|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted July 25, 2020 01:04 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:05, 25 Jul 2020.
|
I’d say it is an overstatement. It is true that the traditional left and right are obsolete, it is true that the so-callled “Cultural Marxism” is anything but Marxism, I’d even call it an oxymoron. It is true that the U.S. politics is centered much more to right-wing economic models, that even their left is “center” according to European standards.
But reducing every social movement and reaction to manipulation and chess moves directed by bankers and stock exchangers is way off. These do have public ground, they do address some issues, they are smoke where there is fire, whether you define them as “left” or not. Marx would call the looters and mob action lumpenproleteriat indeed, but how he would react to the whole movement is another question. Acoording to Marx, any organized solidarity other than your social class is a distraction from working-class revolution anyway, unless it is in cooperation with them. How do you think he would react to Martin Luther King and his “sermons.” The leftist notion that “the weak should unite and organize because the only advantage they have is numbers” is not restricted to Marxist social-class movements, we can arguably call the notion (at least in its mature form, as opposed to peasant uprisings) an invention of Marxism but it doesnt belong to the Marxists alone.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 25, 2020 02:28 PM |
|
|
Marx is still relevant in that he was the first guy to talk about the tendency for monopolies to form and for technology to vastly improve production yet for it to have zero benefit for anybody except the ones at the top of the corporate ladder.
But he's obviously dated in many ways.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2020 07:51 PM |
|
|
|
Engels is totally underrated. It's ENGELS everyone should take a look at.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2020 08:11 PM |
|
|
Most of their work is put together anyway, it’s just that Marx became the icon, so his name is used kind of like Marx & Engels at times you are not too technical about it.
Engels was the son of a factory owner so he was more of an “insider” about everything for sure.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 09:40 AM |
|
|
Engels might be underrated outside of the (post-)Soviet space, in the former Eastern block he was studied on a par with Marx. Their works are quite similar anyway and they had seemingly worked in tandem most of the time, so who had influenced whom more was probably known only by people who knew them personally. Since Engels was an "operational capitalist" and Marx was pretty much unemployed most of the time and relied on the former for money, he (Marx) had more time for study and writing and it's a not a surprise that he produced more stuff and became the icon.
Quote:
But reducing every social movement and reaction to manipulation and chess moves directed by bankers and stock exchangers is way off. These do have public ground, they do address some issues, they are smoke where there is fire, whether you define them as “left” or not. Marx would call the looters and mob action lumpenproleteriat indeed, but how he would react to the whole movement is another question. Acoording to Marx, any organized solidarity other than your social class is a distraction from working-class revolution anyway, unless it is in cooperation with them. How do you think he would react to Martin Luther King and his “sermons.” The leftist notion that “the weak should unite and organize because the only advantage they have is numbers” is not restricted to Marxist social-class movements, we can arguably call the notion (at least in its mature form, as opposed to peasant uprisings) an invention of Marxism but it doesnt belong to the Marxists alone.
Well, you have pointed it yourself - any organization of the masses which does not center around an issue which is real ends up being fragmentalized and ultimately used by whoever is already in power - which is what Marx has also pointed out. The ultimate problem of the BLMs is not that the people who are oppressed are black but it's that they are poor, marginalized and lacking any identity other than their race. There are successful black people both as government officials and businessmen which wouldn't be attacked directly by even the most hardcore racist, unless he/she's a psycho. On the other hand, the racists themselves - meaning the real ones - are typically people with low social standing or surrounded by other marginalized groups. Both sides actually have the same social and economic issues but blame each other for it because that's what they see every day (black guy robbing someone on the street for example or a white cop mocking or killing a black man/woman) - and that's very easy to use and direct by people who don't have such issues. You can't see the big picture when your whole attention is directed at the little details. The Republicans play the "law and order" card, the Democrats play the "anti-racism" card but neither of these parties is funded by "the people" or its elite has an even remote notion of the everyday problems of the common citizen.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 10:17 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 10:20, 26 Jul 2020.
|
Great post Zenofex.
Zenofex said:
The Republicans play the "law and order" card, the Democrats play the "anti-racism" card but neither of these parties is funded by "the people" or its elite has an even remote notion of the everyday problems of the common citizen.
Isn't this how most politicians work? Being the so-called "elite" they don't bother with everyday problems of common folk unless using it for propaganda.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 10:58 AM |
|
|
Please, someone +QP Zenofex last post.
____________
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 02:52 PM |
|
|
@Zenofex
You would make a very good Roman Catholic monk if you ever decided to take a vacation from being a Kreegan Overlord. This is overall a good post, but...
Quote:
On the other hand, the racists themselves - meaning the real ones - are typically people with low social standing or surrounded by other marginalized groups. Both sides actually have the same social and economic issues but blame each other for it because that's what they see every day (black guy robbing someone on the street for example or a white cop mocking or killing a black man/woman) - and that's very easy to use and direct by people who don't have such issues. You can't see the big picture when your whole attention is directed at the little details.
