The Dictator observations thread.

[Dr. Medulla]

Hmm, strange coincidence that there is no real organized labor anymore.

It's been argued that organized labour bought a pig in a poke when it signed on to the grand bargain of the 1950s, where the welfare state would provide a safety net and tinker with the economy to keep things humming; business would not pursue a strategy of maximizing profit via by minimizing labour costs; and unions would deradicalize and surrender workplace conduct demands in exchange for higher wages. In the short term, it allowed the (mostly white) working class to leap into the middle class. However, along the way, labour set up conditions for future vulnerability. For one, they joined the flight to suburbs when possible, breaking up working-class communities in the city and embracing suburban atomization, thereby weakening any shared class consciousness. By defanging itself over matters of the workplace, labour was in a weaker position to argue against automation. And when neoliberalism supplanted welfare state liberalism, and the logic of the market was ruthlessly applied, labour was no longer in a position to effectively fight back. Right-to-work legislation and union leadership that was more collaborating with capital than advocating for its membership just gutted the ability to respond. The Greatest Generation took the money but did nothing to protect future generations of workers to avoid getting it in the neck.

[eumaas]

Hmm, strange coincidence that there is no real organized labor anymore.

It's been argued that organized labour bought a pig in a poke when it signed on to the grand bargain of the 1950s, where the welfare state would provide a safety net and tinker with the economy to keep things humming; business would not pursue a strategy of maximizing profit via by minimizing labour costs; and unions would deradicalize and surrender workplace conduct demands in exchange for higher wages. In the short term, it allowed the (mostly white) working class to leap into the middle class. However, along the way, labour set up conditions for future vulnerability. For one, they joined the flight to suburbs when possible, breaking up working-class communities in the city and embracing suburban atomization, thereby weakening any shared class consciousness. By defanging itself over matters of the workplace, labour was in a weaker position to argue against automation. And when neoliberalism supplanted welfare state liberalism, and the logic of the market was ruthlessly applied, labour was no longer in a position to effectively fight back. Right-to-work legislation and union leadership that was more collaborating with capital than advocating for its membership just gutted the ability to respond. The Greatest Generation took the money but did nothing to protect future generations of workers to avoid getting it in the neck.

Yeah, I remember this from your dissertation research. I think it's a pretty good argument for trying to push beyond basic social democracy. Social democracy is looking very, very good from where we are right now, but it's clear that it has an inherent instability because it doesn't alter the underlying structures of capitalism. Our practical struggles need to be informed by history, and this is pretty relevant to the future. Should our minimum program succeed, we cannot stop there. (this is all very optimistic talk, of course!)

I mean, I am overjoyed so many people are getting into social democracy, but to me that's an opportunity to push them from reformism to something more. As far as anarchism? Probably not, at least not yet, but I think class consciousness is going up, even if incrementally.

Part of why I like DSA as an organization is that it doesn't stop at social democracy, even if the organization as a whole is to the right of me.

[Dr. Medulla]

Hmm, strange coincidence that there is no real organized labor anymore.

It's been argued that organized labour bought a pig in a poke when it signed on to the grand bargain of the 1950s, where the welfare state would provide a safety net and tinker with the economy to keep things humming; business would not pursue a strategy of maximizing profit via by minimizing labour costs; and unions would deradicalize and surrender workplace conduct demands in exchange for higher wages. In the short term, it allowed the (mostly white) working class to leap into the middle class. However, along the way, labour set up conditions for future vulnerability. For one, they joined the flight to suburbs when possible, breaking up working-class communities in the city and embracing suburban atomization, thereby weakening any shared class consciousness. By defanging itself over matters of the workplace, labour was in a weaker position to argue against automation. And when neoliberalism supplanted welfare state liberalism, and the logic of the market was ruthlessly applied, labour was no longer in a position to effectively fight back. Right-to-work legislation and union leadership that was more collaborating with capital than advocating for its membership just gutted the ability to respond. The Greatest Generation took the money but did nothing to protect future generations of workers to avoid getting it in the neck.

