Happy Atheist Forum

General => Politics => Topic started by: Sandra Craft on February 02, 2019, 11:49:05 PM

Title: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Sandra Craft on February 02, 2019, 11:49:05 PM
Why Some Progressives Are Tearing Each Other Apart (https://valerietarico.com/2018/03/30/political-narrative-ii-why-some-progressives-are-tearing-each-other-apart/)

Quote
I call the two dominant left-leaning narratives the Social Liberal Story and the Structural Oppression Story. Both can be seen as reactions against a third narrative, the conservative Ancestral Story, which sanctifies traditional social hierarchies. In their opposition to these traditional hierarchies, the progressive narratives are aligned. But when it comes to strategy and goals, they can pull activists in different directions.

Diving in here requires a few qualifiers: First, stories oversimplify. This is a story about stories and it necessarily oversimplifies what it describes. Second, people can shift with surprising ease between narratives that, from the outside, seem incompatible. Third, the two progressive narratives have a lot of overlap. Fourth, we often internalize parts of different narratives without feeling the need for an integrated whole. Even so, looking at bare bones versions of these two stories may offer some insight into the growing tensions between people who think of themselves as liberal or progressive.

For what it's worth, I'm generally in the Social Liberal faction -- I have a hard time seeing anything wrong with the Enlightenment, or the scientific method.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Asmodean on February 04, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
So much to reply to, so short days… This is another good "red pill" thread right here.

My perspective is close to Libertarian-leaning-dead-Centrism. I support certain social policies, have no real issue with taxes, but put the individual freedom, especially that of speech/expression and self-determination ahead of any societal needs. I think that the primary goal of a healthy society is the preservation of individual liberty.

From my perspective, it's not some Progressives tearing each other apart, it's some Progressive tearing their whole bloc apart.

For example, look at the last government shutdown over in States. From what I have read (it may be fake news - I did NOT borhter to verify) rep. Cortez voted against ending the shutdown, because doing so would fund ICE. Even if partially true, what message does it send to the more Centrist sort of feller? Well… From a European perspective, where we have a whole slew of political parties, such that "nobody" ever forms a majority government without making often disproportionately large concessions to some fringe elements in order to secure their vote… What will happen to the Democrats if they end up having to deal with the überprogressives and/or Socialists and/or anti-Capitalists to gain the majority? The Republicans are pretty good at towing the party line when the need arises. They will form a front alongside the gun nuts, the god nuts and the über-wealthy. Will the Democrats? And in either case, as ye-average-barely-interested-Joe, am I more likely to stick with the Democrats and hope for the best, or just give my vote to the more predictable and less authoritarian-seeming Republicans? (Nevermind president Trump - he will not be in the White House forever. For the purpose of this post, I'm taking the long view)

This is not a uniquely American phenomenon - the various right wings tend to stand more or less where they always did. The left, however, are being slowly dragged towards their fringes. Not universally, but close enough in the Western world. Still, back to our American example. What do you think will happen when the centremost Leftists discover that they are politially closer to a Republican candidate than they are to a Democratic one? Which way, if at all, would you vote if that happened?
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: jumbojak on February 04, 2019, 08:03:54 PM
Didn't I reply to this thread? I'm almost certain I did.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Asmodean on February 04, 2019, 08:54:39 PM
Nah, was the other one, about why the religious and the SJWs are triggering ;-)
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Sandra Craft on February 04, 2019, 08:58:53 PM
Yeah, I shared 3 blog posts from Tarico right in a row, on generally the same subject but two were more politically oriented and one was more social.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Sandra Craft on February 04, 2019, 09:08:48 PM
What do you think will happen when the centremost Leftists discover that they are politially closer to a Republican candidate than they are to a Democratic one? Which way, if at all, would you vote if that happened?

Me, I'd stick with the Democratic one because a Left-wing nut is still preferable to a Right-wing nut.  I have my problems with the Far Left, and if it were a choice between Far Left and Center Right I probably would lean to Center Right but that isn't the choice.  The Center Right's been disappearing steadily for years and has been largely taken over by theocratic robber barons and there's no way I'm voting for one of them. 
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Tank on February 05, 2019, 02:38:16 PM
Didn't I reply to this thread? I'm almost certain I did.