This is a good description of what motivates the people trapped within low social standing, and what contributes to making those problems cyclical, but I don't completely agree with your definition of what you call "a real racist". There are people who are racist in the conventional sense of being hostile towards other ethnicities that they perceive as a threat, but then there is also a more passive and subtle form of racism that affects affluent people. They become comfortable - too comfortable - working within a certain demographic and they start to exclude people who don't fit into that neat profile. Consider the fact that banks were punitive towards black families taking a mortgage for a house or a loan for a small business, even if their credit worthiness was comparable to other families that received better rates. Although the banks may not have been 'racist' per se in the sense that they were hostile towards black people, their biases and their behavior was the nonetheless racist and it was definitely harmful towards black communities and the effects of such are still being felt in the present.
So no, racism is not a typical lower class problem. The more affluent people are also capable of causing far more damage through racist actions compared to lower class people. They control financial assets, have a say at board meetings, etc. Lower class people don't and that is why they express themselves through things such as rioting if push comes to shove. Racial issues are not wholly reducible to class.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 03:41 PM |
|
|
@Zenofex
Well, that is all very nice, except that Americans are not hardcore Marxists and they do not believe in or desire a working-class revolution. On the contrary, most of them believe in “the American way.” Individuals competing under a capitalist market and all that “may the best one win” stuff that comes with it. And under that context, racism becomes a very significant issue. I mean, race issues and class issues seem very interlinked to begin with, racism is rarely about claiming biological superiority these days anyway, it’s about profiling people whether you are aware of it or not. And although I agree that it is being overplayed sometimes or turns into this overzealous political correctness crap, I can hardly call it a non-issue.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 04:59 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Well, that is all very nice, except that Americans are not hardcore Marxists and they do not believe in or desire a working-class revolution. On the contrary, most of them believe in “the American way.” Individuals competing under a capitalist market and all that “may the best one win” stuff that comes with it. And under that context, racism becomes a very significant issue.
It's a significant issue (in part) because "the American way" means "White European, Christian Protestant, Free Market Capitalism". It's not a way that Blacks, Natives, Mexicans, Chinese, etc., had any part in creating or endorsing; especially Blacks who were literally the status of livestock at one point.
So within the mainstream population that was raised with a certain worldview, there is a large minority of people that do not come from that background and who never signed up for it to begin with. The Natives and Blacks didn't since they were either already living in the US or they were brought to the US against their will. The Latin Americans in the southwest were caught between warring nations and the territory eventually became US territory, but they didn't really sign up for it either and they don't come from that background. Some of the other immigrants that came to the US might have embraced that worldview (Polish, Swedes, Irish, Italians, and Germans were all absorbed into the mainstream population), but others fled purely out of desperation because of conditions in their homeland and were at the mercy of the dominate powers in their new home.
And so what you have is one federal government and the state governments, but the nation itself doesn't have a common historical frame of reference with which to fall back on. What it does have, however, is a dominate group which has vastly heightened ability to influence the country, and this group has:
White privilege.
Quote:
And although I agree that it is being overplayed sometimes or turns into this overzealous political correctness crap, I can hardly call it a non-issue.
As I demonstrate in my previous post, racial conflict cannot be exclusively explained by class. It is related to it, but it is also a separate issue.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 08:41 PM |
|
|
Yes, racism isn't class-restricted thing as isn't any other human "virtue", however it breeds far more easily among people who are poor and uneducated (the latter doesn't necessarily mean completely lacking education). Incidentally, these very same people become frontliners when things get out of hand. Western politics has concepts about making use of such groups to advance the agenda of someone in power since the Greeks and the Romans, this is neither a new, nor original. People need scapegoats because it's far easier to blame somebody else for your misfortunes than to blame yourself - that's basic psychology. The less misfortunes you have to blame anybody for, the less likely it is to become or keep being a misanthrope of any kind.
"The American dream" thing is a generalization just like the class thing is, in a contemporary society it would be too big of a simplification to use either to fully explain something, no matter if it's the US or any other country. There's no social contract that the best may win and everybody else should be content with the losers' position, just like there isn't that people should have class consciousness and base their goals on it. It's usually far easier if you go just with Maslow's pyramid (which also could be a simplification and generalization, but not to such a large extent) and consider that higher needs require the basic needs to be fulfilled first, i.e. it's far easier to have a decent, law-abiding guy who can pay his bills than a decent, law-abiding pauper. Same applies to racism and tolerance. It's never THAT simple however because marginalized groups are useful. In the US they obviously make good assault troops if you try to depict your opponent as dangerously incompetent and all other sins. In Bulgaria there's one even more marginalized minority - the Roma - who sell their votes during elections to the highest bidder, participate in paid rallys and can even be used for wet work behind the scenes and all major political players are perfectly fine with their status. Such "useful poor minorities" exist in one form or another in every country which does not have "pure" population of one overwhelmingly dominant ethnic group.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 08:49 PM |
|
|
Everything you wrote makes well-enough sense to me and I agree with everything, but I wouldn't underestimate the impact that implicit biases (which are a form of racism, albeit less direct) can have on the decisions of affluent and mega-wealthy members of society, the reason being that the affluent are the movers and shakers of a society. People that give loans, own companies, and set policy have power. That means one small, relatively subtle racist action by a billionaire can mean a lot more than 100 extremely racist actions by 100 people living in substandard housing.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 09:07 PM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
People that give loans, own companies, and set policy have power. That means one small, relatively subtle racist action by a billionaire can mean a lot more than 100 extremely racist actions by 100 people living in substandard housing.
