By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. Originally published at Triple Crisis.
Editors’ note: This is the third part (of four) of “The Emerging Left in the ‘Emerging’ World,” by Triple Crisis founding contributor Jayati Ghosh, originally delivered in 2012 as part of the Ralph Miliband Lecture Series at the London School of Economics. We posted the introduction two weeks ago (here), and the second part last week (here). In this week’s post, Ghosh discusses five more “common threads” of the emerging left: private property, “rights,” class and identity, gender, and the environment. We will post the conclusion to the lecture next week.
Lambert here: Readers will note many concerns and ideas expressed on NC threads in this article. For myself, I’m not even sure I’m comfortable with a notion of “the left” as an object of inquiry. Nevertheless, there’s clearly a wild ferment of activity worldwide, more than I can remember in my lifetime, and I think that’s all to the good. It would be interesting to connect these “emerging world” ideas to emergent parties and movements in this country, given that some areas and “sorts and conditions” of people here are heading toward “emerging world” realities.
On Private Property
Earlier models of socialism, such as Soviet style “state socialism”, did away with private property in the means of production, only recognizing private rights over personal belongings. The new leftist thinking is more ambivalent about private property—disliking it when it is seen as monopolizing or highly concentrated (for example in the form of multinational corporations) but otherwise not just accepting of it, but even (as in the case of small producers) actively encouraging it. Increasingly, left movements and governments have recognized the value of other kinds of property rights as well, particularly communal property associated with traditional indigenous communities. Again, this runs strongly counter to earlier centralizing and “modernizing” models of socialism, which derided these communities and their communal property forms as premodern relics that had to be done away with.
On ‘Rights’
Just as the emerging left tendencies engage more positively with formal democratic institutions, they also tend to speak more and more in the language of “rights.” They do not, however, see rights exclusively or primarily in the individualistic or “libertarian” sense of so-called “negative rights” or “freedom from” some form of intrusion. Rather, they define rights more broadly in terms of “positive rights” or “freedom to” of various kinds, as well as recognizing the need for social and political voice not just of individual citizens, but also of communities and groups. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be interpreted as a socialist manifesto, since it calls for the recognition of this wide variety of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. In practice, left governments and political groups have pressed citizens’ or groups’ demands for rights or entitlements on the state. Left groups have, recently, recognized more explicitly the rights of indigenous peoples, communities and even “nations” within a country, as well as of the elderly, the young, and persons with disabilities. This reflects the emerging left’s wider and more diverse definition of the groups it identifies as exploited, which in turn requires new forms of organization and mass mobilization.
On Class and Identities
The standard socialist paradigm that emerged in the 19th century and developed in the 20th saw class as the fundamental contradiction within each society, with imperialism as the defining feature of relations between countries. This paradigm ignored other cultural attributes or treated them as subordinate to class. Other forms of domination or oppression were transient tendencies—premodern or semi-feudal relics—which would be destroyed by the expansion of market forces and capitalism generally. These supposed “relics,” like gender and ethnic oppression, however, have proved extremely durable and resilient. The capitalist system, meanwhile, has shown a remarkable ability to absorb and make use of various “precapitalist” forms of social exclusion and discrimination (as in labor markets “segmented” along ethnic or gender lines). This has forced a realization, on the part of the left, that it is not enough to address issues in class terms alone. Many strands of the emerging left are now much more explicitly (even dominantly) concerned with inequalities, oppression, and exploitation that are not easily reducible to “class” in the traditional socialist understanding. It is a separate question whether this shift in focus (at least in its most dramatic forms) is always justified, especially as class and imperialism still remain such powerful determining forces in the world today.
On Gender
A changed attitude to the “woman question”—and a more complex understanding of the nature and locations of exploitation—are features of many emerging left movements. Of course, women have been part of the working class since the beginning of capitalism, even when they have not been widely acknowledged, even by the labor movement and the left, as workers in their own right. Their contribution to social reproduction, always essential to the functioning of the system and almost always unpaid, also went largely unrecognized. For more than a century, trade unions and other worker organizations tended to be male preserves, based on the “male breadwinner” model of the household in which the husband/father worked outside to earn money, while the wife/mother handled domestic work.
