Just reading this Twitter thread from AOC and I seriously can't get over how freaking awesome she is. I truly believe progressive Democrats like AOC (including Pramila Jayapal, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, etc.) are the future of the party if it's even to have one. Ignore them and their progressive (and winning) ideas and policies at your own risk. The Democratic Party’s rejection of progressive policies and candidates by both leadership and primary voters did more harm than good. I think there's enough evidence from the results of elections around the country that progressive policies and candidates have far wider general appeal than many Democrats realize, from the success of progressive candidates winning seats or reelection and progressive measures such as $15 minimum wage in Florida to the loss of centrist Democrats.
On top of that, I think that Democrats owe a huge debt to black and brown voters and organizers for Biden's win (which looks likely at this point). I also think they also owe the many leftists and progressives like Bernie and AOC who campaigned so hard for Biden despite his unwillingness to adopt progressive policies like Medicare for All. And while I'm not going to hold my breath that the Democratic Party will do right by any of them, I hope they prove me wrong. One way of doing that is by making AOC the next speaker of the House, because her vision and energy is what the Democratic Party needs guiding it.
Also, the Lincoln Project was a grift. I'll never get tired of saying that or shitting on the very idea of it and how many liberals were suckered by it. They raised $67 million, more than they could spend during the election, so they're using it for some media project that'll likely help Republicans and/or try to push Biden right, and a larger percentage of Republicans voted for Trump in 2020 than 2016, so yeah. Back in August, I said on Facebook that, "I honestly don't think the election can be won by courting Republicans and neglecting the younger voters, progressives, latinx and Muslim voters, and the majority of working people and voters who are hurting and support things like universal healthcare." And I think the data from this election has proven that right. You're not winning over these mythical, moral Reoublicans, so let's not go that route again and instead support actual progressives and not pander to the party that gave us this "existential threat" in the first place, ok?
But the most important point in all of this, I think, is that made by Bree Newsome Bass, who wrote on Twitter, "I hope folks recognize the power actually resides with the people, that it’s not about voting folks into office & then crossing your fingers while hoping they’ll do what you need. We have to build organized power in our communities, set our own agendas & mobilize as necessary." I don't think that point can be stressed enough, which is why my politics are predominately socialist in nature, because it gives the people's needs primacy and take the efficacy of their collective power seriously.
Friday, November 6, 2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020
election 2020, part 2
On Twitter, Bree Newsome Bass wrote:
I think this is an important point that socialists need make to white people and workers. While I'm not a class reductionist, I do think the case must be made that socializing the economy and moving away from capitalism will benefit all workers by not restricting opportunities and forcing greater competition with others, but rather allowing us to eliminate bullshit jobs, reducing working hours and shorting the work week, and provide a good life for everyone. Because under the current system, gains made for BIPOC and women economically and politically will negatively impact white workers, and I think that fear is one of the reasons they vote Republican and for people like Trump. They want to protect their jobs and wages from the threat they see in immigrant labourers, equal opportunity and pay for BIPOC, women, etc.
This should only be a short-term strategy, though, for immediate electoral victories and the implementation of socialist economic policies because the problem of things like racism, sexism, etc. will still be present. Things like racism still needs to be acknowledged and uprooted, and BIPOC still need equitable economic and political power. But because capitalism depends so much upon production for profit and competition among workers, which benefits capital and gives rise to a great deal of inequality, workers see each other as competitors and enemies, battling for the two slices of pie left for them after capital takes the other eight.
In essence, I see the argument for and push to socialize the economy as just a part of the hard but necessary struggle to end white supremacy. Such economic policies can potentially act as a tool that may help lessen the material fears and economic dynamics that motivate many white people to support systems of white supremacy and racial inequality, which then could potentially promote class solidarity and help unify workers against capital rather than each other.
While this may be idealistic, I think it's worth a shot because white people make up about 70% of the population and voted for Trump in record numbers, and even more POC voted for Trump this time around that last, so I think Democrats need to start trying something different by taking a page from socialist playbooks. Obviously, moderating their platform and pandering to conservative Republicans was a failed strategy. I say this because more Republicans voted for Trump this election than last, and Democrats had pretty disappointing down-ballot results. And one of the many reasons I think this could help put a wedge between white America and white supremacy as embodied by the Republican Party electorally is the success of a $15 minimum wage in conservative Florida (which also voted to restore voting right to felons in 2018).
More liberal areas like Seattle have passed $15 minimum measures, and the fact that a conservative state like Florida can as well, combined with the popularity of universal programs like universal healthcare and education, offer a door for the left and the Democratic Party if it were to adopt even more left-leaning, working-class friendly policies to larger electoral victories. And that could possibly set the stage for even more expansive socialist policies and programs that I believe would undercut much of the fear that keeps white America up at night. And I think this strategy would be much better and more successful than trying to match a more socially-liberal equivalent to what the Republicans offer, because you're not going to beat them at their own game. How many elections do they have to win or almost win for people to see that?
To combat the power of racism and white supremacy, you have to not only change people’s minds but the material conditions and institutions that reproduce these racist biases, barriers, and outcomes. You have to physically dismantle the socio-economic supports for things like racism and white supremacy as well as the internalized beliefs and fears that express themselves electorally.
"Please stop saying working class white people “vote against their interests” when they side w/ racism. That perspective refuses to acknowledge material benefits these folks obtain by preserving a white supremacist system. They don't want racial equality or economic competition.
I think this is an important point that socialists need make to white people and workers. While I'm not a class reductionist, I do think the case must be made that socializing the economy and moving away from capitalism will benefit all workers by not restricting opportunities and forcing greater competition with others, but rather allowing us to eliminate bullshit jobs, reducing working hours and shorting the work week, and provide a good life for everyone. Because under the current system, gains made for BIPOC and women economically and politically will negatively impact white workers, and I think that fear is one of the reasons they vote Republican and for people like Trump. They want to protect their jobs and wages from the threat they see in immigrant labourers, equal opportunity and pay for BIPOC, women, etc.
This should only be a short-term strategy, though, for immediate electoral victories and the implementation of socialist economic policies because the problem of things like racism, sexism, etc. will still be present. Things like racism still needs to be acknowledged and uprooted, and BIPOC still need equitable economic and political power. But because capitalism depends so much upon production for profit and competition among workers, which benefits capital and gives rise to a great deal of inequality, workers see each other as competitors and enemies, battling for the two slices of pie left for them after capital takes the other eight.
In essence, I see the argument for and push to socialize the economy as just a part of the hard but necessary struggle to end white supremacy. Such economic policies can potentially act as a tool that may help lessen the material fears and economic dynamics that motivate many white people to support systems of white supremacy and racial inequality, which then could potentially promote class solidarity and help unify workers against capital rather than each other.
While this may be idealistic, I think it's worth a shot because white people make up about 70% of the population and voted for Trump in record numbers, and even more POC voted for Trump this time around that last, so I think Democrats need to start trying something different by taking a page from socialist playbooks. Obviously, moderating their platform and pandering to conservative Republicans was a failed strategy. I say this because more Republicans voted for Trump this election than last, and Democrats had pretty disappointing down-ballot results. And one of the many reasons I think this could help put a wedge between white America and white supremacy as embodied by the Republican Party electorally is the success of a $15 minimum wage in conservative Florida (which also voted to restore voting right to felons in 2018).
More liberal areas like Seattle have passed $15 minimum measures, and the fact that a conservative state like Florida can as well, combined with the popularity of universal programs like universal healthcare and education, offer a door for the left and the Democratic Party if it were to adopt even more left-leaning, working-class friendly policies to larger electoral victories. And that could possibly set the stage for even more expansive socialist policies and programs that I believe would undercut much of the fear that keeps white America up at night. And I think this strategy would be much better and more successful than trying to match a more socially-liberal equivalent to what the Republicans offer, because you're not going to beat them at their own game. How many elections do they have to win or almost win for people to see that?
To combat the power of racism and white supremacy, you have to not only change people’s minds but the material conditions and institutions that reproduce these racist biases, barriers, and outcomes. You have to physically dismantle the socio-economic supports for things like racism and white supremacy as well as the internalized beliefs and fears that express themselves electorally.
Wednesday, November 4, 2020
election 2020
Last night, I was watching the results at work and stressing like the rest of America seemed to be. But it also made me pissed at the Democratic Party, from the leadership on down. On Twitter, Christian socialist Dean Dettloff wrote, "The fact that things are even close against the worst president in US history is a brutal indictment of the Democrats." And I couldn't agree more. But I also don't think many Democrats get that and realize just how bad the party is and how awful their strategy has been for years. They certainly don't seem to listen to people like him or me, or learn anything from their loses and close races when there's always Naders, Bernies, and Greens to blame. They just seem to repeat the same failed strategies with often terrible candidates to, I guess, play it safe.
That there's even a contest between the two is mystifying only if one doesn't realize that. Looking at the FOX polls from yesterday, for example, 70% of voters want universal healthcare; 71% want Roe v Wade to stay as it is; 72% want a path to citizenship for immigrants. And Florida just voted for a $15 minimum. Fucking Florida, who also went for Trump, again. But what if Democrats offered someone putting all of their energy into supporting things like universal healthcare and a $15 minimum? Maybe they'd have won Florida this year. And yeah, I get that it's still early and Biden has a chance, but I wish just once Democrats went all in with a truly progressive and populist candidate and platform. No establishment moderates approved by the party leadership, just a full-on socialist or social democrat championing the shit out of universal healthcare and education, worker ownership and board votes, a $15 minimum, etc.
If Biden loses, it'll likely be because of our terrible and undemocratic electoral system and because Democrats went with the exact same strategy as 2016 except with a worse candidate (Hillary was far superior, in my opinion). And if he wins, it'll be a slog to get back to 4 years ago. Either way, I want to keep screaming at Democrats to just take the gamble and give the people what they want. Find someone on the outside of both parties who embodies the populist desires of the people — someone who's championing the things people want like universal healthcare, a living wage, etc. — and go all in. I know Bernie has his flaws, but I'm reasonably sure he would've won against Trump both times. And if Democrats really want to win and help the nation progress, they have to start taking chances on people more like him and less like Biden. Maybe I'm wrong, but I want Democrats to try and prove me wrong. Please.
Like many others, Umair Haque singles out one of the biggest problems facing America today—white Americans. He points out, for example, the large numbers of white Americans who consistently vote Republican. The battle for progress has always been WITH white America, it seems, with the majority of nonwhites and progressive whites fighting against them. And as many have pointed out, this stems from the very beginnings of the country itself, which was founded as a nation for white, male property owners (which at the beginning included human beings), and the continued battle to maintain the racial, gender, and class relations (and the inequalities that arise out of them) that have been thoroughly embedded into our economic system, political system, justice system, religious institutions, etc. None of this can be blamed on anyone else. White people started it, and they continue to protect it even though we're inching closer to becoming a failed state as a result. So the question is, what can we do about it?
Obviously, one goal is to challenge and attempt to unravel these social relations and root them out of our social institutions. This means confronting and deconstructing things like racism, sexism, classism, etc. wherever they are found. And part of that is working on ourselves as individuals, as well as being able to see areas where things like a certain colour of skin or gender gives someone an advantage that can't be explained any other way, to see areas where discrimination and inequality oppress those who aren't a certain colour of skin or gender, and do what we can to right those wrongs. And that kind of work is monumental and long-term because it literally means deconstructing and rebuilding our entire society as these things have been built in at the most foundational levels. We have to not only revolutionize our economic system and the power dynamics of capital ownership, but all of the superstructures built on top of that, including our political system, our judicial system, our religious institutions, etc.
But the question today is, what can be done in the short-term in, say, an election? Many white people are opposed to change because they don't want to lose what little privilege and advantage they have. So it seems that the weight of electoral progress is always going to be on the backs of people of colour and the minority of white allies in that struggle. And where I disagree with others is that you can have a chance to win electorally by appealing to more general needs to help to overcome this privilege-preservation instinct to some extent. Besides inspiring many nonvoters and first time voters, there was a sizable percentage of white voters that voted for Obama in 2008 who later voted for Trump, and I think a big part of that was his messaging of hope and change and fixing a broken system that wasn't working for people and the policy ideas that went with the slogans. And Trump later won them over in places like the Midwest by not only appealing to their whiteness, but also to them as workers, who were willingly seduced by his racism as well as his brand of populism.
That's not to say that another candidate would somehow win all the white people over who, deep down, don't want equality extended to nonwhites out of fear or resentment or whatever motivates their racism/acceptance of institutionalized racism. In this, I definitely don't see Trump as an aberration but the culmination of America's racist, sexist, classist beginnings. As bad as he is, as a rich white man willing to combat equality, he appears as a champion to the majority of white people. But the question is, how do you overcome this electorally? What choices do we have? Get someone who's just as racist, or attempt to appeal to material wants and needs? I say the latter. For one, Biden is an old white man who was at his peak in the senate during the 90s and one of the many who spearheaded the Democrats' tough on crime (i.e., black people) years. So you'd think that he'd appeal to some of those white people who realize that Trump has been a terrible president. But despite that, and all the money and praise showered onto the Lincoln Project, more Republicans voted for Trump this time around than in 2016.
Yes, racism accounts for most of that, in my opinion. But I also think it's because Democrats have been trying to play it safe in the last two elections and have gone with candidates who failed to do what Obama did. His message resonated with people and gave them something to vote for, not against. He was a relatively new face to people, someone on the periphery of the party, which further supported his message of change and fixing some of the brokenness of our system. And maybe I'm being way too optimistic here, but I think if there was someone like that who championed the things progressives and social dems like Bernie have made popular — universal healthcare, $15 minimum wage, pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, etc. — things would be far less close, even if they were a person of colour. They might still lose the majority of white people, but I think they'd win enough and excite enough of the rest of the population hoping for progress to vote in large numbers.
Essentially, Democrats need to start voting for and supporting those kinds of people, moving away from the safe, white candidates and those who don't want things to fundamentally change, and towards the next generation of progressives winning seats around the country, speaking the language of progressive populism, and championing universal policies that a majority of Americans at least say that they support. It should also be noted that Biden lost ground with the very voters that Democrats depend on the most, black and latinx voters, so it's not entirely the fault of racism, although racism is likely the primary reason the majority of white voters favour Trump (and Republicans in general). It shouldn't be the responsibility of nonwhites to carry the progress of the nation forward, and white people have to be held accountable for the way things are. But I think this shows that the Democrats' strategy has failed yet again and that they need to do something different if they have any hope of remaining relevant, let alone in power.
I mean, it should be obvious by now that playing it safe and banking on winning Republican voters is a lost cause. Democrats have had a similar playbook the last two elections, and they’ve chosen established candidates who they felt would have an easier path to victory based on things like name recognition, years of service, and moderate policy platforms that were far less radical and therefore less likely to scare away more conservative white voters. And they lost the first elections to, and are currently neck and neck in the second with, someone who frankly should never have made it through the primary process to begin with and has proven themselves to be a disaster. So maybe it's time to throw caution to the wind, take a chance, and try to do something more radical. Maybe it's time to stop playing it safe, quit trying to appeal to the right, quit trying to moderate your message, and just go for it, because what you're really doing is trying to compromise with that underlying racism and desire for a strong business daddy to whip all that good, ol’ fashion racism and sexism and jingoism back into us, meaning you'll lose morally and often electorally anyway. And as difficult as it may be, work on getting the 40-50% of eligible voters who don’t vote to actually come out and vote FOR something.