How old are you?
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Asmodean on February 05, 2019, 02:54:40 PM
Me, I'd stick with the Democratic one because a Left-wing nut is still preferable to a Right-wing nut.  I have my problems with the Far Left, and if it were a choice between Far Left and Center Right I probably would lean to Center Right but that isn't the choice.  The Center Right's been disappearing steadily for years and has been largely taken over by theocratic robber barons and there's no way I'm voting for one of them.
Ah, but I was not talking about some nut, but more about the John McCains of the Republican party. Still, I'll drop this point for a more interesting one;

You say that a Left-wing nutcase is preferable to a Right-wing one. In what way, exactly? Let me expand a little; in what way is a (Anarcho-)Communist preferable to an Anarcho-Capitalist, or to a Fascist?

For the sake of simplicity, you don't have to compare across the authoritarian spectrum. Just pit An-Coms vs An-Caps and "classical" Commies vs Fascists.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Sandra Craft on February 05, 2019, 07:00:29 PM
Me, I'd stick with the Democratic one because a Left-wing nut is still preferable to a Right-wing nut.  I have my problems with the Far Left, and if it were a choice between Far Left and Center Right I probably would lean to Center Right but that isn't the choice.  The Center Right's been disappearing steadily for years and has been largely taken over by theocratic robber barons and there's no way I'm voting for one of them.
Ah, but I was not talking about some nut, but more about the John McCains of the Republican party. Still, I'll drop this point for a more interesting one;

You say that a Left-wing nutcase is preferable to a Right-wing one. In what way, exactly? Let me expand a little; in what way is a (Anarcho-)Communist preferable to an Anarcho-Capitalist, or to a Fascist?

For the sake of simplicity, you don't have to compare across the authoritarian spectrum. Just pit An-Coms vs An-Caps and "classical" Commies vs Fascists.

Well, you've gone way over my head now with all these distinctions.  I'll grant that the choice between any kind of communist and fascist isn't much of a choice -- neither is desirable, but at least I wouldn't have to put up with religion in a communist totalitarian regime. 

When I was thinking Far Left and Far Right, I was thinking still within the confines of the Democratic and Republican parties.  A Democrat may also be a socialist, but so far Communism has remained a separate party in America.  And I would have had problems voting for a John McCain.  He may not have been an extremist himself, but he was all too willing to support the extremists in his party.

Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 06, 2019, 08:41:24 AM
Me, I'd stick with the Democratic one because a Left-wing nut is still preferable to a Right-wing nut.  I have my problems with the Far Left, and if it were a choice between Far Left and Center Right I probably would lean to Center Right but that isn't the choice.  The Center Right's been disappearing steadily for years and has been largely taken over by theocratic robber barons and there's no way I'm voting for one of them.
Ah, but I was not talking about some nut, but more about the John McCains of the Republican party. Still, I'll drop this point for a more interesting one;

You say that a Left-wing nutcase is preferable to a Right-wing one. In what way, exactly? Let me expand a little; in what way is a (Anarcho-)Communist preferable to an Anarcho-Capitalist, or to a Fascist?

For the sake of simplicity, you don't have to compare across the authoritarian spectrum. Just pit An-Coms vs An-Caps and "classical" Commies vs Fascists.

Well, you've gone way over my head now with all these distinctions.  I'll grant that the choice between any kind of communist and fascist isn't much of a choice -- neither is desirable, but at least I wouldn't have to put up with religion in a communist totalitarian regime. 

When I was thinking Far Left and Far Right, I was thinking still within the confines of the Democratic and Republican parties.  A Democrat may also be a socialist, but so far Communism has remained a separate party in America.  And I would have had problems voting for a John McCain.  He may not have been an extremist himself, but he was all too willing to support the extremists in his party.

For me fascist has a worse connotation than communist.  There are communists running parts of India I think, Italy had a few.  Probably you don't want them running the place but their ideals aren't ugly. 
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Asmodean on February 06, 2019, 12:09:46 PM
Are they not, though? Because I would argue that their ideas can be as bad as those of the Fascists.

The latter tend to be ethnocentric in one form or another, nationalistic and fiscally conservative. The former tend to be more globalist, to the point of being opposed to national sovereignty and fiscally progressive. Both are very authoritarian (@Sandra the distinctions you mentioned refer to this. An-Caps and An-coms are "überlibertarian" where the classical variety of Commie and Fash, which ought to be a TV soap, really. something about private detectives, maybe? In any case, they trend toward überathuoritarianism)

The Fascists are unlikely to bankrupt a country. the Commies are unlikely not to bankrupt it. The Fascists will make life worse for certain elements of the society. The Commies will make it worse for all but the "party elites."