It has taken prolonged struggle, especially by working-class women, to gain greater social recognition for both women’s wage work and their unpaid household and community-based work. This is not to say that patriarchy has suddenly disappeared from the ranks of leftist organizations and movements—this is, unfortunately, a longer struggle.
On the Environment
Traditional Marxists tended to glory in the development of productive forces as an expression of the forward march of history. This does not necessarily require an exploitative and aggressive attitude to nature, but in actual practice this was the case only too often. The requirements of an organic and sustainable attitude to nature were rarely factored into left movements’ and governments’ discussions about accumulation and economic growth. All this has changed quite dramatically in recent years. Among the primary contradictions of contemporary capitalism are the ways it collides with ecological and resource limits—as evidenced by pollution, over-extraction, and other forms of degradation of the natural environment. Capitalism’s unsustainable patterns of production, consumption, and accumulation are generating open conflicts over resources and forcing societies to change, often in undesired ways. Visions for more humane and just societies therefore have to incorporate these critical concerns.
Today, many self-described socialists see environmental conservation, the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity, and the recovery of degraded natural spaces as matters of primary public interest. Some recent constitutions (of Ecuador and Bolivia, for example) explicitly grant rights to nature independent of people.
Look for one more installment of this lecture next Wednesday. Find the first two installments here and here.
54 comments
Comments are closed.
1 hard data of trend versus one offs ?
2 frame work for resisting co opation is what?
Great questions, especially #2. But I don’t have the answers.
I appreciate your honesty
In some ways, dumb and meta as this will sound, if we had the answers, we wouldn’t even need to ask the questions; e.g., we would be able to answer how not to be co-opted having ourselves avoided being co-opted. Maybe shorter = “proof is in the pudding.”
What if there is no answer?
We can’t know. But we can look at movements in the past and see that some were not co-opted, or were not successfully co-opted enough to make life better for many more people most of the time. (Sounds meliorist, except I think today’s parties make things worse for most people most of the time, see the last 40 years.)
1 – Might be a ‘push’ analysis. Spreading the word.
2 – Since being bulletproof isn’t part of the list, nor is a get out jail free card, co optation is just another hazard.
1. Not really an answer.
2. Bullet proof is a straw man. I’m looking for organization and people who can play chess and a mean game of poker. If those are ever put on the table. I would be all in.
Socialwork for reform has no “final solution”, no one-time cure or remedy for the potential danger of co-optation. Hence the aptness of Lambert’s reply,
” …if we had the answers, we wouldn’t even need to ask the questions; e.g., we would be able to answer how not to be co-opted having ourselves avoided being co-opted.” …
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/the-emerging-left-in-the-emerging-world-more-threads.html#MrFyIPjC2Vcs2uzI.99
Let’s accept that there are no such things as unalloyed positive remedies for the problems which we would address concerning private property and class issues, gender, the preservation of the natural environment, etc.
All attempts to address the problems in these will bring some negatives along with the positive and the proposed remdial efforts will always be the targets of opposition efforts to co-opt and undermine them.
E.G., while an interconnected world is a given, an interconnected world dominated by oligarchic global finance’s destructive priorities needn’t be admitted as the inevitable character of the interconnected world.
This perspective responds to the “co-opted” issue because it grants that there is going to be organized opposition to any effective efforts social, political and economic reform. There is nothing that could conceivably be done in remedial efforts that couldn’t and shouldn’t, in fact, be a target of efforts to thwart the remedies’ benefits and I believe it’s a time-wasting distraction to expect or call for such approaches.
I don’t know what a “framework” for resisting co-optation is even supposed to mean. What I think you are asking about relates to the problem of sustaining gains in raised consciousness from being undermined distraction and dulled sensibilities. There is no cure for this, only vigilant treatment of the ever-present danger of our being lulled into complacency.
In order to keep pace with opposition efforts to undermine reform efforts, reformers have to constantly anticipate the ways in which opposition will take and use the inherent weaknesses in any valid reform efforts and to address those in the planning and implementation of those efforts.
In short, there is no set framework which operates as a vaccination against co-optation that I can imagine. What’s involved here is an ongoing struggle, not a search for a final, complete “solution” to these evolving social issues. The only way to address co-optation is to remain aware of and on guard against it.
Exploring the primary issues of how the needed raised consciousness can be achieved in the first place given some set of social conditions with their constraints leads to the questions of how such gains could and would be prevented or reversed by opponents of them.
