I think a great example of the difference in liberal or revolutionary states of mind was mentioned in Baby Finland's recent thread about the Black Panther's food programs. A liberal and a communist revolutionary both look at a man starving in the street, and they both have the same initial instinct: to help him eat. The difference is that the liberal sees giving the starving man a sandwich as being the goal. They want to feed the hungry, because feeding the hungry makes them feel good. They see a homeless man freezing in the cold, and they want to give him a coat because it's cold outside. But what they don't want to do is struggle against the system which causes them to be hungry and homeless. The liberal sees things on the personal level and not the systemic. They see harm reduction itself as a goal. They feed the hungry because they're hungry, but they don't struggle in a meaningful way to end hunger. Even liberal campaigns branded as fighting against hunger are often just whitewashing campaigns of collecting food to feed the currently hungry, or maybe help some third worlders plant some corn, rather than any kind of acknowledgement of the system which caused them to be hungry in the first place. The starving aren't starving because they don't have a bowl of soup in their hands tonight, they're hungry because of the capitalist system which has placed the value of food as a tradeable commodity ahead of the value of the life of the poor.
The revolutionary would also obviously want to feed the hungry, because we're not heartless brutes. But they don't see giving a hungry man a sandwich as any kind of a goal or a victory. Instead, as the Panthers were doing, that should only be seen as a survival program to sustain the people while they struggle against the oppressing system. Survival assistance like that is necessary, but it is a very small part of the larger struggle, rather than the core of the problem.
A liberal isn't a monster, they're not necessarily the capitalists saying the hungry are hungry because they deserve it because they are lazy or worthless, but to the extent that the liberal has no interest in identifying or struggling against the systemic root of the problems, they're also not particularly useful for anything. Instead, their liberalism is only useful as a possible stepping stone on the path towards revolutionary thinking. The pointlessness of trying to end the institution of hunger by tossing a bit of donated food at the hungry on thanksgiving can serve as a great example to bring them to understand that the real problem isn't that someone is hungry, but why they are hungry.
Liberalism is just stagnation. You feed the hungry today, but tomorrow they're still hungry. You give the homeless a coat today and next year they're still homeless and now the coat is in tatters. It's like being stuck in a lake and treading water so you don't drown. Keeping your head above the water is a good idea, but the goal has to be to make it to shore. You can sit there treading water for 3 days, but now you're just really fucking tired and the shore isn't any closer. In the short term, in the very narrow view, treading water is a good idea. That's what the liberal sees. But the goal isn't just to keep your head above water, the goal is to get to shore. If you put all your effort into staying where you are, you'll never make any progress.
Crow posted:
the only criticism from mtw or left-deviationists or whatever strawman category yall conjuring up has been: occupy is not going to the proper levels of including categorically-disenfranchised peoples (esp. people of color) in its movement. and that is beyond a shadow of a doubt true.
there's someone in this very thread airing entirely different criticisms, all of them reactionary
Lessons posted:
Crow posted:
the only criticism from mtw or left-deviationists or whatever strawman category yall conjuring up has been: occupy is not going to the proper levels of including categorically-disenfranchised peoples (esp. people of color) in its movement. and that is beyond a shadow of a doubt true.
there's someone in this very thread airing entirely different criticisms, all of them reactionary
you?
MarxUltor posted:
I kinda like the way Zizek summarized liberalism, in that a liberal is someone that recognizes at least some of the harms done by the capitalist system, but thinks that the solution is just more or "nicer" capitalism.
I think a great example of the difference in liberal or revolutionary states of mind was mentioned in Baby Finland's recent thread about the Black Panther's food programs. A liberal and a communist revolutionary both look at a man starving in the street, and they both have the same initial instinct: to help him eat. The difference is that the liberal sees giving the starving man a sandwich as being the goal. They want to feed the hungry, because feeding the hungry makes them feel good. They see a homeless man freezing in the cold, and they want to give him a coat because it's cold outside. But what they don't want to do is struggle against the system which causes them to be hungry and homeless. The liberal sees things on the personal level and not the systemic. They see harm reduction itself as a goal. They feed the hungry because they're hungry, but they don't struggle in a meaningful way to end hunger. Even liberal campaigns branded as fighting against hunger are often just whitewashing campaigns of collecting food to feed the currently hungry, or maybe help some third worlders plant some corn, rather than any kind of acknowledgement of the system which caused them to be hungry in the first place. The starving aren't starving because they don't have a bowl of soup in their hands tonight, they're hungry because of the capitalist system which has placed the value of food as a tradeable commodity ahead of the value of the life of the poor.
The revolutionary would also obviously want to feed the hungry, because we're not heartless brutes. But they don't see giving a hungry man a sandwich as any kind of a goal or a victory. Instead, as the Panthers were doing, that should only be seen as a survival program to sustain the people while they struggle against the oppressing system. Survival assistance like that is necessary, but it is a very small part of the larger struggle, rather than the core of the problem.
