The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: J Boogie on June 23, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
-
Just curious to get a quick gut check of how people feel about this. I have a general sense that the overton window has shifted somewhat but trying to get a clearer picture of what kind of acceptance Marxism is seeing among the left and center left. Feel free to add comments if you feel the options don't represent your views very well.
-
You are begging the question. What about BLM is Marxist?
-
They said they are super familiar with, sort of, Marxist ideologies. That doesn't actually mean anything except that they are reasonably educated.
-
You are begging the question. What about BLM is Marxist?
Apparently, three days ago, someone dug up some video of an interview that one of the two founders of BLM gave in 2015, in which she said she and the other co-founder were trained organizers, versed on ideological theories, and she also used the phrase “trained marxists.” And now the right are losing their shit. :eye roll:
-
A recent common refrain on the alt-right pepe sites is that anything contributed to BLM goes to the Democrats; Soros; and/or Marxists (presumably Chinese communists and not Russian communists).
-
You are begging the question. What about BLM is Marxist?
Sorry, I should have provided context.
Here is the video (about the 6 minute mark) the other posters have referenced which includes her response to the concern that BLM has a lack of ideological direction which would allow it to fizzle out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCghDx5qN4s&feature=emb_title
As the other posters are mentioning, they believe the right is overreacting to this. I'm trying to get a sense of how centrists and more left leaning people feel.
-
I don't think I can answer this question. Marxism seems to be the last bastion of people who have lost faith in reform. We see this in politics and economics re: wealth disparity. If the downtrodden don't feel that they have influence on reform, they start holding hostages, whether those hostages are human or material.
-
Not with an intent to engage in whataboutism - but to draw a comparison:
I dislike Marxism and the Libertarian ideology with equal fervor. Marxism has done greater damage globally, but the Libertarians have done far greater damage within the US. However, just because I dislike the "ideologies" (and if you did not know - I dislike all ideologies) does not mean I will not work with an ideologue if there are common goals.
The police and systemic violence against Blacks is a reality. If BLM founder is a Marxist, I'd still not shy away from providing transactional support while keeping a close eye on whether his/her activities are becoming a purity-spiral induced liability.
The same would apply with libertarians.
I have donated to causes championed by a libertarian before. I have so far never donated to a cause championed by a known marxist (are there any in the US) before, but I don't see anything wrong in principle with that.
-
I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism.
Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly? I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time. And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great. However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers. And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx? The Soviet Union? China? Cuba? Venezuela? None of the above?
-
Not voting, but I don't think BLM is particularly Marxist.
If BLM was Marxist, that wouldn't change my support of their stated aims.
-
I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism.
Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly? I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time. And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great. However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers. And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx? The Soviet Union? China? Cuba? Venezuela? None of the above?
Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.
If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.
-
I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism.
Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly? I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time. And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great. However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers. And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx? The Soviet Union? China? Cuba? Venezuela? None of the above?
Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.
If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.
If one has to go back to 2015 to find one example of one person (not two) in an organization using the word "marxist" one time in an interview...
And if the very context of that conversation was someone asking that person whether BLM's lack of clearly defined ideological direction was a problem...
Then yeah, no. I don't really think BLM is Marxist.
-
I doubt many people in the BLM or anti-BLM camps alike have actually read Marx, or any complicated philosophical book for that matter. Poor Karl is routinely invoked by everyone with a beef on some issue.
-
I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism.
Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly? I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time. And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great. However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers. And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx? The Soviet Union? China? Cuba? Venezuela? None of the above?
Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.
If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.
If one has to go back to 2015 to find one example of one person (not two) in an organization using the word "marxist" one time in an interview...
And if the very context of that conversation was someone asking that person whether BLM's lack of clearly defined ideological direction was a problem...
Then yeah, no. I don't really think BLM is Marxist.
I don't think BLM is Marxist either. But a co-founder said that she and her partners are. And naturally co-founders of a movement have an outsized ability to determine the trajectory of a movement.
Do the stated aims align with Marxism? Not at first glance. But there does seem to be some philosophy that arguably dovetails, for example defunding the police (Since many Marxists believe the role of the police is protecting capital / capitalism) or the interest in disrupting the nuclear family (Since many Marxists believe that the nuclear family is a mechanism which perpetuate capitalism).
There seems to be a pretty radical anti-capitalist sentiment among prominent BLM activists.
https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-black-christmas-capitalism-724309
"Black Lives Matter and other organizations build a strong critique and understanding of racism and white supremacy and sexism and homophobia, transphobia, but we have to have as much hatred or vitriol against capitalism," said Ratcliff. "Until we start to see capitalism [is] just as nefarious as white supremacy, we will always be struggling."
(Anthony Ratcliff is a BLM leader and CSU-LA professor)
From Chicago rapper Noname's Twitter (half a million followers) yesterday:
any campaign to “end racism” that doesnt explicitly address capitalism is not for black liberation. if companies want to be anti-racist they need to be anti-capitalist first.
black ppl suffer globally because of US imperialism.
black liberation is a global struggle.
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
True communism can be scary.
It doesn't exist in the US, however. Even people who call themselves Marxists generally have no idea what they are talking about.
-
Do the stated aims align with Marxism? Not at first glance. But there does seem to be some philosophy that arguably dovetails, for example defunding the police (Since many Marxists believe the role of the police is protecting capital / capitalism) or the interest in disrupting the nuclear family (Since many Marxists believe that the nuclear family is a mechanism which perpetuate capitalism).
I do think that Marxian "class struggle" is unquestionably an element of the BLM movement.
BLM's demand for reform of policing is a particular element of BLM's class struggle.
Society as it exists is the status quo.
The police are an integral part of the status quo and they sustain it: A police-society symbiosis exists.
The status quo is the THESIS.
I gather that many members and supporters of BLM are upset by the status quo.
They comprise the dynamic societal force, the ANTITHESIS in the form of a class struggle that opposes the THESIS and demands its reform.
The SYNTHESIS is the reform BLM seeks.
For weeks we have witnessed a societal COLLISION, a class struggle between the THESIS and ANTITHESIS as BLM and some of its supporters engage in a class struggle to bring about reform in general that includes reform of policing in particular.
THESIS >>>> COLLISION <<<< ANTITHESIS = SYNTHESIS
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.
-
Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.
If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.
In terms of political economy, to varying degrees redistributionist policies fulfill Marx's maxim.
-
'what is Marxism' exactly? I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time.
I give Karl Marx much credit for his insights and understanding of an individual's sense of themself with respect to the means of production and how collectively, this sense gives rise to societal changes that alter the course of human history.
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.
This, basically
-
I'm a left-leaning libertarian. Where's the option that I strongly disagree with the people who are trying to "abolish capitalism," whatever that means? The BLM movement seems to be infested with these idiots, and most of them seem to be white.
-
The police and systemic violence against Blacks is a reality.
I have been hearing this word a lot (systemic) in phrases such as systemic racism and systemic violence.
It means system wide, or whole body (government, public).
Do the numbers support this as a reality, or is it a perception?
For police shootings, I have found the following:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/)
Which shows in 2019, 370 White people shot to death by police, 235 Black people, and 158 Hispanic
Population percentage of the above is: 60.4% White, 13.4% Black, 18.3% Hispanic
By population, you would expect about 90 black people to be shot to death instead of 235 if we are doing equal opportunity police shooting.
If you dig deeper though, you will find that black people commit about 52% of the homicides in the USA, while making up only 13.4% of the population. If you just go with violent crime in general (rape, aggravated assault, manslaughter, murder, armed robbery) black people commit 38.5% of those crimes.
So just like a logger is far more likely to be killed by a falling tree than a person working in a office in the city, a black person is more likely to be in a situation where they get shot because they are committing more violent crimes per population than white people.
This doesn't mean that the reasons they are in that situation are not problems we should fix (poverty, education, steering away from gangs) but it might mean the police shootings are not really systemic racism, but rather a side effect of a wealth racism.
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.
I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.
I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.
I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.
If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.
If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.
But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.
-
I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.
I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.
I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.
If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.
If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.
But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.
If I assume your intentions are honest and good, then your phrasing/etc is bad.
If I assume you phrasing is accurate, then I do not read your intention as good.
Problems at a glance:
1) founders plural, but links to a single founder
2) no option for "unaware of such" re the founder's marxism comments
3) "the movement" vs "black people" in two different answers
I hang up on pollsters who start asking questions with those issues. Or I dig up a d6 and start answering randomly.
Writing fair and unbiased polls is hard.
-
In my country, Australia, I do question the stat that the BLM protestors use as a demonstration of "police brutality". The number of Aborigines dying in police custody is in line with the make-up of the total prison population, so the stats don't show that any more Aborigines die in custody than would be statistically expected. Also, deaths in custody include all deaths, not just those caused by (non-prisoner) human agency, so it doesn't follow in any event that deaths in custody are reflective of police brutality.
For what it's worth, I think there more likely than not has been institutional racism in the police force, but the statistic used is a red herring, misguided at best and completely disingenuous at worst, and I hate that.
-
The police and systemic violence against Blacks is a reality.
I have been hearing this word a lot (systemic) in phrases such as systemic racism and systemic violence.
It means system wide, or whole body (government, public).
Do the numbers support this as a reality, or is it a perception?
For police shootings, I have found the following:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/)
Which shows in 2019, 370 White people shot to death by police, 235 Black people, and 158 Hispanic
Population percentage of the above is: 60.4% White, 13.4% Black, 18.3% Hispanic
By population, you would expect about 90 black people to be shot to death instead of 235 if we are doing equal opportunity police shooting.
If you dig deeper though, you will find that black people commit about 52% of the homicides in the USA, while making up only 13.4% of the population. If you just go with violent crime in general (rape, aggravated assault, manslaughter, murder, armed robbery) black people commit 38.5% of those crimes.
So just like a logger is far more likely to be killed by a falling tree than a person working in a office in the city, a black person is more likely to be in a situation where they get shot because they are committing more violent crimes per population than white people.
This doesn't mean that the reasons they are in that situation are not problems we should fix (poverty, education, steering away from gangs) but it might mean the police shootings are not really systemic racism, but rather a side effect of a wealth racism.
On this specific metric, analyzed in this specific way, no effect of systemic racism show up conclusively.
However, there are many others where it does. This article, for example points to some of them:
https://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html
They, in fact, cite some RAND corporation studies.
(I mistakenly used to associate them with libertarian ideas for the word "rand". It seems they do real data driven research too, so I need to pay more attention to them in future. "unbiased"/"centrist" POV is of course more valuable because it is likely to be less influenced by political BS.).
Raw data is a bitch. You will have a lot of noise in the data due to many complex factors. Sometimes the noise will drown out the signal. e.g. a specific data point can act very differently in the middle of the curve vs. at the tail. How do I konw? Just contemplate the effect/utility of $1 for a median American household earning $50k vs Jeff Bezos. Similarly, when US has 10 deaths per 100k, it is much easier to change vs. Australia's 1.6 per 100k.
So you need to look at it from many different angles and only *then* construct a story - especially in a complex sociological issue. The more different angles you look at, the more likely you are to overcome the confounding factors that are a bane of any honest boffin. These confounding factors can just make the data appear random, or may even point you in the incorrect direction.
After confounding factors come the innate bias of the person. e.g. I used to think of myself as centrist, but of late have seen myself alarmingly close to most liberal positions. So I should require extra dose of evidence to reach any position that agrees with the liberal political point of view. If your "bias" is conservative, you should ask for the same on the other end of the spectrum.
Hence the importance of looking at as many (preferably mutually independent) such angles as possible.
I can tell you that I have seen several such studies showing a persistent presence of systemic violence, and it has a negligible probability that they are all pointing to the same direction by chance.
But again, I am no expert on this. I have no training in sociology. So it is possible that the 5 (or 10) such studies I have seen are indeed hand-picked by a biased media to show to the common public, and that there are 100 others that point in the opposite direction that I have no idea of. If so, please point me to them and I will happily adjust my stance.
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.
I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.
I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.
I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.
If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.
If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.
But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.
The reason people(including me) think the question is in bad faith is because of the following:
1) The second part that I bolded above (basically that the movement is too decentralized and lacks a central command structure, hence the notion that the founders economic views are largely irrelevant as the movement has taken on a life of its own) is so utterly obvious to me that coming up with excuses as to why it's not the case, seems to be denying reality.
2) In the US, the right wing plays the "OMG SOCIALISM" card so often that it's lost all meaning. It's akin to the Boy Who Cried Wolf at this point.
True communism can be scary.
It doesn't exist in the US, however. Even people who call themselves Marxists generally have no idea what they are talking about.
Essentially, this.
-
Your survey lacks options of other opinions, you're leading people into voting on only particular view points when there are many more.
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.
I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.
I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.
I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.
If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.
If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.
But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.
The reason people(including me) think the question is in bad faith is because of the following:
1) The second part that I bolded above (basically that the movement is too decentralized and lacks a central command structure, hence the notion that the founders economic views are largely irrelevant as the movement has taken on a life of its own) is so utterly obvious to me that coming up with excuses as to why it's not the case, seems to be denying reality.
2) In the US, the right wing plays the "OMG SOCIALISM" card so often that it's lost all meaning. It's akin to the Boy Who Cried Wolf at this point.
It's hard to deny that the question of whether or not it is "utterly obvious" that a founder's extremist ideology would be relevant would depend largely upon the observer and their political leaning.
Steve Bannon, for example, often tries to explain that race is not a factor in the national populist movements he supports. It's not about race, he'll say. It's about nationality. However, I think we all agree that any racist views of the founders of any of those local movements are totally relevant. You don't have to look too closely to see plenty of racism in national populist movement. But center-right Trump voters who believe themselves not to be racist have an incentive to ignore racism within the movement that got Trump elected.
Just as the non-marxist BLM supporters have an incentive to ignore marxism within the movement.
-
Where's the "No, because these days 'socialism'/'communism'/'Marxism' is generally nothing more than the right wing's bogeyman" option?
As far as I can tell, that's basically what's going on here.
This poll was not written to get unbiased opinions.
I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.
I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.
I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.
If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.
If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.
But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.
On this specific metric, analyzed in this specific way, no effect of systemic racism show up conclusively.
However, there are many others where it does. This article, for example points to some of them:
https://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html
They, in fact, cite some RAND corporation studies.
(I mistakenly used to associate them with libertarian ideas for the word "rand". It seems they do real data driven research too, so I need to pay more attention to them in future. "unbiased"/"centrist" POV is of course more valuable because it is likely to be less influenced by political BS.).
Raw data is a bitch. You will have a lot of noise in the data due to many complex factors. Sometimes the noise will drown out the signal. e.g. a specific data point can act very differently in the middle of the curve vs. at the tail. How do I konw? Just contemplate the effect/utility of $1 for a median American household earning $50k vs Jeff Bezos. Similarly, when US has 10 deaths per 100k, it is much easier to change vs. Australia's 1.6 per 100k.