Yeah, I remember this from your dissertation research. I think it's a pretty good argument for trying to push beyond basic social democracy. Social democracy is looking very, very good from where we are right now, but it's clear that it has an inherent instability because it doesn't alter the underlying structures of capitalism. Our practical struggles need to be informed by history, and this is pretty relevant to the future. Should our minimum program succeed, we cannot stop there. (this is all very optimistic talk, of course!)

I mean, I am overjoyed so many people are getting into social democracy, but to me that's an opportunity to push them from reformism to something more. As far as anarchism? Probably not, at least not yet, but I think class consciousness is going up, even if incrementally.

Part of why I like DSA as an organization is that it doesn't stop at social democracy, even if the organization as a whole is to the right of me.

The language of the era, revived in the 1990s, reflected a sincere belief that any contradictions of capitalism had been solved, that it needn't be guided by such divergent interests as to generate hostility. Long term, no, that ain't true, but as a work-around, it requires firm clamps placed on capital to dampen its instincts. Labour needs to remain aggressively vigilant and government needs to be interventionist, to think big social picture that business cannot do. Should a recognizable form of social democracy prevail in the coming decades, the lesson to be learned is that capitalism is a scorpion, and don't confuse material success with actually changing its nature.

[Kory]

Hey, liberals, all those Super Bowl ads about inclusion and immigrants and shit isn't evidence that corporations have a conscience; it means you're just a more desirable consumer demographic because you generally have more money and are more materialistic and status conscious.

Not that a commercial is any indicator of what a corporation actually does, but surely it's better for the corps to think that they're being closely (as closely as any consumer can) scrutinized by their target demo than nothing, I suppose.

[Dr. Medulla]

Hey, liberals, all those Super Bowl ads about inclusion and immigrants and shit isn't evidence that corporations have a conscience; it means you're just a more desirable consumer demographic because you generally have more money and are more materialistic and status conscious.

Not that a commercial is any indicator of what a corporation actually does, but surely it's better for the corps to think that they're being closely (as closely as any consumer can) scrutinized by their target demo than nothing, I suppose.

My issue is with liberals thinking that corporations are positive social institutions in any way. Use them for social interests, sure, but never ever forget that their first allegiance is to stockholders and the quarterly report. Anything seemingly good they espouse is purely tactical and needs to be accepted as such. There is nothing inherently superior or inferior between Apple and Home Depot.

[Kory]

Hey, liberals, all those Super Bowl ads about inclusion and immigrants and shit isn't evidence that corporations have a conscience; it means you're just a more desirable consumer demographic because you generally have more money and are more materialistic and status conscious.

Not that a commercial is any indicator of what a corporation actually does, but surely it's better for the corps to think that they're being closely (as closely as any consumer can) scrutinized by their target demo than nothing, I suppose.

My issue is with liberals thinking that corporations are positive social institutions in any way. Use them for social interests, sure, but never ever forget that their first allegiance is to stockholders and the quarterly report. Anything seemingly good they espouse is purely tactical and needs to be accepted as such. There is nothing inherently superior or inferior between Apple and Home Depot.

No argument on that score.

[Dr. Medulla]

It's completely head-scratching that some people don't realize that they're advocating/voting against their economic interests: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/c ... &smtyp=cur

It's a similar weirdness when people in Gatineau, in Quebec across the river from Ottawa but heavily reliant on it for employment and, more generally, its economy, vote for separatism. What do they think would happen if their side won?

[Kory]

It's completely head-scratching that some people don't realize that they're advocating/voting against their economic interests: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/c ... &smtyp=cur

It's a similar weirdness when people in Gatineau, in Quebec across the river from Ottawa but heavily reliant on it for employment and, more generally, its economy, vote for separatism. What do they think would happen if their side won?

