Published at 17:54 on 12 July 2016
In related news, the ocean is salty and it was another dry day in the Sahara.
Really, this is about zero surprise. Sanders isn’t dumb; he knew where he stood. He just wanted to maximize his influence in the process, and the point of no return had been passed: the good he did by pulling Hillary to the left was being cancelled by how his non-endorsement of Hillary was sowing division and thereby helping Trump’s chances.
And as distasteful as Hillary is (and her role in destroying democracy in Honduras is reason enough to dislike her), she still has one huge thing going for her: she’s not Donald Trump.
Published at 08:16 on 11 July 2016
The claim that they have is in fact predicated upon some very racist hidden assumptions, as I shall now explain.
Police have been shooting unarmed Black men for decades and getting away with it. Until the era of social media and smartphones, such killings were inadequately documented and typically didn’t receive coverage outside of the local media.
Now that technological progress has changed both of those facts, the killings are getting nationwide attention and sparking well-deserved outrage. And it is those reactions that inspire the claim that race relations have gotten worse under the Obama presidency.
Race relations, in other words, are being judged to be more acceptable when suspicious killings result in passivity and widespread social acceptance than when they provoke outrage. Society is judged to be running off the rails not because racially-correlated killings are happening (again, they are nothing new), but because those being killed are no longer passively accepting this, as is apparently their duty.
In turn what does this imply? Obviously that Black people must be inferior. Such a belief only makes logical sense if Black lives aren’t as worthy of news coverage or outrage, much like the lost life of a young raccoon or opossum who dies as a result of a car running over it doesn’t warrant the news coverage that a human child suffering the same fate should.
And if it’s not racism to assert that it is the duty of some races to realize they are inferior and to passively acquiesce in this inferiority, then I don’t know what is.
Published at 08:57 on 10 July 2016
After exhibiting curious silence about a police shooting of a Black gun owner who was dutifly complying with police orders while legally carrying a concealed weapon, the NRA rushes to vociferously condemn the murder of the police officers in Dallas.
Link here.
Because, of course, the Right is (contrary to its professed aims) neither pro-individual-liberty nor anti-big-government. They have no problems with big government when big government is doing things they personally like, and are frightened of individual liberty when it applies to people doing things they personally dislike.
Published at 08:07 on 8 July 2016
It really should not come as a big surprise that something like this would eventually happen in a society as racist, militarist, and armed as the USA. It was inevitable.
The question now is: will it work? It’s an unpleasant fact that sometimes violent tactics work when non-violent ones don’t. The system values some lives more than others, so the loss of some more-valued lives might end up prompting the sort of action that the loss of less-valued ones failed to do.
Or it might just as easily provoke some sort of backlash. Most likely, it will do bits of both, much as the “propaganda of the deed” era circa 1900 did. History is a messy process that doesn’t precisely correspond to anyone’s pet theories or values.
Published at 08:06 on 7 July 2016
It’s something most people, even Marx’s biggest ideological enemies, don’t get: ideological flexibility (and the lack thereof).
Marx theorized that the proletariat, who had everything to lose under capitalism, would therefore be motivated to be the most open to alternatives such as socialism and communism. Conversely, those who gained the most from laissez-faire capitalism would be motivated to be its most rigid and staunch defenders, and prevent any reform from being possible.
Intrinsically unstable, capitalism would proceed to tear itself apart as the swings of the business cycle inevitably got more and more dramatic and the great masses of the proletariat became increasingly immiserated. When Marxian socialism would finally be tried, it would almost immediately outperform capitalism; even though central planning might have its inefficiencies, those would prove far less destructive than capitalism’s wild swings. Socialism would prosper while the capitalist world crumbled and ended up in history’s dustbin.
But it didn’t work out that way. Huge chunks of the proletariat clung to traditional social structures and refused to even entertain the idea that something different might be to their benefit. At the same time, the bourgeoisie proved to be something less than totally rejecting of the idea of making changes to the laissez-faire formula. Some were worried about the consequences of unrest (which was building, despite falling short of revolution) harming them. Some thought they could profit from regulation by influencing it. Many thought both.
In short, the proletariat was not so ideologically flexible and the bourgeoisie so ideologically rigid. Both sides had (and basically still have) an intermediate (and approximately equal) level of flexibility.
It’s something that this story brought to my mind this morning.
Published at 17:37 on 29 June 2016
It does go to show that the sentiment which gave birth to the Trump phenomenon is not unique to the USA. As if there was ever any doubt. Italy had Berlusconi (and before that, Mussolini), France has the LePen family, Austria has a popular right-wing nationalist party, and so on. Smug Europeans have nothing to be smug about.