So you need to look at it from many different angles and only *then* construct a story - especially in a complex sociological issue. The more different angles you look at, the more likely you are to overcome the confounding factors that are a bane of any honest boffin. These confounding factors can just make the data appear random, or may even point you in the incorrect direction.
After confounding factors come the innate bias of the person. e.g. I used to think of myself as centrist, but of late have seen myself alarmingly close to most liberal positions. So I should require extra dose of evidence to reach any position that agrees with the liberal political point of view. If your "bias" is conservative, you should ask for the same on the other end of the spectrum.
Hence the importance of looking at as many (preferably mutually independent) such angles as possible.
I can tell you that I have seen several such studies showing a persistent presence of systemic violence, and it has a negligible probability that they are all pointing to the same direction by chance.
But again, I am no expert on this. I have no training in sociology. So it is possible that the 5 (or 10) such studies I have seen are indeed hand-picked by a biased media to show to the common public, and that there are 100 others that point in the opposite direction that I have no idea of. If so, please point me to them and I will happily adjust my stance.
Did you mean to reply to Bloop bloop?
-
I put up the poll because the right wing media reaction would be predictable and overblown and the left wing reaction would simply be that the right wing media reaction is overblown.
I am interested in how left leaning and moderate types view this in and of itself, not how they view right wing media takes on it.
I'm interested in all genuine opinions, biased and unbiased. However I'm far more interested in substantive debate rather than sniping.
If you don't think the 2015 interview represents the co-founders' political philosophy today, ok. Valid.
If you think she and possibly her partner (s) are indeed ideologically Marxists as she said, but the movement is decentralized enough to dilute it, ok, also valid.
But your take seems to be that because I'm even curious about something that might show up on Fox news that I'm asking this question in bad faith.
If I assume your intentions are honest and good, then your phrasing/etc is bad.
If I assume you phrasing is accurate, then I do not read your intention as good.
Problems at a glance:
1) founders plural, but links to a single founder
2) no option for "unaware of such" re the founder's marxism comments
3) "the movement" vs "black people" in two different answers
I hang up on pollsters who start asking questions with those issues. Or I dig up a d6 and start answering randomly.
Writing fair and unbiased polls is hard.
Legitimate beeves.
Though in my defense, I don't think it's misleading to write "founders" plural as a co-founder used the plural herself and was not corrected in way by other BLM leaders. I don't think regarding a co-founder's description of the leadership team as accurate shows any bad faith on my part.
-
Did you mean to reply to Bloop bloop?
Edited to fix the quote in my post now.
No idea how I managed to quote the wrong post altogether.
-
It's hard to deny that the question of whether or not it is "utterly obvious" that a founder's extremist ideology would be relevant would depend largely upon the observer and their political leaning.
Steve Bannon, for example, often tries to explain that race is not a factor in the national populist movements he supports. It's not about race, he'll say. It's about nationality. However, I think we all agree that any racist views of the founders of any of those local movements are totally relevant. You don't have to look too closely to see plenty of racism in national populist movement. But center-right Trump voters who believe themselves not to be racist have an incentive to ignore racism within the movement that got Trump elected.
Just as the non-marxist BLM supporters have an incentive to ignore marxism within the movement.
Good post!
-
I think that the "philosophy" of Marxism is not an "existential problem" for a modern state, but the political ideology of "Communism" sure is!!
When someone says "Marxist" - it is important to distinguish whether that term is being used in a philosophy/economics sense, or "I want a totalitarian state" sense. If I was convinced it was the later for the BLM founder(s), then I would not touch them with a ten foot pole. The former is perfectly kosher in "my" book (and mine only. there are many reasonable disagreements possible with this stance).
Why do I remain so blase about Marxism despite it's strong identification with Communism (which, I think is a massive, frigging, human disaster. Stalin killed more people than Hitler and Pol Pot combined)? Because, they simply are not a realistic threat within the US at this point. they *can* become a bigger threat 50 years down, but definitely not now.
Bannon and gang represent the nativist movement that has a very long history too. They are just a much bigger threat at this day and age. Hence, I am quite intolerant even to the associated ideologies (e.g. libertarian/conservative etc).
It's just my personal threat perception. Your's may differ. But if/when you have inconsistent/tilted/biased threat perception (obvious e.g. Faux News), then it becomes funny and silly.
-
Philosophical and economic movements lead to influences on the state. So that is a viable connection.
The bridge looks like Sokal/Sokal Squared, critical theory, identity politics, intersectionality and the general relativity that Marxism permits. It is a dangerous road to build the merit of arguments on intersectional identities, rather than First Principles or something more reputable.
The usual response is to call this a hoax or overblown, but at some point it no longer is overblown, and where that line exists is a matter of interpretation.
Consider the journal Nature, which recently decided to participate in #ShutDownSTEM to help protest along side BLM:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01723-9
I'm not sure that shutting down STEM is a great idea.
-
It's hard to deny that the question of whether or not it is "utterly obvious" that a founder's extremist ideology would be relevant would depend largely upon the observer and their political leaning.
Steve Bannon, for example, often tries to explain that race is not a factor in the national populist movements he supports. It's not about race, he'll say. It's about nationality. However, I think we all agree that any racist views of the founders of any of those local movements are totally relevant. You don't have to look too closely to see plenty of racism in national populist movement. But center-right Trump voters who believe themselves not to be racist have an incentive to ignore racism within the movement that got Trump elected.
Just as the non-marxist BLM supporters have an incentive to ignore marxism within the movement.
Good post!
Thanks! I have found various posts of yours to be insightful as well :)
-
I think that the "philosophy" of Marxism is not an "existential problem" for a modern state, but the political ideology of "Communism" sure is!!
When someone says "Marxist" - it is important to distinguish whether that term is being used in a philosophy/economics sense, or "I want a totalitarian state" sense. If I was convinced it was the later for the BLM founder(s), then I would not touch them with a ten foot pole. The former is perfectly kosher in "my" book (and mine only. there are many reasonable disagreements possible with this stance).
Why do I remain so blase about Marxism despite it's strong identification with Communism (which, I think is a massive, frigging, human disaster. Stalin killed more people than Hitler and Pol Pot combined)? Because, they simply are not a realistic threat within the US at this point. they *can* become a bigger threat 50 years down, but definitely not now.
Bannon and gang represent the nativist movement that has a very long history too. They are just a much bigger threat at this day and age. Hence, I am quite intolerant even to the associated ideologies (e.g. libertarian/conservative etc).
It's just my personal threat perception. Your's may differ. But if/when you have inconsistent/tilted/biased threat perception (obvious e.g. Faux News), then it becomes funny and silly.
I guess that's another factor I didn't consider - whether or not you currently consider our nation to be vulnerable to communist marxism.
I might spend some time learning about the prior conditions of the countries that fell into communist marxism so that I can better calibrate my personal threat perception. I agree with you that far right extremism is a more threatening ideology at the moment for the US.
-
I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism.
Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly? I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time. And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great. However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers. And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx? The Soviet Union? China? Cuba? Venezuela? None of the above?
Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.
If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.
I think I’m about here as well.
The founders can be marxists but that doesn’t make the movement Marxist.
-
The primary purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement is to stop police brutality against black americans. Simple. Do you support the end of the senseless killing of black americans by police? Then you support the BLM movement.
-
I knew a number of people in college who read Marx, maybe consider themselves marxists, but the extent of being involved in politics being able to move our country towards "Marxism" is negligible or nonviable. We like our cars, we like owning houses. We like private ownership of property. As others note, it is easier to move our country towards a fascist or nativist state by concentrating power to the executive branch, weakening other branches, as well as cracking down on freedom of the press, speech etc, while keeping it "legal". If anything, our country is moving towards unfettered capitalism, increased corporatism, to the point often lobbyists are the ones writing legislative bills. Why? Because for those in power, there is money in it. In contrast the number of self described marxists getting elected to office I would imagine is small. 2ndly it doesn't describe accurately why so many people are marching for BLM. If you did a poll of people marching for BLM, what % would be self described marxists? Otoh if you did a poll of self described nativists about white supremacists beliefs, what percent would identify with that? I suspect there would be a more widespread identification. And the FBI reports that right wing groups are biggest threat for increased violence and homegrown terrorism in the US.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/racially-motivated-violent-extremism-isis-national-threat-priority-fbi-director-christopher-wray/
-
I didn't vote as you left off the option for people who don't think that the BLM movement supports Marxism.
Another issue that you didn't explore is 'what is Marxism' exactly? I've read Marx and think he did an excellent analysis of the problems and workings of British capitalism at the time. And if his Marxist utopia had ever actually existed (or if such a utopia were even possible in the real world) - yeah it would be great. However, no country has ever even gotten close to a the Marxist utopia described by Marx, Engels and their followers. And IMO such a utopia would not be possible. So when people talk about "Marxism" I always wonder what they mean exactly since it's never actually existed in the real world. Do they mean Marxism as described by Karl Marx? The Soviet Union? China? Cuba? Venezuela? None of the above?
Well, I'm not sure the BLM movement supports Marxism either. It's just that the co-founders (or at least two of them) are self-identified Marxists.
If a person identifies as a Marxist, my assumption is that their intent is to bring about a world without private property rights via revolution.
I think I’m about here as well.
The founders can be marxists but that doesn’t make the movement Marxist.
Yep. The founding fathers of the United States were racist slave owners who didn't believe that slaves were equal people (based on what they wrote in the constitution). Does this make the United States a bad idea?
-
I knew a number of people in college who read Marx, maybe consider themselves marxists, but the extent of being involved in politics being able to move moving our country towards "Marxism" is negligible or nonviable. As others note, it is easier to move our country towards a fascist or nativist state by concentrating power to the executive branch, weakening other branches, as well as cracking down on freedom of the press, speech etc, while keeping it "legal". If anything, our country is moving towards unfettered capitalism, increased corporatism, to the point often lobbyists are the ones writing legislative bills. This has been the biggest change in US politics. In contrast the number of self described marxists getting elected to office I would imagine is small. 2ndly it doesn't describe accurately why so many people are marching for BLM. If you did a poll of people marching for BLM, what % would be self described marxists? Otoh if you did a poll of self described nativists about white supremacists beliefs, what percent would identify with that? I suspect there would be a more widespread identification. And the FBI reports that right wing groups are biggest threat for increased violence and homegrown terrorism in the US. Not Marxists.
The US was one of the very first countries that adopted some of the core political/economical tenets from Marx's ideas.
Eleaneor Marx (Karl Marx's daughter) was actively working with the Chicago labor movement in the 1860s. This is from where we got the Labor day. We can also thank them for starting the movement towards 8-hour-workday and general labor practices improvements that we all take for granted.
Labor conditions were abysmal before those movements.
Yes, looking back we can see what a huge mistake it was for Marxism to let labor monopolize any economic discourse and leaving no room for capital to participate. But hindsight is 20/20. It's the same (but opposite) mistake that the "Chicago School of Economics" protagonists (almost exactly 100 years after the Chicago labor movement - huh, irony!) made with their version "Public Choice" theory - which is to let capital monopolize economic discourse and pushing labor completely out in the cold.
Even though public perception is different today, Marx's ideas do not *only* equate to Communism. That's why I use the word "Communism" separately from, and to mean a different thing from "Marxism".
-
I guess I need to read up on Marxism, if there is a Marxism for Dummies book out there. Or maybe I disagree with the premise that people are strictly part of one class, or another. Or stay in one class for their entire lives. Workers can own stocks, and hence own the means of production. What about people who are self employed, like artists, crafts persons, or people who own rentals? Are they workers or part of the bougie class? It seems like an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. And maybe I'm naive, that even if we are a capitalistic society, we also are a democracy. We can use our collective power, and use non violent means like voting, writing to our representatives, joining unions, and yes marching or protesting to change laws to make them more equitable. Anyways I apologize but reading those kind of political tracts gives me a headache.
-
I knew a number of people in college who read Marx, maybe consider themselves marxists, but the extent of being involved in politics being able to move our country towards "Marxism" is negligible or nonviable. We like our cars, we like owning houses. We like private ownership of property. As others note, it is easier to move our country towards a fascist or nativist state by concentrating power to the executive branch, weakening other branches, as well as cracking down on freedom of the press, speech etc, while keeping it "legal". If anything, our country is moving towards unfettered capitalism, increased corporatism, to the point often lobbyists are the ones writing legislative bills. Why? Because for those in power, there is money in it. In contrast the number of self described marxists getting elected to office I would imagine is small.
Good points. In the near future, I agree.
However, do you envision a sea change on the horizon, precipitated by the growing trend of overeducated and underemployed millenials and zoomers unable to partake in homeownership in the cities they uber around in? Thanks to your comment I am connecting some dots in that the "sharing economy" has not only exacerbated wealth inequality but also might result in future generations being far less attached to major possessions and far more interested in experimenting with abolishing private property.
I predict this happens right around the time that Bezos hits the trillion mark :)
-
I guess I need to read up on Marxism, if there is a Marxism for Dummies book out there. Or maybe I disagree with the premise that people are strictly part of one class, or another. Or stay in one class for their entire lives. Workers can own stocks, and hence own the means of production. What about people who are self employed, like artists, crafts persons, or people who own rentals? Are they workers or part of the bougie class? It seems like an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. And maybe I'm naive, that even if we are a capitalistic society, we also are a democracy. We can use our collective power like voting, writing to our representatives, joining unions, and yes marching or protesting to change laws to make them more equitable, using non violent means. Anyways I apologize but reading those kind of political tracts gives me headaches.
I think the wikipedia article may be a good place to start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
And May Day (which is where Marx's ideas connect to US history):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
And Labor Day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day
Talking about headache's, when I first thought I will read up on Marx - I tried to read the Das Capital. Well I made it through chapter or two, found it extremely dense going, and never went back.
That gave me a headache!!
-
I have no problem supporting the idea that black lives matter regardless of what ideologies the Black Lives Matter™ founders embrace.
-
J boogie. I have no idea what the future holds. I guess my general view is if society allows nonviolent means by which people can change society to reflect the way they want it to be, then over time society will be more representative of what people want. I wouldn't feel bad at all if Americans in general were less materialistic, and needed less resources in order to be happy, such as people trading versus buying, using pooled resources, public versus private spaces, or simply not needing so much stuff. Americans use a far higher percentage of the world's resources than the 4% of the population that we are. In no way is us starting to use bike shares, public transportation, etc, making us remotely in tthe realm of communism. And those zoomers etc may choose to live in the city because of its amenities. And even if not interested in buying a house (for many reasons) are still invested in their jobs, their retirement funds, and quality of life in general. Maybe that quality of life has more to do with friendships, going to coffee in a neighborhood coffeeshop, and traveling. But its based in an underlying capitalist model. Maybe people's fear of "socialism" makes us less likely to adopt what are actually common sense and useful solutions like universal healthcare. That "fear" causes more harm than the actual threat of socialism.