The main idea is just that they're easily convinced by propaganda and "charismatic" public speakers, right? I've been on the receiving end of what I would think is a similar situation. I would go to staff meetings at a musical instrument retailer I used to work for. I'd leave feeling pretty inspired, but then when I got back to my store I'd realize it was all bullcrap.

These folks don't have that filter.

[Dr. Medulla]

It's completely head-scratching that some people don't realize that they're advocating/voting against their economic interests: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/c ... &smtyp=cur

It's a similar weirdness when people in Gatineau, in Quebec across the river from Ottawa but heavily reliant on it for employment and, more generally, its economy, vote for separatism. What do they think would happen if their side won?

The main idea is just that they're easily convinced by propaganda and "charismatic" public speakers, right? I've been on the receiving end of what I would think is a similar situation. I would go to staff meetings at a musical instrument retailer I used to work for. I'd leave feeling pretty inspired, but then when I got back to my store I'd realize it was all bullcrap.

These folks don't have that filter.

The argument with Trump and his base is that they're engaged in a feedback loop, each agreeing with what they say/hear, and then turning that into objective truth. These kinds of moments are when contradictory data pokes thru and can't be easily explained away. Every set of values rests on those confounding challenges and whether we're mature enough to work it thru.

[Dr. Medulla]

Saw a thing the other day complaining, again, about Millennials. This was about how, apparently, they aren't inclined to put in free time after their shift, which shows that they're lazy or unambitious. What struck me more was that it reveals that the workers who won't work for free and the commenters who think they should each understand, howver unconsciously, that a core element of capitalism is maximixing/minimizing (depending on your position) the amount of free labour ceded to the employer.

[Rat Patrol]

Saw a thing the other day complaining, again, about Millennials. This was about how, apparently, they aren't inclined to put in free time after their shift, which shows that they're lazy or unambitious. What struck me more was that it reveals that the workers who won't work for free and the commenters who think they should each understand, howver unconsciously, that a core element of capitalism is maximixing/minimizing (depending on your position) the amount of free labour ceded to the employer.

I also saw one the other day citing that Millennials don't relocate to other cities as much as their predecessors. Which, of course, is proof positive that they're lazy...even though in reality the #1 reason for relocation is taking a new job, and relocation naturally doesn't happen as frequently when there are fewer well-paying jobs worth the cost of uprooting your life (or offering to pay the relocation expenses that individuals themselves cannot hope to afford out-of-pocket). WHAR TRICKLE-UP ECONOMICS???...WHAR???

[Dr. Medulla]

Saw a thing the other day complaining, again, about Millennials. This was about how, apparently, they aren't inclined to put in free time after their shift, which shows that they're lazy or unambitious. What struck me more was that it reveals that the workers who won't work for free and the commenters who think they should each understand, howver unconsciously, that a core element of capitalism is maximixing/minimizing (depending on your position) the amount of free labour ceded to the employer.

I also saw one the other day citing that Millennials don't relocate to other cities as much as their predecessors. Which, of course, is proof positive that they're lazy...even though in reality the #1 reason for relocation is taking a new job, and relocation naturally doesn't happen as frequently when there are fewer well-paying jobs worth the cost of uprooting your life (or offering to pay the relocation expenses that individuals themselves cannot hope to afford out-of-pocket). WHAR TRICKLE-UP ECONOMICS???...WHAR???

Heh. Back in the 50s, critics of suburbia and the postwar economy cited the willingness to relocate as proof of the death of community and that such rootlessness was one more step toward totalitarianism. One thing we can be certain of: whatever we're doing is proof that the future is at risk.

[BostonBeaneater]

[Dr. Medulla]

In this hurly burly world, at least Bono is still a cowardly lickspittle to the worst assholes: http://theslot.jezebel.com/oh-nice-bono ... 1792533559

[Dr. Medulla]

For those interested in the moral standards of corporate America, particularly the media: neo-Nazism, racism, sexism, and transphobia is cool; male pedophilia is the line that can't be crossed. Adjust your message accordingly.