That there's even a contest between the two is mystifying only if one doesn't realize that. Looking at the FOX polls from yesterday, for example, 70% of voters want universal healthcare; 71% want Roe v Wade to stay as it is; 72% want a path to citizenship for immigrants. And Florida just voted for a $15 minimum. Fucking Florida, who also went for Trump, again. But what if Democrats offered someone putting all of their energy into supporting things like universal healthcare and a $15 minimum? Maybe they'd have won Florida this year. And yeah, I get that it's still early and Biden has a chance, but I wish just once Democrats went all in with a truly progressive and populist candidate and platform. No establishment moderates approved by the party leadership, just a full-on socialist or social democrat championing the shit out of universal healthcare and education, worker ownership and board votes, a $15 minimum, etc.
If Biden loses, it'll likely be because of our terrible and undemocratic electoral system and because Democrats went with the exact same strategy as 2016 except with a worse candidate (Hillary was far superior, in my opinion). And if he wins, it'll be a slog to get back to 4 years ago. Either way, I want to keep screaming at Democrats to just take the gamble and give the people what they want. Find someone on the outside of both parties who embodies the populist desires of the people — someone who's championing the things people want like universal healthcare, a living wage, etc. — and go all in. I know Bernie has his flaws, but I'm reasonably sure he would've won against Trump both times. And if Democrats really want to win and help the nation progress, they have to start taking chances on people more like him and less like Biden. Maybe I'm wrong, but I want Democrats to try and prove me wrong. Please.
Like many others, Umair Haque singles out one of the biggest problems facing America today—white Americans. He points out, for example, the large numbers of white Americans who consistently vote Republican. The battle for progress has always been WITH white America, it seems, with the majority of nonwhites and progressive whites fighting against them. And as many have pointed out, this stems from the very beginnings of the country itself, which was founded as a nation for white, male property owners (which at the beginning included human beings), and the continued battle to maintain the racial, gender, and class relations (and the inequalities that arise out of them) that have been thoroughly embedded into our economic system, political system, justice system, religious institutions, etc. None of this can be blamed on anyone else. White people started it, and they continue to protect it even though we're inching closer to becoming a failed state as a result. So the question is, what can we do about it?
Obviously, one goal is to challenge and attempt to unravel these social relations and root them out of our social institutions. This means confronting and deconstructing things like racism, sexism, classism, etc. wherever they are found. And part of that is working on ourselves as individuals, as well as being able to see areas where things like a certain colour of skin or gender gives someone an advantage that can't be explained any other way, to see areas where discrimination and inequality oppress those who aren't a certain colour of skin or gender, and do what we can to right those wrongs. And that kind of work is monumental and long-term because it literally means deconstructing and rebuilding our entire society as these things have been built in at the most foundational levels. We have to not only revolutionize our economic system and the power dynamics of capital ownership, but all of the superstructures built on top of that, including our political system, our judicial system, our religious institutions, etc.
But the question today is, what can be done in the short-term in, say, an election? Many white people are opposed to change because they don't want to lose what little privilege and advantage they have. So it seems that the weight of electoral progress is always going to be on the backs of people of colour and the minority of white allies in that struggle. And where I disagree with others is that you can have a chance to win electorally by appealing to more general needs to help to overcome this privilege-preservation instinct to some extent. Besides inspiring many nonvoters and first time voters, there was a sizable percentage of white voters that voted for Obama in 2008 who later voted for Trump, and I think a big part of that was his messaging of hope and change and fixing a broken system that wasn't working for people and the policy ideas that went with the slogans. And Trump later won them over in places like the Midwest by not only appealing to their whiteness, but also to them as workers, who were willingly seduced by his racism as well as his brand of populism.
That's not to say that another candidate would somehow win all the white people over who, deep down, don't want equality extended to nonwhites out of fear or resentment or whatever motivates their racism/acceptance of institutionalized racism. In this, I definitely don't see Trump as an aberration but the culmination of America's racist, sexist, classist beginnings. As bad as he is, as a rich white man willing to combat equality, he appears as a champion to the majority of white people. But the question is, how do you overcome this electorally? What choices do we have? Get someone who's just as racist, or attempt to appeal to material wants and needs? I say the latter. For one, Biden is an old white man who was at his peak in the senate during the 90s and one of the many who spearheaded the Democrats' tough on crime (i.e., black people) years. So you'd think that he'd appeal to some of those white people who realize that Trump has been a terrible president. But despite that, and all the money and praise showered onto the Lincoln Project, more Republicans voted for Trump this time around than in 2016.
Yes, racism accounts for most of that, in my opinion. But I also think it's because Democrats have been trying to play it safe in the last two elections and have gone with candidates who failed to do what Obama did. His message resonated with people and gave them something to vote for, not against. He was a relatively new face to people, someone on the periphery of the party, which further supported his message of change and fixing some of the brokenness of our system. And maybe I'm being way too optimistic here, but I think if there was someone like that who championed the things progressives and social dems like Bernie have made popular — universal healthcare, $15 minimum wage, pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, etc. — things would be far less close, even if they were a person of colour. They might still lose the majority of white people, but I think they'd win enough and excite enough of the rest of the population hoping for progress to vote in large numbers.
Essentially, Democrats need to start voting for and supporting those kinds of people, moving away from the safe, white candidates and those who don't want things to fundamentally change, and towards the next generation of progressives winning seats around the country, speaking the language of progressive populism, and championing universal policies that a majority of Americans at least say that they support. It should also be noted that Biden lost ground with the very voters that Democrats depend on the most, black and latinx voters, so it's not entirely the fault of racism, although racism is likely the primary reason the majority of white voters favour Trump (and Republicans in general). It shouldn't be the responsibility of nonwhites to carry the progress of the nation forward, and white people have to be held accountable for the way things are. But I think this shows that the Democrats' strategy has failed yet again and that they need to do something different if they have any hope of remaining relevant, let alone in power.
I mean, it should be obvious by now that playing it safe and banking on winning Republican voters is a lost cause. Democrats have had a similar playbook the last two elections, and they’ve chosen established candidates who they felt would have an easier path to victory based on things like name recognition, years of service, and moderate policy platforms that were far less radical and therefore less likely to scare away more conservative white voters. And they lost the first elections to, and are currently neck and neck in the second with, someone who frankly should never have made it through the primary process to begin with and has proven themselves to be a disaster. So maybe it's time to throw caution to the wind, take a chance, and try to do something more radical. Maybe it's time to stop playing it safe, quit trying to appeal to the right, quit trying to moderate your message, and just go for it, because what you're really doing is trying to compromise with that underlying racism and desire for a strong business daddy to whip all that good, ol’ fashion racism and sexism and jingoism back into us, meaning you'll lose morally and often electorally anyway. And as difficult as it may be, work on getting the 40-50% of eligible voters who don’t vote to actually come out and vote FOR something.
Thursday, September 24, 2020
we need a hero
To be honest, I'm completely disheartened by everything that's going on right now, from the lack of justice for the deaths of black people by the police across the country to the lack of political leadership on the part of Democrats against Trump and the dangerous threat he and what he represents poses to this country, and especially to women, BIPOC, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community.
After Trump suggested getting rid of ballots and having to wait and see what happens, refusing to commit to a peaceful transition if he loses the November election, people are worried about what may happen. Nobody seems to have a plan if Trump decided to stay in power by whatever means necessary. Democrats, who are trying to also prevent another Trump-appointed Supreme Court nomination, aren't even willing to use a government shutdown as a tool, having approved a temporary budget until December. Meanwhile, people are in the streets protesting police brutality and the growing rise of a new breed of fascism in the US. But the right has their hero in Trump, as imperfect as he may be. He's a focal point for their right-wing nationalism and has captured the populist fires burning in the hearts of many working people in America disillusioned by the status quo. And the opposition, well, they seem like they're a deer caught in headlights, better at wringing their hands at the violation of norms and chastising leftists for their direct actions than mounting any actual resistance.
There doesn't seem to be an opposition leader or hero to match Trump, who, as crazy as he is, has mastered the art of having every insane thing he does and says broadcast on every media outlet. I think Democrats made a huge mistake when they picked Biden to be their electoral champion. They did so in large part because didn't want to rock the boat too much and scare away conservative Dems and the mythical moderate Republicans they think they can win over in big enough margins since they've inexplicably decided to battle leftists and progressives with all their might, except it turns out the fucking boat has been hijacked by fascist pirates and what we really need is someone willing to lead the charge to retake the boat and give everyone healthcare. Someone like Bernie would have been a much better option. Not only are his progressive ideas like Medicare for All favoured by a majority of voters, which would help him cross party lines and feed some of that populist hunger, but he was much more focused on organizing and movement building than simply winning the election, something we desperately need at this moment.
Let's face it, Biden excites no one, and he's a piss poor leader in my opinion. Working people are trying to carry on the fight against police brutality and fascism in the streets, but the police and Democratic leaders are making it difficult. Also, labour and spiritual leaders aren't helping organize and lead as much they did in past social justice and civil rights movements. To sustain the kind of mass resistance needed to do what they did in, say, the '60s requires solid organization, people able to inspire and keep morale up when things are their darkest and most violent, and the ability to help support people logistically and legally when they inevitably get arrested (e.g., the NLG). In a lot of areas, it seems they're lacking many of those things. People are out on the streets, yes, but often don't have any real plan or objective besides standing their ground against police for as long as they can. And I think this movement could really use leaders to help focus these protests, organize actions, and get more people to join them for extended periods of time. I definitely think we need more union support out there (also strike actions), more preachers in the vein of MLK and Malcolm X, more political leaders in the streets, and more groups organizing and supporting these protests.
We have BLM and people who are committed anti-fascists, and they're doing amazing work right now, but they're not to the level of SCLC yet in terms of what they did organizationally. Being at these protests, it feels like it's a little too much a leaderless movement at times, often being very chaotic and mainly involving police encounters and not much else (although the collection and distribution of food and supplies for those in need has been one great thing). I think that kind of confrontation is important, especially with the police increasingly suppressing protest movements, but I don't think it's sustainable. We need help and guidance and inspiration as well as our fierce independence and anger. I think that's one reason Occupy fizzled out after the police smashed camps. People didn't know what to do next, and the momentum just wasn't there to regroup or try something different. Most people simply went home. And I fear that may happen here too, unless the police just keep killing black people and getting off, because that's the main fuel for this movement at the moment. But if that calms down, then I think these protests will shrink and fade until the next spark.
There's nothing wrong with having leaderless movements, of course. And Eugene Debs had a good point when he said, "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves." And often times, when the leaders are killed, movements can lose their hope and direction and die with them. But sometimes being leaderless can lead groups to be disorganized, so their actions aren't directed and the momentum is difficult to maintain because so many of those involved aren't on the same page. What good leaders can sometimes help to do is focus and organize movements. That doesn't mean they have to direct everything like a shepherd to sheep, but they can help to keep things going in a certain direction and towards a certain goal. If the people involved agree to an idea or tactic, they can help guide the movement to stay on course when they start to get too off track. I'm not saying every moment or movement needs designated leaders, and I think that many things should be decided by those involved democratically or through consensus. But I do think leaders have their place, whether they're political, spiritual, or involved in labour.
Eugene Debs didn't want to be a Moses, but he was certainly a political and labour leader who inspired and organized hundreds of thousands of people to fight for labour rights and socialism. He was a hero for so many in his own time and beyond. In that sense, it's not so much about hierarchy and authority, but more about helping steer the boat. If the movement isn't already characterized by strong organization, sense of purpose, and direction, such as a bunch of disparate people gathering in the streets every night over a common cause or adversary, then it runs the risk of having too many leaders, with everyone wanting to go in their own direction and trying to lead everyone else along with them, pulling things apart. I saw it with Occupy, at least, and worry the same fate will befall this configuration of mass civil unrest/disobedience.
Right now, Trump is steering the boat towards a rocky reef, threatening to dash it to pieces rather than relinquish control. And the ones in the greatest position to stop him and wrestle away the wheel, the so-called resistance, are hemming and hawing and fighting those on their side who are the most committed to action. And at times like these, I wish we had a hero of our own.
After Trump suggested getting rid of ballots and having to wait and see what happens, refusing to commit to a peaceful transition if he loses the November election, people are worried about what may happen. Nobody seems to have a plan if Trump decided to stay in power by whatever means necessary. Democrats, who are trying to also prevent another Trump-appointed Supreme Court nomination, aren't even willing to use a government shutdown as a tool, having approved a temporary budget until December. Meanwhile, people are in the streets protesting police brutality and the growing rise of a new breed of fascism in the US. But the right has their hero in Trump, as imperfect as he may be. He's a focal point for their right-wing nationalism and has captured the populist fires burning in the hearts of many working people in America disillusioned by the status quo. And the opposition, well, they seem like they're a deer caught in headlights, better at wringing their hands at the violation of norms and chastising leftists for their direct actions than mounting any actual resistance.
There doesn't seem to be an opposition leader or hero to match Trump, who, as crazy as he is, has mastered the art of having every insane thing he does and says broadcast on every media outlet. I think Democrats made a huge mistake when they picked Biden to be their electoral champion. They did so in large part because didn't want to rock the boat too much and scare away conservative Dems and the mythical moderate Republicans they think they can win over in big enough margins since they've inexplicably decided to battle leftists and progressives with all their might, except it turns out the fucking boat has been hijacked by fascist pirates and what we really need is someone willing to lead the charge to retake the boat and give everyone healthcare. Someone like Bernie would have been a much better option. Not only are his progressive ideas like Medicare for All favoured by a majority of voters, which would help him cross party lines and feed some of that populist hunger, but he was much more focused on organizing and movement building than simply winning the election, something we desperately need at this moment.
Let's face it, Biden excites no one, and he's a piss poor leader in my opinion. Working people are trying to carry on the fight against police brutality and fascism in the streets, but the police and Democratic leaders are making it difficult. Also, labour and spiritual leaders aren't helping organize and lead as much they did in past social justice and civil rights movements. To sustain the kind of mass resistance needed to do what they did in, say, the '60s requires solid organization, people able to inspire and keep morale up when things are their darkest and most violent, and the ability to help support people logistically and legally when they inevitably get arrested (e.g., the NLG). In a lot of areas, it seems they're lacking many of those things. People are out on the streets, yes, but often don't have any real plan or objective besides standing their ground against police for as long as they can. And I think this movement could really use leaders to help focus these protests, organize actions, and get more people to join them for extended periods of time. I definitely think we need more union support out there (also strike actions), more preachers in the vein of MLK and Malcolm X, more political leaders in the streets, and more groups organizing and supporting these protests.
We have BLM and people who are committed anti-fascists, and they're doing amazing work right now, but they're not to the level of SCLC yet in terms of what they did organizationally. Being at these protests, it feels like it's a little too much a leaderless movement at times, often being very chaotic and mainly involving police encounters and not much else (although the collection and distribution of food and supplies for those in need has been one great thing). I think that kind of confrontation is important, especially with the police increasingly suppressing protest movements, but I don't think it's sustainable. We need help and guidance and inspiration as well as our fierce independence and anger. I think that's one reason Occupy fizzled out after the police smashed camps. People didn't know what to do next, and the momentum just wasn't there to regroup or try something different. Most people simply went home. And I fear that may happen here too, unless the police just keep killing black people and getting off, because that's the main fuel for this movement at the moment. But if that calms down, then I think these protests will shrink and fade until the next spark.