-
J boogie. I have no idea what the future holds. I guess my general view is if society allows nonviolent means by which people can change society to reflect the way they want it to be, then over time society will be more representative of what people want. I wouldn't feel bad at all if Americans in general were less materialistic, and needed less resources in order to be happy, such as people trading versus buying, using pooled resources, public versus private spaces, or simply not needing so much stuff. Americans use a far higher percentage of the world's resources than the 4% of the population that we are. In no way is us starting to use bike shares, public transportation, etc, making us remotely in tthe realm of communism. And those zoomers etc may choose to live in the city because of its amenities. And even if not interested in buying a house (for many reasons) are still invested in their jobs, their retirement funds, and quality of life in general. Maybe that quality of life has more to do with friendships, going to coffee in a neighborhood coffeeshop, and traveling. But its based in an underlying capitalist model. Maybe people's fear of "socialism" makes us less likely to adopt what are actually common sense and useful solutions like universal healthcare. That "fear" causes more harm than the actual threat of socialism.
+1. Very well said, partgypsy.
-
The notion that young people don't want to own things is being conflated with the fact that assets are very expensive. Not to say that's occurring in this thread specifically but I'd say more generally. Young people would love to own things but they don't have the buying power. Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos has more wealth than the annual GDP of Hungary. Ergo, Marxism.
If you consider that international travel has devalued deeply compared to--say--the dollars required for a downpayment on a house, it's not surprising to see many young people choosing to travel.
-
No.
-
No.
I’ll vote in this poll when there is a “LMAO” option.
-
Here's a question. A older relative who has friended me on Facebook, and I would like to have cordial relations with her. Is actually very educated, but also very conservative, and anti-many things. Her facebook feed has been: Soros posts. Posts during the protests about praying for a policeman who was injured in the protests. Posts about desecration of cemetaries, calling them "animals" and her friends posting these people should be summarily killed. A big fat zero mention about any of the BLM issues. AI did go back and forth with her about Soros (about not spreading conspiracy theories). I also said that she cared more about things than people, and that she should read up more on the history of US about race relations. She got pretty emotional, and said if I couldn't agree I should unfriend her. I'm not going to unfriend her but after that have not I haven't responded to any of her subsequent posts. Her latest post is a meme from Candace Owens stating how there is no racism in the US, with her post asking people to post "absolutely" if they agree. Now, I'm not even black but I find this offensive. The post, and her view she gets to judge for everyone else whether there is racism in this country.
She has no minority (black) friends, the only people who are going to see her post are white older friends who probably agree with her. Is it my place to say, I find this offensive? Or continue to ignore/not respond to her posts? eta adding the "meme" https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=gs0pPhN4&id=4A8B8E6B89840C3F656512B71FD14C48B635C2D9&thid=OIP.gs0pPhN488UQ0ypub42rIwHaJF&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2flookaside.fbsbx.com%2flookaside%2fcrawler%2fmedia%2f%3fmedia_id%3d1440334199453318&exph=960&expw=782&q=candace+owens+meme+not+racist+country+those+who+&simid=608014240591120148&ck=AD9B49DDFCA34EA30A1F1B0E28D16C3E&selectedIndex=40&ajaxhist=0
-
No.
I’ll vote in this poll when there is a “LMAO” option.
I like the idea of a No, LMAO option.
Til then I'm not voting and will just say: No.
-
She has no minority (black) friends, the only people who are going to see her post are white older friends who probably agree with her. Is it my place to say, I find this offensive? Or continue to ignore/not respond to her posts?
In my opinion you can say whatever you want, but it won't matter.
-
Here's a question. A older relative who has friended me on Facebook, and I would like to have cordial relations with her. Is actually very educated, but also very conservative, and anti-many things. Her facebook feed has been: Soros posts. Posts during the protests about praying for a policeman who was injured in the protests. Posts about desecration of cemetaries, calling them "animals" and her friends posting these people should be summarily killed. A big fat zero mention about any of the BLM issues. AI did go back and forth with her about Soros (about not spreading conspiracy theories). I also said that she cared more about things than people, and that she should read up more on the history of US about race relations. She got pretty emotional, and said if I couldn't agree I should unfriend her. I'm not going to unfriend her but after that have not I haven't responded to any of her subsequent posts. Her latest post is a meme from Candace Owens stating how there is no racism in the US, with her post asking people to post "absolutely" if they agree. Now, I'm not even black but I find this offensive. The post, and her view she gets to judge for everyone else whether there is racism in this country.
She has no minority (black) friends, the only people who are going to see her post are white older friends who probably agree with her. Is it my place to say, I find this offensive? Or continue to ignore/not respond to her posts?
She has made it clear that she doesn't want anyone to disagree with her and she unwilling to have her beliefs challenged.
At this point, it probably doesn't make any different as far as her opinions, because she will not change, and will in fact dig in further. She might unfriend you.
Sometimes I respond to racist/sexist/homophobic posts from intransigeant people anyway, though. Not because the OP will change. But because there are other people out there who might be wavering, or might be afraid to say anything -- or who might be themselves victims of racism/sexism/homophobia, and who might need to see/hear other people's dissent.
Over the years, I've had a number of conservative friends change their minds slowly but surely, and even start speaking out against injustices. Some of them have privately told me that seeing things I post and discussions I have had with other people have helped to make them see things they didn't see before.
So sometimes, it's not about the OP. It's about the other people watching the OP.
-
I find the fake news epidemic on the social media to be the most frustrating thing.
DW has a bazillion facebook friends who are police.
(This is from her community college days, where she tutored math. Apparently a lot of people who came for math help were either trying to be police officers or nurses - they have some math requirements.)
There was a heart-touching story circulating on facebook yesterday where a poster-boy good cop in CT (worked on community initiatives outside his work hours etc) was run over with a car by a BLM extremist.
If true, that obviously is a very tragic event.
But so far what I can figure out is that story is fake. I can understand the "leftist" mainstream media would like to suppress that story. But no mention even in Faux news?
-
If it's something like that, I have in the past posted a link to snopes to the effect " this is fake news/hoax" etc.
Well I really wanted to refrain, but did respond to post. I said, to the effect "what if tomorrow you wake up and you are African American, your husband and kid is. You are the same person but when people look at you they see a black person. You do well in school, but behind your back people whisper about affirmative action. Your husband driving home from work in a "too nice car" gets pulled over by the police. How do you feel? If you can say you would feel no difference in how you see yourself, how others see you then maybe I can agree we live in a post racial society." I did this, because secretly I think she would be horrified at the thought.... As a white person I would prefer not to live as a black person in this country. I do know I am treated better. (At least I'm honest enough to admit it.)
-
I recently listened this podcast which talks about the efforts of the black lives movement:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/how-black-lives-matter-prepared-for-this-moment/E9A46355-2FA4-40B1-B4A5-E516B81A8E51
It's a movement made up of a bunch of smaller organizations that work in local communities to change policies to help protect black americans from police violence. There's no centralized leadership dictating the direction of the movement as a whole. Since the policies affecting these communities are decided at a local level, the actions needed are dependent on where you live. People in these small organizations do things like go to town hall meetings and police union contract negotiations to learn about the policies in place. Then they lobby their city councils to change, or create policies about things like use of force, chokeholds, etc. Some of the organizations do research to figure out what the issues are and come up with policy changes. Some of the organizations have had success, others haven't. Recently after the murder of George Floyd, there has been a lot more public support of the movement and it has been easier to make these policy changes.
I would say this movement is very democratic. They are using the current democratic system to enact positive change.
-
In case people were wondering what my relative's response to me asking her to do that thought experiment where she imagined herself waking up as a black person and how she would feel about that, this was her response (some info retracted for id purposes):
To my knowledge, you have completed a doctorate. I have to believe you are “smart.” But you are not wise enough to reflect on what you post to me.
1. The hypothetical situation you describe reeks of stereotyping
2. Did you look at the picture of Candace Owens? Why would your perceptions carry more weight than hers? Who appointed you to speak for African Americans? (But she is ok with Candace Owens speaking for all African Americans)
3. You are clueless about the person to whom you are writing. …(talking about her background, going to public school system in Chicago, state college) On the other hand, you attended the school system of (suburbs) and (liberal arts college). Should I jump to conclusions about you as a white-privileged blah...blah...blah.
4. You know nothing about my happy career in a large, diverse high school district
5. Please do me a favor and defriend me on FB. I could do without all the preaching and everything you presume to understand.
Do not contact me further.
So, I will try to refrain on posting further, though I am half a mind to continue to do so, in a kind manner until she unfriends me, because, um I'm not even sure why she friended me at this point?
-
5. Please do me a favor and defriend me on FB. I could do without all the preaching and everything you presume to understand.
Do not contact me further.
So, I will try to refrain on posting further on her Facebook, though I am half a mind to continue to do so, in a kind manner until she unfriends me, because, um I'm not even sure why she friended me at this point?
It's a passive-aggressive way of making you the bad guy. If you defriend her, then you're the weak one who can't stand the "truth bombs" that she's laying out or something. If she defriends you then she's admitting defeat.
Either that or she doesn't know how to defriend someone.
-
So, I will try to refrain on posting further, though I am half a mind to continue to do so, in a kind manner until she unfriends me, because, um I'm not even sure why she friended me at this point?
She's indicated she doesn't want you to comment further on her posts or write her. I would respect that request.
Re unfriending, she can do that if she likes. Or you can. Depends on how connected you want to be. If you decide to stay connected, be sure she can see only your public posts.
-
I guess I need to read up on Marxism, if there is a Marxism for Dummies book out there.
"Dense" is frequently used to describe Marx's writing.
When I started to read Das Kapital I found it impenetrably ponderous.
If you want to read up on Marxism read The Communist Manifesto.
It's only about 40 pages long.
It is almost diaphanous when compared to Das Kapital.
I recall a playful passage in The Communist Manifesto, hardly what one would expect after reading Das Kapital.
-
Thanks for the suggestion.politics is not my hobby so may just read the stub about it. Anyways I had a good conversation with my brother. I told him about the falling out. He let me know that my Dad before he died who was for most of his life close with his cousin (who is married to the person I had a falling out with), also became estranged. essentially had a falling out after Obama was the Democratic nominee and president, with dad's cousin very upset at the thought saying darkly the country is going to be destroyed (also believed he was a Muslim and radical, etc). Anyways my Dad said when he talked to him about it (before this point they could talk politics) the cousin got very defensive and threatened to cut off contact. My dad sadly said that he had become a "xenophobe". After that their relationship was never the same. So in reflection my dad already lost his cousin and in turn I have lost them as relatives as well. My Dad's cousin wasn't always like this, so something changed.
Eta, I was just thinking about how my cousin got married (big fancy wedding. My parents attended but I didn't). And she married a cool decent guy, who happens to be black. And I was wondering how this lady and my Dad's cousin handled it, given their "feelings" on this subject. Well learned from my brother they were invited (expected to attend) refused. They couldn't bring themselves to attend a mixed-race wedding. Wow.
-
Sorry that I killed this thread. An interesting update. Got a call from my elderly uncle (my father's brother) and he heard through the grapevine about the facebook posts back and forth with the female relative. And, they were outraged on my behalf. They said the final straw was her speaking rudely to me and ordering me to unfriend her when all I did was say nothing but the truth and in fact was respectful in doing so. And that she doesn't deserve my respect. My uncle said "she is a white supremacist. She has always been this way." And that he as patriarch now that my father is dead, who was very diplomatic to everyone, feels like telling both of them to go to Hell! That Obama was a great person and president, and was treated terribly, and that he kept above the fray but maybe it is time to aim low and fight them in the gutter where they are. He then related stories of when he was in the army during segregation, how when they boarded a public bus he had a friend who couldn't sit at the same place in the bus as the rest of them, so he got up and sat in the back with him. And when they stopped at a restaurant to eat, the owner of the restaurant went out to meet the bus and say he would not serve the black soldiers, they could not enter in the restaurant. So he said, "I know. I've seen it. She doesn't know. You know too. You live in the south." Anyways I was moved by their solidarity. It was a life affirming conversation and I feel closer to my family. Anyways, please vote this fall.
-
No because BLM is not Marxist.
Marxism is the catch-all name, specific in the US political world, that is used to dismiss anything the conservative and extreme right wing does not like. It is a powerful epithet that has little to do with actual Marxism (which I have studied but do not support) and even less to do with BLM.
If one BLM leader is familiar with Marxism and therefore all BLM is Marxist, then does the existence of openly racist Republicans mean that all Republicans are racist?
-
No because BLM is not Marxist.
Marxism is the catch-all name, specific in the US political world, that is used to dismiss anything the conservative and extreme right wing does not like. It is a powerful epithet that has little to do with actual Marxism (which I have studied but do not support) and even less to do with BLM.
If one BLM leader is familiar with Marxism and therefore all BLM is Marxist, then does the existence of openly racist Republicans mean that all Republicans are racist?
Marxism as an epithet has little to do with actual Marxism. Hm.... that's an odd claim. I agree that Marxist/Marxism is often used as shorthand and reduced down to its communist aims and associated with the various Marxist movements, especially the most violent. But the reason I find your claim odd is that you would consider the communist aims of Marxism and the various violent Marxist revolutions that have taken place to have little to do with actual Marxism.
At the risk of being repetitive, it bears mentioning that one BLM leader has claimed, unrefuted, that she and other founder(s) are not simply familiar with Marxism but are trained Marxists.
But to answer your question, phrased in a way to match my original query, yes, the existence of openly racist republicans does give me pause in supporting the republican party to the degree to which the leaders of the party repudiate racism. For example, I cannot vote for Trump as I believe his repudiation of racism is insufficient. He has carved out room for racism in the republican party, I believe intentionally, and his mild and vague half-condemnations of racism reinforce that theory. Trump has accomplished a few things I support, but overall I can't support him as I would rather even have him associated with these positive things because he taints them and makes them less likely to prevent them from receiving broad support from reasonable people.
I believe BLM carves out room for radical anti-capitalists/Marxists/hatred for police (Fuck12, ACAB - has 1.8m hashtags on IG, all BLM supporters) with insufficient repudiation and that gives me pause in supporting them.
-
Marxism as an epithet has little to do with actual Marxism. Hm.... that's an odd claim. I agree that Marxist/Marxism is often used as shorthand and reduced down to its communist aims and associated with the various Marxist movements, especially the most violent. But the reason I find your claim odd is that you would consider the communist aims of Marxism and the various violent Marxist revolutions that have taken place to have little to do with actual Marxism.
You misunderstand. Obviously various 'Marxist' revolutions around the world are Marxist. Cuba, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese Communist Party. That is not in dispute.
What I dispute is the very US cultural shorthand for Marxism being 'anything right wingers don't like'. So we get absurdities like mask wearing being called 'Communist', or (50 years ago) the requirement for people to have seatbelts in their cars. Those actions have very little to do with ownership of the means of production and so-called workers revolutions etc.
So when some people say 'hey, stop killing black people unjustly' I have a hard time accepting that as a Marxist movement. There are probably some actual marxists in there, just as there are several actual libertarians (who presumably are opposed to armed police shooting anyone at all). None of that has to do with Marxist thought or ideology, and everything to do with 'stop killing people'.