Great. You talk like if racism was the only reason. It's one of many. It's visible in USA cus it is such a mixture of different cultures. But take Poland. We have 2% of minorities so you could say there is only one big group (or however you like to categorize us) living here. Yet our government has split the nation into two groups: their supporters and the oposition. Judging by our recent voter turnout at the presidential election (70%) and the results itself (51% vs 49% in the second round) it is not an artificial division. It really does feel that we currently have two major groups living in Poland. These two groups have low esteem of each other or even full-on hate. Bad people in power will always find ways to exploit those not in power, find ways to divide, be it social status, wealth or ethnicity. The outcome ultimately does not change, only the way to achieve it.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 09:23 PM |
|
|
@blob2
I don't really know much of anything about current politics in Poland, besides some basic stuff. I don't know who your president is, or the names of your political parties, or the names of any cities in Poland except for Warsaw and Krakow. I know a lot about some Polish saints, like John Paul II and Faustina and Maximilian Kolbe, but that's because I've read books about them. And Hussars are cool looking and they killed kebabs.
Race is not at all the only issue, but the thread topic is about race, so... yeah.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 11:24 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:24, 26 Jul 2020.
|
blob2 said:
Yet our government has split the nation into two groups: their supporters and the oposition. Judging by our recent voter turnout at the presidential election (70%) and the results itself (51% vs 49% in the second round) it is not an artificial division. It really does feel that we currently have two major groups living in Poland. These two groups have low esteem of each other or even full-on hate.
This is the same almost everywhere these days, isn’t it. U.S., Poland, Turkey... The dynamics doesnt change much. Communities avalanche into two major groups, usually one mostly consisting of the working class, the other, white collar upper middle class that despise each other. In Turkey, it’s conservative Muslims versus the seculars/non-religious. It’s almost like modern democracy has devolved into this sick formula, used by demagogues to stay in power and it always works. There was always a level of conflict between the classes but now it looks like, with the internet, it is magnified and politicians naturally use this to consolidate their voter base. Even in this place, HC, You can observe this polarization on a smaller scale. When I look at posts from early 2010’s people act much more friendly.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 11:38 PM |
|
|
|
Not in Germany, I somewhat hate to say. Look here.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 11:41 PM |
|
|
In fairness this thread title is provocative but when I make normal threads nobody posts lol
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 26, 2020 11:44 PM |
|
|
Germany has done very well for itself since 2008, all things considered. I do feel a pang of envy when your leaders open their mouths and non-stupid things come out.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 27, 2020 12:44 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Not in Germany, I somewhat hate to say. Look here.
Well, we also have more than two parties, but they mostly play the violin to one of these two major groups, if you put aside the Kurdish party as a seperate entity. But even the Kurds are divided within themselves, the conservative Muslims who support Erdogan, who has like half the vote in the country, the Kurdish nationalists who are now in alliance with the seculars.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2020 08:45 AM |
|
|
That's the polarization effect, when one party has half of the votes or more. Reduces the options to Yes or No - but in reality, even if the big one loses votes and falls below the mark, chances are, one of the others will offer to be used as a stepping stone.
In Germany 40-50 years ago 90% of the votes were split between the CDU and the SPD with the FDP getting most of the rest and being kingmaker. Then Green Party was founded by leftists, was outlawed first, but then established itself. The Left is basically the (allegedly) democratic residue of the GDR communist party (and has naturally been outlawed as well for some time), while the AfD is more or less a melting pot of all those who think that things are handled too liberal in Germany - you might say German Trumpism - backwards oriented nationalism (and you know where you land when you look back in Germany).
Current polls show the CDU at +5%, the SPD at -5%, the Green Party at +10 (second biggest party), the other three basically -3% each - which will probably lead to a CDU/Green Party coalition, which I suppose is EXACTLY what the majority of the people want: get a grip on the damn environment and make sure we can all enjoy our darn life standard! And, yeah, if that works out, well, what's wrong with donating a few bucks to the poor and ill-fated of this world, right?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