There's nothing wrong with having leaderless movements, of course. And Eugene Debs had a good point when he said, "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves." And often times, when the leaders are killed, movements can lose their hope and direction and die with them. But sometimes being leaderless can lead groups to be disorganized, so their actions aren't directed and the momentum is difficult to maintain because so many of those involved aren't on the same page. What good leaders can sometimes help to do is focus and organize movements. That doesn't mean they have to direct everything like a shepherd to sheep, but they can help to keep things going in a certain direction and towards a certain goal. If the people involved agree to an idea or tactic, they can help guide the movement to stay on course when they start to get too off track. I'm not saying every moment or movement needs designated leaders, and I think that many things should be decided by those involved democratically or through consensus. But I do think leaders have their place, whether they're political, spiritual, or involved in labour.
Eugene Debs didn't want to be a Moses, but he was certainly a political and labour leader who inspired and organized hundreds of thousands of people to fight for labour rights and socialism. He was a hero for so many in his own time and beyond. In that sense, it's not so much about hierarchy and authority, but more about helping steer the boat. If the movement isn't already characterized by strong organization, sense of purpose, and direction, such as a bunch of disparate people gathering in the streets every night over a common cause or adversary, then it runs the risk of having too many leaders, with everyone wanting to go in their own direction and trying to lead everyone else along with them, pulling things apart. I saw it with Occupy, at least, and worry the same fate will befall this configuration of mass civil unrest/disobedience.
Right now, Trump is steering the boat towards a rocky reef, threatening to dash it to pieces rather than relinquish control. And the ones in the greatest position to stop him and wrestle away the wheel, the so-called resistance, are hemming and hawing and fighting those on their side who are the most committed to action. And at times like these, I wish we had a hero of our own.
Sunday, September 13, 2020
thoughts on a social dilemma
I watched A Social Dilemma on Netflix last night, and it made me want to write a long post on the connections between the negative side effects and manipulation of social media and capitalism, since the drive to monetize people's attention and changes in their behaviours is the primary reason these products are the way they are and do what they do. But I really think Justin Rosenstein, near the end of the film at about the 1:24:50 mark, delivers about the best take on this connection without specifically referencing capitalism itself. I think the whole thing is worth watching and listening to and, but here's my transcription of what he says:
And I 100% agree, and would go even further to say that the same has always been true under capitalism, except instead of just doing that in terms of exploiting our labour-power during the work day, they're now able to do it almost every waking hour of the day. And it's going to be incredibly hard, if not impossible, to change this under the logic of capitalism. That's why I'm so critical of it. It compels the maximization of profit over everything. It compels the accumulation of capital, and with it, social power, into fewer and fewer hands. It turns everything into a commodity to be exploited and mined for profit. And to change that logic, we have to change the system and the social relations of production that currently exist.
A huge issue that relates to this is the contradictions inherent to private property rights and how it's never really the community or aggregate of users or workers, with a few exceptions such as strong unions, who have a say in the shape and operation of any platform, service, forum, workplace, etc. It's a huge area of tension. Owners have full control; others struggle to have their voices heard in a meaningful way. Which is why I think whatever we create to challenge and replace these platforms, and capitalist social relations in general, must allow for some community/worker control and engagement. And in the case of something as massive as FB or Twitter, possibly a form of nationalization as unpopular as that might be. If you live in a system with logic that drives most owners towards profit and monetization, you get what we have now. And it seems so bad because of the speed in which it's gone bad.
In the past, the speed of serious issues of capital consolidation and widespread negative effects were often slower in accumulation as they spread and became more commonplace. But the exponential rate of processing power, among other things, has made these problems arise faster and spread faster than most people's understanding or our electoral system can keep up with, especially since that system was purposefully made to be slow to change to begin with. In addition, any changes that are made to these platforms and within corporations in general are at the whims of owners, and most are geared towards what makes these things addictive and manipulative and so profitable in the first place. And even the very existence of these platforms, services, forums, etc. are at their whims. In the blink of an eye, they could simply shut them down and kill/displace communities, lay off workers, etc. And whatever arises in their place will be subjected to the same logic and financial incentives to grow, increase use, increase the manipulation of users, increase profits, etc.
I think the main question is, what alternatives to community ownership and control are there? If you're going to regulate these things, we still have to contend with the fact that these companies help write the legislation and/or lobby for loopholes and other means of defanging them. Even in highly regulated areas, such as media companies by the FCC and agencies of that nature, there's a massive amount of consolidation and essentially monopolization. Most local stations are now owned by these media giants (e.g., Sinclair Broadcasting Group), affecting everything including the kind of news that people see on a local level as well as national. That doesn't necessarily mean that every user should have a say in something like code writing, for example, just as you wouldn't let just anybody walk into a hospital to be a nurse. But I certainly think we need to move in the direction of more socialization.
So, for instance, workers at places like Google should all have some amount of ownership and control over their labour and the products of it (since that labour and those products have serious, real world effects), having some leverage and decision-making abilities besides having the choice of doing their jobs or leaving. (Much of the criticism of these platforms comes from within, but those who offer it are often powerless to do anything without the approval of the CEO, board, stockholders, etc., who have no financial incentives to change them in ways that are more healthy and ethical.) Another level would be mandating or at least normalizing some levels of community/user ownership or decision-making and finding ways to prevent or discourage the distorted views individuals get through algorithm-oriented content orders designed for maximum time usage, ad revenue, etc. I think some of that could be implemented through legislation, but I definitely think that workers and users themselves need to be empowered as well.
"We live in a world in which a tree is worth more, financially, dead than alive, in a world in which a whale is worth more dead than alive. For so long as our economy works in that way and corporations go unregulated, they're going to continue to destroy trees, to kill whales, to mine the earth and, and continue to pull oil out of the ground, even though we know that it is destroying the planet and we know that it's going to leave a worse world for future generations. This is short-term thinking based on this religion of profit at all costs, as if somehow, magically, each corporation acting in its selfish interest is going to produce the best results. This has been affecting the environment for a long time. What's frightening, and what hopefully is the last straw that will make us wake up as a civilization to how flawed this theory has been in the first place, is to see that now we're the tree, we're the whale. Our attention can be mined. We are more profitable to a corporation if we're spending time staring at a screen, staring at an ad, than if we're spending that time living our life in a rich way."
And I 100% agree, and would go even further to say that the same has always been true under capitalism, except instead of just doing that in terms of exploiting our labour-power during the work day, they're now able to do it almost every waking hour of the day. And it's going to be incredibly hard, if not impossible, to change this under the logic of capitalism. That's why I'm so critical of it. It compels the maximization of profit over everything. It compels the accumulation of capital, and with it, social power, into fewer and fewer hands. It turns everything into a commodity to be exploited and mined for profit. And to change that logic, we have to change the system and the social relations of production that currently exist.
A huge issue that relates to this is the contradictions inherent to private property rights and how it's never really the community or aggregate of users or workers, with a few exceptions such as strong unions, who have a say in the shape and operation of any platform, service, forum, workplace, etc. It's a huge area of tension. Owners have full control; others struggle to have their voices heard in a meaningful way. Which is why I think whatever we create to challenge and replace these platforms, and capitalist social relations in general, must allow for some community/worker control and engagement. And in the case of something as massive as FB or Twitter, possibly a form of nationalization as unpopular as that might be. If you live in a system with logic that drives most owners towards profit and monetization, you get what we have now. And it seems so bad because of the speed in which it's gone bad.
In the past, the speed of serious issues of capital consolidation and widespread negative effects were often slower in accumulation as they spread and became more commonplace. But the exponential rate of processing power, among other things, has made these problems arise faster and spread faster than most people's understanding or our electoral system can keep up with, especially since that system was purposefully made to be slow to change to begin with. In addition, any changes that are made to these platforms and within corporations in general are at the whims of owners, and most are geared towards what makes these things addictive and manipulative and so profitable in the first place. And even the very existence of these platforms, services, forums, etc. are at their whims. In the blink of an eye, they could simply shut them down and kill/displace communities, lay off workers, etc. And whatever arises in their place will be subjected to the same logic and financial incentives to grow, increase use, increase the manipulation of users, increase profits, etc.
I think the main question is, what alternatives to community ownership and control are there? If you're going to regulate these things, we still have to contend with the fact that these companies help write the legislation and/or lobby for loopholes and other means of defanging them. Even in highly regulated areas, such as media companies by the FCC and agencies of that nature, there's a massive amount of consolidation and essentially monopolization. Most local stations are now owned by these media giants (e.g., Sinclair Broadcasting Group), affecting everything including the kind of news that people see on a local level as well as national. That doesn't necessarily mean that every user should have a say in something like code writing, for example, just as you wouldn't let just anybody walk into a hospital to be a nurse. But I certainly think we need to move in the direction of more socialization.
So, for instance, workers at places like Google should all have some amount of ownership and control over their labour and the products of it (since that labour and those products have serious, real world effects), having some leverage and decision-making abilities besides having the choice of doing their jobs or leaving. (Much of the criticism of these platforms comes from within, but those who offer it are often powerless to do anything without the approval of the CEO, board, stockholders, etc., who have no financial incentives to change them in ways that are more healthy and ethical.) Another level would be mandating or at least normalizing some levels of community/user ownership or decision-making and finding ways to prevent or discourage the distorted views individuals get through algorithm-oriented content orders designed for maximum time usage, ad revenue, etc. I think some of that could be implemented through legislation, but I definitely think that workers and users themselves need to be empowered as well.
Coincidentally, a friend of mine just wrote two blog posts about something similar, albeit from a different POV inspired by a section of Nadia Eghbal's Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software, that of the difference between a platform and a community. It's worth reading if you have the time: part 1, "platform syndicate" and part 2, "black box." I'm glad there are at least people in tech like him thinking about and trying to work on these problems, because I very much doubt the radical changes I suggest will happen. So it'll be up to people like him to try and stave off the worst possible scenario.
Thursday, July 2, 2020
toward a worldwide culture of love
I enjoyed this recent article from bell hooks, which connects Buddhism, love, and social engagement. I think that what she's talking about is what led me to become politically and socially engaged in the first place. I think in many cases, developing compassion, empathy, and love will naturally inspire one to address the suffering of others when possible, and that many of the ways love is expressed coincides with what we'd label ‘leftist’ political and social movements precisely because such movements are often motivated by love and a desire to protect and uplift others. They're less focused on 'me' and more on 'us' in the sense of all of our lives and predicaments being interconnected.
Love compels us to move away from things like greed, selfishness, and competition and towards generosity, compassion, and cooperation. That's at least why I was drawn towards social engagement and more to left-leaning politics, because that's where love and compassion directed me. A mind suffused with love, for example, will see someone struggling with injury or illness within a system that makes it difficult for them to afford and access care and be inspired to help, whether through charity or through supporting a more accessible and universal healthcare system.
That doesn't mean I think that only people who are political active or on the left end of the political spectrum are capable of love, only that I see why she connects love to the end of domination, and how that tends towards movements and ideas that we associate with the label 'leftist' today. Alternatives to capitalism. Universal healthcare. Addressing climate change. Gender equality. Black Lives Matter. Etc. Because much of that domination is rooted in fear and anger and greed. Systems and institutions and cultures have been built to protect what we have from others and to maintain positions of privilege for certain segments of the population, and love compels us to confront and end those things because of the suffering they engender—from sexism and racism to imperialism and militarism and the profit motive.
Love is also a key component of most spiritual traditions, and it suffuses their soteriology. And I'd even go so far as to say that, after studying and practicing in multiple spiritual traditions myself, a truly spiritual person who follows the underlying message of their respective faiths will necessarily be empathetic, inclusive, and ultimately, intersectional in their politics, but more importantly in their actions, as a result of the presence and development of love regardless of what their politics are. I think this can be seen from the lives and works of people of faith like bell hooks, Giro Seno'o, Dorothy Day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Thomas Merton, Oscar Romero, Paul Tillich, Malcolm X, Thich Nhat Hanh, Gustavo Gutierrez, MLK Jr., Rachel Held Evans, and countless others. As Franciscan friar and author Richard Rohr puts it:
Love moves us to act against suffering and injustice, because love motivates up to try and heal rather than harm. Love moves us to swim against the current of what she terms "dominator thinking and practice," which "relies for its maintenance on the constant production of a feeling of lack, of the need to grasp"; and that conversely, "Giving love offers us a way to end this suffering—loving ourselves, extending that love to everything beyond the self, we experience wholeness" and through that "we are healed." And that love can be expressed in many ways, not just in the realm of the political. It can be expressed in any number of daily personal interactions and small acts of kindness and generosity.
Love compels us to move away from things like greed, selfishness, and competition and towards generosity, compassion, and cooperation. That's at least why I was drawn towards social engagement and more to left-leaning politics, because that's where love and compassion directed me. A mind suffused with love, for example, will see someone struggling with injury or illness within a system that makes it difficult for them to afford and access care and be inspired to help, whether through charity or through supporting a more accessible and universal healthcare system.
That doesn't mean I think that only people who are political active or on the left end of the political spectrum are capable of love, only that I see why she connects love to the end of domination, and how that tends towards movements and ideas that we associate with the label 'leftist' today. Alternatives to capitalism. Universal healthcare. Addressing climate change. Gender equality. Black Lives Matter. Etc. Because much of that domination is rooted in fear and anger and greed. Systems and institutions and cultures have been built to protect what we have from others and to maintain positions of privilege for certain segments of the population, and love compels us to confront and end those things because of the suffering they engender—from sexism and racism to imperialism and militarism and the profit motive.
Love is also a key component of most spiritual traditions, and it suffuses their soteriology. And I'd even go so far as to say that, after studying and practicing in multiple spiritual traditions myself, a truly spiritual person who follows the underlying message of their respective faiths will necessarily be empathetic, inclusive, and ultimately, intersectional in their politics, but more importantly in their actions, as a result of the presence and development of love regardless of what their politics are. I think this can be seen from the lives and works of people of faith like bell hooks, Giro Seno'o, Dorothy Day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Thomas Merton, Oscar Romero, Paul Tillich, Malcolm X, Thich Nhat Hanh, Gustavo Gutierrez, MLK Jr., Rachel Held Evans, and countless others. As Franciscan friar and author Richard Rohr puts it:
"If we are going to have truly prophetic people who go beyond the categories of liberal and conservative, we have to teach them some way to integrate their needed activism with a truly contemplative mind and heart. I’m convinced that once you learn how to look out at life from the contemplative eyes of the True Self, your politics and economics are going to change on their own. I don’t need to teach you what your politics should or shouldn’t be. Once you see things contemplatively, you’ll begin to seek the bias from the bottom instead of the top, you’ll be free to embrace your shadow, and you can live at peace with those who are different. From a contemplative stance, you’ll know what action is yours to do—and what is not yours to do—almost naturally."
Love moves us to act against suffering and injustice, because love motivates up to try and heal rather than harm. Love moves us to swim against the current of what she terms "dominator thinking and practice," which "relies for its maintenance on the constant production of a feeling of lack, of the need to grasp"; and that conversely, "Giving love offers us a way to end this suffering—loving ourselves, extending that love to everything beyond the self, we experience wholeness" and through that "we are healed." And that love can be expressed in many ways, not just in the realm of the political. It can be expressed in any number of daily personal interactions and small acts of kindness and generosity.