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
-
Sorry that I killed this thread. An interesting update. Got a call from my elderly uncle (my father's brother) and he heard through the grapevine about the facebook posts back and forth with the female relative. And, they were outraged on my behalf. They said the final straw was her speaking rudely to me and ordering me to unfriend her when all I did was say nothing but the truth and in fact was respectful in doing so. And that she doesn't deserve my respect. My uncle said "she is a white supremacist. She has always been this way." And that he as patriarch now that my father is dead, who was very diplomatic to everyone, feels like telling both of them to go to Hell! That Obama was a great person and president, and was treated terribly, and that he kept above the fray but maybe it is time to aim low and fight them in the gutter where they are. He then related stories of when he was in the army during segregation, how when they boarded a public bus he had a friend who couldn't sit at the same place in the bus as the rest of them, so he got up and sat in the back with him. And when they stopped at a restaurant to eat, the owner of the restaurant went out to meet the bus and say he would not serve the black soldiers, they could not enter in the restaurant. So he said, "I know. I've seen it. She doesn't know. You know too. You live in the south." Anyways I was moved by their solidarity. It was a life affirming conversation and I feel closer to my family. Anyways, please vote this fall.
Thank you for sharing this - glad to hear the positive sides of social media.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
I wouldn't argue with the notion that many if not most protesters supporting the movement are simply against police brutality, specifically against black people, but the lack of repudiation of the extreme elements reads as tacit endorsement. Just as many of Trump's equivocations on racism reads as tacit endorsement of the extremists who support him.
-
I'm suspicious of any movement that tries to wedge an overarching world view (capitalism forces the working class against each other, against racial minorities etc etc) into a given issue.
-
At the risk of being repetitive, it bears mentioning that one BLM leader has claimed, unrefuted, that she and other founder(s) are not simply familiar with Marxism but are trained Marxists.
What does that mean "trained Marxist"?
Did they have a university course on understanding the writings of the great analyst and philosoph Karl Marx, whose insights often hold true even now, after more than a century?
Or did they do investigative recherche into the production worker's conditions in e.g. Bangladesh that make the clothes you are wearing?
Or did they argue that the US should go more "Socialist" by adopting health care that is standard in Europe for ages?
Or was it all about paying workers a fair price and not just the pennies they get as minimum wage in the US?
Or maybe, just maybe, they think that Marx' desription of the powerful "leaders" keeping the poor (which mostly means blacks and hispanics in the US, right?) at the bottom is also applicable to the current situation in the US? It certainly looks so. Practically every policiy decision Trump has made will hurt the poor, while the rich have the money (generally from the poor) to evade the negative effects.
So what does "trained Marxist" means?
I wouldn't argue with the notion that many if not most protesters supporting the movement are simply against police brutality, specifically against black people, but the lack of repudiation of the extreme elements reads as tacit endorsement
That you see Marxist as radical just means you are a radical of the opposing side, right?
But talking about Marxists - looks like they are learning from Hongkong.
https://boingboing.net/2020/07/24/portlanders-excellent-use-of.html
for reference:
https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10933-what_the_world_can_learn_from_hongkong#t=3711
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
I wouldn't argue with the notion that many if not most protesters supporting the movement are simply against police brutality, specifically against black people, but the lack of repudiation of the extreme elements reads as tacit endorsement. Just as many of Trump's equivocations on racism reads as tacit endorsement of the extremists who support him.
Allow me to inject a little bit more nuance.
I was thinking for a few days why I don't quite feel the same type of "revulsion in my gut" regarding the word Marxist attaching to the BLM, compared to how I feel to the words "conservative" or "libertarian" or "religious" attaching to any movement or idea. Is it simply because I am biased - god forbid - towards Marxism?
I came to the conclusion that is not the case. I believe that I have a logical reasoning behind my stance.
I am afraid of ideologies because they produce zombies. I have no other reason to fear ideologies. What are zombies? Well - in cult psychology - there is a technical term called cognitive dissonance. This is when your cult demands a certain belief that is in direct conflict with reality. A few people choose reality over ideology, but many choose to become zombies and morph their perception of reality to fit the ideological worldview. Once you are over this hump, there is usually no coming back.
This is a technical term. Look up any documentary on any cult and you will likely encounter this term. I have a "math brain" - so I like to think of it as a "mini Godel moment" (I'll stop on this specific thread of thought right here, because I am passionate on this topic and can go on for hours - completely derailing my point).
Examples of such zombification abound today and in history, in fiction and in reality:
e.g.1 - Conservative Christians finding justification to support a man (Drumpf) who embodies many of the vices defined in the bible.
e.g.2 - Abraham choosing to throw an innocent child over the mountain because his belief(s) demanded it, and the religious who go to extreme lengths to justify such action.
e.g.3 - Napoleon in Animal Firm becoming equal to everyone else, just more equal. Or that dude in Ayn Rand's Fountainhead sabotaging private property that did not belong to him (steel mills and such) in the name of "individual rights".
With Conservatives/Libertarians/Religious it is abundantly clear that such zombification process for a large number of people is complete!! They will subjugate anything - human life, national interest, personal interest - in service of their beliefs.
I just don't see that to be the case with Marxists in today's US. It is possible I am simply not aware of things that are happening, yet. (e.g. I did not know about the facebook groups you mentioned - I don't use facebook). Do you think that the attack of the Marxist zombies are right around the corner? If so, you are very much justified in having an allergic reaction to the BLM movement.
-
What does that mean "trained Marxist"?
Did they have a university course on understanding the writings of the great analyst and philosoph Karl Marx, whose insights often hold true even now, after more than a century?
Or did they do investigative recherche into the production worker's conditions in e.g. Bangladesh that make the clothes you are wearing?
Or did they argue that the US should go more "Socialist" by adopting health care that is standard in Europe for ages?
Or was it all about paying workers a fair price and not just the pennies they get as minimum wage in the US?
Or maybe, just maybe, they think that Marx' desription of the powerful "leaders" keeping the poor (which mostly means blacks and hispanics in the US, right?) at the bottom is also applicable to the current situation in the US? It certainly looks so. Practically every policiy decision Trump has made will hurt the poor, while the rich have the money (generally from the poor) to evade the negative effects.
So what does "trained Marxist" means?
Back in the days we had several communist parties in Norway. The Labour Party came first, but when they diverged from the Moscow line in 1923, the "Norwegian communist party" broke out. That party later split several times, and in the 60s and 70s it was very similar to the "Life of Brian" ("Judean People's Front? We are the People's Front of Judea!". One big topic for debate was who were the true marxists: the old party? The "Marxist Forum"? The "Socialist Left"? The "Red"? The "Workers Communist Party (Marxist-Leninists)"? All of them held study circles, where they debated the true meaning of marxism. These people were trained marxists. Sure, some of them went to university, but basing your marxist status on bourgeois education would probably lead to an exclusion from the party.
If someone told me they were a trained marxist, I would either expect them to belong to this generation, of have proof that they had been trained by one of the oldies.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
Can you define the traits of a 'radical anti-capitalist'? In my mind this term indicates an anarchist, not necessarily a Marxist or socialist.
-
Speaking as someone married to a self-proclaimed anarchist of the Chomsky flavour: that type is anti-capitalist. Not sure about "radical", though (this to me indicates that violence would be considered legitimate means to achieve their goal), but I know there are those as well (I met a few in the European autonomous and Antifa scene).
Radical Marxists, Leninists and Maoists (in Europe, no idea if this applies to the US) have traditionally supported and used violent means to reach their goals. Socialists not necessarily so.
Disclosure:As part of my family lived in the Communist block in the Cold War, I have experienced the former types as wolves in sheepskins. I suggest to never believe their rhethoric but to always look at their actions.
For clarification: the same applies to the far or alt right.
-
The Marxism in BLM is the same flavor that has proliferated in the Humanities for a long time, and has been discussed by people like Camille Paglia, Jordan Peterson, Sokal/Sokal Squared, and many others. Another great example of it is the recent letter to Princeton:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfPmfeDKBi25_7rUTKkhZ3cyMICQicp05ReVaeBpEdYUCkyIA/viewform
This subject probably warrants its own thread, but I don't feel much like reiterating this material since it is relatively conventional in most forums, and tends to get pedantic on this site. Perhaps someone else would be willing to do so.
The basic foundation comes from critical theory, from wiki:
"Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist-era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality, and universal truths, while politicizing social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings.""
The Marxism steps in regarding the oppressor/oppressed narrative that is used to fuel a critical analysis(in the context of critical theory). ie, You are white and you disagree, therefore your argument is defective since white people are historically oppressors.
That's a rough synopsis. There's a lot to this. It's hard to find a brief, clear discussion on it, but this one is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVmDSMl30s&t=1106s
Titania McGrath is a satire character on Twitter who does a great job of satirizing this mindset:
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath
-
The basic foundation comes from critical theory, from wiki:
"Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist-era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality, and universal truths, while politicizing social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings.""
The Marxism steps in regarding the oppressor/oppressed narrative that is used to fuel a critical analysis(in the context of critical theory). ie, You are white and you disagree, therefore your argument is defective since white people are historically oppressors.
That's a rough synopsis. There's a lot to this. It's hard to find a brief, clear discussion on it, but this one is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVmDSMl30s&t=1106s
I have never seriously read up about "critical theory". I am generally put off by the fact that most proponents of critical theory to be fragile snowflakes who refuse to grow up and step into the real world. I generally don't have too much sympathy for "they called me names" kind of arguments.
That said, the youtube video you posted seem to be over-privileged jackasses who are throwing the baby with the bath water. Using an instance of a questionable social justice behavior, they are questioning if implicit biases or systemic racism exist.
Let's just say that at least in the US, enough statistical evidence for systemic racism and implicit biases exist. The possibility that all the black-white differences in the data were produced entirely in the absence of systemic racism and implicit bias is astronomically small.
This is the problem I generally find with conservative intellectuals. They are dishonest in their arguments. This calls into questions any arguments they may have against the "marxist ideas" and "critical theory" etc.
-
The Marxism in BLM is the same flavor that has proliferated in the Humanities for a long time, and has been discussed by people like Camille Paglia, Jordan Peterson, Sokal/Sokal Squared, and many others. Another great example of it is the recent letter to Princeton:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfPmfeDKBi25_7rUTKkhZ3cyMICQicp05ReVaeBpEdYUCkyIA/viewform
It probably does not surprise you that I have only skimmed that letter, but I found nothing especially Marxist in there. Contrary, I am quite sure Marx would be displeased with this beggar attitude and point out that this deference to higher-ups is the same as workers writing a letter of "please pay us more" to a factory owner.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
Can you define the traits of a 'radical anti-capitalist'? In my mind this term indicates an anarchist, not necessarily a Marxist or socialist.
Well, the concern on my part has little to do with whether they seek to replace the current system with anarchy or socialism, but that there is significant tacit approval of using property destruction and false justifications as a means to achieve it. The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
-
The basic foundation comes from critical theory, from wiki:
"Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist-era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality, and universal truths, while politicizing social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings.""
The Marxism steps in regarding the oppressor/oppressed narrative that is used to fuel a critical analysis(in the context of critical theory). ie, You are white and you disagree, therefore your argument is defective since white people are historically oppressors.
That's a rough synopsis. There's a lot to this. It's hard to find a brief, clear discussion on it, but this one is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVmDSMl30s&t=1106s
I have never seriously read up about "critical theory". I am generally put off by the fact that most proponents of critical theory to be fragile snowflakes who refuse to grow up and step into the real world. I generally don't have too much sympathy for "they called me names" kind of arguments.
That said, the youtube video you posted seem to be over-privileged jackasses who are throwing the baby with the bath water. Using an instance of a questionable social justice behavior, they are questioning if implicit biases or systemic racism exist.
Let's just say that at least in the US, enough statistical evidence for systemic racism and implicit biases exist. The possibility that all the black-white differences in the data were produced entirely in the absence of systemic racism and implicit bias is astronomically small.
This is the problem I generally find with conservative intellectuals. They are dishonest in their arguments. This calls into questions any arguments they may have against the "marxist ideas" and "critical theory" etc.
I think you'll find a significant amount of intellectually honest critics of critical theory who acknowledge the reality of oppression and racism but simply reject the idea that it should be the lens through which we interpret the world and point out the flaws in that mode of thinking.
There are others but off the top of my head Peter Boghossian and Jonathon Haidt are exceptionally intellectually honest and are also not politically conservative, and they might be of interest to you if you are looking for a critique of critical theory.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
Can you define the traits of a 'radical anti-capitalist'? In my mind this term indicates an anarchist, not necessarily a Marxist or socialist.
Well, the concern on my part has little to do with whether they seek to replace the current system with anarchy or socialism, but that there is significant tacit approval of using property destruction and false justifications as a means to achieve it. The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
Not sure that I follow your logic on 'white silence is violence'. If we (as white people) know that black people are regularly exposed to unjust violence from the police force that's supposed to be protecting them . . . isn't remaining silent about the problem a tacit approval of this violence? At least, that's how I read the message.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
Can you define the traits of a 'radical anti-capitalist'? In my mind this term indicates an anarchist, not necessarily a Marxist or socialist.
Well, the concern on my part has little to do with whether they seek to replace the current system with anarchy or socialism, but that there is significant tacit approval of using property destruction and false justifications as a means to achieve it. The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
Not sure that I follow your logic on 'white silence is violence'. If we (as white people) know that black people are regularly exposed to unjust violence from the police force that's supposed to be protecting them . . . isn't remaining silent about the problem a tacit approval of this violence? At least, that's how I read the message.
Oh, you mean silence is complicity? Well, that's a different word and could have been chosen instead but it wasn't.
One can assess the statement on its face and conclude it is false, as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
Using the logic you have applied, everyone who has not publicly denounced every injustice is guilty of committing violence.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
Can you define the traits of a 'radical anti-capitalist'? In my mind this term indicates an anarchist, not necessarily a Marxist or socialist.
Well, the concern on my part has little to do with whether they seek to replace the current system with anarchy or socialism, but that there is significant tacit approval of using property destruction and false justifications as a means to achieve it. The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
Not sure that I follow your logic on 'white silence is violence'. If we (as white people) know that black people are regularly exposed to unjust violence from the police force that's supposed to be protecting them . . . isn't remaining silent about the problem a tacit approval of this violence? At least, that's how I read the message.
Oh, you mean silence is complicity? Well, that's a different word and could have been chosen instead but it wasn't.
One can assess the statement on its face and conclude it is false, as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
Using the logic you have applied, everyone who has not publicly denounced every injustice is guilty of committing violence.
So, can I ask you a question?
If you personally witnessed a person raping another person, and you did nothing to intervene... would you say that you contributed to the violence?
-
Oh, you mean silence is complicity? Well, that's a different word and could have been chosen instead but it wasn't.
One can assess the statement on its face and conclude it is false, as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
Using the logic you have applied, everyone who has not publicly denounced every injustice is guilty of committing violence.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
-
Oh, you mean silence is complicity? Well, that's a different word and could have been chosen instead but it wasn't.
