I probably shouldn't join in with the continuing derailing of this thread, but my two cents, read Nixonland for anyone who hasn't. Fascinating look at how the promise of the 60s went to shit and specifically how the titular character jumped on it to catapult himself to the White House.
Don't worry yourself. That ship sailed a year or two when "staying on-topic" in this board (and one thread in particular) went out the window. So... when in Rome...
I was expecting to get my hand slapped for my post, but I came of age in the 60s and I’m somewhat passionate in my political beliefs.
Maybe if Rick was still a mod here---him being a Thatcherite. But nah, I lean way left. I just generally don't think it's a good idea to discuss politics in footy threads because some folks might not agree/want such discussions and because there are other fora on this website where such discussions are welcomed.
We live in a society that incentivizes us to be the worst version of ourselves, AND worse yet feel good about it. The is the problem I have with moralizing of the left, outsourcing the guilt and shame we should be feeling, to the system. The "system" can't feel and evolve only individuals can. Truth and reconciliation requires admitting your own complicity in the horror, so that others can do the same. But, our leaders are incapable of responsibility so we are stuck in the abyss with them. Unable to move forward because we can't admit fault and the errors for the past.
Whenever I end up in conversations about politics I try to avoid talking about specific politicians or parties because I know people build parts of their identity around such things. And, mor stalk about specific ideas or concepts since people are generally constructed to identify with them. BUT, Thatcher is so quotable because she was so speech heavy and took absolute positions so often.
But people are infatuated with their own innocence (which isn’t real, obviously). Only others can be the problem. This is the fallacy of the ‘personal responsibility’ argument. It’s that person’s way of building a self-fulfilling construct that proves they’ve been responsible. People who start off with built-in systemic advantages don’t have consequences when they do stupid shit. Then they believe that the lack of consequences for them is proof of their own observed responsibility.
But how do you do that when successful politicians don’t even have policies and agendas anymore? Progressive positions on most issues are incredibly popular in the US, but people vote against those positions (in the form of candidates who are anti those positions) constantly. You can connect with somebody on policy, but that might not have any influence on their voting habits. Which is what matters. Nobody can get jack shit accomplished without gaining control. (This is obviously the perspective of a US citizen.)
Agreed, hence my quotations Of course systems can evolve, and of course people's actions are guided by the systems they are in. I don't want people to be forced to go to work in unsafe conditions and potentially transmit COVID. Our political system has forced people to do that with no alternative. What is the personal responsibility argument for servers getting COVID at restaurants in states that have forced business reopenings, and where there has been no covering of salaries by local or federal government? Do you count them as complicit in that, even though they have to go work in unsafe conditions or starve? That's a nonsensical argument in my opinion. I'm not trying to start a fight but I'm genuinely curious that you rail againt the "moralizing of the left" and yet, this is also moralizing right? Like I agree that we have to "admit fault and errors for the past" but that is quite clearly moralizing. I think these are good points and I'd further add that the NLRA of the Roosevelt admin and the militant labor movement of that time period was certainly responsible for the so-called golden age of American capitalism. But this golden age started to wither on the vine earlier than Reagan--the Taft-Hartley Act was voted into law (over a Truman veto) in 1947 and effectively began the period of union busting and retrenchment that has continued unabated until today. Here's my argument though--you cannot isolate this brief period of resurgent social democratic, New Deal politics in the USA (and also abroad) as a period of capitalist balance without acknowledging that it was fought against by capitalists and big business from the very beginning. In 1933 Smedley Butler revealed the Business Plot--an attempt by a cabal of capitalists to overthrow Roosevelt in a coup. For the decades after, business interests have been aligned in their attempts to re-install conservative justices, to smash unions at every chance, to redistribute wealth back from the working classes back to capital, and generally restart the Robber Baron and Failed Reconstruction eras. This wasn't just at home, but also abroad--think of all the coups across the world in the post-war era that were carried out by the US government *at the behest of US corporations.* Reagan wasn't the beginning of this fight; he was the peak of it, which has culminated in Trump. Much of this is covered in books like Jane Mayer's Dark Money, which shows that the Koch Brothers et al are just the latest in a long line of capitalists who have built this extended, long-term project to defeat the New Deal *since its very inception.* With that in mind, my salient point is this: there is never a balance to be had within capitalism. Capitalists have waged a 90 year-long war against the social democratic principles put in place by the New Deal and will only continue. They never accepted that they should be put in their place in a balanced, social democratic system, and they never will. If what we want and look for is a return to the New Deal, that means accepting we will get, roughly, twenty years of prosperity for the middle class and working class, followed by eighty years of that being taken away and eroded even further. Those two things are part and parcel of maintaining capitalism because capital will never willfully accept limits imposed on it. While I agree that the aims of the New Deal are worthy (except for the rather large problem that they excluded mostly everyone who wasn't white and male), capital will always strive to take them away from you. So you have to have an answer for how to combat that. And I think we can do better than the last 100 years of American history, as far as working class prosperity but also political dysfunction (which is, by and large, a byproduct of the same massive inequalities in our society spurred on by the hoarding of wealth by capitalists).