Thursday, June 18, 2020
ffs sam
I still remember when I first discovered Sam Harris. I stumbled upon some of his articles on contemplative science and meditation around 2004-5. I thought he was awesome because he was this rational scientist who was willing to look into things like consciousness and meditation and I felt a connection with his determinism, since I also saw the world through a similar POV. I didn't even mind The End of Faith even though I was deeply into Buddhism and starting to appreciate aspects of contemplative Christianity more. I thought his criticisms of religion were strong. But he lost me when he started to use his gift of making anything sound reasonable in the defense of torture. Then his ire towards Islam and Muslims drove him further from the place of esteem I once held him in. Fast forward to today and his most recent podcast episode, Can We Pull Back From the Brink [1], which really struck a nerve. Listening to it, I found myself strongly agreeing with NYD30304d's take via reddit [2]:
Elaborating on that, from the very beginning he frames it as an issue of conversation vs. violence, with the implication being that the protesters and the left in general are on the side of violence, and that if people don't stop protesting, society will collapse or self-immolate. He literally says people are tearing the country apart and that we can't tell fact from fiction anymore. Except that's hyperbole. People are protesting police brutality, yes. And some of those have resulted in damage and harm. But they're not tearing the country apart, unless a few statues, a couple of jacked up buildings, and graffiti are his idea of the country falling into ruin. The police are the ones who are clearly the most violent party in all of this. But never mind that, because then he brings up COVID-19 and makes it sound like he thinks protesting is irresponsible because of the probability of increased infection rates as a result, and it makes me wonder if he'd say the same if an outbreak had occurred during the civil rights movement. No protesting, just talk about getting rid of Jim Crow and forget all these marches and protests and riots, as if black Americans hadn't been talking about that and lynchings and everything else for years and years. Maybe that's not what he'd say, but it follows from his logic at any rate. And then he goes into how the protests are stifling the ability of people to express themselves, as if black voices haven't been stifled and that's why they they're so upset, because people like Sam still don't even believe that black people are experiencing the level of discrimination and police violence that they've been trying to communicate or that the statistics clearly seem to show. And that's just the intro, the framing of the truth that Sam purports to be after and telling.
To be fair, I agree with him about Trump, both about how terrible he is and how this shit helps him (which I think is true because many Americans are pretty reactionary). But then he asks how many people will die because of the protests, but he doesn't ask why so many people are willing to take that risk. Maybe there really is a problem that needs to be addressed, Sam? It's easy to say that it's just a case of mob mentality and violence by overreacting leftists and black people, but can we just entertain the possibility that this problem exists, has existed, and that the people suffering under it the most and have been talking about it and trying to change it for years, even generations, might have a reason to engage in civil unrest to try and finally get real solutions? Sam mentions the fact that the officer was indicted. Yeah, after all this started, which he concedes may be the reason only to latter argue against their efficiency! And he admits that racism is a problem only to then later try and show how it's not really the problem that people think it is or literally experience. Like, he's not down with racism, but then he seems to me to downplay it every chance he gets in this 2 hour long episode. And my biggest issue with the whole thing is that he wants to control and contain what people are trying to do to change it in their demands for material, institutional solutions that have been a long time coming, including defunding and demilitarizing the police and removing qualified immunity so they can actually be held accountable for a change. But poor Sam and other rational critics of the left, they're a victim of this in many ways too, dontcha know? He acts like he can't talk about any of this in a rational and critical way and push back on the idea that racism seriously affects black people in the US, like just doing so will ruin his career or worse.
And of course after this, he takes more shots at the protesters and violence without even fully going into how those things have started this country, ended slavery/the country splitting apart, gave women the right to vote, ended segregation and Jim Crow, and killed Hitler. Does he think that people just talked their way into all those things? Did they lead to the breakdown of society? And he says things like oh no someone was fired for saying all lives matter as if that's proof of something. People get fired for less and worse all the goddamn time, and if you're a person representing an organization and you say stuff that negatively reflects on them then they can and will fire you! It's completely legal and happens all the time. And some people get fired illegally, such as for trying to form a union, but he doesn't touch on that because he's trying to frame the truth to point towards the dangers of left-leaning censorship and away from other issues even though he's ostensibly just being objective. And to slight the protest movement even more, he talks about it as a religious awakening that isn't "making honest contact with reality."
So I guess people like me are just being completely irrational? Completely ahistorical? Completely unhinged and out of touch with reality? I don't know if he'd use those words per se, but he definitely thinks we're motivated by "confusion and misinformation." Ok, sure. Maybe. There's a lot of that out there. But I'd counter that he's motivated by his distaste for identity politics because he feels he can't just say whatever he wants, that essentially free speech should mean not only freedom from government interference but freedom from consequences. He doesn't want people to be able to get angry at him for the things he says. And then he goes on to say that a person's race/skin colour or personal experience shouldn't matter when talking about racism. On the face of it, I agree that everyone should be able to talk about it. It shouldn't be taboo to have discussions about race and racism. But the idea that a black person shouldn't discuss their experience as a 'black' person amidst the racism of America, because that perspective doesn't somehow matter? According to Sam, we can apparently only talk about racism from some supposedly objective viewpoint that transcends race. Which isn't fucking possible, except maybe for people awakened to the nature of nonduality or a future where racism is all but eradicated. (He talks about weaponizing ideas, but I think he's weaponizing his contemplativism and scientism here to suggest he has the same standing to speak authoritatively on the experience of racism as opposed to a black person or community suffering under it, which I think takes away their voice but I digress.)
As I've said, he's very skillful at saying there's an issue or problem that exists only to then downplay it. And for as much as he seems to understand and champion causal determinism — the idea that we're not in as much control as we think are are conditioned by many internal and external causal factors — he doesn't seem to be able to connect the dots when it comes to the way social relations and institutions built on and suffused with racism can't condition the shit black people are experiencing and that have created and sustained the very identity of blackness itself. Or how those material systems and mechanisms can feasibly continue to cause issues, and that that is why people are trying to change them by defunding the police and using that money in other, arguably better ways. (Here Sam could have gone into the history of how the Enlightenment, besides the many great things it did, also helped to give rise to modern racism [3], and how that has influenced much of Western society founded upon Enlightenment ideals, both good and bad. How white supremacy was a part of that, and how it's an ingrained part of our culture and society and in some ways our thinking. Which doesn't mean every white person is a white supremacist, only that it's a part of our past and present and still ingrained in our social institutions and subconscious. But of course he doesn't.) In essence, it's not a bad faith argument as he says more than once; it's a causal deterministic argument that a materialist like him should be championing, too! And the statistics. He thinks this is his finishing move, FATALITY!
He says that white people suffer more from police violence than black people, that the police kill more white people, so basically the problem of racism isn't as bad as you might think. Those BLM people are just playing loose with the facts, right? Wrong. If we look at the numbers, we see that yes, more white people are killed by police over all, but we also see that they are also a much larger percentage of the population. This fact isn't inconsequential. He should understand how statistics work and the importance of looking deeper into the numbers. Comparing the numbers and taking into consideration the percentage of the population who are white vs. black, for example, we can see that black men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. [4] And even in terms of more nonlethal means like tasers, there's obvious disparities in the numbers of black people killed vs. white people. It's clear, for example, that the use of tasers disproportionately kills black people in the US [5], so again, I'd argue that the scrutiny should be on the police and how/when they use force, and why black people seem to bear the brunt of it proportionately speaking. But not Sam.
Beyond that, though, he seems to miss or completely gloss over the entire issue of institutionalized racism itself and how ingrained biases can affect or infect everyone in that society and condition everyone in said society to operate in certain ways, such as studies that suggest women objectify women in the same way as men [6], likely due to the prevalence of sexism and patriarchy in our society; how black officers view black suspects more negatively than white ones and kill black suspects at similar rates as white officers [7], likely due to the prevalence of institutionalized racism; etc. And yeah, white people experience things like police violence, too. Nobody denies that, Sam. The question is, is their treatment equal? Are they equally targeted? Are they killed in proportionate numbers population-wise? If so, then maybe Sam's argument would hold water. But the answer, of course, is no, and he basically admits that, but then uses his downplaying trick by saying black people commit more crimes. In his view, obviously the police will target them more because they commit more of the crimes. (Again, no exploration of the role generations of discrimination, segregation, wealth inequality, etc. play in conditioning pockets of poverty in black communities, which conditions crime and how we could possibly address that with means other than sending in state agents with guns.)
Then he questions the explosion of anger over a black guy dying by cops and why there wasn't the same reaction over a white guy dying under similar circumstances. Makes you think, right? He seems to think that a poor perception of racism is responsible for people essentially overreacting over the death of one man, except he again completely misses the obvious fact that it's not just about one man but 400 YEARS OF HISTORY of black people in the US and the things they've had to overcome each generation by another group of people and a government that stole them from their land, treated them like animals and used them as slaves, constructed a racist narrative about them to justify it that poisons people's minds to this day, criminalized and vilified their skin colour, and once they were finally freed, turned around to segregate them, lynch them, prevent them from getting loans or homes in certain areas, and constructed laws that disproportionately affected them, courts that disproportionately sentence them, and a police force that obviously targets them for attention and the use of violence to this very day. There are a host of statistics that, to me, illustrate the ripples from this history still persist and in many ways are still a present reality, statistics that Sam never mentions. Disparities in jail time. [8] Wealth disparities. [9] Health disparities. [10] Educational disparities. [11] Employment disparities. [13] The list goes on. So again, re: Sam's argument against identity politics, even if many white people today aren't as prejudiced or racist as they once were and see beyond a person's colour, these built in barriers and inequalities clearly seem to still exert their influence and manifest themselves in the forms of disparities, inequalities, and violence that disproportionately affect the black community.
Honestly, it shouldn't be so hard for a determinist of any stripe to understand this, especially when we have the history and the numbers at our fingertips. There's clearly something going on here. But instead of really wrestling with this, he spends a lot of time on things like how people should just not resist arrest rather than exploring the idea of fundamentally changing the material social relations, institutions, and systems built into the fabric of our society that arguably influence how it functions along with our views and perceptions about race. And I think his argument is ultimately a straw man because the left, protesters, BLM, etc. aren't arguing that it's all about feelings and individual prejudice, as if only white people are responsible and the ones doing the killing, etc. None I know at at least. They're ALL talking about systems of injustice, material conditions like widespread poverty and lack of access to equitable education, healthcare, and employment opportunities, etc. that condition these things, conditions that in turn lead to more crime in those communities and compel black police officers to shoot black suspects more than white ones. In essence, their argument (and mine) is that current power dynamics aren't equal, and that those dynamics push black and other people of colour within the system (politicians, police officers, etc.) to see and act in similar ways now that they are part of the system. And whether or not you agree with it, it isn't a bad faith argument or one that relies purely on the identity politics that he despises so much.
So yeah, this podcast both upset and disappointed me. For one, he's got a big platform and a lot of people put a lot of faith in his opinions. And he's smart and rational and I know that his opinions carry more weight than mine as he's famous, has written multiple books, has a podcast, and has an academic background in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience and I'm just some random guy on the internet. So people will hear this and likely have a negative opinion of these protests and the movement behind them without looking deeper. And I don't know why his take bothers me so much (maybe because I personally used to look up to him as a scientist and social commentator?); but I think I and others criticizing the system have valid points and he doesn't really address any of them. At least it seems to me that he glosses over a lot more than he digs into just so that he can seemingly focus on his criticism of the left and identity politics and not on the real question of, how the fuck do we finally get shit in this country equal for everyone? And so I find myself echoing NYD3030: FFS Sam.
/rant
1. Harris, Sam. (2020, June 12). Can We Pull Back From the Brink. Youtube. https://youtu.be/vmgxtcbc4iU
2. NYD3030. (2020, June 13). Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/h7wxus/comment/fup706l
3. Bouie Jamelle. (2018, June 5). The Enlightenment's Dark Side. Pocket (via Slate). https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-enlightenment-s-dark-side
4. Haddad, Mohammed. (2020, May 31). Mapping US police killings of Black Americans. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2020/05/mapping-police-killings-black-americans-200531105741757.html
5. So, Linda. (2020, June 15). Black Americans disproportionately die in police Taser confrontations. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-tasers-in/black-americans-disproportionately-die-in-police-taser-confrontations-idUSKBN23M16E
6. Association for Psychological Science. (2012, May 15). People see sexy pictures of women as objects, not people; sexy-looking men as people. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515131719.htm
7. Jacobs, Tom. (2018, August 9). BLACK COPS ARE JUST AS LIKELY AS WHITE COPS TO KILL BLACK SUSPECTS. Pacific Standard Magazine. https://psmag.com/social-justice/black-cops-are-just-as-likely-as-whites-to-kill-black-suspects
8. Ingraham, Christopher. (2017, November 16). Black men sentenced to more time for committing the exact same crime as a white person, study finds. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/
9. Lee, Trymaine. (2019, August 14). A vast wealth gap, driven by segregation, redlining, evictions and exclusion, separates black and white America. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/racial-wealth-gap.html
10. Orsi, Jennifer M. MPH; Margellos-Anast, Helen MPH; Whitman, Steven PhD. (2010, February). Black–White Health Disparities in the United States and Chicago: A 15-Year Progress Analysis. Am J Public Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804622/
11. Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1998, March 1). Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/
12. Quillian, Lincoln; Pager, Devah; Midtbøen, Arnfinn H.; Hexel, Ole. (2017, October 11). Hiring Discrimination Against Black Americans Hasn't Declined in 25 Years. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years
I don't understand how Sam is so right on the non existence of free will but so baffled by issues of race and still views racism as a matter of personal choice and not the accumulation of ten trillion causes over generations which drive the fully determined actions of individuals in the moment that result in racist outcomes. That right there is the whole fucking thing and Sam is an expert in one side of the coin but an imbecile in the other. That right there is why a black cop can do something racist, because the causes driving him demand racist effects. FFS Sam.
All of his citing of black crime statistics are almost begging the question, don't they deserve it? The reason black people commit more crimes is because of the racist system driving them, not because they choose to. But Sam also believes that nobody deserves anything, that we are just the sum of our past, our current conditions and our mental state in any given moment. I would like him to explore how he can feel these things simultaneously and maybe follow [his] own deterministic philosophy to its logical conclusion - that racism is a system driving racially disparate effects and not a feeling in the heart.
Elaborating on that, from the very beginning he frames it as an issue of conversation vs. violence, with the implication being that the protesters and the left in general are on the side of violence, and that if people don't stop protesting, society will collapse or self-immolate. He literally says people are tearing the country apart and that we can't tell fact from fiction anymore. Except that's hyperbole. People are protesting police brutality, yes. And some of those have resulted in damage and harm. But they're not tearing the country apart, unless a few statues, a couple of jacked up buildings, and graffiti are his idea of the country falling into ruin. The police are the ones who are clearly the most violent party in all of this. But never mind that, because then he brings up COVID-19 and makes it sound like he thinks protesting is irresponsible because of the probability of increased infection rates as a result, and it makes me wonder if he'd say the same if an outbreak had occurred during the civil rights movement. No protesting, just talk about getting rid of Jim Crow and forget all these marches and protests and riots, as if black Americans hadn't been talking about that and lynchings and everything else for years and years. Maybe that's not what he'd say, but it follows from his logic at any rate. And then he goes into how the protests are stifling the ability of people to express themselves, as if black voices haven't been stifled and that's why they they're so upset, because people like Sam still don't even believe that black people are experiencing the level of discrimination and police violence that they've been trying to communicate or that the statistics clearly seem to show. And that's just the intro, the framing of the truth that Sam purports to be after and telling.