Sorting out and distinguishng flukes (the “one-off” matters) from trends (the abiding problematics) is also a part of identifying what is merely a coincidental aspect of our ills as opposed to a characteristic element of them wihtout which remedy, progress is forestalled.
Ben Johnson’s reply-question (“What if there is no answer?”) points up the problem with addressing the so-called issues of co-optation and flukes versus trends, for their implying that such a thing as an ultimate fix is possible concerning them.
An ultimate “solution” is neither in the cards nor, fortunately, requierd in order for reformers to plan and to achieve some progress.
The answers are always co-opted – into – the multifaceted ideological chimaera the Status Quo weave.
History is chock a block with examples.
But, it seems a singularity event is approaching (no new world syndrome). What pops out the other side is the question begging. Do they even know… probably not… as fear is their greatest driver and tool.
skippy… would be funny if being placid was the best strategy, the hammock attack, snicker.
Said in jest Skippy, but I think you’re near the mark. Have often considered what is best to bring about change in terms of individual action.
Going on a march ? None really organised, even if they were you just get “kettled” anyway, you’re a bit-part in the MSM circus for a day, then everyone moves on.
Join a political party ? Having to stifle a laugh as I type it. Very much part of the problem, too enmeshed in orthodoxy, prisoners of vested interests. One “good” thing to come out of Obama, no-one — absolutely nobody — is going to be fool quite so much again in a long while by a politician promising “change”.
No, I do a few seemingly minor things I never used to do, post comments on a few blogs, talk to friends now and again about how we can never “run out of money” and that the hyperinflation bogeyman is just to try and scare small children by saying something nasty is in the woodshed if we go to close to it. Give a few bucks a month to help keep NC going. But mostly, it’s just sitting, watching, and waiting to see what happens next.
It’s tempting — an exercise in illusion to make us feel in control — to think that we’re passengers on some airplane that’s being navigated in the wrong direction (as we think) buy some nefarious person or group — the 0.1%, the NSA, that group that supposedly meets in secret to rule the world, Ben Bernanke — whoever. It’s comforting, because it leads us to think that if we seize control, we can chart a better course. I wonder though, if like some bad episode of Air Crash Investigation, no-one is actually in the cockpit.
Bit grim to think that sitting in the back watching the movie and hoping the flight attendant comes down our isle with the beverage cart, just waiting to find out if we land safely or crash into a mountain is in fact our best option, but maybe it is !
Nice response.
One thing that stands out to my eyes is how infrequently we hear about conflicts within the .1%.
Tea party may be throwing a tantrum on John Boehner’s watch, but I’m sure Koch bros and Heinz family respective cadres are still schmoozing at their favorite museum board meetings, etc.
Heck, last I heard Facebook and Google are running to join ALEC!!! Surely their checks to Rick Scott and Scott Walker must already have been deposited!
Sorry to mix metaphors, but as long as the divide-and-conquer dynamic only plays out among the bread and circuses lot, the plutocracy marianette show will continue.
Yesterday, I was in line waiting to pay my dues to get into a national park to hike and enjoy the colors.
After five minutes, we were still waiting. Can you imagine that? WE the people had to endure 5 minutes of waiting!
So when a car with a special badge zoomed by, a few cars behind decided to try the same thing. LOL! They did not get too far and lost their spot.
That’s one of the problem that has built up in the Western world over the last few decades. A sense of exaggerated entitlement. Individualism has made us believe that we are all so incredibly special.
There has to be a balance between the individual and the group. Until we get back such a balance, life will be tough. However, not one wants to be average, we all want to be part of the 1% and try to act the part.
It’s neither the 1st nor the last attempt to resurrect the moribund left. It isn’t that the topics/issues listed in the post are wrong. It is that no group has shown any model, political or ideological, that has come even close to the list above.
Worse, ignoring the history of the left, electing a rightwing president – Obama, its hate filled agenda and its inconsistencies, guarantees the post insignificance.
These points have been made for years Lambert. Manuel Castels would be a classic writer. I was bored by his trilogy in the 90’s and quite a lot of postmodern sociology earlier than that. It doesn’t make them wrong. A key debate was that between Lyotard and Habermas from the 70’s and 80s. Even Karl Popper was involved. Mexico often comments from writers in this game and the dangers of ‘totalising thought’ – often conflated with science by the Critical Theorists.
