This Twitter thread on solar power from MIT perfectly illustrates the contradictions inherent to capitalism that make it unable to effectively and equitably address the socioeconomic needs of people.
In essence, solar power is a problem because the power generated can't be choked off to create artificial scarcity and jack up prices, meaning low cost electricity that companies can't make as much profit off of it.
The argument is literally, solar power is too cheap and efficient and we need to address this before expanding solar to meet climate goal or else it'll make the market unhappy and capital will lose out on massive profits.
From capitalism's POV, the existence of a super cheap and efficient power source is a bad thing, regardless of the current ecological crisis we are facing that was created, or at least exacerbated by, our reliance on fossil fuels.
It should make it obvious that we need a better, more equitable, and more ecologically-friendly system in which the production of goods and services is based on need rather than greed, and prioritizes the health of the planet over shareholders' bottom line.
Saturday, July 17, 2021
Friday, February 12, 2021
the hyperbolorian
Honestly, I feel like all the people who are upset that Gina Carano was let go from The Mandalorian and equating Disney letting her go with some kind of leftist totalitarian persecution are overreacting to put it lightly and have little to no understanding of actual history or what freedom of speech means.
For one, Gina has not been silenced by the government in any way, shape, or form, which is what the first amendment protects against. Freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment doesn't mean there are no consequences to your speech, or that private companies have to allow any type of speech by their employees whatsoever, only that the government shall not infringe upon your speech within reason, as there are clear legal limitations to this protection. A private company that employs her did not like some of the things she has been saying and sharing publicly on social media, which impacts their image and brand. And said private company has every right to distance themselves from any kind of view or form of public speech they deem to be problematic and harmful to their brand and image. That's their right, and her freedoms don't negate theirs. They have no legal requirement to employ her. And she already has a deal with another media company to create a film of her own. So not only is she free to say whatever she wants, she is still working, and her voice has obviously not been silenced in any way by the government or even by the social media companies she has been using to express her views (which can legally delete unwanted content or ban individuals from using their platforms).
And looking back at history, during the height of the cold war and McCarthyism, anyone even remotely connected to someone who may have communist sympathies or was a member of the Communist Party was blacklisted from Hollywood, media publishers, and government. You were also put under intense government investigation. And under laws such as the Alien Registration Act of 1940, people who were members or supporters of the Communist Party were arrested and jailed for little more than their political ideas and affiliations, some even being deported or prevented from entering the country because of them under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (which was both anti-communist and anti-Jewish in origin). In essence, the people who are talking about the cabal of totalitarian leftists silencing people and stealing their freedoms simply because they are being let go from a particular show over publicly expressed views and media that may negatively reflect on their parent company's image have no idea what they're talking, and the comparisons to the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust is absolutely ridiculous.
Look, if you think being let go by Disney, only to be offered a deal 24 hours later by another media company, is the height of totalitarian persecution and comparable to Nazism, you may need to brush up on history and get a little more historical context to balance out that hyperbole. Just saying.
For one, Gina has not been silenced by the government in any way, shape, or form, which is what the first amendment protects against. Freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment doesn't mean there are no consequences to your speech, or that private companies have to allow any type of speech by their employees whatsoever, only that the government shall not infringe upon your speech within reason, as there are clear legal limitations to this protection. A private company that employs her did not like some of the things she has been saying and sharing publicly on social media, which impacts their image and brand. And said private company has every right to distance themselves from any kind of view or form of public speech they deem to be problematic and harmful to their brand and image. That's their right, and her freedoms don't negate theirs. They have no legal requirement to employ her. And she already has a deal with another media company to create a film of her own. So not only is she free to say whatever she wants, she is still working, and her voice has obviously not been silenced in any way by the government or even by the social media companies she has been using to express her views (which can legally delete unwanted content or ban individuals from using their platforms).
And looking back at history, during the height of the cold war and McCarthyism, anyone even remotely connected to someone who may have communist sympathies or was a member of the Communist Party was blacklisted from Hollywood, media publishers, and government. You were also put under intense government investigation. And under laws such as the Alien Registration Act of 1940, people who were members or supporters of the Communist Party were arrested and jailed for little more than their political ideas and affiliations, some even being deported or prevented from entering the country because of them under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (which was both anti-communist and anti-Jewish in origin). In essence, the people who are talking about the cabal of totalitarian leftists silencing people and stealing their freedoms simply because they are being let go from a particular show over publicly expressed views and media that may negatively reflect on their parent company's image have no idea what they're talking, and the comparisons to the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust is absolutely ridiculous.
Look, if you think being let go by Disney, only to be offered a deal 24 hours later by another media company, is the height of totalitarian persecution and comparable to Nazism, you may need to brush up on history and get a little more historical context to balance out that hyperbole. Just saying.
Friday, November 6, 2020
election 2020, part 3
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)