One can assess the statement on its face and conclude it is false, as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
Using the logic you have applied, everyone who has not publicly denounced every injustice is guilty of committing violence.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
"Frames"..
I've found George Lakoff's youtube videos very useful in understanding this concept.
Warning 1: Lakoff has an explicit political stance. He talks from the point of view of how liberals can counteract the conservatives. I still found his ideas powerful and his science honest (as far as I could detect).
Warning 2: The concept is nuanced and complex.
And, it is not "misreading the intent" from the opposite point of view, they just start with different axioms/assumptions.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
I wouldn't argue with the notion that many if not most protesters supporting the movement are simply against police brutality, specifically against black people, but the lack of repudiation of the extreme elements reads as tacit endorsement. Just as many of Trump's equivocations on racism reads as tacit endorsement of the extremists who support him.
In the same way that every day a Republican doesn't start every day by repudiating the KKK (whose members almost certainly vote Republican), BLM members presumably can't spend a chunk of every day repudiating the various sub-groups that may support or show up at a protest.
If your goal is to dismiss the valid points of a movement that includes tens or hundreds of thousands of people, find the craziest person in them and then pretend the rest are just like that person. So if you don't like the general 'please stop killing black and brown people with impunity' message, find the most extreme person in the crowd and label everyone else as supportive of that person's views. Even if many people have said, explicitly, that they are not in agreement with that person, it is easy to dismiss or ignore that and call them radical whatevers. This approach has been perfected over the last 100 years and is the primary reason for most of Fox News as far as I can tell.
18 years ago I went to a bunch of protests opposing the looming invasion of Iraq, because none of us believed the bullshit about WMD and knew it was all about trying to claim control of a bunch of oil. At that protest were people like my mother, an elementary school teacher who was opposed to the war. At the same protest were some wackos like the Raelians and people from the Marxist Leninist Party. There were tens of thousands of us at the protest, but of course media focused on the loonies.
So, if you want to have a grownup conversation about BLM, stop assuming that because a few people have a view they all do. I make great effort to assume that not every single Republican (or Canadian Conservative) is not an active Nazi or KKK member.
-
With that in mind, I reject the notion that BLM is a 'Marxist' movement in any sense. They aren't trying to sieze the means of production or any of the other tenets of that absurd 19th century shibboleth. And attempts to call them Marxist are better understood as manipulative head games by people who apparently would like to keep killing black people with impunity.
Do you disagree with my claim that they carve out room for radical anti-capitalists in addition to violent and prejudiced rhetoric against police?
Can you define the traits of a 'radical anti-capitalist'? In my mind this term indicates an anarchist, not necessarily a Marxist or socialist.
Well, the concern on my part has little to do with whether they seek to replace the current system with anarchy or socialism, but that there is significant tacit approval of using property destruction and false justifications as a means to achieve it. The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
Not sure that I follow your logic on 'white silence is violence'. If we (as white people) know that black people are regularly exposed to unjust violence from the police force that's supposed to be protecting them . . . isn't remaining silent about the problem a tacit approval of this violence? At least, that's how I read the message.
Oh, you mean silence is complicity? Well, that's a different word and could have been chosen instead but it wasn't.
I mean . . . I guess so. But it doesn't rhyme, so makes a shitty slogan. :P
One can assess the statement on its face and conclude it is false, as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
Using the logic you have applied, everyone who has not publicly denounced every injustice is guilty of committing violence.
So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?
-
If you personally witnessed a person raping another person, and you did nothing to intervene... would you say that you contributed to the violence?
No, I think it would be far more accurate to describe that as a role of observation rather than participation.
My theoretical presence neither interfered with the evil nor attempted to stop it.
Not that there isn't some degree of guilt associated with failing to prevent evil, but the two categories exist separately and lumping them into one is a logical fallacy. It seems the intention is to convince a bystander that their guilt is equal to the guilt of the perpetrator in order to prod the bystander to join the team of rescuers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us
-
Not that there isn't some degree of guilt associated with failing to prevent evil, but the two categories exist separately and lumping them into one is a logical fallacy. It seems the intention is to convince a bystander that their guilt is equal to the guilt of the perpetrator in order to prod the bystander to join the team of rescuers.
I believe that the goal is not to convince a bystander that their guilt is equal to that of the perpetrator . . . but what you first said. It's to convince a bystander that they shoulder some degree of guilt.
-
There are others but off the top of my head Peter Boghossian and Jonathon Haidt are exceptionally intellectually honest and are also not politically conservative, and they might be of interest to you if you are looking for a critique of critical theory.
On the same topic, may I also recommend the New Discourses website and podcast: https://newdiscourses.com/
Some different authors there but the main creator is James Lindsay who is a friend and collaborator of Peter Boghossian.
-
1 -In the same way that every day a Republican doesn't start every day by repudiating the KKK (whose members almost certainly vote Republican), BLM members presumably can't spend a chunk of every day repudiating the various sub-groups that may support or show up at a protest.
2 -So, if you want to have a grownup conversation about BLM, stop assuming that because a few people have a view they all do. I make great effort to assume that not every single Republican (or Canadian Conservative) is not an active Nazi or KKK member.
1 - When far right extremism makes news, it's common to see leaders of all parties and ideologies condemn it. I have not found any repudiation of any of the violent and hateful rhetoric, though the Utah and Oklahoma City BLM chapter leaders did condemn the violence occurring at the protests. But those are the only two, as far as I know.
2 - Have I written anything that would indicate I assume all who associate with BLM share the same view? I too make great efforts not to assume. The reason I have created this thread was to get a sense for how the overton window might have shifted regarding some of the more radical ideas that are present within this activist group seeing as how the statement, if not the group, is seeing unprecedented popular support. I did not create it to convince anyone that radical ideas are present within BLM, though I have pushed back on claims to the contrary.
-
Aren't "white silence is violence" and "silence is complicity" both appropriate depending on context?
Case 1
US has had a large problem of Black voter suppression in the south.
https://www.demos.org/research/problem-african-american-underrepresentation-city-councils#footnote2_c6qzqyw
When the Mike Brown shooting happened, the 2/3rd black population had a voter share of something ridiculous - single digit percent or something.
Republicans inherited this problem from Democrats/Dixiecrats when Nixon started his Southern Strategy, and actively and gleefully engaged in it!!
If someone enabled them by voting for them at the national level (even if the conservatives did not have any opportunity to do anything like this in his/her state), then that someone directly aided and abetted this republican apartheid against the blacks. Excess violence against the blacks is one of the consequence from this.
So, if you are black, and you see that the only people who have the power to stop this (which is the white majority), AND that these people are doing nothing and helping the apartheid continue - then maybe using the "white silence is violence" slogan makes some sense - at least figuratively if not directly.
Case 2
If I, on the other hand, just kept silent while someone else engaged in a racist rant (and yes, I have personally kept silent while a white co-worker explained to me in great detail over a glass of beer how Blacks leech off the welfare system), then I don't think a "white silence is violence" slogan is appropriate even figuratively. "Silence is complicity" - I can see that being more appropriate in this context.
-
Oh, you mean silence is complicity? Well, that's a different word and could have been chosen instead but it wasn't.
One can assess the statement on its face and conclude it is false, as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
Using the logic you have applied, everyone who has not publicly denounced every injustice is guilty of committing violence.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
Well, I only have a bone to pick with one of those slogans.
I'm on board with black lives mattering. They certainly do, and I am also a believer in the idea that this is a helpful reminder for all of us to resist accepting the suffering and death of our fellow citizens as normal.
So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language. The facts as they are should be compelling enough for anyone to be able to promote their ideas without using words that mean one step beyond the word that actually applies to what they are describing.
-
Aren't "white silence is violence" and "silence is complicity" both appropriate depending on context?
Case 1
US has had a large problem of Black voter suppression in the south.
https://www.demos.org/research/problem-african-american-underrepresentation-city-councils#footnote2_c6qzqyw
When the Mike Brown shooting happened, the 2/3rd black population had a voter share of something ridiculous - single digit percent or something.
Republicans inherited this problem from Democrats/Dixiecrats when Nixon started his Southern Strategy, and actively and gleefully engaged in it!!
If someone enabled them by voting for them at the national level (even if the conservatives did not have any opportunity to do anything like this in his/her state), then that someone directly aided and abetted this republican apartheid against the blacks. Excess violence against the blacks is one of the consequence from this.
So, if you are black, and you see that the only people who have the power to stop this (which is the white majority), AND that these people are doing nothing and helping the apartheid continue - then maybe using the "white silence is violence" slogan makes some sense - at least figuratively if not directly.
Case 2
If I, on the other hand, just kept silent while someone else engaged in a racist rant (and yes, I have personally kept silent while a white co-worker explained to me in great detail over a glass of beer how Blacks leech off the welfare system), then I don't think a "white silence is violence" slogan is appropriate even figuratively. "Silence is complicity" - I can see that being more appropriate in this context.
I think in case 1 it would be far more accurate to say that silence enables violence.
-
Oh, you mean silence is complicity? Well, that's a different word and could have been chosen instead but it wasn't.
One can assess the statement on its face and conclude it is false, as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
Using the logic you have applied, everyone who has not publicly denounced every injustice is guilty of committing violence.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
Well, I only have a bone to pick with one of those slogans.
I'm on board with black lives mattering. They certainly do, and I am also a believer in the idea that this is a helpful reminder for all of us to resist accepting the suffering and death of our fellow citizens as normal.
So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language. The facts as they are should be compelling enough for anyone to be able to promote their ideas without using words that mean one step beyond the word that actually applies to what they are describing.
People are perfectly capable of understanding figurative language; most of us learned in elementary school about metaphors that don't use "like" or "as" but similes that do. It is obviously for rhetorical effect, like every slogan that has ever existed for any issue under the sun. You can absolutely mentally handle the meaning of "white silence is [similarly destructive as direct] violence [because it allows direct violence to continue without accountability]" just like your brain doesn't melt when hearing "love is [like] a battlefield [because people hurt each other (also metaphorically!!)]."
-
Aren't "white silence is violence" and "silence is complicity" both appropriate depending on context?
Case 1
US has had a large problem of Black voter suppression in the south.
https://www.demos.org/research/problem-african-american-underrepresentation-city-councils#footnote2_c6qzqyw
When the Mike Brown shooting happened, the 2/3rd black population had a voter share of something ridiculous - single digit percent or something.
Republicans inherited this problem from Democrats/Dixiecrats when Nixon started his Southern Strategy, and actively and gleefully engaged in it!!
If someone enabled them by voting for them at the national level (even if the conservatives did not have any opportunity to do anything like this in his/her state), then that someone directly aided and abetted this republican apartheid against the blacks. Excess violence against the blacks is one of the consequence from this.
So, if you are black, and you see that the only people who have the power to stop this (which is the white majority), AND that these people are doing nothing and helping the apartheid continue - then maybe using the "white silence is violence" slogan makes some sense - at least figuratively if not directly.
Case 2
If I, on the other hand, just kept silent while someone else engaged in a racist rant (and yes, I have personally kept silent while a white co-worker explained to me in great detail over a glass of beer how Blacks leech off the welfare system), then I don't think a "white silence is violence" slogan is appropriate even figuratively. "Silence is complicity" - I can see that being more appropriate in this context.
I think in case 1 it would be far more accurate to say that silence enables violence.
i.e. you see any rhetorical device implying culpability to be improper. Why?
If you voted to enable apartheid, you should be considered culpable. The basic concept of "personal responsibility" bestows that culpability on every adult w.r.t. his/her actions irrespective of intent/knowledge. Yes, intent/knowledge should change the level of culpability - but culpability exist regardless!!
-
So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language. The facts as they are should be compelling enough for anyone to be able to promote their ideas without using words that mean one step beyond the word that actually applies to what they are describing.
Could you give a single example of significance in the world where "facts" actually have been compelling enough to create change?
In reality, facts don't change anyone's minds or make any change happen. Stories do that.
"Silence is tacit complicity with the perpetrator of the violence" may be factually correct but even that is completely open to debate and is never going to create significant change.
"Silence is violence" may arguably be factually untrue but it has, as this thread is evidence of, already created discussion and has people thinking about where the line between violence and complicity lays.
It is interesting that you seem more concerned that the ones actually suffering the violence use "factual" language than you are with creating change that may actually stop the violence those people are suffering.
-
Aren't "white silence is violence" and "silence is complicity" both appropriate depending on context?
Case 1
US has had a large problem of Black voter suppression in the south.
https://www.demos.org/research/problem-african-american-underrepresentation-city-councils#footnote2_c6qzqyw
When the Mike Brown shooting happened, the 2/3rd black population had a voter share of something ridiculous - single digit percent or something.
Republicans inherited this problem from Democrats/Dixiecrats when Nixon started his Southern Strategy, and actively and gleefully engaged in it!!
If someone enabled them by voting for them at the national level (even if the conservatives did not have any opportunity to do anything like this in his/her state), then that someone directly aided and abetted this republican apartheid against the blacks. Excess violence against the blacks is one of the consequence from this.
So, if you are black, and you see that the only people who have the power to stop this (which is the white majority), AND that these people are doing nothing and helping the apartheid continue - then maybe using the "white silence is violence" slogan makes some sense - at least figuratively if not directly.
Case 2
If I, on the other hand, just kept silent while someone else engaged in a racist rant (and yes, I have personally kept silent while a white co-worker explained to me in great detail over a glass of beer how Blacks leech off the welfare system), then I don't think a "white silence is violence" slogan is appropriate even figuratively. "Silence is complicity" - I can see that being more appropriate in this context.
I think in case 1 it would be far more accurate to say that silence enables violence.
i.e. you see any rhetorical device implying culpability to be improper. Why?
If you voted to enable apartheid, you should be considered culpable. The basic concept of "personal responsibility" bestows that culpability on every adult w.r.t. his/her actions irrespective of intent/knowledge. Yes, intent/knowledge should change the level of culpability - but culpability exist regardless!!
Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one. I would not have a problem with the notion that whose who vote for white supremacists are guilty of violence as they played an active role in manifesting the violence.
-
So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language. The facts as they are should be compelling enough for anyone to be able to promote their ideas without using words that mean one step beyond the word that actually applies to what they are describing.
Could you give a single example of significance in the world where "facts" actually have been compelling enough to create change?
In reality, facts don't change anyone's minds or make any change happen. Stories do that.
"Silence is tacit complicity with the perpetrator of the violence" may be factually correct but even that is completely open to debate and is never going to create significant change.
"Silence is violence" may arguably be factually untrue but it has, as this thread is evidence of, already created discussion and has people thinking about where the line between violence and complicity lays.
It is interesting that you seem more concerned that the ones actually suffering the violence use "factual" language than you are with creating change that may actually stop the violence those people are suffering.
Facts and narratives don't have to be mutually exclusive.
As far as examples of fact based stories go, the diary of Anne Frank and the Gulag Archipelago are good examples.
Yes, this strategic falsehood has sparked conversation and dialogue. So has tons of the bogus steam of consciousness from our POTUS. So I'm not sure that is a compelling justification.