Foucault called for ‘an insurrection of local knowledges’. I remember thinking, ‘fine, but some local knowledge involves putting women in black bags’ – and later that there may be no difference between this and the gaze of cosmetic advertising and fashion.
As all this stuff was poured out, we were undergoing radical managerialism as totalising as fascism. The theory of the firm had its own version of difference called contingency theory and applications of ethnomethodology to systems problems in new technology were common. Much of Gramsci’s work was about local hegemony. I happen to agree with Ghosh, but this is old hat, if right.
Nothing wrong with old hats Lambert. Just as managing by objectives became policing by objectives 30 years late, this particular less positivist leftism has reached a developing world cycle. Those in power have long believed it harmless chatter.
The Globe:
But maybe not, or no longer?
I seem to remember Boston’s roads were created by concreting the local cow trails. Which says nothing about hats …
I’m not sure the USSR was supposed to be centralised, but rather a collection of soviets. Syndicalism has a long history and the secular state in Spinoza facilitates religious and cultural difference.
Hats off as ever!
Self-Sufficiency. That is where the starting point should be. Drain the cities of people who are fed up of Capitalist Slavery and move them to small plots of land where they can grow their own food. That seems to be the only way to start the negotiations. Trying to start a movement with people who draw sustenance from the host (Capitalism) is akin to convincing a person to saw off the branch he is sitting on.
Cities can easily control farmland. They do it everywhere.
Agreed with Moneta. In Georgia at least, Atlanta politically and economically controls the rural parts of the state. Which states would you suggest moving to, ones without urban centers at all?
There’s nothing like having children to make one realize how complicated our social construct has become.
When my 12-year old asked me about the difference between the left and the right, liberal vs. the conservative, I had to go back over 100 years, deconstruct and reconstruct everything using my own version of history. I felt horrible not being able to give her a straight definition without imposing my own worldview.
I realized how screwed up we all are. Take any one individual today, and chances are his or her views are all over the spectrum. The world is so complex that each one of us is full of contradictions.
Many of the lefties around me fall into the radical right on many issues. IMO, that’s one explanation why the elite and politicians can get away with what they do.
Discrimination usually goes hand in hand with scarcity be it natural or artificial.
I agree with lambert that ‘the left’ is not an entity one should refer to without *much* more precision. In fact that label is pretty meaningless.
From the ground, here is some news from Switzerland (CH), dealing with income / wealth disparities.
Some efforts are from the left, some from the right, and some indeterminate, like supported by Greens, NGOs, Docs, and many other pol. actors.
1) Minder initiative, a pro-capitalism thing, against fraud and privilege. Deals with bonuses, golden parachutes, the role of share-holders, includes stiff prison sentences for violations, predates the ‘financial crisis’,
– > was accepted in a referendum.
here, one description of the Minder initiative, from Deloitte.
http://tinyurl.com/qz34res
Coming up:
2) Minimum wage initiative – about 4,000.- CHF a month (full time), to be worked out. From the Socialists. Aka a mainstream center Party, see Dems in the US. (CH has no minimum wage, though there are some tiny exceptions.)
3) 1/12 initiative. Stipulates highest paid manager, CEO etc. cannot earn more than 12 times what the lowest employee earns. In effect, after tax, roughly (depending on place, income, etc.) the ratio would be 1/7. – From the Young Socialists. They seem to be surprised at the bombshell they have created.
4) Inheritance tax initiative. CH has extremely low or no inheritance tax, depending on Canton. I believe the highest at present is 2%, Vaud. Say. (Center parties > to fill the coffers. This kind of stuff is always ongoing, it is fiddling about the edges.)
5) Citizen stipend initiative. (US, “guaranteed minimal income.”) Each citizen would get about (again to be worked out) a low minimum stipend, 2,500 CHF a month or so. All social aid of any kind (except for health when needed) would disappear, tax / pension structure to be reworked.
This is a libertarian-capitalist initiative. (see e.g. Friedman .. ) Part of the idea though is that better fairness would be achieved: disagreeable, dirty, physically taxing work would be paid more.
