The Dictator observations thread.

[Dr. Medulla]

This may sound awful to some but I'm thankful he's white.

Ditto. My fear was that if the shooter was Middle Eastern, it'd be a Reichstag fire moment.

[JennyB]

This may sound awful to some but I'm thankful he's white.

Ditto. My fear was that if the shooter was Middle Eastern, it'd be a Reichstag fire moment.

Same.

ETA. I love all of the people crying, "They should be able to play in a park without fear of being shot." Tell that to Tamir Rice.

[Dr. Medulla]

This may sound awful to some but I'm thankful he's white.

Ditto. My fear was that if the shooter was Middle Eastern, it'd be a Reichstag fire moment.

Same.

ETA. I love all of the people crying, "They should be able to play in a park without fear of being shot." Tell that to Tamir Rice.

Yeah, funny that, thinking the civil sphere shouldn't be a killing ground. Undoubtedly the solution will be to loosen gun laws further.

[Dr. Medulla]

Long piece, but recommended on the futility of much of what passes for left tactics—especially the overheated outrage of manners on Twitter and the like—and what the left actually has to do, which is genuine job actions.
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/all-wo ... o-go-frost

edit: The Fisher piece she cites is here: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11299

[Flex]

Long piece, but recommended on the futility of much of what passes for left tactics—especially the overheated outrage of manners on Twitter and the like—and what the left actually has to do, which is genuine job actions.
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/all-wo ... o-go-frost

edit: The Fisher piece she cites is here: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11299

I think I'm still more sympathetic to identity politics as such, but Amber is pretty spot on and it's certainly difficult to argue against both her description of the state of affairs and her basic solutions (actual union organizing, primarily).

Anyone who wants to present a counter argument for a different Leftism, needs to at least grapple with the reality that the Left has been totally gutted and cut off from material political power, and how are our actions going to create material change for people.

[Dr. Medulla]

(Apologies for the length …)

I've been thinking about a lot of this stuff especially since Election Night and even before, and gradually coming to the only slightly tongue-in-cheek conclusion that while I identify with most left values and goals, I'm not a leftist. The left, on the whole, has better, more humane values, but, in my lifetime, those on the left tend to be pretty goddamned arrogant about it all. Leftists are scolds and are quick to pour scorn especially on allies whom they see as guilty of deviancy, of insufficient morality and consciousness. It's like the real enemy—corporate power, imperialism, the national security state—is too remote and too powerful that they exercise a simulacrum of power by attacking people in their own camp or, of course, those dopey liberals who are just as bad, amirite? It is, frankly, counterproductive for persuading others to your point of view when it's done with a smirk, a wag of the finger. Even if it's just leftists sharing those jokes amongst themselves, it's self-validation of that smugness. No need for self-criticism.

Even when I was first drawn into academic leftism, I was struck by the righteousness and the vicious takedowns of others on the left. There was, admittedly, something kind of intoxicating by it—I was given access to wonderful theories and means of analysis and encouraged to unmask the enemy's dupes—but over time, and especially in the last couple years, I've become repulsed by it. Given the devastating success of neoliberalism in the past four-plus decades, what the fuck are we being arrogant about? The jabs and tear downs just aren't all that constructive most of the time. So it's that lack of humility, that moral righteousness to ferret out witches and the unworthy, rather than engage in more humble self-evaluation and respectful conversation with others who we differ with but still share general aims. We can and must oppose ideas and behaviours that are inhumane and rooted in poor analysis, but throwing shit like a smug monkey just confirms that we're shit-throwing monkeys. We can be better than that; we need to be better than that.