Do you believe that my intellectual curiosity betrays some lack of empathy on my part? I find it interesting that you would make this observation, as though perhaps I would decide to turn my brain off to avoid running the risk of strangers on the internet thinking that I do not care about the suffering others experience. Another set of things that are not mutually exclusive would be caring about others and wanting to understand more about ideologies and movements and how they intertwine.
-
Aren't "white silence is violence" and "silence is complicity" both appropriate depending on context?
Case 1
US has had a large problem of Black voter suppression in the south.
https://www.demos.org/research/problem-african-american-underrepresentation-city-councils#footnote2_c6qzqyw
When the Mike Brown shooting happened, the 2/3rd black population had a voter share of something ridiculous - single digit percent or something.
Republicans inherited this problem from Democrats/Dixiecrats when Nixon started his Southern Strategy, and actively and gleefully engaged in it!!
If someone enabled them by voting for them at the national level (even if the conservatives did not have any opportunity to do anything like this in his/her state), then that someone directly aided and abetted this republican apartheid against the blacks. Excess violence against the blacks is one of the consequence from this.
So, if you are black, and you see that the only people who have the power to stop this (which is the white majority), AND that these people are doing nothing and helping the apartheid continue - then maybe using the "white silence is violence" slogan makes some sense - at least figuratively if not directly.
Case 2
If I, on the other hand, just kept silent while someone else engaged in a racist rant (and yes, I have personally kept silent while a white co-worker explained to me in great detail over a glass of beer how Blacks leech off the welfare system), then I don't think a "white silence is violence" slogan is appropriate even figuratively. "Silence is complicity" - I can see that being more appropriate in this context.
I think in case 1 it would be far more accurate to say that silence enables violence.
i.e. you see any rhetorical device implying culpability to be improper. Why?
If you voted to enable apartheid, you should be considered culpable. The basic concept of "personal responsibility" bestows that culpability on every adult w.r.t. his/her actions irrespective of intent/knowledge. Yes, intent/knowledge should change the level of culpability - but culpability exist regardless!!
Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one. I would not have a problem with the notion that whose who vote for white supremacists are guilty of violence as they played an active role in manifesting the violence.
Great, we agree on the black and white logical extreme (that I see you have carefully worded).
Now, how about a different degree of grey?
How about a national party, which while not primarily White Supremacist has come to rely on white supremacist components for a few decades in the southern states?
And then the progeny of Dixiecrats who did not put the system of disenfranchisement in place themselves, but was just sufficiently racist to enthusiastically or otherwise continue the systemic disenfranchisement?
Is support of such a shade of grey comparable to violence?
Far more importantly, would a black boy born in Farguson, MO be justified in taking it to be a case of lifelong violence??
I guess we might just have different sensibilities. On one hand we have a minority whose rights have been violated for centuries, and on the other hand we have complaints of the privileged that the verbiage is hurting their fragile sensibilities and that they resent being called racist/violent/whatever....
To me, the moral preferences, imperatives and priorities seem pretty clear.
-
Do you believe that my intellectual curiosity betrays some lack of empathy on my part? I find it interesting that you would make this observation, as though perhaps I would decide to turn my brain off to avoid running the risk of strangers on the internet thinking that I do not care about the suffering others experience. Another set of things that are not mutually exclusive would be caring about others and wanting to understand more about ideologies and movements and how they intertwine.
Do you simply want to "understand more about ideologies and movements..." when you remark...?
So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language.
Because here in this quote you are not stating a desire to understand anything. You are stating that you are against intentionally inaccurate use of language. A discussion has arisen about an example you personally brought up regarding the inaccurate use of language that you are against.
So yes, I do think, in this situation you appear, via your own words, to care less about the people being hurt and more about their use of language.
-
It would be great if BLM aspired to Marxism, but they don’t.
-
as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
No. Very simply but definitely no.
Though I admit the English language seems to lean more heaviyl on the physical side.
btw. did you know that "showing the tools" was an integral part of the Inquisition's process? Many people confessed before any physical violence was enacted.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.
Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one.
Being silent is passive. Choosing to stay so, however, is not.
-
The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
When I hear or read "violence" it evokes a kinetic act or occurrence such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, smashing windows, overturning a vehicle, bullet strikes, destructive explosions, so forth.
I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.
-
The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
When I hear or read "violence" it evokes a kinetic act such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, a bullet strike, breaking of windows, destructive explosions, overturning a vehicle, and so forth.
I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.
Muteness is a physical condition.
Silence is a choice. Especially when witnessing violence.
-
The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
When I hear or read "violence" it evokes a kinetic act such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, a bullet strike, breaking of windows, destructive explosions, overturning a vehicle, and so forth.
I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.
Question on case law and jurisprudence....
Legally, whose perspective is important as far as violence and discrimination goes? If we have two stereotypes here - one is a black boy from Farguson, MO and another a middle-aged white male from the same place - it is possible that the perspectives differ very much because they lived in two different worlds despite sharing the same geographical location.
In this case, legally, will the perspective of the black boy win out (as the "discriminated")? or the White Man who, arguably, an enabler of Systemic discrimination?
In the corporate context, I have been told that policies are designed to always take the perspective of the "worker alleging discrimination/harassment". But that may just be a risk management stance and not a legal one - hence asking.
-------------------
Also, "threat of violence" is widely accepted as "violence". A kidnapper who just threatens but never touches his victim is committing violence. Thomas Jefferson committed violence even against the slaves he did not rape (and may not even have touched).
I posted a WHO definition of violence - which has this expanded definition.
Requiring kinetic action for "violence" is probably too narrow. Is there any case law defining this?
-
Muteness is a physical condition.
Silence is a choice. Especially when witnessing violence.
Yes, muteness is an affliction.
It is also a choice to be silent which is what I meant.
Muteness | Definition of Muteness at Dictionary.com
Muteness definition, silent; refraining from speech or utterance. .
-
Yes, this strategic falsehood has sparked conversation and dialogue. So has tons of the bogus steam of consciousness from our POTUS. So I'm not sure that is a compelling justification.
This is the part of your argument I don't get. (To me) it's clearly not a falsehood-- it's a rhetorical device. Just like Budweiser isn't really "the king" of beers (beers, in fact, employ a parliamentary democracy).
-
Muteness is a physical condition.
Silence is a choice. Especially when witnessing violence.
Yes, muteness is an affliction.
It is also a choice to be silent which is what I meant.
Muteness | Definition of Muteness at Dictionary.com
Muteness definition, silent; refraining from speech or utterance. .
Notice the “refrain” gerund. In that definition of the word, it is still a choice.
-
The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
When I hear or read "violence" it evokes a kinetic act or occurrence such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, smashing windows, overturning a vehicle, bullet strikes, destructive explosions, so forth.
I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.
That is precisely the point of the slogan.
Many people don't. The message is for those people who have previously viewed themselves as not part of the problem of racial violence because they were not physically participating in it to realize that by saying nothing when it happens, they are contributing to the problem in a very real way. Just because it's an invisible way doesn't mean it's less important or not real. That's why figurative comparative language like a metaphor is powerful - it forces people to make connections that weren't clear to them before.
This BLM movement is markedly different than the ones in 2013 and 2016, because all races are showing up and white people in unprecedented numbers. People are finally starting to "get it" that just because you don't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you aren't creating and perpetuating the system and you have a responsibility to help undo it.
-
The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.
When I hear or read "violence" it evokes a kinetic act such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, a bullet strike, breaking of windows, destructive explosions, overturning a vehicle, and so forth.
I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.
Question on case law and jurisprudence....
Legally, whose perspective is important as far as violence and discrimination goes? If we have two stereotypes here - one is a black boy from Farguson, MO and another a middle-aged white male from the same place - it is possible that the perspectives differ very much because they lived in two different worlds despite sharing the same geographical location.
In this case, legally, will the perspective of the black boy win out (as the "discriminated")? or the White Man who, arguably, an enabler of Systemic discrimination?
In the corporate context, I have been told that policies are designed to always take the perspective of the "worker alleging discrimination/harassment". But that may just be a risk management stance and not a legal one - hence asking.
-------------------
Also, "threat of violence" is widely accepted as "violence". A kidnapper who just threatens but never touches his victim is committing violence. Thomas Jefferson committed violence even against the slaves he did not rape (and may not even have touched).
I posted a WHO definition of violence - which has this expanded definition.
Requiring kinetic action for "violence" is probably too narrow. Is there any case law defining this?
Probably, but "violence" is rarely a legal term in and of itself that needs constructing.
You can certainly commit crimes that people often associate with physical, kinetic violence without touching someone - for example, in most states threatening physical violence falls under the definition of assault even if it didn't get all the way to battery. For example, brandishing a weapon is often considered assault.
Additionally, most states have (correctly) come to define rape to include coerced sex that doesn't necessarily involve violent force or holding a gun to someone's head.
-
as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
No. Very simply but definitely no.
Though I admit the English language seems to lean more heaviyl on the physical side.
btw. did you know that "showing the tools" was an integral part of the Inquisition's process? Many people confessed before any physical violence was enacted.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.
Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one.
Being silent is passive. Choosing to stay so, however, is not.
Well, our discussion has taken place in English and the overwhelming majority of the discussion around the recent protests have as well. So the idea of using the definition from a different language wouldn't make sense. Feel free to post the definition and explain how physical force is not required to meet the definition of violence. I see there is an alternate definition that applies to distorting or altering something, but the phrase "white silence is violence" wouldn't make sense in that regard.
The example of showing the tools you mention is a good example of an implied threat of violence.
Regarding silence being a passive role, I agree that the neutral position is itself a choice. I won't bother arguing the semantics of active v passive and a sin of commission v a sin of omission, as I've made my point that separate categories exist and it seems to be accepted. Perhaps we all have our own views on just how guilty a bystander is, but as long as we are honest and acknowledge their role and culpability is different than the perpetrator I'm satisfied. My beef is with those who draw a false moral equivalence in an attempt to guilt the bystander into action.
-
as violence requires using physical force to do harm.
No. Very simply but definitely no.
Though I admit the English language seems to lean more heaviyl on the physical side.
btw. did you know that "showing the tools" was an integral part of the Inquisition's process? Many people confessed before any physical violence was enacted.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.
Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one.
Being silent is passive. Choosing to stay so, however, is not.
Well, our discussion has taken place in English and the overwhelming majority of the discussion around the recent protests have as well. So the idea of using the definition from a different language wouldn't make sense. Feel free to post the definition and explain how physical force is not required to meet the definition of violence. I see there is an alternate definition that applies to distorting or altering something, but the phrase "white silence is violence" wouldn't make sense in that regard.
The example of showing the tools you mention is a good example of an implied threat of violence.
Regarding silence being a passive role, I agree that the neutral position is itself a choice. I won't bother arguing the semantics of active v passive and a sin of commission v a sin of omission, as I've made my point that separate categories exist and it seems to be accepted. Perhaps we all have our own views on just how guilty a bystander is, but as long as we are honest and acknowledge their role and culpability is different than the perpetrator I'm satisfied. My beef is with those who draw a false moral equivalence in an attempt to guilt the bystander into action.
Yes, this conversation is in English.
I think many Germans would disagree with you. And they might have decent reasons for that.
-
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.
All statements have context which is required for them to be understood. Language itself is contextual. A slogan just cannot contain all of that context.
When I first heard "All Lives Matter" I was fine with it since I viewed it as a true statement. I had to learn that the problem was not in the text, it was in the context and the subtext.
-
Yes, this strategic falsehood has sparked conversation and dialogue. So has tons of the bogus steam of consciousness from our POTUS. So I'm not sure that is a compelling justification.
This is the part of your argument I don't get. (To me) it's clearly not a falsehood-- it's a rhetorical device. Just like Budweiser isn't really "the king" of beers (beers, in fact, employ a parliamentary democracy).
Falsehoods and rhetorical devices (in this case, fallacies) are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what we call it, we are right to reject untrue claims regardless of any good intentions behind them. The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are also not mutually exclusive.
I like the example of sales puffery, but I think we can agree it is a totally different thing as it does not seek to change any laws and influence society in any serious way.
-
Do you believe that my intellectual curiosity betrays some lack of empathy on my part? I find it interesting that you would make this observation, as though perhaps I would decide to turn my brain off to avoid running the risk of strangers on the internet thinking that I do not care about the suffering others experience. Another set of things that are not mutually exclusive would be caring about others and wanting to understand more about ideologies and movements and how they intertwine.
Do you simply want to "understand more about ideologies and movements..." when you remark...?
So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language.
Because here in this quote you are not stating a desire to understand anything. You are stating that you are against intentionally inaccurate use of language. A discussion has arisen about an example you personally brought up regarding the inaccurate use of language that you are against.
So yes, I do think, in this situation you appear, via your own words, to care less about the people being hurt and more about their use of language.
My analysis of ideologies and movements includes analyzing and dissenting with the language used by those movements. Therefore I care more about language than those who are suffering oppression. Hm.
Your attack relies on the conflation of an intellectual interest and caring. I care with my dollars, my votes, and the way I treat people. I scratch my intellectual itches on a message board. With the exception of swatting away pesky ad hominem attacks like yours, I don't see the point in demonstrating how benevolent I am to my fellow posters. I assume they are arguing in good faith until I am shown otherwise and I hope to be granted the same assumption. But the strength of an argument does not depend on the person making it.
-
I think many Germans would disagree with you. And they might have decent reasons for that.
Now that you mention it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung
There was emphasis on no physical violence (because that would be proof).
-
Falsehoods and rhetorical devices (in this case, fallacies) are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what we call it, we are right to reject untrue claims regardless of any good intentions behind them. The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are also not mutually exclusive.
I like the example of sales puffery, but I think we can agree it is a totally different thing as it does not seek to change any laws and influence society in any serious way.
I agree that it's a different thing, but not that it's a totally different thing. AB InBev's fifty or so billion in sales a year suggest that their marketing does indeed influence society in a serious way.
You're rejecting the slogan "silence is violence" because you view it to be untrue by a narrow, literal, interpretation of the language. That feels obtuse to me, because I think you must understand that isn't what people are saying when they say that.
They are not saying: "Silence is literally physical violence."
They are saying: "Silence plays a role in systemic oppression, and is therefore something we should treat with as much seriousness as we treat violence" or "Physical violence isn't the only way we harm, and being silent in the face of racism is one way we allow harm to happen." or some other nuanced statement along those lines. They have good reasons to use the shorthand version of that phrase (off the top of my head: brevity, memorability, rhetorical power, and avoiding the narcissism of small differences).
-
So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?
I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel. The statement on US pennies is objectively false. What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?
-
"Frames"..
I've found George Lakoff's youtube videos very useful in understanding this concept.
Warning 1: Lakoff has an explicit political stance. He talks from the point of view of how liberals can counteract the conservatives. I still found his ideas powerful and his science honest (as far as I could detect).
Warning 2: The concept is nuanced and complex.
Thanks, I've read some Lakoff before but perhaps it's time I took another look.
-
So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?
I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel. The statement on US pennies is objectively false. What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?
Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.
I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.
Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.
-
So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?
I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel. The statement on US pennies is objectively false. What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?
Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.
I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.
Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.
So literalism isn't important for the penny. We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.
Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?
-
So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?
I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel. The statement on US pennies is objectively false. What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?
Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.
I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.
Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.
So literalism isn't important for the penny. We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.
Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?
Ok, so you're going full speed ahead with the ill-fated gotcha :) Buckle up.
We'll simply use intention as you quoted me saying above.
The intention behind the motto is not to convince everyone of something that isn't so. It should be fairly clear it is not intended to communicate that everyone in the US is a believer.
Whereas the intention behind "White silence is violence" is meant to convince white people that they are guilty of committing violence against black people if they do not speak out against racism.
C'mon Stv. They are not analogous.
-
So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?
I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel. The statement on US pennies is objectively false. What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?
Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.
I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.
Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.
So literalism isn't important for the penny. We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.
Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?
Ok, so you're going full speed ahead with the ill-fated gotcha :) Buckle up.
We'll simply use intention as you quoted me saying above.
The intention behind the motto is not to convince everyone of something that isn't so. It should be fairly clear it is not intended to communicate that everyone in the US is a believer.
Whereas the intention behind "White silence is violence" is meant to convince white people that they are guilty of committing violence against black people if they do not speak out against racism.
C'mon Stv. They are not analogous.
Not really a gotcha. My intent is to demonstrate inconsistencies in your reasoning.
When I read 'silence is violence' I don't read it literally . . . because I interpret it through the lens of what I know and believe is the intent of the people saying it. Much the same way that you don't read 'In God We Trust' literally because you read it through the lens of what you know and believe is the intent of the people behind it.
Both are objectively false statements. It sounds like it's not the falseness that you've got a problem with . . . but more the interpretation you've chosen to follow. Many people in this thread have explained alternate interpretations, but rather than accept them as equally valid you have argued that since the statement is objectively false, your interpretation is more valid.
That's inconsistent reasoning, and might explain why you're getting so much pushback.
-
So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?
I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel. The statement on US pennies is objectively false. What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?
Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.
I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.
Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.
So literalism isn't important for the penny. We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.
Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?
Ok, so you're going full speed ahead with the ill-fated gotcha :) Buckle up.
We'll simply use intention as you quoted me saying above.
The intention behind the motto is not to convince everyone of something that isn't so. It should be fairly clear it is not intended to communicate that everyone in the US is a believer.
Whereas the intention behind "White silence is violence" is meant to convince white people that they are guilty of committing violence against black people if they do not speak out against racism.
C'mon Stv. They are not analogous.
Yes, it is - or it is trying to convince white people that they should consider it just as morally concerning as literal, physical violence (because violence without societal support or apathy is quickly held to account). The fact that this is your hangup tells me that you aren't really all that worried about protecting literalism at any cost* and object to the form of the slogan, you just disagree with the actual content of the message and don't want to be told that your inaction as a [presumably] white person is enabling, protecting, and therefore morally similar to being violent yourself.
*Nobody can be completely literal all the time - the "English language" you seem so attached to is riddled with figurative idioms so entrenched that half the time we don't even realize we're using figurative language. The kids book series Amelia Bedelia is all about a character who takes everything literally and hilarity ensues. The main character in the TV show Bones is forever not understanding people when they use non-literal idiomatic expressions.
-
Falsehoods and rhetorical devices (in this case, fallacies) are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what we call it, we are right to reject untrue claims regardless of any good intentions behind them. The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are also not mutually exclusive.
I like the example of sales puffery, but I think we can agree it is a totally different thing as it does not seek to change any laws and influence society in any serious way.
I agree that it's a different thing, but not that it's a totally different thing. AB InBev's fifty or so billion in sales a year suggest that their marketing does indeed influence society in a serious way.
You're rejecting the slogan "silence is violence" because you view it to be untrue by a narrow, literal, interpretation of the language. That feels obtuse to me, because I think you must understand that isn't what people are saying when they say that.
They are not saying: "Silence is literally physical violence."
They are saying: "Silence plays a role in systemic oppression, and is therefore something we should treat with as much seriousness as we treat violence" or "Physical violence isn't the only way we harm, and being silent in the face of racism is one way we allow harm to happen." or some other nuanced statement along those lines. They have good reasons to use the shorthand version of that phrase (off the top of my head: brevity, memorability, rhetorical power, and avoiding the narcissism of small differences).
Exactly.
I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".
Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.
All statements have context which is required for them to be understood. Language itself is contextual. A slogan just cannot contain all of that context.
When I first heard "All Lives Matter" I was fine with it since I viewed it as a true statement. I had to learn that the problem was not in the text, it was in the context and the subtext.
Great point. If someone said "all lives matter" in the abstract, before BLM ever said "Black lives matter," we'd all just shrug it as a truism that seems kind of pointless to raise. It's when someone says it in response to "Black lives matter" when it becomes clear that the purpose and subtext is to 1) miss the point of BLM and 2) try to discount or dismiss the point of view.
-
What if slogans are the problem?
-
I am not anti-metaphor, I am anti concept-creep and anti doublespeak.
Metaphors do not hide the fact that they are metaphors. ("All the World's a Stage" being an example of a metaphor)
I think if you asked some of the 35 thousand folks using the white silence slogan as a hashtag on instagram, you would find they would respond that they believe that the statement is true in a straightforward way and are not using it as a metaphor.
If you are not familiar with concept creep, here is an article from the Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/concept-creep/477939/#:~:text=The%20Harms%20of%20Excessive%20Concept,needful%20of%20care%20and%20protection.
-
I think if you asked some of the 35 thousand folks using the white silence slogan as a hashtag on instagram, you would find they would respond that they believe that the statement is true in a straightforward way and are not using it as a metaphor.
A quick survey of my google results for '"silence is violence" explained' and 'what does silence is violence mean' suggests otherwise. I've pulled some quotes, but I encourage you to read the whole link. (Note, I'm not supporting every position indicated here, just pointing out what kind of context people are providing for the slogan.)
https://generocity.org/philly/2020/06/01/to-white-organizational-leaders-silence-is-violence-heres-what-you-should-do-now/
it is a mistake to remain silent. Worse, silence is complicit in the injustice. White silence is violence.
https://www.governing.com/now/A-Shattered-Complacency-When-Silence-Equals-Violence.html
The sign that shattered my complacency was held by a young bearded man, painted on tan packing cardboard: “White Silence Equals Violence.” The minute I saw it, I realized that he had articulated the most important truth of the afternoon. The continuing litany of white cops killing black men (most of whom are no immediate threat to anyone) can only exist in a world where the white people of America acquiesce by minding their own business, giving the police the benefit of the doubt, by tacitly agreeing with the cops’ actions, by (perhaps unconsciously) believing that when African-American men encounter white cops, they are probably up to no good, that black men have a statistical propensity to being up to no good, that white cops have seen so much mayhem among people of color that they instinctively react with a show of force, etc.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-silence-on-social-media-why-not-saying-anything-is-actually-saying-a-lot/
"White silence is incredibly powerful," said Savala Trepczynski, executive director of the Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice at UC Berkeley. "It's not neutral. It acts like a weapon. It's not even silent. It speaks volumes, right? And the people of color who are around a silent white person, they hear the silence. And they feel it. And they feel what it means, which is: I don't have your back.
https://www.xaprb.com/blog/silence-is-violence/
My Twitter profile currently includes the phrase “silence is violence.” People ask me about this occasionally: what does it mean? I don’t know where I picked up this phrase, and maybe it has a different meaning for me than for others, but what I mean by it is that if I’m a bystander who witnesses something I disagree with, I’m actively supporting the behavior to which I object.
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/mark-fraser-racism-george-floyd-hockey-nhl
And to the hockey community, know that what’s happening in America today is a reflection of some of the hate your black teammates and friends feel just from looking different. So please don’t stop making noise. Please don’t go silent. Silence is violence in this case. Be proud to know that you are not only standing on the right side of the fence, but you are also actively using your voices and letting yourself be heard in support of our cause and our fight for justice and equality. Show us your love. Show us you love us. To quote Senator Cory Booker, “What does love look like in public? It looks like justice.”
-
My analysis of ideologies and movements includes analyzing and dissenting with the language used by those movements. Therefore I care more about language than those who are suffering oppression. Hm.
Your attack relies on the conflation of an intellectual interest and caring. I care with my dollars, my votes, and the way I treat people. I scratch my intellectual itches on a message board. With the exception of swatting away pesky ad hominem attacks like yours, I don't see the point in demonstrating how benevolent I am to my fellow posters. I assume they are arguing in good faith until I am shown otherwise and I hope to be granted the same assumption. But the strength of an argument does not depend on the person making it.
You are the one claiming we should reject "untrue" statements. "Untrue" apparently being defined as something you disagree with for it is clearly not axiomatic that silence is not violence. Many people on this thread have argued that it is. And remember, for the sake of being completely true and accurate, "silence is violence" in no way claims silence is physical violence. It makes a simple statement that can very reasonably be argued to be completely true.
For example, a very common way of children bullying other children is the "cold shoulder" treatment. A tactic in which the victim is ignored completely. No words are spoken. Silence is the weapon, nothing else. And yet it often causes extreme duress to the victim.
So yes, your claim that slogans you personally believe to be untrue should be rejected, particularly when I would think an intelligent person like yourself would have no trouble understanding the intent of the slogan, makes it pretty clear your interest goes beyond mere intellectual interest in analyzing ideologies.
-
Perhaps we all have our own views on just how guilty a bystander is, but as long as we are honest and acknowledge their role and culpability is different than the perpetrator I'm satisfied. My beef is with those who draw a false moral equivalence in an attempt to guilt the bystander into action.
The first sentence doesn't match up to the second.
Furthermore, you are now doing exactly what you claim to be against. That is, intentionally misusing language to assert something false.
You claim "silence is violence" is trying to draw a false moral equivalence. Well then, define exactly how the three single words "Silence is violence" does that. Mind you, I'm not asking for your personal interpretation of the words. I'm asking for you to define where in those three words only anything at all about equivalence to anything else is mentioned.
-
I am not anti-metaphor, I am anti concept-creep and anti doublespeak.
Only in this one particular case though. You're fine with doublespeak on a penny. So the problem here is obviously not doublespeak . . . it appears to be with something related to the BLM message.
-
Somehow I wish everyone would now listen in silence to the the sound of silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN-pKfw6Q8
-
.quote author=J Boogie link=topic=116873.msg2671976#msg2671976 date=1595866892]
Question on case law and jurisprudence....
I do not follow employment law or the specifics of current, workplace-discrimination jurisprudence so my answers are general.
Legally, whose perspective is important as far as violence and discrimination goes? If we have two stereotypes here - one is a black boy from Farguson, MO and another a middle-aged white male from the same place - it is possible that the perspectives differ very much because they lived in two different worlds despite sharing the same geographical location.
Given who they are as sketched by you and the long history of invidious discrimination against blacks, it's a given that their perspectives would differ markedly.
In this case, legally, will the perspective of the black boy win out (as the "discriminated")? or the White Man who, arguably, an enabler of Systemic discrimination?
If either alleged they were subjected to workplace discrimination and the evidence supported their allegation they ought to prevail regardless of their race and would prevail if justice prevailed.
In the corporate context, I have been told that policies are designed to always take the perspective of the "worker alleging discrimination/harassment". But that may just be a risk management stance and not a legal one - hence asking.
In the interest of their employees and a workplace ambiance that conduces to cordial relations firms ought to do their best to eliminate discrimination and harassment. If firms do it only to avoid the risk of paying judgments it still has the salutary effect of enhancing collegiality.
Also, "threat of violence" is widely accepted as "violence". A kidnapper who just threatens but never touches his victim is committing violence. Thomas Jefferson committed violence even against the slaves he did not rape (and may not even have touched).
I posted a WHO definition of violence - which has this expanded definition.
Requiring kinetic action for "violence" is probably too narrow.
It is true that literalism, including mine, is constraining.
Is there any case law defining this?
As explained above I'm not sufficiently informed to answer.
-
The basic foundation comes from critical theory, from wiki:
"Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist-era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality, and universal truths, while politicizing social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings.""
The Marxism steps in regarding the oppressor/oppressed narrative that is used to fuel a critical analysis(in the context of critical theory). ie, You are white and you disagree, therefore your argument is defective since white people are historically oppressors.
That's a rough synopsis. There's a lot to this. It's hard to find a brief, clear discussion on it, but this one is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVmDSMl30s&t=1106s
I have never seriously read up about "critical theory". I am generally put off by the fact that most proponents of critical theory to be fragile snowflakes who refuse to grow up and step into the real world. I generally don't have too much sympathy for "they called me names" kind of arguments.
That said, the youtube video you posted seem to be over-privileged jackasses who are throwing the baby with the bath water. Using an instance of a questionable social justice behavior, they are questioning if implicit biases or systemic racism exist.
Let's just say that at least in the US, enough statistical evidence for systemic racism and implicit biases exist. The possibility that all the black-white differences in the data were produced entirely in the absence of systemic racism and implicit bias is astronomically small.
This is the problem I generally find with conservative intellectuals. They are dishonest in their arguments. This calls into questions any arguments they may have against the "marxist ideas" and "critical theory" etc.
I think you'll find a significant amount of intellectually honest critics of critical theory who acknowledge the reality of oppression and racism but simply reject the idea that it should be the lens through which we interpret the world and point out the flaws in that mode of thinking.
There are others but off the top of my head Peter Boghossian and Jonathon Haidt are exceptionally intellectually honest and are also not politically conservative, and they might be of interest to you if you are looking for a critique of critical theory.
I listened to a few youtube videos from Heidt, and he does appear incredibly informative.
I will dig out more of his videos and will likely learn a lot.
I'm yet to read/listen up Boghossian. Will do that too.
Thank you!
-
Somehow I wish everyone would now listen in silence to the the sound of silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN-pKfw6Q8
Why does that version have so many views? I mean it's a good song anyway and it's not a bad performance (maybe a touch heavy-handed in spots) but a big part of the song is the harmonizing between S & G.
-
The "Black Lives Matter" people here in Aus tried to organise a rally in Sydney during the second wave of the pandemic. No one rocked up. Stupid timing. Stupid optics.
I dislike their use of shitty stats too. Something about 430 black lives lost in custody but when you extrapolate from the prison population ratios this is no more than what you would expect based on overall prisoners/accused dying in custody.
I'm sure there is systemic bias but it's so much more invidious and subtle. Using a headline number that has no context or sense of proportion (and is just misleading) is turning me away from the protest organisers. So is the fact that a lot of the organisers have roots in socialism (they use it as a recruiting tool too).
-
The "Black Lives Matter" people here in Aus tried to organise a rally in Sydney during the second wave of the pandemic. No one rocked up. Stupid timing. Stupid optics.
Whilst I agree with you it was stupid timing and stupid optics, in all fairness you should tell the whole story. The rally was ruled to be illegal by the court in a highly publicised case. A group of the organisers were instantly arrested the moment they arrived at the location the rally was organised for.
