to tear themselves apart for a few more months and choose a terrible candidate like Biden who will lose.

May they pick a horrible candidate and win anyway. It will be interesting to see if the electoral college will put Trump in the WH a second time or not. Because even though there are way more voters than should be supporting him the ones who don't still outnumber them.

I am surprised that Andrew Yang has lasted this long

Sigma_Orionis wrote:I am surprised that Andrew Yang has lasted this long

True. Apparently his message resonates with just enough people.

MATH, idnit?

There ya go

I think he's the "Ron Paul" of this election. What I mean by this is every election in my memory at least has had someone who we all know isn't going to win, but has a core of devoted followers who believe in that person's message and thus they get way more coverage than otherwise would.

The "Yang gang" is definitely the one this election IMO.

Rommie wrote:I think he's the "Ron Paul" of this election. What I mean by this is every election in my memory at least has had someone who we all know isn't going to win, but has a core of devoted followers who believe in that person's message and thus they get way more coverage than otherwise would.

The "Yang gang" is definitely the one this election IMO.

Well, he does get more coverage than Tulsi Gabbard, that's for sure.

Paul Krugman was in town last night, so in order to complete my trifecta of seeing my favorite NY Times columnists as they come through since I've moved here (Gail Collins and Nick Kristof have already visited) we went to check it out.

The most interesting part worth sharing was Krugman stated at one point that we have a 40% chance of becoming an autocracy like Hungary in the coming year, "and it would be even higher if Trump weren't so incompetent and smart like Orban."

My Hungarian SIL disagreed that it would be so high because Eastern Europeans just don't have a robust history of democracy like the USA does- as the joke went when the Berlin Wall fell, "now Eastern Europe is free of the yoke of communism to return to their traditional form of government: fascism." While there might be something to it, I think the important point about autocracy is it takes on the flavor of their own countries so yeah, I don't think an American autocracy would be just like a Hungarian/Polish/Russian one. But I think in terms of a key drive where one party keeps in power even if they don't have the majority, and they control the courts, and there's not much you can do to vote them out? I don't see why that can't happen here when we have so many key elements already. (But yes, I could imagine the American flavor still changing the president every eight years instead of sticking with one guy, or something.)

What a mess.

TBH I imagine the American flavor of autocracy being... a lot more unstable than Eastern European flavors, because we have a level of warrior culture here fit to match 1920s Germany. And also because Trump's platform is basically the Hitler playbook, and because the US has more nukes floating around than anyone except maybe Russia. And, furthermore, because one of the dominant forces in our politics for the last 30+ years has been people who want to bring about the End Times.

40% chance of becoming a Hungary-style autocracy. Yeah, I'd love to be that optimistic.