I have to laugh because mini-efforts in this direction that are quoted as successes are Sarah Palin’s Alaska and Ahmadinejad’s Iran. (Partly dependent on oil rents of course but not like KSA.)
Any discussion of what the left ought to support needs to start with a philosophical and ethical framework that has to run deeper than the laundry list cited here.
To me it is obvious that human beings are hard-wired to be social and to be compassionate. Only when fear is induced do we start thinking with the lower-brain. The right thrives on moving people into lower-brain thinking–it always fails when confronted by higher brain functions which include both creativity and compassion both development of the intellect and the heart.
What the left ought to be arguing is that if you favor higher brain function, logic, science, the Western humanist tradition, our spiritual heritage (Jesus’ teachings are grounded in compassion) our arts and so on then we have something. Wherever this leads we will follow. Science tells us that happier people do better that stress is not good for anyone and we should be limiting stress and one way to do it in terms of public policy is to limit the drastic class differences and income differentials and not base our society on the morality of money only which is clearly the case today. If the left followed allong the lines I have describe then it would explode the system almost immeadiately and we would start finding pragmantic solutions to our collective problems instead of the bizarre misshapen attempts we see now.
Fear?
We are definitely confusing sides here. Who are the fear mongers when it comes to guns? Education? Medicine? Government shutdown?
Let’s try to remind you… a multitude of people die every year from guns (and many other things as well), it’s for our children (but my pockets go first). You won’t be able to afford medicine (I’ve seen middle income people that can barely put food on their table). The left is so full of it that they are spinning the shutdown as if the US will stop paying interest on the debt and default… Is there anything inside that brain – the US collects taxes, is that now all forgotten?
The issue with the right is not that they are greedy, it’s that there is currently no right anyway (the republicans helped build the current entitlement state). How many right-wing programs can you count? Find one single example and post it here. There is jack, that’s what, they are one and the same as the democrats. You see… “giving” is better for a political career than “taking”, as well as lying. Do you not agree?
The issue with the left is that the theory is based on fantasy, it’s all about the giving – but there is zero thinking about how we will get those things. Who cares, we can say corporations are greedy if they oppose (like the left propaganda is doing now). But it’s also easier to call the free markets a fantasy based economic theory when you have to work your butt off to get ahead (and nobody wants that, I want a free Oboso check).
How can you be asking for something (that you did not build) and have demands at the same time? It’s like someone on the street asking you for money and telling you, you don’t have a choice. And to cover this, you think this property BS will work, don’t you? Let’s see how many people you can force into labor (or slavery if you prefer) for the benefit of a few well connected (isn’t this worst?). WTF is wrong with the socialists?
…
The Republicans are too left wing?
Ho boy. I want some of what youre smoking. Hand it over!
And the republicrats LOVE taking. From the producers, the 99%, to subsidize super bloated mega businesses. Not even the small ones that innovate, but the fucking enormous ones that suck energy out of the economy like such large leeches. So not quite sure what youre talking about when saying they like to give more than they take. Have you not noticed important programs like food stamps, which people need to eat, being cut? Regularly? Not really sure what youre on, mate.
And you know, that thing you say about people not being able to afford medicine… Look, Obamacare sucks and you wont find ANY supporters for it on this site, but what is the right wing proposal for healthcare? Besides Obamacare I mean, seeing as how that program actually came out of the Heritage Foundation, was touted by Gingrich, and tested out in Massachussets by Romney… What other plan is there besides Single Payer (And no im not goddamn referring to Obamacrap)
If you are complaining about medical costs as it is now, you will be screaming like hyenas when Obamacare goes into effect. Well, let me re-phrase that, if you are young, you are going to get shafted.
At the end of the day, supply and demand will dictate price. The more people you have on this program and the less suppliers there are, the higher the prices. Older folks will pay lower prices, at the expense of their younger sons and daughters who do not need nor want the damn thing.
So…what all government solutions are guaranteed to do is create monopolies and higher prices. Perhaps not for you, especially if you are old, but definitely for the young. Keep in mind that the young people, with all that testosterone, are the ones that kick off revolutions (look at videos in the Middle East and tell me how many are old)… This may just do it.
With that said, Here is the libertarian proposal… Let the markets work it out or we will eventually have a revolution when the young can no longer tolerate it.