It’s a problems that has its roots in hierarchical class society. It doesn’t benefit the majority who live in it. The only way electoral democracy (or any open society) can be maintained under such a system is to have a powerful system of propaganda to keep the masses convinced to act counter to their best interests. And it has been shown, repeatedly, that the level of propaganda needed to do that, and the level of propaganda needed to sell fascism are dangerously close to each other
Reality-based politics is the only practical antidote to fascist myths, and that same reality is fatally toxic to class society, so absent revolutionary change it won’t happen and fascism will be an ever-present risk.
Published at 07:56 on 17 June 2016
Partly it’s a misunderstanding of his democratic socialist politics. Partly it’s an understanding but a personal disagreement with them. It’s lead to several smear pieces about him on their site, some of which come across as downright conspiracist, predicting he will do his darndest to defeat Hillary even if that means helping Trump.
It seems the latter have just been proven wrong. It’s a cautionary tale about not letting your personal emotions about something get in the way of being able to perceive and interpret facts.
Published at 10:16 on 18 April 2016
It’s going to be closed while Bertha tunnels under it, and given that there already have been subsidence and sinkhole issues caused by the tunneling, the chance of collapse-inducing damage is greater while at the same time the chance of the collapse actually hurting anyone is far lower.
Given that the Viaduct is on its last legs anyhow, it’s either going to collapse before it is demolished or be demolished before it collapses. And given how it’s already in territory that was previously proclaimed to be unsafe, but retroactively claimed to be safe, because the state doesn’t want to tear it down without a replacement in place, its best that the procrastinating be ended now.
And given that the tunnel project was always an unrealistic boondoggle, it’s better that it be cancelled sooner rather than later, as a result of its subsidence damaging an obsolete viaduct as opposed to a perfectly good and non-obsolete downtown building or two.
And once the viaduct is out of service for good, Seattle will then be compelled get busy with the process of figuring out how to live without it.
Published at 17:19 on 15 April 2016
(This is the second of two posts which I had written down intending to repost here long ago, and only just recently rediscovered.)
… huge ones, in fact. But it is still the economic system of classic liberalism, based on the pro-freedom insight that letting people do as they choose need not create chaos and dystopia and can in fact create peace and self-organizing order.
Its biggest failure is in its indvidual-rewards mechanism. In attempting to reward valuable and useful effort, it ends up handing out privileges and creating a ruling class that subjugates others. The problem is not the rewarding of individual effort, but the way it is done. Rewards that create authoritarianism are anti-freedom and should be opposed.
But back to my first paragraph. That pro-freedom nature makes opposing capitalism tricky. One can’t simply get into the mindset that one is an anti-capitalist and then just oppose whatever the capitalist way of doing things is, all the time. If one does, one will often end up opposing freedom.
It’s part of the reason (only part, it was a feudalistic society with no tradition of nor much respect for freedom) the Soviet experiment went so badly for freedom. It’s also a reason to eschew the term “anti-capitalist,” which leads to just the wrong mindset when it comes to opposing and replacing capitalism.
I’ve never liked “anti-capitalist” much because it’s negative. I’d rather use labels based on what I am for, not what I am against. Now I have another reason to dislike the term.
Published at 08:04 on 14 April 2016
This is the first of two posts which I had written down intending to repost here long ago, and only just recently rediscovered.
Any organization the size of Google, Microsoft, GM, Exxon Mobil, etc. should have its autonomy significantly curtailed and restricted by some form of public participation. Only relatively small organizations are deserving of autonomy. And all economic organizations should be non-authoritarian.
That latter one in particular is an ideal that would take serious time to implement throughout society. But the former part would be quite a bit easier. It need not take the traditional state socialist form of nationalization. In fact, in a world of increased globalization, traditional nationalization is less and less relevant.
Requiring such participation will inevitably bog down and restrict large economic players. That’s not a problem; in fact, that’s a large part of the point. Innovations are decisions about the future and such things are too important to be decided by unaccountable authoritarian power structures. The proper role of large organizations is in overseeing and coordinating established economic activities that cannot practically be undertaken by smaller organizations.
Small organizations would still have the autonomy to innovate under this proposal. That is the proper place for innovation to take place, where it subsequently has to prove itself to larger society via competition and other means, rather than having an authority structure clear an artificially easy path for it.
Squaring this with traditional anarchism might not always be easy. In particular the part about the large organizations might be tricky. Autonomy for smaller ones isn’t that different from what anarchism has always proposed.