To be fair, I agree with him about Trump, both about how terrible he is and how this shit helps him (which I think is true because many Americans are pretty reactionary). But then he asks how many people will die because of the protests, but he doesn't ask why so many people are willing to take that risk. Maybe there really is a problem that needs to be addressed, Sam? It's easy to say that it's just a case of mob mentality and violence by overreacting leftists and black people, but can we just entertain the possibility that this problem exists, has existed, and that the people suffering under it the most and have been talking about it and trying to change it for years, even generations, might have a reason to engage in civil unrest to try and finally get real solutions? Sam mentions the fact that the officer was indicted. Yeah, after all this started, which he concedes may be the reason only to latter argue against their efficiency! And he admits that racism is a problem only to then later try and show how it's not really the problem that people think it is or literally experience. Like, he's not down with racism, but then he seems to me to downplay it every chance he gets in this 2 hour long episode. And my biggest issue with the whole thing is that he wants to control and contain what people are trying to do to change it in their demands for material, institutional solutions that have been a long time coming, including defunding and demilitarizing the police and removing qualified immunity so they can actually be held accountable for a change. But poor Sam and other rational critics of the left, they're a victim of this in many ways too, dontcha know? He acts like he can't talk about any of this in a rational and critical way and push back on the idea that racism seriously affects black people in the US, like just doing so will ruin his career or worse.
And of course after this, he takes more shots at the protesters and violence without even fully going into how those things have started this country, ended slavery/the country splitting apart, gave women the right to vote, ended segregation and Jim Crow, and killed Hitler. Does he think that people just talked their way into all those things? Did they lead to the breakdown of society? And he says things like oh no someone was fired for saying all lives matter as if that's proof of something. People get fired for less and worse all the goddamn time, and if you're a person representing an organization and you say stuff that negatively reflects on them then they can and will fire you! It's completely legal and happens all the time. And some people get fired illegally, such as for trying to form a union, but he doesn't touch on that because he's trying to frame the truth to point towards the dangers of left-leaning censorship and away from other issues even though he's ostensibly just being objective. And to slight the protest movement even more, he talks about it as a religious awakening that isn't "making honest contact with reality."
So I guess people like me are just being completely irrational? Completely ahistorical? Completely unhinged and out of touch with reality? I don't know if he'd use those words per se, but he definitely thinks we're motivated by "confusion and misinformation." Ok, sure. Maybe. There's a lot of that out there. But I'd counter that he's motivated by his distaste for identity politics because he feels he can't just say whatever he wants, that essentially free speech should mean not only freedom from government interference but freedom from consequences. He doesn't want people to be able to get angry at him for the things he says. And then he goes on to say that a person's race/skin colour or personal experience shouldn't matter when talking about racism. On the face of it, I agree that everyone should be able to talk about it. It shouldn't be taboo to have discussions about race and racism. But the idea that a black person shouldn't discuss their experience as a 'black' person amidst the racism of America, because that perspective doesn't somehow matter? According to Sam, we can apparently only talk about racism from some supposedly objective viewpoint that transcends race. Which isn't fucking possible, except maybe for people awakened to the nature of nonduality or a future where racism is all but eradicated. (He talks about weaponizing ideas, but I think he's weaponizing his contemplativism and scientism here to suggest he has the same standing to speak authoritatively on the experience of racism as opposed to a black person or community suffering under it, which I think takes away their voice but I digress.)
As I've said, he's very skillful at saying there's an issue or problem that exists only to then downplay it. And for as much as he seems to understand and champion causal determinism — the idea that we're not in as much control as we think are are conditioned by many internal and external causal factors — he doesn't seem to be able to connect the dots when it comes to the way social relations and institutions built on and suffused with racism can't condition the shit black people are experiencing and that have created and sustained the very identity of blackness itself. Or how those material systems and mechanisms can feasibly continue to cause issues, and that that is why people are trying to change them by defunding the police and using that money in other, arguably better ways. (Here Sam could have gone into the history of how the Enlightenment, besides the many great things it did, also helped to give rise to modern racism [3], and how that has influenced much of Western society founded upon Enlightenment ideals, both good and bad. How white supremacy was a part of that, and how it's an ingrained part of our culture and society and in some ways our thinking. Which doesn't mean every white person is a white supremacist, only that it's a part of our past and present and still ingrained in our social institutions and subconscious. But of course he doesn't.) In essence, it's not a bad faith argument as he says more than once; it's a causal deterministic argument that a materialist like him should be championing, too! And the statistics. He thinks this is his finishing move, FATALITY!
He says that white people suffer more from police violence than black people, that the police kill more white people, so basically the problem of racism isn't as bad as you might think. Those BLM people are just playing loose with the facts, right? Wrong. If we look at the numbers, we see that yes, more white people are killed by police over all, but we also see that they are also a much larger percentage of the population. This fact isn't inconsequential. He should understand how statistics work and the importance of looking deeper into the numbers. Comparing the numbers and taking into consideration the percentage of the population who are white vs. black, for example, we can see that black men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. [4] And even in terms of more nonlethal means like tasers, there's obvious disparities in the numbers of black people killed vs. white people. It's clear, for example, that the use of tasers disproportionately kills black people in the US [5], so again, I'd argue that the scrutiny should be on the police and how/when they use force, and why black people seem to bear the brunt of it proportionately speaking. But not Sam.
Beyond that, though, he seems to miss or completely gloss over the entire issue of institutionalized racism itself and how ingrained biases can affect or infect everyone in that society and condition everyone in said society to operate in certain ways, such as studies that suggest women objectify women in the same way as men [6], likely due to the prevalence of sexism and patriarchy in our society; how black officers view black suspects more negatively than white ones and kill black suspects at similar rates as white officers [7], likely due to the prevalence of institutionalized racism; etc. And yeah, white people experience things like police violence, too. Nobody denies that, Sam. The question is, is their treatment equal? Are they equally targeted? Are they killed in proportionate numbers population-wise? If so, then maybe Sam's argument would hold water. But the answer, of course, is no, and he basically admits that, but then uses his downplaying trick by saying black people commit more crimes. In his view, obviously the police will target them more because they commit more of the crimes. (Again, no exploration of the role generations of discrimination, segregation, wealth inequality, etc. play in conditioning pockets of poverty in black communities, which conditions crime and how we could possibly address that with means other than sending in state agents with guns.)
Then he questions the explosion of anger over a black guy dying by cops and why there wasn't the same reaction over a white guy dying under similar circumstances. Makes you think, right? He seems to think that a poor perception of racism is responsible for people essentially overreacting over the death of one man, except he again completely misses the obvious fact that it's not just about one man but 400 YEARS OF HISTORY of black people in the US and the things they've had to overcome each generation by another group of people and a government that stole them from their land, treated them like animals and used them as slaves, constructed a racist narrative about them to justify it that poisons people's minds to this day, criminalized and vilified their skin colour, and once they were finally freed, turned around to segregate them, lynch them, prevent them from getting loans or homes in certain areas, and constructed laws that disproportionately affected them, courts that disproportionately sentence them, and a police force that obviously targets them for attention and the use of violence to this very day. There are a host of statistics that, to me, illustrate the ripples from this history still persist and in many ways are still a present reality, statistics that Sam never mentions. Disparities in jail time. [8] Wealth disparities. [9] Health disparities. [10] Educational disparities. [11] Employment disparities. [13] The list goes on. So again, re: Sam's argument against identity politics, even if many white people today aren't as prejudiced or racist as they once were and see beyond a person's colour, these built in barriers and inequalities clearly seem to still exert their influence and manifest themselves in the forms of disparities, inequalities, and violence that disproportionately affect the black community.
Honestly, it shouldn't be so hard for a determinist of any stripe to understand this, especially when we have the history and the numbers at our fingertips. There's clearly something going on here. But instead of really wrestling with this, he spends a lot of time on things like how people should just not resist arrest rather than exploring the idea of fundamentally changing the material social relations, institutions, and systems built into the fabric of our society that arguably influence how it functions along with our views and perceptions about race. And I think his argument is ultimately a straw man because the left, protesters, BLM, etc. aren't arguing that it's all about feelings and individual prejudice, as if only white people are responsible and the ones doing the killing, etc. None I know at at least. They're ALL talking about systems of injustice, material conditions like widespread poverty and lack of access to equitable education, healthcare, and employment opportunities, etc. that condition these things, conditions that in turn lead to more crime in those communities and compel black police officers to shoot black suspects more than white ones. In essence, their argument (and mine) is that current power dynamics aren't equal, and that those dynamics push black and other people of colour within the system (politicians, police officers, etc.) to see and act in similar ways now that they are part of the system. And whether or not you agree with it, it isn't a bad faith argument or one that relies purely on the identity politics that he despises so much.
So yeah, this podcast both upset and disappointed me. For one, he's got a big platform and a lot of people put a lot of faith in his opinions. And he's smart and rational and I know that his opinions carry more weight than mine as he's famous, has written multiple books, has a podcast, and has an academic background in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience and I'm just some random guy on the internet. So people will hear this and likely have a negative opinion of these protests and the movement behind them without looking deeper. And I don't know why his take bothers me so much (maybe because I personally used to look up to him as a scientist and social commentator?); but I think I and others criticizing the system have valid points and he doesn't really address any of them. At least it seems to me that he glosses over a lot more than he digs into just so that he can seemingly focus on his criticism of the left and identity politics and not on the real question of, how the fuck do we finally get shit in this country equal for everyone? And so I find myself echoing NYD3030: FFS Sam.
/rant
1. Harris, Sam. (2020, June 12). Can We Pull Back From the Brink. Youtube. https://youtu.be/vmgxtcbc4iU
2. NYD3030. (2020, June 13). Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/h7wxus/comment/fup706l
3. Bouie Jamelle. (2018, June 5). The Enlightenment's Dark Side. Pocket (via Slate). https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-enlightenment-s-dark-side
4. Haddad, Mohammed. (2020, May 31). Mapping US police killings of Black Americans. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2020/05/mapping-police-killings-black-americans-200531105741757.html
5. So, Linda. (2020, June 15). Black Americans disproportionately die in police Taser confrontations. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-tasers-in/black-americans-disproportionately-die-in-police-taser-confrontations-idUSKBN23M16E
6. Association for Psychological Science. (2012, May 15). People see sexy pictures of women as objects, not people; sexy-looking men as people. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515131719.htm
7. Jacobs, Tom. (2018, August 9). BLACK COPS ARE JUST AS LIKELY AS WHITE COPS TO KILL BLACK SUSPECTS. Pacific Standard Magazine. https://psmag.com/social-justice/black-cops-are-just-as-likely-as-whites-to-kill-black-suspects
8. Ingraham, Christopher. (2017, November 16). Black men sentenced to more time for committing the exact same crime as a white person, study finds. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/
9. Lee, Trymaine. (2019, August 14). A vast wealth gap, driven by segregation, redlining, evictions and exclusion, separates black and white America. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/racial-wealth-gap.html
10. Orsi, Jennifer M. MPH; Margellos-Anast, Helen MPH; Whitman, Steven PhD. (2010, February). Black–White Health Disparities in the United States and Chicago: A 15-Year Progress Analysis. Am J Public Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804622/
11. Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1998, March 1). Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/
12. Quillian, Lincoln; Pager, Devah; Midtbøen, Arnfinn H.; Hexel, Ole. (2017, October 11). Hiring Discrimination Against Black Americans Hasn't Declined in 25 Years. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years
Sunday, May 31, 2020
blm 2020 (specifically directed towards white people)
The irony of the prophet is that they see futures and truths that the majority of us refuse to acknowledge and believe to our own detriment, yet they cannot do anything but preach them despite being ignored or reviled by the very world they're trying to help. They are compelled to do so by something inside of them they cannot ignore, by a love for their fellow brethren and a deep compassion for the suffering and oppression the poor and marginalized experience due to the existence of greed, hatred, and ignorance in the hearts of those who rule over them. With their words, they lay bare the flaws and sins of society and try to show us another path, one leading to humility and justice and reconciliation. And oftentimes, those words and their prescriptions are a challenge and a threat to the rich and powerful, who profit at the expense of the least among us; and their witnessing to the truth puts their lives in danger.
There are prophets everywhere in the world and in every walk of life; and if we could only learn to listen them, our world would be a different place. They tell us the difficult things we may not wish to hear but are necessary. They warn us of the consequences that we don't wish to face up to if we don't change our ways. And if we heeded their words more often, perhaps the 'moral arc of the universe' would be a little less long and bend even more towards justice than it historically does. But more often than not, it seems, prophets are only appreciated by society far into the future, when their words ring loud and true and their warnings have unfortunately all come to pass. Only then are their words recognized. I think one of those prophets was MLK Jr., who spoke out against the evils of racism, poverty, and war. And in that witnessing, he also spoke out against capitalism and those who criticized the ways oppressed people fought their oppression. In 1963, for example, MLK famously wrote:
They were powerful words then, and unfortunately, I think they still carry a great deal of weight today. I've been thinking a lot about those words while reading things like our mayor's response to the protests, watching the mainstream news coverage, and contemplating the role white people have historically played in the oppression of black people; and the way I see it, you're either on the side of the black community or you're not. It's that simple.
Black people in the US have literally suffered generations of oppression and racism in this country, from slavery to segregation and lynching to modern-day redlining, mass incarceration, and police violence. They have been patient enough for justice. Beyond patient. They have spent generations peacefully protesting and working within the system (and most still do). They have spent generations making their case for true equality and reparations for what they have had to endure. They have pleaded generation after generation for white society to see their plight, hear their cries, and to act. And for generations, those cries have mostly fallen on deaf ears or else have been answered by piecemeal reforms here and there, and often only after sustained pressure and civil unrest. Restorative justice has always remained a dream just out of reach.
That's why MLK said that the riot was the language of the unheard. Voices can only cry out for so long before they go hoarse and the generations of sadness, anger, and frustration start to boil over and become expressed in different ways, especially in reaction to watching yet another member of their community be killed—watching it over and over again on the news and social media and seeing how nobody stopped it and how nobody was held accountable, and listening to all the excuses for why his murder was justified or unavoidable. Can you imagine that level of sadness, anger, and frustration? And so just like Chicago in 1919, Harlem in 1964, Watts in 1965, Detroit in 1967, LA in 1992, Ferguson in 2014, Baltimore in 2015, etc., we have Minneapolis et al. in 2020.
This isn't said to challenge or shame anyone. Seeing beyond our privilege and through the propaganda and fairytale narratives we've been told our whole lives about the American Dream is a difficult task. We essentially have to be deprogrammed. But the hard truth of the matter is, if you're on the side of the police and those who talk about order and the rule of law and not about the scourge of racism and the terror that the police are for black and other nonwhite individuals (as well as the poor, homeless, mentally ill, etc.), you're ultimately on the side of institutionalized racism, classism, and oppression. And as well-meaning as many may be, I think MLK's criticism of the 'white moderate' is equally as valid for white moderates (and moderates and centrists in general) who today say that they support the black community and believe black lives matter yet criticize their methods or language or cynicism towards politicians, the police, and white society itself. His words were directed squarely at those who were in opposition to anyone fighting for immediate justice for black people (and other marginalized groups) with various means of direct action, because their opposition, in the name of civility and order, ultimately helped to maintain things as they were, as untenable as they were.