That is a VERY first-degree approximation, and don't get me wrong - if those were my only choices, I'd probably just run, but I am genuinely interested in what exactly do you mean when you say, "but their ideals aren't ugly?" Examples to address, should you choose to; equality of outcome, ownership of the fruits of one's labour, freedom of self-realisation.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: jumbojak on February 06, 2019, 12:47:23 PM
Didn't I reply to this thread? I'm almost certain I did.

How old are you?

I tell people that I'm 43 but only because I'm rough looking for a 31 year old.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 06, 2019, 01:07:18 PM
Are they not, though? Because I would argue that their ideas can be as bad as those of the Fascists.

I’m not sure, I think communists have redeeming features, they care for the worker, or they are supposed to, who do facists care about?
I don’t want to do extremes, your Hitler against my Stalin.

The Fascists are unlikely to bankrupt a country. the Commies are unlikely not to bankrupt it.
The USSR lasted 75-80 years, what’s the longest lasting fascist state?
China is doing alright, by their own measure.

The Commies will make it worse for all but the "party elites."
I’m not voting for commies for government.
In unions, ye, keep an eye on them like anyone else.
Business will fuck the worker if it can.
Worker cooperation is their best defence against a non consensual fucking.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Tank on February 06, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
Didn't I reply to this thread? I'm almost certain I did.

How old are you?

I tell people that I'm 43 but only because I'm rough looking for a 31 year old.

Are, so it's not senility then :)
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Asmodean on February 06, 2019, 03:35:42 PM
I think communists have redeeming features, they care for the worker, or they are supposed to, who do facists care about?
Their people, whoever that may be. Their nation, whatever it may be. They are as tribal as the commies, only they tend to draw their borders between the tribes differently.

Quote
I don’t want to do extremes, your Hitler against my Stalin.
Good. I don't fancy going to extremes either - the garden variety fringes are bad enough, in my somewhat Centre-biased opinion.

Quote
The USSR lasted 75-80 years, what’s the longest lasting fascist state?
I do not know. What I do know, however, is that it's not the short-term staying power that defines whether a state has failed, will fail or is sustainable. The USSR did not succeed in providing its citizens the best quality of living they could have. Their planned economy led to massive deficits even of the most mundane sort of wares, their lack of competition led to technological backwardness in *all* consumer-related areas I can think of, they had almost no wealthy people… The point is, if I'm out to increase my own well-being and that of those I give two shits about, what does a USSR-like system offer me?

Quote
China is doing alright, by their own measure.
The Chinese economic model is Capitalist in certain areas. In those areas, China is indeed doing very well. Is it because of Socialism, however, or in spite of it?

I’m not voting for commies for government.
Much like the Fascists, you vote them in, but it takes a war, or at least a revolution, to oust them.

Quote
In unions, ye, keep an eye on them like anyone else.
Business will fuck the worker if it can.
Worker cooperation is their best defence against a non consensual fucking.
Norway has strong unions and is not even remotely a Socialist or Communist state. That said, the plight of the "working class..." I think it's changing with said Working Class. The factory worker and the miner lose their jobs to machinery, while the low-level support technician and the sales rep are the "new" "replaceable nobodies." It's not too important for the purpose of this discussion, but does carry weight, and a lot of it, if one were to critique Socialism and/or Communism.

We sort-of went off-point here, which I sort-of predicted, hence my examples of concepts to address the values/ideals in relation to, but this is kind-of interesting, so... Yeah. Let's keep doing what we're doing, see where it leads... If you are so inclined.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 07, 2019, 12:20:22 AM
I think communists have redeeming features, they care for the worker, or they are supposed to, who do facists care about?
Their people, whoever that may be. Their nation, whatever it may be. They are as tribal as the commies, only they tend to draw their borders between the tribes differently.

Quote
I don’t want to do extremes, your Hitler against my Stalin.
Good. I don't fancy going to extremes either - the garden variety fringes are bad enough, in my somewhat Centre-biased opinion.