Do what you will with that @yossarian lol Thanks m8, yeah it seems like it's getting slowly better. It's a scary time though for sure. Hope everyone stays safe and COVID-free during these holidays.
I don’t disagree with any of this when talking about American capitalism, which is in large part why I supported Warren, we need to get dark money out of politics. This would be a big step. Unfortunately, we have a Supreme Court that considers money speech and believes corporations are people. However, the Scandinavian countries have generally made balanced social democracies work. Certainly we have lost ground since the New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society, which introduced Medicare and Medicaid, but the problem that capitalists run up against in the US is that once people get used to a social safety net program, they don’t want it taken away. The ACA is a perfect example of this. Republican attempts to repeal it were largely responsible for the blue wave in 2018. We’ll see what the Supreme Court does, but I think it’s a poison pill for Republicans. If the Supreme Court rules against the ACA, I fully expect to see Medicare for all enacted within a decade. These steps become more plausible if and when we get the dark money out of politics.
Things are so bad with Arsenal that we've been driven to politics. I love it. We could start a podcast.
I'm gonna presume that we have a lot of men in their late 20s and 30s on this forum so I can guarantee you that there have already been 50 to 100 podcasts started by this member base
I agree with some of this but not all. Large portions of the social safety net from the New Deal have been torn up at the behest of capitalists, a lot of it by Democrats (think welfare reform under Clinton). Even Obama was trying to force through deals to implement cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and those cuts were only forestalled because of the incompetence of the hard-right Freedom Caucus in the Republican Congress. Unfortunately the same is true in Scandinavia. They still thankfully have strong labor movements as a bulwark but a lot of the safety net in Denmark and Sweden has been privatized over the past three to four decades. Sweden and Denmark are not the social democratic paradises that Bernie makes them out to be, although anything is good in comparison to the US. And the Supreme Court acting in the way that it does is a direct product of the long-term projects implemented by capitalists starting all the way back in the 1930s and culminating in institutions like the Federalist Society. So again, my thesis is that you can't redistribute the wealth from capitalists to the actual producers of that wealth without a working model for antagonism to those capitalists. Otherwise, they will only undermine and defeat your work in the long-run.
I honestly think that a lot of the problems in the US stem from Americans as a whole not holding their representatives accountable. If the country as a whole said enough is enough and push through change and expectations on how things should work. It would be so. However most people now are cowards and dont know how to be brave in a real world sense when it comes to morals and values. Posting memes and talking about ideals is cheap and safe. Going out there and ignoring the politicians in order to redeem the remaining good that is left in us to preserve and regain that which made this country great (still is contrary to politicos and media) is critical. this requires everyone to admit their part in the current state of affairs. just my two cents. No smart theory or anything. Just what i feel.
@Super Llama most because the left is where our politically revolutionary ideas are generated historically. And, it appears to me that berift of any power that the left has become consumed by its impulse to combat evil. Rather than do substantuve good. I'm Canadian, but the one of the things I like about AOC is her pragmatism. I have many other problems with her, but you can't argue she gets stuff done that should beyond her power. Right leaning individuals are historically fine so long as things are orderly, functional or their own efforts have reasonably predictable outcomes. Which is why they can support horrible things from their Government. But, I would say the right don't really moralize because they aren't very good at it, when they do get the rhetoric right it's generally horrifying, and obvious. Just to be clear I'm speaking about thought leaders not the actions or thoughts of ordinary people when I'm talking about moralizing. On systems. Our systems are a reflection of the thoughts, actions and incentives of the people within them. It's why whistleblowers are so brave, considered hero's and villains at the same time. But, you can't change a system without the enlightenment of the people who operate that system. And, you can't enlighten a person who views themselves as seperate from the system they operate as it leaves them berift of agency and power. There is a difference between consequence and responsibility though. Too often we conflate the two which incentivises those with power who may be responsible or like someone who is responsible to bury problems and solutions which expose them to the light. It's substantially why we have such a paucity of ideas, new ideas expose the inadequacy of past ideas and their proponents. On Capitalism, it's just like any other economic system it has tendencies and externalities that need to be policed, and corrosive idealogical elements. But, it's is individually asperational. I'm not generally swayed by the idea that economic systems are good or evil, they all have their own unique tyranny. I think possibly the best solution is to use the system we are most familiar with and incrementally include things that seem to work. Like public non-profit alternatives to profit seeking enterprise, limited term IP rights, etc, etc. Personally, I think Capitalisms worst attribute is probably derivative markets, but there is lots to choose from.
Exactly this. This is how fascism happens.... voters acquiesce to it either by not voting or by not punishing. If there is no electoral consequence you can pursue policies which have negative outcomes for Americans which is exactly what the GOP is doing.
When a large segment of the population believes conspiracy theories and lies, and science is ignored, the electorate doesn’t always punish the candidates it should punish. The US education system doesn’t do a good enough job of teaching critical thinking.
Most of our collective analysis of Arsenal’s problems has already been posted. There’s not much left to say.
Very interesting OT conversation. And I'd like to add one somewhat-related wish: Can we please please amend the US Constitution to diminish/remove the President's power to pardon and commute sentences? What were the founders thinking?!!!