And MLK's advice is just as valid today as it was in 1963: Don't fall for the myth of time and waiting for a "more convenient season." The time is always right for justice, whether it's justice for BIPOC, justice for the poor, justice for immigrants, justice for women, justice for the LGBTQ community, justice for those with physical or mental disabilities, or justice for the planet. And we shouldn't be afraid to pick a side, because as Howard Zinn used to say, "You can't be neutral on a moving train." Silence is complicity, even if it's inadvertent. Nevertheless, it's easy to simply say that black lives matter, but now it's up to us to prove that they matter by doing what we can to defend and support those lives. And to do that, one of the things that must be done is to help force the radical restructuring of our world — materially, spiritually, and everything in between — while also standing in solidarity with everyone out in the streets right now. We have to help forge a future without racism. We created the problem, so it's definitely on us to help solve it.
Time after time after time, police engage protesters with violence time after time after time they provoke it with the killing of unarmed black men, women, and children. Our mayors are complicit. Our legislators are complicit. Our governors are complicit. Our courts are complicit. Corporations are complicit. And our federal government is complicit. Where do they get their money? Where do they get their weapons and tech? Where do they get their orders and immunity? So how can we expect all of these bricks in a larger systemic wall of inequality and violence to do what is right and give us justice when they've failed to do so for generations? The police protect the socioeconomic order, an order that leaves many at the mercy of markets and predatory corporations and systemic injustice. They protect property, wealth, and white privilege. How many times have journalists reported on this? How many times has this been addressed in city councils? How many promises have we been given at podiums by our leaders that change is coming? So where are they? They're out in the streets right now. The change is coming with the power of everyday people rallying around a common cause, confronting the police and the system they protect. Change is coming because of our solidarity, our numbers, our direct actions, and our righteous anger at inequality, injustice, and oppression.
There are prophets everywhere in the world and in every walk of life; and if we could only learn to listen them, our world would be a different place. They tell us the difficult things we may not wish to hear but are necessary. They warn us of the consequences that we don't wish to face up to if we don't change our ways. And if we heeded their words more often, perhaps the 'moral arc of the universe' would be a little less long and bend even more towards justice than it historically does. But more often than not, it seems, prophets are only appreciated by society far into the future, when their words ring loud and true and their warnings have unfortunately all come to pass. Only then are their words recognized. I think one of those prophets was MLK Jr., who spoke out against the evils of racism, poverty, and war. And in that witnessing, he also spoke out against capitalism and those who criticized the ways oppressed people fought their oppression. In 1963, for example, MLK famously wrote:
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'
They were powerful words then, and unfortunately, I think they still carry a great deal of weight today. I've been thinking a lot about those words while reading things like our mayor's response to the protests, watching the mainstream news coverage, and contemplating the role white people have historically played in the oppression of black people; and the way I see it, you're either on the side of the black community or you're not. It's that simple.
Black people in the US have literally suffered generations of oppression and racism in this country, from slavery to segregation and lynching to modern-day redlining, mass incarceration, and police violence. They have been patient enough for justice. Beyond patient. They have spent generations peacefully protesting and working within the system (and most still do). They have spent generations making their case for true equality and reparations for what they have had to endure. They have pleaded generation after generation for white society to see their plight, hear their cries, and to act. And for generations, those cries have mostly fallen on deaf ears or else have been answered by piecemeal reforms here and there, and often only after sustained pressure and civil unrest. Restorative justice has always remained a dream just out of reach.
That's why MLK said that the riot was the language of the unheard. Voices can only cry out for so long before they go hoarse and the generations of sadness, anger, and frustration start to boil over and become expressed in different ways, especially in reaction to watching yet another member of their community be killed—watching it over and over again on the news and social media and seeing how nobody stopped it and how nobody was held accountable, and listening to all the excuses for why his murder was justified or unavoidable. Can you imagine that level of sadness, anger, and frustration? And so just like Chicago in 1919, Harlem in 1964, Watts in 1965, Detroit in 1967, LA in 1992, Ferguson in 2014, Baltimore in 2015, etc., we have Minneapolis et al. in 2020.
This isn't said to challenge or shame anyone. Seeing beyond our privilege and through the propaganda and fairytale narratives we've been told our whole lives about the American Dream is a difficult task. We essentially have to be deprogrammed. But the hard truth of the matter is, if you're on the side of the police and those who talk about order and the rule of law and not about the scourge of racism and the terror that the police are for black and other nonwhite individuals (as well as the poor, homeless, mentally ill, etc.), you're ultimately on the side of institutionalized racism, classism, and oppression. And as well-meaning as many may be, I think MLK's criticism of the 'white moderate' is equally as valid for white moderates (and moderates and centrists in general) who today say that they support the black community and believe black lives matter yet criticize their methods or language or cynicism towards politicians, the police, and white society itself. His words were directed squarely at those who were in opposition to anyone fighting for immediate justice for black people (and other marginalized groups) with various means of direct action, because their opposition, in the name of civility and order, ultimately helped to maintain things as they were, as untenable as they were.
And MLK's advice is just as valid today as it was in 1963: Don't fall for the myth of time and waiting for a "more convenient season." The time is always right for justice, whether it's justice for BIPOC, justice for the poor, justice for immigrants, justice for women, justice for the LGBTQ community, justice for those with physical or mental disabilities, or justice for the planet. And we shouldn't be afraid to pick a side, because as Howard Zinn used to say, "You can't be neutral on a moving train." Silence is complicity, even if it's inadvertent. Nevertheless, it's easy to simply say that black lives matter, but now it's up to us to prove that they matter by doing what we can to defend and support those lives. And to do that, one of the things that must be done is to help force the radical restructuring of our world — materially, spiritually, and everything in between — while also standing in solidarity with everyone out in the streets right now. We have to help forge a future without racism. We created the problem, so it's definitely on us to help solve it.
Time after time after time, police engage protesters with violence time after time after time they provoke it with the killing of unarmed black men, women, and children. Our mayors are complicit. Our legislators are complicit. Our governors are complicit. Our courts are complicit. Corporations are complicit. And our federal government is complicit. Where do they get their money? Where do they get their weapons and tech? Where do they get their orders and immunity? So how can we expect all of these bricks in a larger systemic wall of inequality and violence to do what is right and give us justice when they've failed to do so for generations? The police protect the socioeconomic order, an order that leaves many at the mercy of markets and predatory corporations and systemic injustice. They protect property, wealth, and white privilege. How many times have journalists reported on this? How many times has this been addressed in city councils? How many promises have we been given at podiums by our leaders that change is coming? So where are they? They're out in the streets right now. The change is coming with the power of everyday people rallying around a common cause, confronting the police and the system they protect. Change is coming because of our solidarity, our numbers, our direct actions, and our righteous anger at inequality, injustice, and oppression.
Monday, April 27, 2020
me who?
From Business Insider, one of the few articles I've seen actually taking Tara Reade's allegations seriously:
A former neighbor of Joe Biden's accuser Tara Reade has come forward to corroborate her sexual-assault account, saying Reade discussed the allegations in detail in the mid-1990s
I think the Democratic Party has some serious soul searching to do right now. Seriouy. While I understand that accusations aren't proof, I honestly question the morals of a party and its voters who willingly support someone with credible accusations of sexual harassment and assault leveled against them.
While most were ignoring this story and telling everyone that there's no alternative to Joe Biden so you have to support him no matter what, others were digging into this story to find out if anything out there could corroborate it. And guess what? There is. Within a matter of weeks, there are two more people who have gone on the record to say they were told about the incident and a video of what may be her mom calling the Larry King show for advice on where to turn for help besides the press.
After the Me Too and Times Up movement picked up steam, I thought people were finally going to start taking this kind of stuff seriously. But instead, it seems that it's no longer fashionable. People were happy to use this movement to try and stop a conservative Supreme Court nomination, but aren't so keen to us it to try and stop a liberal presidential nomination. Our country has consistently rewarded bad behaviour from white men, and there's little to stop it from continuing to happen except for people getting fed up with the hypocrisy and corruption of the ruling class and those who own and control the economy.
In this case, the rank and file of the Democratic Party need to do what the leadership simply refuses to do and demand that Biden step down. There are a host of candidates who are not only better, they don't have credible assault allegations hanging around their necks. Otherwise, there's little separating the Democratic Party from the immorality, hypocrisy, and corruption that they claim to abhor in the Republican Party. Because if they're not fighting against this, they're enabling it.
Maybe it's my previous interest in religion, philosophy, and ethics before becoming interested in politics that makes me feel so strongly about stuff like this, but the lack of concern and investigation into this, let alone any moral or pragmatic arguments against this situation, deeply disturbs me.
American society had a couple of years of being educated in the objectification and abuse of women, particularly by men in power, and the importance of the need to believe them and take them seriously only to then have all of that ignored or put on hold because of the insidiousness of lesser evilism in the support of the ghost of moderate neoliberalism. I mean seriously, what the fuck?
A former neighbor of Joe Biden's accuser Tara Reade has come forward to corroborate her sexual-assault account, saying Reade discussed the allegations in detail in the mid-1990s
I think the Democratic Party has some serious soul searching to do right now. Seriouy. While I understand that accusations aren't proof, I honestly question the morals of a party and its voters who willingly support someone with credible accusations of sexual harassment and assault leveled against them.
While most were ignoring this story and telling everyone that there's no alternative to Joe Biden so you have to support him no matter what, others were digging into this story to find out if anything out there could corroborate it. And guess what? There is. Within a matter of weeks, there are two more people who have gone on the record to say they were told about the incident and a video of what may be her mom calling the Larry King show for advice on where to turn for help besides the press.
After the Me Too and Times Up movement picked up steam, I thought people were finally going to start taking this kind of stuff seriously. But instead, it seems that it's no longer fashionable. People were happy to use this movement to try and stop a conservative Supreme Court nomination, but aren't so keen to us it to try and stop a liberal presidential nomination. Our country has consistently rewarded bad behaviour from white men, and there's little to stop it from continuing to happen except for people getting fed up with the hypocrisy and corruption of the ruling class and those who own and control the economy.
In this case, the rank and file of the Democratic Party need to do what the leadership simply refuses to do and demand that Biden step down. There are a host of candidates who are not only better, they don't have credible assault allegations hanging around their necks. Otherwise, there's little separating the Democratic Party from the immorality, hypocrisy, and corruption that they claim to abhor in the Republican Party. Because if they're not fighting against this, they're enabling it.
Maybe it's my previous interest in religion, philosophy, and ethics before becoming interested in politics that makes me feel so strongly about stuff like this, but the lack of concern and investigation into this, let alone any moral or pragmatic arguments against this situation, deeply disturbs me.
American society had a couple of years of being educated in the objectification and abuse of women, particularly by men in power, and the importance of the need to believe them and take them seriously only to then have all of that ignored or put on hold because of the insidiousness of lesser evilism in the support of the ghost of moderate neoliberalism. I mean seriously, what the fuck?
Friday, April 10, 2020
good friday
Today's Good Friday, the day we reflect on the death of Jesus. What does Jesus' death mean? We're told it means salvation, new life, peace. To be honest, it's a bit hard for me to understand what that means on a deep, theological level. But Jesus' death on the cross can also act as a template for our own lives.
Jesus had a mission, to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10). And when Jesus went out, he went out to teach, to heal, to feed, and to share God's love by loving others, which in itself is radical thing. But his faith, his love, and his compassionate action were threatening to many, from those among the elite to even some among the common people. And they all eventually tried in their own way, whether out of fear, ignorance, misunderstanding, ill will, or attachment to tradition, to take away these treasures he possessed. But try as they may, he wouldn't give them up, even under the threat of death. He held tight to his faith, his love, and his compassion for all of humanity, all the way down to the least among us, and he willingly suffered death on the cross rather than lose them to fear, hatred, selfishness, and inaction.
In essence, his life wasn't just about himself, it was ultimately about his relationship to others, to the whole world, and to God. You could say that his message was "Not me, Us."
His life was an example to us, a mandala, a living tapestry meant to inspire and hearten us. His life was like a lamp shining forth the bright light of hope into the future in order to guide us and help us not lose our way to the kingdom of heaven, that joyful world we wish to one day see, born out of love in action.
Jesus had a mission, to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10). And when Jesus went out, he went out to teach, to heal, to feed, and to share God's love by loving others, which in itself is radical thing. But his faith, his love, and his compassionate action were threatening to many, from those among the elite to even some among the common people. And they all eventually tried in their own way, whether out of fear, ignorance, misunderstanding, ill will, or attachment to tradition, to take away these treasures he possessed. But try as they may, he wouldn't give them up, even under the threat of death. He held tight to his faith, his love, and his compassion for all of humanity, all the way down to the least among us, and he willingly suffered death on the cross rather than lose them to fear, hatred, selfishness, and inaction.
In essence, his life wasn't just about himself, it was ultimately about his relationship to others, to the whole world, and to God. You could say that his message was "Not me, Us."
His life was an example to us, a mandala, a living tapestry meant to inspire and hearten us. His life was like a lamp shining forth the bright light of hope into the future in order to guide us and help us not lose our way to the kingdom of heaven, that joyful world we wish to one day see, born out of love in action.
normalize diversity
I know I don't post about this kind of stuff much, but every once in a while I see something that makes me feel like I need to because I forget that not everyone is like most of my friends and accepting of other people. So, I get that we live in a cis-normative society—a society where people outside of rigid binaries like man/woman, gay/straight, cis/transgender, etc. face marginalization and violence for being who they are and must present themselves like some kind of exotic animal. Cis people expect it, and many feel justified in reacting violently if they are "surprised." The amount of hate and violence directed towards LGBTQIA+ individuals is astounding. But it shouldn't matter what gender or sex you are or somebody else is. Seriously. If you find it weird, shocking, or offensive that someone is different than you expect or wish them to be, then it’s up to you to educate yourself and learn to appreciate and enjoy the diversity of people in this world. We need to stop making excuses for this kind of belief and behaviour and deprogram ourselves of what society has taught us about rigid binaries and what's "normal." If you find someone you're fond of and attracted to, then explore ways to enjoy being together. It's not a difficult concept.
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
what's capitalism got to do with it?
Instead of doing my school work today, I decided to elaborate upon an idea I found in a tweet because I think it's important.
One of the main reasons that people like me always take aim at capitalism when criticizing social phenomena, including our political system, is the basic Marxian concept of base/superstructure relations. It's the idea that a capitalist state and its ruling class (political superstructure) are a manifestation or reflection of underlying economic social relations (economic base), where the few exploit the many for profit. In the US, we can see empirical examples of political inequality as it manifests out of inherently unequal social relations of production. [1] But you don't really need in-depth studies to see things like, maybe there's something wrong when one person is making $8 million an hour while the majority of workers in the US make less than $20 an hour, half make less than $15 including most of the "essential workers" working right now [2], and over 10 million people have filed for unemployment in 2 weeks and are unsure how they're going to pay for things like rent, healthcare, and food. [3] Some think that a tweak to the system here, or a higher tax there, will fix economic inequality and a host of oppressive isms that have been built into the system from its inception.