I've mentioned this before, that I've come to believe that the left, broadly speaking, fucked up massively in the last fifty years by pursuing cultural fights and individual liberation over mass politics and economic justice. This has been a long, ugly evolution that can be traced back to at least World War II, when the left decided it was afraid of the masses. What the group wants and does is to be regarded with suspicion and scorn. The masses are idiots, crude, violent, in need of controlling and segregating. Postwar liberalism and social democracy dovetailed quite nicely, even when seeking to enact policies that worked to the masses' material benefit, that they still weren't to be trusted. Identity politics plays into that hostility to the mass quite well. It's about a desire to stand out from the group, to stake claims of difference, not commonality with the mass. The mass, we like to think, hinders us from personal and authentic distinction—isn't that what folkies, hippies, punks, and every other youth subculture has been saying for the last sixty years? It also happens to fit in quite well with neoliberalism, which is also about fragmentation and individualizing as much as possible. So one huge thing to overcome is this fear of the mass. This isn't just about tactics, but actual consciousness, of worldview. The Marxist historian Raymond Williams once observed, "there are in fact no masses, but only ways of seeing people as masses." But it's seductive, because that way there's something to rebel against, even if it's not the real enemy.

Asserting that your personal interests or those of your smaller group is necessarily superior to the needs of the common works against a left vision, even if the left has, for several generations, adopted the opposite view. This isn't to say that battles over race or sexuality are to be abandoned—identity politics has meant several meaningful steps forward, even as it's allowed for even more steps backwards—but to realize that if it's not working for the betterment of the mass and if it's conducted in a way that marginalizes and ostracizes allies and potential allies, that fight might actually benefit capital and empire. Being for both the politics of personal liberation and for mass politics are too entirely contrary positions, and leftists need to figure out that the former, however personally satisfying, works against the greater goal. That also requires some humility.

Social media or op-ed rants because, I dunno, Stephen Colbert has made a joke that runs counter to a facet of identity politics—is that worthwhile? Is that a meaningful application of outrage? When I see leftists do that shit, it tells me that, nope, our side hasn't actually learned anything, that we're still addicted to the rush of scolding, proving that we're right with Jesus, so to speak. What I'm saying is we need to be humble and constructive with our conversation and (self-)criticism, to appreciate that our side may have better dreams and a superior faith in humanity, but our tactics are as responsible for the present catastrophe as liberals who, while being mostly persuaded by the cultural left, have been drawn by the right's economic arguments. But as long as the dominant quality of the left is of smirking chastisement, of personal liberation, of an obsession with language and manners, and, above all, suspicion of the mass, I just can't consider myself a leftist.

[BostonBeaneater]

(Apologies for the length …)

I've been thinking about a lot of this stuff especially since Election Night and even before, and gradually coming to the only slightly tongue-in-cheek conclusion that while I identify with most left values and goals, I'm not a leftist. The left, on the whole, has better, more humane values, but, in my lifetime, those on the left tend to be pretty goddamned arrogant about it all. Leftists are scolds and are quick to pour scorn especially on allies whom they see as guilty of deviancy, of insufficient morality and consciousness. It's like the real enemy—corporate power, imperialism, the national security state—is too remote and too powerful that they exercise a simulacrum of power by attacking people in their own camp or, of course, those dopey liberals who are just as bad, amirite? It is, frankly, counterproductive for persuading others to your point of view when it's done with a smirk, a wag of the finger. Even if it's just leftists sharing those jokes amongst themselves, it's self-validation of that smugness. No need for self-criticism.

Even when I was first drawn into academic leftism, I was struck by the righteousness and the vicious takedowns of others on the left. There was, admittedly, something kind of intoxicating by it—I was given access to wonderful theories and means of analysis and encouraged to unmask the enemy's dupes—but over time, and especially in the last couple years, I've become repulsed by it. Given the devastating success of neoliberalism in the past four-plus decades, what the fuck are we being arrogant about? The jabs and tear downs just aren't all that constructive most of the time. So it's that lack of humility, that moral righteousness to ferret out witches and the unworthy, rather than engage in more humble self-evaluation and respectful conversation with others who we differ with but still share general aims. We can and must oppose ideas and behaviours that are inhumane and rooted in poor analysis, but throwing shit like a smug monkey just confirms that we're shit-throwing monkeys. We can be better than that; we need to be better than that.