A liberal isn't a monster, they're not necessarily the capitalists saying the hungry are hungry because they deserve it because they are lazy or worthless, but to the extent that the liberal has no interest in identifying or struggling against the systemic root of the problems, they're also not particularly useful for anything. Instead, their liberalism is only useful as a possible stepping stone on the path towards revolutionary thinking. The pointlessness of trying to end the institution of hunger by tossing a bit of donated food at the hungry on thanksgiving can serve as a great example to bring them to understand that the real problem isn't that someone is hungry, but why they are hungry.
Liberalism is just stagnation. You feed the hungry today, but tomorrow they're still hungry. You give the homeless a coat today and next year they're still homeless and now the coat is in tatters. It's like being stuck in a lake and treading water so you don't drown. Keeping your head above the water is a good idea, but the goal has to be to make it to shore. You can sit there treading water for 3 days, but now you're just really fucking tired and the shore isn't any closer. In the short term, in the very narrow view, treading water is a good idea. That's what the liberal sees. But the goal isn't just to keep your head above water, the goal is to get to shore. If you put all your effort into staying where you are, you'll never make any progress.
These are very good points, so I guess I'm talking about people who are "reactionary liberals", in that they are against anything left of liberalism.
Lessons posted:Crow posted:the only criticism from mtw or left-deviationists or whatever strawman category yall conjuring up has been: occupy is not going to the proper levels of including categorically-disenfranchised peoples (esp. people of color) in its movement. and that is beyond a shadow of a doubt true.
there's someone in this very thread airing entirely different criticisms, all of them reactionary
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
Edited by babyfinland ()
also the associated dismissal of genetics was associated with the fact that it was considered nazi science because almost all popular "genetic science" in the 1930s was bogus and associated with things like measuring how backwards certain races were or something.
also enough food was produced in china during the great leap famine to feed everyone. the problem was one of coordination, largely because powerful local officials in sichuan province (where most of the deaths happened) refused to follow orders from mao and hid much of the truth from the national economic people. now the fact that that can happen is a problem associated with the system mao presided over, but he can hardly be blamed for most of the deaths. moreover, the deaths were only excess compared to the high levels of health in the previous years, which were achieved because of maoist health programs. amartya sen believes that 100 million indians "died" as a result of not following maoist health policies in india (roughly). but no one says that nehru was the world's worst killer.
they just don't buy into shit about the market and private property being inherently infested with devil-seed and see it as being able to generate the vast wealth which they can then redistribute whereas communists are mystified by this concept for some reason
communists neither buy a homeless guy a sandwich nor enact structural change (in fact they usually denounce it and any movement as 'liberalism') they just make a mockery of themselves and post on the internet
christmas_cheer posted:that's such BS because liberals do try to struggle against the system, that's why they advocate all sorts of social programs for poors like welfare and free housing and free health curr and job training and minimum wages (even tho that hurts youths and poors lmoa) but they do it because they think it helps them and good intentions are more important than consequences to libbers so as we all know
they just don't buy into shit about the market and private property being inherently infested with devil-seed and see it as being able to generate the vast wealth which they can then redistribute whereas communists are mystified by this concept for some reason
those are attempts to maintain capitalism and prevent it from collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions
christmas_cheer posted:
communists neither buy a homeless guy a sandwich nor enact structural change (in fact they usually denounce it and any movement as 'liberalism') they just make a mockery of themselves and post on the internet
you seem to be confusing 'communists' with lf
Lessons posted:christmas_cheer posted:communists neither buy a homeless guy a sandwich nor enact structural change (in fact they usually denounce it and any movement as 'liberalism') they just make a mockery of themselves and post on the internet
you seem to be confusing 'communists' with lf
Lessons posted:christmas_cheer posted:
communists neither buy a homeless guy a sandwich nor enact structural change (in fact they usually denounce it and any movement as 'liberalism') they just make a mockery of themselves and post on the internetyou seem to be confusing 'communists' with lf
the only communists i ever see are online or those that set up a booth at occupy oakland. oh and the north korean hell-state but they don't have much in common. the only other communists i know of exist only in the dustbin of history
i mean really do you actually think some sort of leninist action is going to work. some teeny tiny vanguard of 20-something scrublets with no guns against the full might of the american empire. nobody agrees with communists, this is well established and will never change because communists have no strategy for expanding their numbers through the generations and usually encourage their members not to breed
christmas_cheer posted:Lessons posted:christmas_cheer posted:
communists neither buy a homeless guy a sandwich nor enact structural change (in fact they usually denounce it and any movement as 'liberalism') they just make a mockery of themselves and post on the internetyou seem to be confusing 'communists' with lf
the only communists i ever see are online or those that set up a booth at occupy oakland. oh and the north korean hell-state but they don't have much in common. the only other communists i know of exist only in the dustbin of history
i mean really do you actually think some sort of leninist action is going to work. some teeny tiny vanguard of 20-something scrublets with no guns against the full might of the american empire. nobody agrees with communists, this is well established and will never change because communists have no strategy for expanding their numbers through the generations and usually encourage their members not to breed
i just want to make it clear that there is a significant distinction to make between "revolutionary anti imperialist" and "communist", no matter how marxist the former and nominally anti imperialist the latter
Impper posted:
hehe that's a wide definition of struggling against the system
i guess if struggling against the system does not include reforms to help poor people but merely completely destroying it and starting from the ground up only to create something that is 90% similar anyway but with different people in power
getfiscal posted:
close planting didn't really cause a famine. first, close-planting actually does "work" and isn't just plain stupidity. if you close-plant you get a much larger yield. the issue is more that it uses up the soil and isn't sustainable. but if sustainability were the measure of success then capitalist agriculture hardly counts as sustainable.