Has anything I have F*cking said make you think I f*cking like Obamacare? I agree that it is probably worse than doing nothing. What I support is single payer, not this f*cking right wing abomination. Stop straw manning.
And that libertarian proposal? Trust me it wont work out the way you think it would. But it still would probably be better than this crap, in all honesty. At least then people wouldnt be complaining about ‘big government socialism’, as if this corporate nightmare designed to give higher profits to INSURANCE COMPANIES, which would not even exist under socialism, is somehow socialism!
Ludicrous!
And before you say that the free market has been responsible for the high prices, go check out how many government programs are already in place for the medical industry, for the military, for education and for food.
I thought trying the same thing and expecting different results was the definition for insanity. That’s what the left is…
When ex nihilo libertarian free market breathers figure out that, what you ***HATE*** about government – is – actually corporate influence/takeover, then a rational debate can proceed.
skippy… go price something… like good will – social cohesion – life not directly attached to market function on nano second event horizons – that should keep you occupied for a while.
No, it’s not a “corporate” takeover. It’s more like a people freeloader takeover.
Why didn’t the US population have this entitlement mentality 50, 60 years ago? The congress and house are nothing but a reflection of the people. And the people are ok with letting corporations not pay taxes so long as they get stuff for “free”.
Nobody will care until the system locks up and shit hits the fan. At that point, the people will blame the government, the government will blame companies and the companies will leave, leaving the people and the governments to figure it (eat each other alive) out.
You see, everyone is compassionate and giving – as long as it’s not their money. Except that it is their money that’s their future money that’s being looted. When the dirt meats the road, the free loaders will scream like hyenas and start pointing fingers (like they are blaming the tea party now days). All of sudden 3 people are considered a “party” – ain’t it nice when you can find a scapegoat to blame.
I feel sad, but happy at the same time and wish the people, especially the lefties, what’s coming.
ObamaCare was RomneyCare was HeritageCare. Does that make it right wing?
Whatever it was, it sure as hell isnt single payer (Which everyone would agree is left wing), and it sure as hell sucks, whichever wing it is.
World-wide, single payer is centrist. Something like the UK’s NHS is “left” — assuming that spectrum to be valid, and I’m not sure about that any more.
“Let’s see how many people you can force into labor (or slavery if you prefer) for the benefit of a few well connected (isn’t this worst?). WTF is wrong with the socialists?”
That seems to me a perfect description of the existing economic system. Everyone forced into labor for the benefit of a very few capitalist and their profits (and they are most certainly well connected). WTF is wrong with captialism?
Gotta “love” how the right wing libs managed to turn the whole “freedom from” into meaning “freedom to be as much of an asshat as i damn well please!”.
…
The Republicans are too left wing?
Ho boy. I want some of what youre smoking. Hand it over!
And the republicrats LOVE taking. From the producers, the 99%, to subsidize super bloated mega businesses. Not even the small ones that innovate, but the goddamn enormous ones that suck energy out of the economy like such large leeches. So not quite sure what youre talking about when saying they like to give more than they take. Have you not noticed important programs like food stamps, which people need to eat, being cut? Regularly? Not really sure what youre on, mate.
And you know, that thing you say about people not being able to afford medicine… Look, Obamacare sucks and you wont find ANY supporters for it on this site, but what is the right wing proposal for healthcare? Besides Obamacare I mean, seeing as how that program actually came out of the Heritage Foundation, was touted by Gingrich, and tested out in Massachussets by Romney… What other plan is there besides Single Payer (And no im not goddamn referring to Obamacrap)
Was a reply to Bapoy
The stuff you mention above applies to the Democrats as well. So tell me, what is the difference between the 2 parties?
They both defend the big industries (military, education, medicine, agriculture) and also approve of social programs. Military because we need defense. Medicine, Education, and Welfare because it needs to be affordable to everyone. All these programs are nothing but subsidies to the rich who own the industries anyway, all at the expense of the working middle class, are they not?
Again, I’ve seen families with high middle incomes that struggle to put food on their table (I’ve seen this first hand), yet folks on welfare are pulling 2 full carts out of the supper. And who pays for that, that middle income family who is struggling to feed themselves without having to rely on the government teat and can only purchase 2 bags for 2 weeks (I guess they deserve to get beaten up for doing the right thing). Can someone stand up and tell me what is the middle class doing to deserve this?