I've mentioned this before, that I've come to believe that the left, broadly speaking, fucked up massively in the last fifty years by pursuing cultural fights and individual liberation over mass politics and economic justice. This has been a long, ugly evolution that can be traced back to at least World War II, when the left decided it was afraid of the masses. What the group wants and does is to be regarded with suspicion and scorn. The masses are idiots, crude, violent, in need of controlling and segregating. Postwar liberalism and social democracy dovetailed quite nicely, even when seeking to enact policies that worked to the masses' material benefit, that they still weren't to be trusted. Identity politics plays into that hostility to the mass quite well. It's about a desire to stand out from the group, to stake claims of difference, not commonality with the mass. The mass, we like to think, hinders us from personal and authentic distinction—isn't that what folkies, hippies, punks, and every other youth subculture has been saying for the last sixty years? It also happens to fit in quite well with neoliberalism, which is also about fragmentation and individualizing as much as possible. So one huge thing to overcome is this fear of the mass. This isn't just about tactics, but actual consciousness, of worldview. The Marxist historian Raymond Williams once observed, "there are in fact no masses, but only ways of seeing people as masses." But it's seductive, because that way there's something to rebel against, even if it's not the real enemy.

Asserting that your personal interests or those of your smaller group is necessarily superior to the needs of the common works against a left vision, even if the left has, for several generations, adopted the opposite view. This isn't to say that battles over race or sexuality are to be abandoned—identity politics has meant several meaningful steps forward, even as it's allowed for even more steps backwards—but to realize that if it's not working for the betterment of the mass and if it's conducted in a way that marginalizes and ostracizes allies and potential allies, that fight might actually benefit capital and empire. Being for both the politics of personal liberation and for mass politics are too entirely contrary positions, and leftists need to figure out that the former, however personally satisfying, works against the greater goal. That also requires some humility.

Social media or op-ed rants because, I dunno, Stephen Colbert has made a joke that runs counter to a facet of identity politics—is that worthwhile? Is that a meaningful application of outrage? When I see leftists do that shit, it tells me that, nope, our side hasn't actually learned anything, that we're still addicted to the rush of scolding, proving that we're right with Jesus, so to speak. What I'm saying is we need to be humble and constructive with our conversation and (self-)criticism, to appreciate that our side may have better dreams and a superior faith in humanity, but our tactics are as responsible for the present catastrophe as liberals who, while being mostly persuaded by the cultural left, have been drawn by the right's economic arguments. But as long as the dominant quality of the left is of smirking chastisement, of personal liberation, of an obsession with language and manners, and, above all, suspicion of the mass, I just can't consider myself a leftist.

You just gotta know how to talk to em.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 9b3ab57f5b

[Dr. Medulla]

You just gotta know how to talk to em.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 9b3ab57f5b

Ha! I saw that the other day and immediately thought of this:

[Dr. Medulla]

David Harvey has another new book that acts as a guide for Capital: http://davidharvey.org/2017/06/new-book ... ic-reason/

Not sure how this differs from previous companion volumes (except maybe that this also considers vols. 2 & 3), but Harvey was indispensable for providing me several footholds in better understanding Capital.

[Dr. Medulla]

Also, Frankfurt beefcake. You're welcome.

[Silent Majority]

Jesus, who do the democrats think the American electorate are?

[Dr. Medulla]

Jesus, who do the democrats think the American electorate are?

Did they slip on another banana peel or is this more generalized frustration?

[Flex]

Jesus, who do the democrats think the American electorate are?

Did they slip on another banana peel or is this more generalized frustration?

I'm assuming he's reacting to this latest bit of genius from the part of #resist:

[Dr. Medulla]

Oh lord. I don't know if I've read or heard of anything—at all—of real substance backing this whole resist stuff. It's indistinguishable from putting magnetic yellow "support the troops" ribbons on one's car. Anyone who claims to be part of this resistance is obliged to explain what they've sacrificed for the effort (not to mention the actual effort).

[Silent Majority]

Precisely. What exactly have they resisted? The "have you seen the other guys" one is so telling and is absolutely an argument for the primacy of the dsa. I'll vote for a sticker that says "Dems: still essentially the lesser evil."