also the associated dismissal of genetics was associated with the fact that it was considered nazi science because almost all popular "genetic science" in the 1930s was bogus and associated with things like measuring how backwards certain races were or something.
also enough food was produced in china during the great leap famine to feed everyone. the problem was one of coordination, largely because powerful local officials in sichuan province (where most of the deaths happened) refused to follow orders from mao and hid much of the truth from the national economic people. now the fact that that can happen is a problem associated with the system mao presided over, but he can hardly be blamed for most of the deaths. moreover, the deaths were only excess compared to the high levels of health in the previous years, which were achieved because of maoist health programs. amartya sen believes that 100 million indians "died" as a result of not following maoist health policies in india (roughly). but no one says that nehru was the world's worst killer.
thats an interesting hypothesis. on the other hand, 40 million corpses + recorded history
MarxUltor posted:
yeah just drive through the american midwest and you'll see lysenkoist agriculture is alive and well today and fueled by the unstoppable power of artificial fertilizer
yes pouring fertilizer on something makes genetics not exist anymore. good point, pause not
MarxUltor posted:
I think a great example of the difference in liberal or revolutionary states of mind was mentioned in Baby Finland's recent thread about the Black Panther's food programs. A liberal and a communist revolutionary both look at a man starving in the street, and they both have the same initial instinct: to help him eat. The difference is that the liberal sees giving the starving man a sandwich as being the goal. They want to feed the hungry, because feeding the hungry makes them feel good. They see a homeless man freezing in the cold, and they want to give him a coat because it's cold outside. But what they don't want to do is struggle against the system which causes them to be hungry and homeless. The liberal sees things on the personal level and not the systemic. They see harm reduction itself as a goal. They feed the hungry because they're hungry, but they don't struggle in a meaningful way to end hunger. Even liberal campaigns branded as fighting against hunger are often just whitewashing campaigns of collecting food to feed the currently hungry, or maybe help some third worlders plant some corn, rather than any kind of acknowledgement of the system which caused them to be hungry in the first place. The starving aren't starving because they don't have a bowl of soup in their hands tonight, they're hungry because of the capitalist system which has placed the value of food as a tradeable commodity ahead of the value of the life of the poor.
and the postmodern liberal sees the shivering homeless man, fantasizes about giving him a coat, feels proud about what a good person they are to have those thoughts, then does nothing. (this one is me)
aerdil posted:
and the postmodern liberal sees the shivering homeless man, fantasizes about giving him a coat, feels proud about what a good person they are to have those thoughts, then does nothing. (this one is me)
the postmodern liberal is... louie ck??? (yes)
christmas_cheer posted:
i liked the part where louis ck was an evil-hearted miserable misanthrope and held leftist opinions
"misanthropy" is just a word used to reflexively discredit a factual opinion based on the available evidence
e: HATESPEECH! recorded history has proved thsi is hate speech. Twenty lashes
Edited by Crow ()
Garpstein posted:
thats an interesting hypothesis. on the other hand, 40 million corpses + recorded history
this is an incredibly lazy troll! recorded history?
*stands up* I'm a liberal. the first step is admitting.
babyfinland posted:
shut up goatstein stop derailing the thread with your repetitious autistic babbling
its pretty important to point out, when quoting a political thinker, that that thinker was almost assuredly the most ludicrously incompetent administrator in history. at least for a certain period of time
christmas_cheer posted:
i liked the part where louis ck was an evil-hearted miserable misanthrope and held leftist opinions
louie only has leftist opinions if you're the sort of person who things the minimum wage is too high
animedad posted:
but none of them-- no western leftist, liberal or socialist or whatever the fuck little labels you wanna apply to things-- is prepared to die for anything. you can't fight for anything that you're not prepared to die for, which is why i think all this talk is silly
*stands up* I'm a liberal. the first step is admitting.
well ok but like i said in my OP im a self critical liberal so im compelled to produce a good critique of liberal politics
Garpstein posted:
hey dudes....lets give illiterate peasants e-z bake ovens and have them produce us iron, you know, in their free time, from all that iron they got. all their tools are disappearing and our bridges are horrorshows??? bwuhh - Quotable Thinker On Functional Policy Mao "Tse" Tung
do you know what one of the most successful early reform-period industries was? small-scale steel production by villages. it wasn't a bad idea to have small-scale rural industries producing steel at all. the problem was more the systems of administration surrounding it which created bad incentives. but that's more associated with the technology of planned economies at the time than something intrinsic in anything mao decided.