Quote
The USSR lasted 75-80 years, what’s the longest lasting fascist state?
I do not know. What I do know, however, is that it's not the short-term staying power that defines whether a state has failed, will fail or is sustainable. The USSR did not succeed in providing its citizens the best quality of living they could have. Their planned economy led to massive deficits even of the most mundane sort of wares, their lack of competition led to technological backwardness in *all* consumer-related areas I can think of, they had almost no wealthy people… The point is, if I'm out to increase my own well-being and that of those I give two shits about, what does a USSR-like system offer me?
Nothing good comes to mind.
I think it started in a reasonable place though, they mightn’t of been officially serfs anymore but probably weren’t getting a very good deal.
Quote
Old Major, a prize-winning boar, gathers the animals of the Manor Farm for a meeting in the big barn. He tells them of a dream he has had in which all animals live together with no human beings to oppress or control them. He tells the animals that they must work toward such a paradise and teaches them a song called “Beasts of England,” in which his dream vision is lyrically described. The animals greet Major’s vision with great enthusiasm. When he dies only three nights after the meeting, three younger pigs—Snowball, Napoleon, and Squealer—formulate his main principles into a philosophy called Animalism. Late one night, the animals manage to defeat the farmer Mr. Jones in a battle, running him off the land. They rename the property Animal Farm and dedicate themselves to achieving Major’s dream. The cart-horse Boxer devotes himself to the cause with particular zeal, committing his great strength to the prosperity of the farm and adopting as a personal maxim the affirmation “I will work harder.”
Who doesn’t love Boxer? are there any lovable facists?
Capitalism at the moment has us heading for a climate change dystopia, it could make make the depredations of communism pale in comparison.

It might come up with some marvellous new CO2 eating, chocolate shitting bacteria though.

Shut up Green.

Quote
China is doing alright, by their own measure.

The Chinese economic model is Capitalist in certain areas. In those areas, China is indeed doing very well. Is it because of Socialism, however, or in spite of it?

China was big with big problems, perhaps a control economy was necessary.

They seem to work at keeping the population from getting too upset.

What about the cultural revolution and famine?

Shut up Green, they were teething problems.

As a fellow Earthian I applaud their attempts to keep their population down.
India has some similarities, time scale, population, I’d say China has done better, their lowest aren’t as low as India’s.
It seems a bit convenient to disregard success because they aren’t pure red and attribute failures to their redness.

Quote
I’m not voting for commies for government.


Much like the Fascists, you vote them in, but it takes a war, or at least a revolution, to oust them.

Quote
In unions, ye, keep an eye on them like anyone else.
Business will fuck the worker if it can.
Worker cooperation is their best defence against a non consensual fucking.

Norway has strong unions and is not even remotely a Socialist or Communist state. That said, the plight of the "working class..." I think it's changing with said Working Class. The factory worker and the miner lose their jobs to machinery, while the low-level support technician and the sales rep are the "new" "replaceable nobodies." It's not too important for the purpose of this discussion, but does carry weight, and a lot of it, if one were to critique Socialism and/or Communism.
 
There are probably kindly communist academics, communists in trade unions doing an OK job, helping their members, hopefully not making worker/business relationships too adversarial.  What are the fascists doing?

Maybe they're industrialists like that guy in "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo," giving people jobs, treating them OK because they have to.

Maybe, but I'm going to whip you anyway for spoiling my flow. :domanatrix:

Communism hasn’t been entirely satisfactory so far.  :bogey: :domanatrix: If a high level civilisation survives the century, we might yet get to enjoy a post capitalist Star Trek like arrangement, with our robot comrades of course.
Title: Re: Political Narrative II: Why Some Progressives . . .
Post by: Asmodean on February 11, 2019, 10:56:39 AM
There are probably kindly communist academics, communists in trade unions doing an OK job, helping their members, hopefully not making worker/business relationships too adversarial.  What are the fascists doing?
Interesting how a kindly academic, or especially an asshole journalist, is comparatively likely to be Communist. The factory worker and the long-distance lorryist, however… Not so much.

I'm not saying that this does or does not hold some special significance - only that it's an interesting observation.

Quote
Communism hasn’t been entirely satisfactory so far.  :bogey: :domanatrix: If a high level civilisation survives the century, we might yet get to enjoy a post capitalist Star Trek like arrangement, with our robot comrades of course.
It would take the invention of replicators, as it would take a post-scarcity world. If anything ever gets us there, I doubt it will be Communists working towards the common goal. Capitalists trying to out-compete each other, however… They just might end up creating something like that.