Every single bill we are discussing today has to do with an additional entitlement, does it not? When was the last time there was a budget?
I never said there was a difference between the two goddamn parties, and neither did Banger. The two parties are a janus-faced monster, one head with two faces.
I didnt vote for the Democrats in the last election, nor did I ever.
You never even mentioned Democrats anywhere in your discourse. At all.
But, both approve of social programs?
Pray tell, what are you smoking?
Both have worked quickly and efficiently to dismantle them as much as possible. I have no clue what youre talking about. When, exactly, is the last time you have seen Republicans, or even democrats, approve of increased social spending? Or increased taxes on the wealthy for that matter.
“yet folks on welfare are pulling 2 full carts out of the supper.”
Fucking bullshit. This is propaganda and you know it.
Stop complaining about the poor, when its the wealthy who suck the most from the government teat. What in gods fucking name do you call QE if not an entitltement for the already wealthy? You chastise those who take bread from you while your home is being taken away from under you. What nonsense is this? The top tenth of society receives far more from the government than the poor do, but you right wingers always bash those under you who should be your allies instead.
I suppose you enjoy your enslavement…
I never said there was a difference between the two goddamn parties, and neither did Banger. The two parties are a janus-faced monster, one head with two faces.
I didnt vote for the Democrats in the last election, nor did I ever.
You never even mentioned Democrats anywhere in your discourse. At all.
I never said there was a difference between the two goddamn parties, and neither did Banger. The two parties are a janus-faced monster, one head with two faces.
I didnt vote for the Democrats in the last election, nor did I ever.
You never even mentioned Democrats anywhere in your discourse. At all.
But, both approve of social programs?
Pray tell, what are you smoking?
Both have worked quickly and efficiently to dismantle them as much as possible. I have no clue what youre talking about. When, exactly, is the last time you have seen Republicans, or even democrats, approve of increased social spending? Or increased taxes on the wealthy for that matter.
“yet folks on welfare are pulling 2 full carts out of the supper.”
bullshit. This is propaganda and you know it.
Stop complaining about the poor, when its the wealthy who suck the most from the government teat. What in gods fucking name do you call QE if not an entitltement for the already wealthy? You chastise those who take bread from you while your home is being taken away from under you. What nonsense is this? The top tenth of society receives far more from the government than the poor do, but you right wingers always bash those under you who should be your allies instead.
I suppose you enjoy your enslavement to the propertied classes…
The radical Marxist left should be analyzed closely:
First, because it has played a pivotal role in what I would call the disastrous revolutionary politics of the 20th century.
Crime and political murder were essential elements of the revolutionary party state in both the Soviet Union and China.
Both of these revolutionary parties helped to create a “ culture of camps” (a term coined by Giorgio Agamben) which resulted in repression under the pretext of re-education, extermination on the pretext of work and eradication without any pretext.
The world of the Nazi camps lasted for 12 years while the Soviet camps lasted for almost 70 years and Maoism almost 40 years–with an extended prison system still flourishing under the authoritarian capitalism of present-day China.
While the denial of Nazi crimes is treated as punishable crime in some countries, the atrocities of the Marxist archipelago are often considered (in some left circles) as mere peccadilloes of history.
Jim,
You hit the nail right on the head. The majority of socialists/Marxists hide behind the word compassion, but there is no compassion when they impose their will on others. If it’s right to them, it’s right to everyone else. And since they’ve been enlightened by god, they know better. You know how many times I’ve seen comments straight from the same “compassionate” lefties asking the president just to screw the senate and the house and do whatever he wants? Tons of times and I bet they will say that right now with the debt ceiling and budget.
This is where people get conned by the left, the left just like the devil gives you richness and wealth for “free”. Libertarianism offers nothing but working your butt off and defending liberty, but at the end of the day it’s about freedom.
It’s telling that today the Libertarians are being mocked while everyone is a Marxist all of a sudden. The socialist mentality is like a cancer, and little by little people are ok with giving up their freedom just for one more “goodie”. I mean, who really doesn’t want something for “free”?
I’m not sure that type of left (various strains of Marxism) is to be trusted, and of course noone who apologizes for Obama is to be trusted.