But critics like Marx, seeking answers to similar problems and a better alternative, uncovered some of the underlying logical contractions inherent to how capitalism functions, as well as the historical violence, oppression, and theft that heralded the beginning of this relatively new mode of production. The short version is, countries with emerging mercantile markets enclosed local common land; colonized other lands; stole land, wealth, and resources; and exploited slave labour in what Marx called the process of 'primitive accumulation.' [4] Then after the industrial revolution, those in power further forced their own people off of communal land and into the cities to work in the factories under new social relations, one in which they were forced to sell their labour-power to someone for a wage, not fully realizing that the person who now owns that labour-power owns the products of that labour and all the extra value added by their labour. [5] So first they accumulated by theft, then they accumulated by the exploitation of wage workers once feudalism gave way to mercantilism and then capitalism. And into that system was planted all of the racism and sexism of the time because they fostered this growing system. Racism was used to dehumanize other people so that their slave labour and colonial exploitation was accepted by the colonizers. Sexism was used to keep women at home to do all the unpaid labour of raising the next generation of workers (children) as well as sustain the current generation (husbands), allowing the ownership class to keep the maximum amount of the wealth their workers created for themselves as less was needed to materially maintain the workers thanks to this unpaid, supportive labour. (Wages are essentially a fraction of the total value created in the labour process that's given back to the worker by the capitalist so they can materially reproduce their labour-power, i.e., live.) The US was no exception as it followed the basic model of the rest of Europe. It was based in part on Enlightenment ideals and English and Roman political models in which white, male property owners had the most freedom and power. Combine that with the colonization of the Americas and theft of land and resources of the native inhabitants, slave labour from Africa, and the support role women played predominantly in the background, and you have the soil in which our system grew. It, too, was built on slave labour as well as gender discrimination. And once both black people and women were somewhat liberated from the worst of their oppression, they were allowed to go to school and into the workplace and eventually vote, but even there the racism and sexism continued, so that they were marginalized and paid less for the same work and were often used to suppress wages overall.
As more and more entered to workforce, either out of necessity or desire, they were confronted with the same discrimination and were paid less; and since they would work for less, white men now had to not only compete with each other and with immigrants, but the other half of the population that had previously been excluded from the workplace and the electorate, and who worked for a fraction of what they could make. This only served to enhance the animosity that many white men had towards women and people of colour. Not only were cultural biases in play, but the system actively pitted them against one another because it helped suppress wages and maximize profits while simultaneously creating more factionalism within the electorate, further diluting the electoral power of workers. And this factionalism was intentional, being expressly created by the founders from the very beginning. Like most forms of government centered around private property rights (a central tenet of capitalism), the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." [6] So the ownership of property (which at the beginning included black people and to some extent women) and the social relations arising out of that formed the logical and material economic basis of our society, a basis that was in turn reflected in our political system that was embedded with systemic mechanisms of racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of factionalism and inequality. So while we are still seduced by flowery language of the Declaration of Independence that we are all equal and live in a land of opportunity, to think that a few extra regulations or taxes can fix all of this is naive. It can certainly mitigate the worst of things and provide what we call 'social safety nets,' but even much of those have either been privatized, minimized, or means tested, creating a system of bureaucratic hurdles and public shaming for those who qualify. And then there are the ways this inequality manifests itself in housing, education, the criminal justice system, etc., all of which contain tiers of inequality that are further built upon this socioeconomic foundation. In the end, working people as a class, splintered into various factions that can be more easily managed and pitted against one another, bear the brunt of this exploitation and inequality so that a few may thrive and steer the course of history.
In essence, the US is a capitalist, oligarchical republic. It papers over this reality with ideas of freedom, equality, and democracy, but crises like this poke huge holes in that paper covering, revealing what's truly underneath. And people like Garrett Felber are 100% right when they point out things like, "Coronavirus was just the fuse in the tinderbox. The U.S. nation state is the cause. You don't get one man making 8 million an hour while 10 million file for unemployment from a bug in the system. This is a half-century of privatization and gutted out social welfare built on a permanent war economy, mass consumption, global capitalism, and mass criminalization, on a foundation of settler colonialism and slavery." [7] For the US to truly move away from its oligarchical political-economic makeup and towards real democracy in which social wealth is more equitably managed, it has to fundamentally alter the makeup of its mode of production through a radical economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system are gradually eliminated via a more socialized mode of production. And that not only requires fundamental structural changes, it requires the organization of working people into a force that can bring those changes into being. We need a revolution in our thought and in our morals. And more importantly, we need a revolution in our means of production. We need a new foundation to build our society upon, fresh soil in which to plant our future garden of plenty. Because we have the technology and labour needed to provide for the needs of everyone. The only barrier to that is a system predicated upon production for profit, private property rights that give owners as a class disproportionate control over the political and economic life of this country, and an ingrained belief that there is no other alternative. But we have to have the willingness to imagine one or else we're going to be trapped in this socioeconomic version of Plato's Cave for another 200 years, if the planet and our species even survive for that long. [8]
Many are under the impression that if we vote for the better for the two political options available to us, we will eventually achieve this new world. But the contradictions that shape and sustain our economic foundation also help to shape and sustain the political structure built on top of it, and both parties ultimately work to preserve that foundation, not rebuild it. That's not to say that there aren't qualitative differences between them. However, those differences stop short of addressing the real problem—capitalist social relations. Our strength as a class is in our numbers and our labour. We, together, are the true foundation of this society, and it's well past time that the world we live in reflects that. To summarize, I'm a leftist because I think the system itself needs to be fundamentally changed, and I think that a better system is one that is more democratic and more equitably distributes the wealth of our labour. In addition, working people have to be involved because such a change requires us as a force to make it happen, through our numbers, the withholding of our labour, the reclaiming of our ownership of that labour, etc. We need to realize our true political and economic power. I know I've sounded like a broken record for the last 10 years, and I may not be the smartest or most educated person, but I've seen and experienced much to validate this and little to disprove it.
1. Gilens, Martin and Page, Benjamin I. (2014, September, 18). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
2. Menon, Rajan. (2018, July 16). The Wages of Poverty in America. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/07/16/wages-poverty-america
3. Schneider, Avie. (2020, April 2). Staggering: Record 10 Million File For Unemployment In 2 Weeks. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/02/825383525/6-6-million-file-for-unemployment-another-dismal-record
4. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
5. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm
6. Madison, James. (1787, November 23). Federalist No. 10. The Federalist Papers. https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10
7. Felber, Garrett. (2020, April 2). Twitter. https://twitter.com/garrett_felber/status/1245848099928649730
8. Spratt, David & Dunlop, Ian. (2019, May). Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf
One of the main reasons that people like me always take aim at capitalism when criticizing social phenomena, including our political system, is the basic Marxian concept of base/superstructure relations. It's the idea that a capitalist state and its ruling class (political superstructure) are a manifestation or reflection of underlying economic social relations (economic base), where the few exploit the many for profit. In the US, we can see empirical examples of political inequality as it manifests out of inherently unequal social relations of production. [1] But you don't really need in-depth studies to see things like, maybe there's something wrong when one person is making $8 million an hour while the majority of workers in the US make less than $20 an hour, half make less than $15 including most of the "essential workers" working right now [2], and over 10 million people have filed for unemployment in 2 weeks and are unsure how they're going to pay for things like rent, healthcare, and food. [3] Some think that a tweak to the system here, or a higher tax there, will fix economic inequality and a host of oppressive isms that have been built into the system from its inception.
But critics like Marx, seeking answers to similar problems and a better alternative, uncovered some of the underlying logical contractions inherent to how capitalism functions, as well as the historical violence, oppression, and theft that heralded the beginning of this relatively new mode of production. The short version is, countries with emerging mercantile markets enclosed local common land; colonized other lands; stole land, wealth, and resources; and exploited slave labour in what Marx called the process of 'primitive accumulation.' [4] Then after the industrial revolution, those in power further forced their own people off of communal land and into the cities to work in the factories under new social relations, one in which they were forced to sell their labour-power to someone for a wage, not fully realizing that the person who now owns that labour-power owns the products of that labour and all the extra value added by their labour. [5] So first they accumulated by theft, then they accumulated by the exploitation of wage workers once feudalism gave way to mercantilism and then capitalism. And into that system was planted all of the racism and sexism of the time because they fostered this growing system. Racism was used to dehumanize other people so that their slave labour and colonial exploitation was accepted by the colonizers. Sexism was used to keep women at home to do all the unpaid labour of raising the next generation of workers (children) as well as sustain the current generation (husbands), allowing the ownership class to keep the maximum amount of the wealth their workers created for themselves as less was needed to materially maintain the workers thanks to this unpaid, supportive labour. (Wages are essentially a fraction of the total value created in the labour process that's given back to the worker by the capitalist so they can materially reproduce their labour-power, i.e., live.) The US was no exception as it followed the basic model of the rest of Europe. It was based in part on Enlightenment ideals and English and Roman political models in which white, male property owners had the most freedom and power. Combine that with the colonization of the Americas and theft of land and resources of the native inhabitants, slave labour from Africa, and the support role women played predominantly in the background, and you have the soil in which our system grew. It, too, was built on slave labour as well as gender discrimination. And once both black people and women were somewhat liberated from the worst of their oppression, they were allowed to go to school and into the workplace and eventually vote, but even there the racism and sexism continued, so that they were marginalized and paid less for the same work and were often used to suppress wages overall.
As more and more entered to workforce, either out of necessity or desire, they were confronted with the same discrimination and were paid less; and since they would work for less, white men now had to not only compete with each other and with immigrants, but the other half of the population that had previously been excluded from the workplace and the electorate, and who worked for a fraction of what they could make. This only served to enhance the animosity that many white men had towards women and people of colour. Not only were cultural biases in play, but the system actively pitted them against one another because it helped suppress wages and maximize profits while simultaneously creating more factionalism within the electorate, further diluting the electoral power of workers. And this factionalism was intentional, being expressly created by the founders from the very beginning. Like most forms of government centered around private property rights (a central tenet of capitalism), the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." [6] So the ownership of property (which at the beginning included black people and to some extent women) and the social relations arising out of that formed the logical and material economic basis of our society, a basis that was in turn reflected in our political system that was embedded with systemic mechanisms of racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of factionalism and inequality. So while we are still seduced by flowery language of the Declaration of Independence that we are all equal and live in a land of opportunity, to think that a few extra regulations or taxes can fix all of this is naive. It can certainly mitigate the worst of things and provide what we call 'social safety nets,' but even much of those have either been privatized, minimized, or means tested, creating a system of bureaucratic hurdles and public shaming for those who qualify. And then there are the ways this inequality manifests itself in housing, education, the criminal justice system, etc., all of which contain tiers of inequality that are further built upon this socioeconomic foundation. In the end, working people as a class, splintered into various factions that can be more easily managed and pitted against one another, bear the brunt of this exploitation and inequality so that a few may thrive and steer the course of history.
In essence, the US is a capitalist, oligarchical republic. It papers over this reality with ideas of freedom, equality, and democracy, but crises like this poke huge holes in that paper covering, revealing what's truly underneath. And people like Garrett Felber are 100% right when they point out things like, "Coronavirus was just the fuse in the tinderbox. The U.S. nation state is the cause. You don't get one man making 8 million an hour while 10 million file for unemployment from a bug in the system. This is a half-century of privatization and gutted out social welfare built on a permanent war economy, mass consumption, global capitalism, and mass criminalization, on a foundation of settler colonialism and slavery." [7] For the US to truly move away from its oligarchical political-economic makeup and towards real democracy in which social wealth is more equitably managed, it has to fundamentally alter the makeup of its mode of production through a radical economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system are gradually eliminated via a more socialized mode of production. And that not only requires fundamental structural changes, it requires the organization of working people into a force that can bring those changes into being. We need a revolution in our thought and in our morals. And more importantly, we need a revolution in our means of production. We need a new foundation to build our society upon, fresh soil in which to plant our future garden of plenty. Because we have the technology and labour needed to provide for the needs of everyone. The only barrier to that is a system predicated upon production for profit, private property rights that give owners as a class disproportionate control over the political and economic life of this country, and an ingrained belief that there is no other alternative. But we have to have the willingness to imagine one or else we're going to be trapped in this socioeconomic version of Plato's Cave for another 200 years, if the planet and our species even survive for that long. [8]
Many are under the impression that if we vote for the better for the two political options available to us, we will eventually achieve this new world. But the contradictions that shape and sustain our economic foundation also help to shape and sustain the political structure built on top of it, and both parties ultimately work to preserve that foundation, not rebuild it. That's not to say that there aren't qualitative differences between them. However, those differences stop short of addressing the real problem—capitalist social relations. Our strength as a class is in our numbers and our labour. We, together, are the true foundation of this society, and it's well past time that the world we live in reflects that. To summarize, I'm a leftist because I think the system itself needs to be fundamentally changed, and I think that a better system is one that is more democratic and more equitably distributes the wealth of our labour. In addition, working people have to be involved because such a change requires us as a force to make it happen, through our numbers, the withholding of our labour, the reclaiming of our ownership of that labour, etc. We need to realize our true political and economic power. I know I've sounded like a broken record for the last 10 years, and I may not be the smartest or most educated person, but I've seen and experienced much to validate this and little to disprove it.
1. Gilens, Martin and Page, Benjamin I. (2014, September, 18). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
2. Menon, Rajan. (2018, July 16). The Wages of Poverty in America. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/07/16/wages-poverty-america
3. Schneider, Avie. (2020, April 2). Staggering: Record 10 Million File For Unemployment In 2 Weeks. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/02/825383525/6-6-million-file-for-unemployment-another-dismal-record
4. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
5. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm
6. Madison, James. (1787, November 23). Federalist No. 10. The Federalist Papers. https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10
7. Felber, Garrett. (2020, April 2). Twitter. https://twitter.com/garrett_felber/status/1245848099928649730
8. Spratt, David & Dunlop, Ian. (2019, May). Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf
Friday, March 13, 2020
what does the left owe the dp?
Happened to read this op-ed from the New York Times today:
The One Democrat Joe Biden Would Be Clueless Without
I admit that it got me a little riled up. Where to begin...
When it comes to articles like this, I get that many people have a different perspective when it comes to politics. And I don't necessarily have an issue with people who make an argument that Warren-style politics are the way forward. I can understand the appeal of someone who is smart and seemingly has a plan for everything, and many of those plans fall on the progressive side of things. And I can also see why college educated professionals in particular find this approach more to their liking. I think many liberals are technocrats at heart, and there's something to be said for smart planning. I also understand the cautious appeal of reform vs. revolution. Change can be scary, and some people prefer slow, incremental changes to drastic overhauls. Nevertheless, I find it dismaying that someone like Will Wilkinson can look at everything from the history of labour movements here and around the world and their victories to serious critiques of capitalism (i.e., how the logic of capitalism creates cyclical crises, inequality, unemployment, capital accumulation, alienation, etc.) and still think socialists are "in the grip of unworkable, harebrained dogma."
From my POV, many socialists are gripped by a passionate desire to make the world a better place; and their dogma is to challenge the mechanics of a system that allows a certain, tiny class of people to not only possess the lion's share of wealth and political power, but to exploit the labour of the majority and dictate much of how society looks due to the enshrinement of property rights. There is a very real and relatively obvious antagonism between this small class of owners and the much larger class of wage-workers. When someone like Bloomberg talks about the wealth that he's earned and created and deserves to have, they always ignore the legion of workers whose labour went into creating that wealth and who often make just enough to survive. For every Jeff Bezos, there are millions of workers who work themselves to the bone every day, often missing breaks and working while sick, because they risk losing the job that they depend upon to pay for their food, rent, and other bills. Meanwhile, it's the Bloombergs and Bezos of the world who have the time, money, and pull to have the ear of politicians who are often in office because of their patronage. And the "unworkable, harebrained dogma" is that we can consciously create a more humane, rational, and egalitarian system than the one we currently have. But outside of the ideological difference between the established politics of the Democratic Party and socialists, just looking at the two candidates who are still in the race, the self-described socialist's platform (and entire political career) is far closer to the progressive Warrenism than Biden's, who has more often than not sided with the interests of corporations and wealthy elites than with workers (he's certainly taken enough of their money, that's for sure).