Libertarianism if economic structures weren’t changed by it (though they might be – if your libertarianism includes the elimination of IP, and of government protected limited liability and the like) has nothing to offer to most people but hard work from which capitalists who dont’ have to work take all the benefit. At the end of the day that’s not freedom. So yea of course if that’s what you are selling, noone is buying.
I don’t recall having given up any freedom for a goodie, I didn’t vote for the NSA in order to get goodies, wait noone did.
Had you considered that the “emerging” left might be different from the Marxist left? A left that’s got no doctrinaire attachment to private property isn’t exactly the Marxist left you’re still fighting.
Maybe the noise that comes out when they feed the trolls gives them a headache.
You do know that most of the folks in gulags were regular prisoners and not political prisoners right?
And you do know the USA has more prisoners than the USSR did right? If you count marijuana usage as a political crime, then we have more political prisoners than the USSR did…
Furthermore, comparing gulags to concentration camps is disingenous, as the prisoners in gulags were not there to be exterminated. Its as disingenous as comparing the US prison system to concentration camps. Not that I like the US prison system mind you…
Not trying to defend the USSR, it was a failed State Capitalist society, but your argument is still dubious. Its hard to criticize the USSR for its prison camps while giving the United States a pass for also being a prison state.
There is no comparison, if you can’t see the difference there is no hope. The USSR was and still is a basket case for lawlessness and government thuggery. Not that the US is perfect, but comparing the it to the USSR is borderline insane.
You’re saying that federally organized empires of continental scope with criminal elites, sclerotic party structures, pervasive surveillance, and mass incarceration have no significant points of similarity?
You’re saying that federally organized empires of continental scope with criminal elites, sclerotic party structures, pervasive surveillance, and mass incarceration have no significant points of similarity?
1) It’s a mistake to have continental scope in some sense, but all empires have done the same – it’s what empires do.
2) Which country doesn’t have sclerotic party structures – name one.
3) Which country does not have pervasive surveillance on other countries. You should thank the socialists in office for surveillance on citizens. Thank you…
4) Mass incarceration of which people? I agree, but aren’t all you lefties for regulations? Isn’t incarcerating people of a nationality during war some sort of regulation? I bet it wasn’t the libertarians that voted for that. Also name one single country that not only would incarcerate the folks, but abolish them.
If there is one country that is the least bad it’s the US. Most countries around the world cannot tolerate people of other nationalities, especially Europeans, and Asians. Also, the socialist samples named above KILLED the people that were different, they didn’t incarcerate them.
Do you still think you can compare them?
@Jim&Bapoy
Please tally up all the deaths associated from the onset of Americas settlement and resulting activity’s globally to date. Other wise your just engaging in massaging the data over cherry picked time lines.
FYI Marx wrote a book criticizing the economic activity’s of his day and how that effected the over all population.
What people do with that book is no different, to what people have done, with many other books.
skippy… BTW no one has clean hands… as purists on all sides try and murder each other… in ritual acts.
Do you not know the story of Russia and China, or do I have to re-hash it. How many people died for the “good” of the country.
If you live in Europe, which would be my guess, you have a predetermined bias for socialism, it’s in your genes. I’ve always lived (and will) in the other side of the pond, and here you are allowed to have property. What you end up saving may not be much, but at least the state hasn’t gotten to a point which the state owns things for the “good of society”. Perhaps I also have a bias, which btw, I don’t see changing any-day now.
It’s not about what people do with writing, the entire premise is diabolic from the beginning. It’s foundation is for the state to provide for all at the cost of handing over your freedom to the government, and at the expense of working suckers (which eventually figure it out and stop)? What happens to your stomach when the suckers run out? And to this day I have not found one socialist willing to work for free for anyone, not one.
It’s amazing anyone has to explain this over 200 years after the man died. There is no doubt he was totally insane.
This is very old stuff. In the U.S. it was resolved betwen the late 60s and early 1970s, when ‘post-racialist’ thinking was ostracized from the Democratic Party. Since then the identity politics lobbies have been allowed to pretend their perspective is ‘left’. Ho hum. Divide and rule won and will continue to win forever. All very predictable, but for decades you’ve been able to get tenure and become a famous professor by being this kind of ‘leftist’ (as opposed to the fate of most real leftists in the academy):
Yeah, that’s gonna work, just look at all the progress the left has made since it let identity politics barge in and take over.