And when it comes to the existence of this social and political power imbalance that lies at the heart of socialist politics and their focus on organizing working people and expanding democracy into the workplace, along with a reevaluation of property rights and a host of other big structural changes, I'm honestly amazed that a connection between capitalist social relations and class dynamics and how unequal and messed up our society is isn't some most people who consider themselves left-leaning make. This is especially true considering the progress made in certain poor, underdeveloped, and politically isolated countries that have attempted an alternative mode of production. The healthcare system and medical advances in Cuba are but one example. A relatively poor and underdeveloped country that's suffered for over half a century under a US-led embargo has nevertheless created one of the best and most technologically advanced, universal healthcare systems in the world. Those kinds of examples combined with the technological and productive capabilities that we currently possess, and the gross inequality that we see (and which is statistically measurable) surely can't lead one to think that creating a system where everyone has universal access to things like education and healthcare while making the workplace more democratic and workers more in control over their own labour is "unworkable" and "harebrained." Can it?
Am I simply too naive to understand how the real world works? Or are people like David Harvey and Richard Wolff more deserving of recognition in the field of political-economy than they receive, and is the dominant narrative more propaganda than actual fact? If the latter is true, how do I get others to see that? I sometimes feel like I'm the proverbial turtle trying to explain to a fish dry land and I don’t know how to best express these ideas, experiences, and realizations. I admit that reading books like Capital can be daunting, but there are so many other, more contemporary sources that make similar points and illustrate the many contradictions in the logic of capitalism that make reforms weak and often impermanent, as well as how the logic of capitalism conditions us. For example, while we have the capacity to be both competitive and cooperative, capitalism clearly conditions people to be more competitive. Capitals compete against each other in the market for greater shares of profit, while workers compete against each other for jobs and wages. In essence, competition is incentivized, even in areas where cooperation is necessary because everyone’s job is precarious. And I'm not sure why people don't see how the priorities of capitalism aren't for working people. It's so blatantly obvious. Just one small example is how, when crises happen and markets crash, it's the markets, banks, and large corporations that get bailed out, not the workers. After the 2008 crash, banks and auto companies got giant bailouts while people underwater on their mortgages got nothing. And just the other day, the government dumped $1.5 trillion into the market while paid sick leave for workers was blocked.
I feel like I've written ad nauseum about the ways that the logic of capitalism not only causes or promotes things like cyclical crises, unemployment and low wages for many, competition over cooperation, capital accumulation and a class of owners with insane wealth and power, etc., as well as how it conditions us to think about work and money and who deserves what. And probably equally as much about how real people suffer from their lack of money, opportunity, and political power, often using myself as an example. Nearly half of the US lives at or near the real poverty line, working paycheck to paycheck with little-to-no savings, many without healthcare or unable to afford to use the plans they have. Many are in debt. Many forgo needed medical and dental care because they can't afford it. Many don’t have sick time off. Many have degrees. Of course some find the means to go on to get better educations and find good jobs with good healthcare and are relatively happy and content. And that's great. But the unworkable and harebrained dogma of the socialist is to make that a reality for everyone. Yet oftentimes I seriously wonder if my experience as a relatively smart yet non-college educated worker in three states gives me a perspective others lack, or if I'm just another uneducated prole that deserves to have others to look down at me for the ignorant things that I say and believe. And right now, I honestly don't know.
Between work, school, how much I have to struggle to make ends meet, the state of the world and the people running it, and how the world makes me feel about myself, I feel tired and defeated. I've been struggling to find a good job and live comfortably like the American Dream tells me is possible since the moment I graduated high school. And in all of that time working, between the low pay and the layoffs and work-related injuries, I've continued to struggle. And I continue to see others who struggle. And I've seen multiple crises shine a light onto the weaknesses and flaws of the current system with few also seeing the need for radical change. This one alone highlights the need for universal healthcare, childcare, and the ability of people to work from home that for some reason magically couldn't before, the need for workers to have paid time off or the ability to not work but still not starve, the ability to erase debts and suspend evictions and shut offs, and how the system looks after itself first and workers barely at all. So am I wrong? Is an alternative to what we have today a real possibility? And if so, why aren't we working harder towards it? Why is a more humane, rational, and egalitarian society such a difficult thing to imagine and bring into being? We figured out how to land on the moon and sequence the human genome, but figuring out a way to make work days shorter and childcare a free service for the collective good is some kind of pie-in-the-sky daydream?
This article is an example of how many within the DP are dismissive of or are even openly hostile to socialist politics. While they may say it's a big tent party and want leftist support, saying that socialists and anti-capitalists in general have no other option, they make it obvious they don't actually want our ideas, only our votes and money with a condescending pat on the head. And then they wonder why some on the left sit out elections or vote for third party candidates. People on the left in the US are struggling to find a home to organize in. Some find that in small, tight-nit socialist groups, while others are searching for larger political organizations to be a part of like the DSA. And others are trying to move the DP left and make it into that, but I don't know how successful they can be trying to turn a socially-liberal, reformist capitalist party into an anti-capitalist labour party, or even a social democratic one at that. Both the leadership and the corporate funders of the party are vocally opposed to it. And I wonder if many within the DP itself understand these contradictions and why they can't have it both ways, i.e., wanting leftist support while simultaneously shunning leftist ideas and policies.
As a side note, this isn't directed towards any one person as most of my friends are college educated and registered Democrats, and I respect them and their ideas, but the general debate surrounding leftist politics and their place in political discourse. I certainly don't hate anyone for their affiliation with the DP or supporting people they like despite my strong criticisms of the party and many of its leaders. But there's definitely a degree of incompatibility between leftist politics and the politics of the DP, something even the DP leadership has vocally affirms. I don't mind being outside of it because it doesn't represent me and the party as a whole doesn't really want me or my politics. At the same time, I'm basically told my ideas are unworkable and unwelcome, but I still need to give them my vote just because they might lose otherwise. But my time, energy, money, and vote aren't owed to them just because they're not Republicans. Those things are earned by sincere discussions and policies that help working people. As a general rule, if you're fighting against what I view to be the minimal, social democratic measures needed by working people like medicare for all, a green new deal, student debt forgiveness, etc., I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. If you tell me that my politics are unworkable and my ideas harebrained, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And if you don't take the side of workers against the owners and controllers of capital, even if you're good on social issues, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And I hope that they can understand that without taking it personally, because I'm supporting things that I believe will ultimately benefit all of us, not just me.
Tl; dr: Workers organizing and pushing for change > capital doing what's right. Revolution in values and economics > small reforms to deal with inequality and the threat of climate change. I'm either an idiot or I see a different POV that's valid. If you want my support, earn it.
The One Democrat Joe Biden Would Be Clueless Without
I admit that it got me a little riled up. Where to begin...
When it comes to articles like this, I get that many people have a different perspective when it comes to politics. And I don't necessarily have an issue with people who make an argument that Warren-style politics are the way forward. I can understand the appeal of someone who is smart and seemingly has a plan for everything, and many of those plans fall on the progressive side of things. And I can also see why college educated professionals in particular find this approach more to their liking. I think many liberals are technocrats at heart, and there's something to be said for smart planning. I also understand the cautious appeal of reform vs. revolution. Change can be scary, and some people prefer slow, incremental changes to drastic overhauls. Nevertheless, I find it dismaying that someone like Will Wilkinson can look at everything from the history of labour movements here and around the world and their victories to serious critiques of capitalism (i.e., how the logic of capitalism creates cyclical crises, inequality, unemployment, capital accumulation, alienation, etc.) and still think socialists are "in the grip of unworkable, harebrained dogma."
From my POV, many socialists are gripped by a passionate desire to make the world a better place; and their dogma is to challenge the mechanics of a system that allows a certain, tiny class of people to not only possess the lion's share of wealth and political power, but to exploit the labour of the majority and dictate much of how society looks due to the enshrinement of property rights. There is a very real and relatively obvious antagonism between this small class of owners and the much larger class of wage-workers. When someone like Bloomberg talks about the wealth that he's earned and created and deserves to have, they always ignore the legion of workers whose labour went into creating that wealth and who often make just enough to survive. For every Jeff Bezos, there are millions of workers who work themselves to the bone every day, often missing breaks and working while sick, because they risk losing the job that they depend upon to pay for their food, rent, and other bills. Meanwhile, it's the Bloombergs and Bezos of the world who have the time, money, and pull to have the ear of politicians who are often in office because of their patronage. And the "unworkable, harebrained dogma" is that we can consciously create a more humane, rational, and egalitarian system than the one we currently have. But outside of the ideological difference between the established politics of the Democratic Party and socialists, just looking at the two candidates who are still in the race, the self-described socialist's platform (and entire political career) is far closer to the progressive Warrenism than Biden's, who has more often than not sided with the interests of corporations and wealthy elites than with workers (he's certainly taken enough of their money, that's for sure).
And when it comes to the existence of this social and political power imbalance that lies at the heart of socialist politics and their focus on organizing working people and expanding democracy into the workplace, along with a reevaluation of property rights and a host of other big structural changes, I'm honestly amazed that a connection between capitalist social relations and class dynamics and how unequal and messed up our society is isn't some most people who consider themselves left-leaning make. This is especially true considering the progress made in certain poor, underdeveloped, and politically isolated countries that have attempted an alternative mode of production. The healthcare system and medical advances in Cuba are but one example. A relatively poor and underdeveloped country that's suffered for over half a century under a US-led embargo has nevertheless created one of the best and most technologically advanced, universal healthcare systems in the world. Those kinds of examples combined with the technological and productive capabilities that we currently possess, and the gross inequality that we see (and which is statistically measurable) surely can't lead one to think that creating a system where everyone has universal access to things like education and healthcare while making the workplace more democratic and workers more in control over their own labour is "unworkable" and "harebrained." Can it?
Am I simply too naive to understand how the real world works? Or are people like David Harvey and Richard Wolff more deserving of recognition in the field of political-economy than they receive, and is the dominant narrative more propaganda than actual fact? If the latter is true, how do I get others to see that? I sometimes feel like I'm the proverbial turtle trying to explain to a fish dry land and I don’t know how to best express these ideas, experiences, and realizations. I admit that reading books like Capital can be daunting, but there are so many other, more contemporary sources that make similar points and illustrate the many contradictions in the logic of capitalism that make reforms weak and often impermanent, as well as how the logic of capitalism conditions us. For example, while we have the capacity to be both competitive and cooperative, capitalism clearly conditions people to be more competitive. Capitals compete against each other in the market for greater shares of profit, while workers compete against each other for jobs and wages. In essence, competition is incentivized, even in areas where cooperation is necessary because everyone’s job is precarious. And I'm not sure why people don't see how the priorities of capitalism aren't for working people. It's so blatantly obvious. Just one small example is how, when crises happen and markets crash, it's the markets, banks, and large corporations that get bailed out, not the workers. After the 2008 crash, banks and auto companies got giant bailouts while people underwater on their mortgages got nothing. And just the other day, the government dumped $1.5 trillion into the market while paid sick leave for workers was blocked.
I feel like I've written ad nauseum about the ways that the logic of capitalism not only causes or promotes things like cyclical crises, unemployment and low wages for many, competition over cooperation, capital accumulation and a class of owners with insane wealth and power, etc., as well as how it conditions us to think about work and money and who deserves what. And probably equally as much about how real people suffer from their lack of money, opportunity, and political power, often using myself as an example. Nearly half of the US lives at or near the real poverty line, working paycheck to paycheck with little-to-no savings, many without healthcare or unable to afford to use the plans they have. Many are in debt. Many forgo needed medical and dental care because they can't afford it. Many don’t have sick time off. Many have degrees. Of course some find the means to go on to get better educations and find good jobs with good healthcare and are relatively happy and content. And that's great. But the unworkable and harebrained dogma of the socialist is to make that a reality for everyone. Yet oftentimes I seriously wonder if my experience as a relatively smart yet non-college educated worker in three states gives me a perspective others lack, or if I'm just another uneducated prole that deserves to have others to look down at me for the ignorant things that I say and believe. And right now, I honestly don't know.
Between work, school, how much I have to struggle to make ends meet, the state of the world and the people running it, and how the world makes me feel about myself, I feel tired and defeated. I've been struggling to find a good job and live comfortably like the American Dream tells me is possible since the moment I graduated high school. And in all of that time working, between the low pay and the layoffs and work-related injuries, I've continued to struggle. And I continue to see others who struggle. And I've seen multiple crises shine a light onto the weaknesses and flaws of the current system with few also seeing the need for radical change. This one alone highlights the need for universal healthcare, childcare, and the ability of people to work from home that for some reason magically couldn't before, the need for workers to have paid time off or the ability to not work but still not starve, the ability to erase debts and suspend evictions and shut offs, and how the system looks after itself first and workers barely at all. So am I wrong? Is an alternative to what we have today a real possibility? And if so, why aren't we working harder towards it? Why is a more humane, rational, and egalitarian society such a difficult thing to imagine and bring into being? We figured out how to land on the moon and sequence the human genome, but figuring out a way to make work days shorter and childcare a free service for the collective good is some kind of pie-in-the-sky daydream?
This article is an example of how many within the DP are dismissive of or are even openly hostile to socialist politics. While they may say it's a big tent party and want leftist support, saying that socialists and anti-capitalists in general have no other option, they make it obvious they don't actually want our ideas, only our votes and money with a condescending pat on the head. And then they wonder why some on the left sit out elections or vote for third party candidates. People on the left in the US are struggling to find a home to organize in. Some find that in small, tight-nit socialist groups, while others are searching for larger political organizations to be a part of like the DSA. And others are trying to move the DP left and make it into that, but I don't know how successful they can be trying to turn a socially-liberal, reformist capitalist party into an anti-capitalist labour party, or even a social democratic one at that. Both the leadership and the corporate funders of the party are vocally opposed to it. And I wonder if many within the DP itself understand these contradictions and why they can't have it both ways, i.e., wanting leftist support while simultaneously shunning leftist ideas and policies.
As a side note, this isn't directed towards any one person as most of my friends are college educated and registered Democrats, and I respect them and their ideas, but the general debate surrounding leftist politics and their place in political discourse. I certainly don't hate anyone for their affiliation with the DP or supporting people they like despite my strong criticisms of the party and many of its leaders. But there's definitely a degree of incompatibility between leftist politics and the politics of the DP, something even the DP leadership has vocally affirms. I don't mind being outside of it because it doesn't represent me and the party as a whole doesn't really want me or my politics. At the same time, I'm basically told my ideas are unworkable and unwelcome, but I still need to give them my vote just because they might lose otherwise. But my time, energy, money, and vote aren't owed to them just because they're not Republicans. Those things are earned by sincere discussions and policies that help working people. As a general rule, if you're fighting against what I view to be the minimal, social democratic measures needed by working people like medicare for all, a green new deal, student debt forgiveness, etc., I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. If you tell me that my politics are unworkable and my ideas harebrained, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And if you don't take the side of workers against the owners and controllers of capital, even if you're good on social issues, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And I hope that they can understand that without taking it personally, because I'm supporting things that I believe will ultimately benefit all of us, not just me.
Tl; dr: Workers organizing and pushing for change > capital doing what's right. Revolution in values and economics > small reforms to deal with inequality and the threat of climate change. I'm either an idiot or I see a different POV that's valid. If you want my support, earn it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)