Perhaps those factors played a part in why no one rocked up.
I dislike their use of shitty stats too. Something about 430 black lives lost in custody but when you extrapolate from the prison population ratios this is no more than what you would expect based on overall prisoners/accused dying in custody.
I'm sure there is systemic bias but it's so much more invidious and subtle. Using a headline number that has no context or sense of proportion (and is just misleading) is turning me away from the protest organisers. So is the fact that a lot of the organisers have roots in socialism (they use it as a recruiting tool too).
It is disappointing one would even consider being turned away because the organisers have roots in socialism. Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc? All socialist institutions after all.
-
The "Black Lives Matter" people here in Aus tried to organise a rally in Sydney during the second wave of the pandemic. No one rocked up. Stupid timing. Stupid optics.
Whilst I agree with you it was stupid timing and stupid optics, in all fairness you should tell the whole story. The rally was ruled to be illegal by the court in a highly publicised case. A group of the organisers were instantly arrested the moment they arrived at the location the rally was organised for.
Perhaps those factors played a part in why no one rocked up.
I dislike their use of shitty stats too. Something about 430 black lives lost in custody but when you extrapolate from the prison population ratios this is no more than what you would expect based on overall prisoners/accused dying in custody.
I'm sure there is systemic bias but it's so much more invidious and subtle. Using a headline number that has no context or sense of proportion (and is just misleading) is turning me away from the protest organisers. So is the fact that a lot of the organisers have roots in socialism (they use it as a recruiting tool too).
It is disappointing one would even consider being turned away because the organisers have roots in socialism. Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc? All socialist institutions after all.
The rally was ruled illegal but the organisers still encouraged people to come. Until they got arrested and then they did an about-face. That's the full story. Great planning by the organisers, huh.
The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.
-
Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc? All socialist institutions after all.
I don't think that this is a good use of the word "socialist". It's like when people say, Belgium, Sweden or Germany are socialist countries, because there is health care. Using the word socialist for everything is in my opinion a great trick from the right, to discredit a lot good ideas. Because Americans seem to be allergic to everything that's called socialist. Even if it is not socialism...
-
Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc? All socialist institutions after all.
I don't think that this is a good use of the word "socialist". It's like when people say, Belgium, Sweden or Germany are socialist countries, because there is health care. Using the word socialist for everything is in my opinion a great trick from the right, to discredit a lot good ideas. Because Americans seem to be allergic to everything that's called socialist. Even if it is not socialism...
Socialism is the opposite of capitalism.
Where capitalism assumes that the best way to approach every problem is a free market and profit motive, socialism assumes that the best way to approach every problem is government control. National health care is socialist . . . as is a public school system, police, fire protection, government pollution controls, preventing slave ownership, etc. These are areas that have been proven time and again to fail when capitalism is applied to them. That's not to say that socialism is the answer to all problems of course, this is why every successful state makes use of a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Belgium, Sweden, Germany are not socialist countries. They are a mix of capitalism and socialism.
-
The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.
There is no analogy. "Social services" are "socialist". The hint is right there in the name.
Are you against Socialism itself or only against it when there seems to be no direct benefit to yourself?
-
The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.
There is no analogy. "Social services" are "socialist". The hint is right there in the name.
Are you against Socialism itself or only against it when there seems to be no direct benefit to yourself?
I am against a revolutionary socialist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production over to the workers.
That's what the organiser wants.
Not soft, democratic socialism.
-
The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.
There is no analogy. "Social services" are "socialist". The hint is right there in the name.
Are you against Socialism itself or only against it when there seems to be no direct benefit to yourself?
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Sorry, but calling social services socialist is just using the communist boogey man to fight against things radical capitalists don't want.
-
Yes, it's about as disingenuous an approach as that taken by the Australian organisers of the BLM movement.
I have no doubt systemic racism is a problem in the police force.
I also have no doubt that the figures and rhetoric used by the BLM organisers are selective at best and misleading at worst.
-
I am against a revolutionary socialist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production over to the workers.
That's what the organiser wants.
Not soft, democratic socialism.
I see.
And where have any of the organisers stated they want to hand control of the means of production over to the workers? I must admit to not being closely familiar with the organisers of the BLM movement but I've never heard anyone associated with the movement state this as an goal of the movement.
-
Sorry, but calling social services socialist is just using the communist boogey man to fight against things radical capitalists don't want.
They are socialist institutions.
For the record I'm totally for such institutions and am not trying to use the "communist boogey man" for anything. I'm particularly fond of socialised health services and think anyone that believes for profit organisations are the best dispensers of health services to be completely insane.
-
I am against a revolutionary socialist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production over to the workers.
That's what the organiser wants.
Not soft, democratic socialism.
I see.
And where have any of the organisers stated they want to hand control of the means of production over to the workers? I must admit to not being closely familiar with the organisers of the BLM movement but I've never heard anyone associated with the movement state this as an goal of the movement.
https://twitter.com/paddygibson?lang=en
It's not a goal of BLM (after all, a movement doesn't necessarily have official, or discrete, goals, since many people can be involved in a movement and they can each want something different). But it's a goal of one of the principal organisers of the recent Australian BLM rally.
-
Sorry, but calling social services socialist is just using the communist boogey man to fight against things radical capitalists don't want.
They are socialist institutions.
For the record I'm totally for such institutions and am not trying to use the "communist boogey man" for anything. I'm particularly fond of socialised health services and think anyone that believes for profit organisations are the best dispensers of health services to be completely insane.
In my eyes, socialism is always political and targeted to create a socialist society, where all means of production and the distribution of goods is controlled by the state. So labeling something like mandatory health insurance, infrastructure or the police as "socialist" is misleading in my eyes.
-
I have no interest in revolutionary politics.
I am against a revolutionary socialist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production over to the workers.
But you are for a revolutionary capitalist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production and the rights of people over to a small amont of ultra-richs?
Because that is what has happened in the last half century. It was a revolution, even planned as one, just with a lot less PR and more shadows. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society
In its "Statement of Aims" on 8 April 1947, the scholars were worried about the dangers faced by civilization, stating the following:
Over large stretches of the Earth’s surface the essential conditions of human dignity and freedom have already disappeared. In others they are under constant menace from the development of current tendencies of policy.
It is important to mention that "freedom" here means "the freedom to do with your money what you want, whatever the consequences are for other people".
In my eyes, socialism is always political and targeted to create a socialist society, where all means of production and the distribution of goods is controlled by the state. So labeling something like mandatory health insurance, infrastructure or the police as "socialist" is misleading in my eyes.
O.o why? In the case of mandatory health insurance, the state orders that everyone has access to the means of (health) production and that the necessary goods for this are taken from everyone and distributed by the force of the state.
A mandatory health insurance IS your self-choose defintion of a socialist public service.
The question of which services are controlled by the state is just a matter of the slider between no socialism and full socialism. A quantity, not a quality difference.
-
There is no revolutionary capitalist party in Australia. We are so far from pure capitalism it isn't funny.
-
In my eyes, socialism is always political and targeted to create a socialist society, where all means of production and the distribution of goods is controlled by the state. So labeling something like mandatory health insurance, infrastructure or the police as "socialist" is misleading in my eyes.
O.o why? In the case of mandatory health insurance, the state orders that everyone has access to the means of (health) production and that the necessary goods for this are taken from everyone and distributed by the force of the state.
A mandatory health insurance IS your self-choose defintion of a socialist public service.
The question of which services are controlled by the state is just a matter of the slider between no socialism and full socialism. A quantity, not a quality difference.
Because the decision, that health services should be socialised, does not mean that one want to create a socialist society, where all means of production and the distribution of goods is controlled by the state.
It creates a false dichotomy. If someone says "I want the right to price my services as I see fit and don't want the government to interfere here." I don't assume that the person also want's to privatize the fire department or that all infrastructure should be build and distributed by companies.
But the opposite is implied if you say: "That's a socialist idea!"
-
The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.
There is no analogy. "Social services" are "socialist". The hint is right there in the name.
Are you against Socialism itself or only against it when there seems to be no direct benefit to yourself?
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Sorry, but calling social services socialist is just using the communist boogey man to fight against things radical capitalists don't want.
I feel that you may have missed a vital point here in the definition that was posted.
A social service is a service where the collective (or government) owns the service and administers the means of production and distribution of goods. This defines the majority of public services . . . public health care, police, fire departments, transportation projects (such as most road/rail/public transit), public education, pollution controls, etc.
Social services are indeed socialism by definition. Supporting socialism (in the form of social services) does not mean that a person supports abolition of property rights and full blown communism . . . in the same way supporting capitalism does not mean supporting slavery, extreme generational wealth disparity, and a wanton disregard for the environment.
It's possible to support some of the tenants of captialism/socialism without supporting the excesses. This is why capitalism and socialism operate hand in hand in all real world economies. Only a sith believes in absolutes. :P
-
I understand that socialising things is a strategy socialism will use to reach its goals.
Maybe it's a German thing. In Germany, social security and the welfare state was implemented by Bismarck, a conservative monarchist who did this to fight socialism. Germany's current socioeconomic model is called "social market economy" not "socialist market economy".
For me, and probably most Germans, someone who is a socialist want's a different socioeconomic model (often combined with far-reaching eminent domain). I think the English language would profit from including this middle ground. So you could discuss something like maternity leave without having to explain that you don't want to end the American way of life.
(Because of the socialist/marxist/communist/"I fought in Vietnam so you don't have to live under a communist tyranny!!!11eleven" bogeyman.)
-
I understand that socialising things is a strategy socialism will use to reach its goals.
Then you misunderstand.
Socialism (as per the definition that you yourself provided) advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. When the government provides a service (like say firefighters) the goals of socialism are met by providing that social program.
You are equating 'socialist' with 'communist'. That's like equating 'capitalist' with 'monopolist'. Although they have some similarities, there are significant differences between the meanings.
-
I understand that socialising things is a strategy socialism will use to reach its goals.
Then you misunderstand.
Socialism (as per the definition that you yourself provided) advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. When the government provides a service (like say firefighters) the goals of socialism are met by providing that social program.
You are equating 'socialist' with 'communist'. That's like equating 'capitalist' with 'monopolist'. Although they have some similarities, there are significant differences between the meanings.
No, I do not misunderstand. You are ignoring what I am saying.
The core of socialism, the political and economic idea, is not that the fire department (or health care) is state owned. Social ownership of the means of production is way more than the government providing some services (or making some insurance mandatory).
Using the same word for Socialism and the fact that the state is paying the firefighter is creating a false dichotomy.
In German, we use different words. We have a "social market economy" not "socialist market economy". We have a "Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs", not a "Federal Ministry for Labour and Socialist Agendas".
So the fire department is not socialism (for me), it's a public service. Branding it as socialism
a) helps the far-right to call everyone with ideas for something like a "social market economy" a socialist, the enemies of America
b) helps the far-left to sell their ideas, because the only chance for worker rights and health care is socialism.
Sounds like it's dividing the nation, fits well into this time.
The following article seems to be interesting, though I didn't had time to read it all: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/05/13/socialism-a-short-primer/
-
I understand that socialising things is a strategy socialism will use to reach its goals.
Then you misunderstand.
Socialism (as per the definition that you yourself provided) advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. When the government provides a service (like say firefighters) the goals of socialism are met by providing that social program.
You are equating 'socialist' with 'communist'. That's like equating 'capitalist' with 'monopolist'. Although they have some similarities, there are significant differences between the meanings.
No, I do not misunderstand. You are ignoring what I am saying.
The core of socialism, the political and economic idea, is not that the fire department (or health care) is state owned. Social ownership of the means of production is way more than the government providing some services (or making some insurance mandatory).
Using the same word for Socialism and the fact that the state is paying the firefighter is creating a false dichotomy.
The state doesn't just pay the firefighter. The state has complete monopoly over the only fire departments around. The state controls the means of production and the distribution of services of fire departments through regulation. That is textbook definition of socialism. The definition that you gave in fact.
You are taking an absolutist definition of socialism . . . where socialism means state control of the means of production and distribution of everything. That's silly . . . and not something that you apply to capitalism. It's possible (and perfectly normal) to have a socialist fire department and a largely capitalist economy.
You are falling into the trap of defining socialism only by it's extremes, but then not being logically consistent by doing the same with capitalism.
In German, we use different words. We have a "social market economy" not "socialist market economy". We have a "Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs", not a "Federal Ministry for Labour and Socialist Agendas".
So the fire department is not socialism (for me), it's a public service.
If you don't want to use the correct definition of socialism, that's your prerogative. But an expectation that others will conform to your personal heterodoxy is an unreasonable position to take. A government provided service where the government controls the means of production and distribution is socialist by definition. Now, if you personally want to call it a purple watermelon . . . that's up to you. But this incorrect use of terminology will make your argument more confusing.
Branding it as socialism
a) helps the far-right to call everyone with ideas for something like a "social market economy" a socialist, the enemies of America
b) helps the far-left to sell their ideas, because the only chance for worker rights and health care is socialism.
The United States is so far to the right of center that the concept of a far-left takeover of ideas is laughable, and should not be even remotely concerning in the least. The right has been mis-using the term socialist for decades now . . . ever since McCarthyism. Misusing the term in the same way (as you advocate) only lends credence and legitimacy to their mistake.
-
No, I don't define socialism by the extremes. You define it by aspects of its implementation.
A capitalist who thinks there is a place for public services is not a socialist. We don't live in socialism because there are public services. And the fire department is not a socialist institution. Unless you ignore the better words (which exist in your language but are not used, I am not making them up). The fact that you ignore the existence of the middle ground does not make Germany a socialist country.
I know it is how the word was and is used and suggesting a different meaning makes me a cultural Marxist.
Edit: I maybe found a good analogy to make my point more clear: if someone wants deregulation or if deregulation is done, he isn't an anarchist and the deregulation is not anarchy, even though "removing rules" is definitely an anarchist method.
-
Wir drehen uns hier ziemlich im Kreis. Ich glaube du wirfst hier die Akzeptanz, dass etwas nach sozialistischem Muster organisiert ist (Feuerwehr). mit "wir leben im Sozialismus" durcheinander. Oder anders: Nur weil ich jeden Tag Gemüse zu meinem Fleisch esse bin ich kein Vegetarier ;)
A capitalist who thinks there is a place for public services is not a socialist.
Neither does it make the society socialistic.
We don't live in socialism because there are public services
But those services are structured and maintained in a socialist fashion.
-
No, I don't define socialism by the extremes. You define it by aspects of its implementation.
A capitalist who thinks there is a place for public services is not a socialist. We don't live in socialism because there are public services.
Agree with the above. And a socialist who believes there is a place for profit motive in much of the countries economy is not a capitalist.
And the fire department is not a socialist institution.
Not unless we use the commonly accepted definition that you provided for socialism.
The fact that you ignore the existence of the middle ground does not make Germany a socialist country.
I've never said that Germany is a socialist country. Like all successful developed countries in the modern world, it's policies are a mix of capitalism and socialism. It's weird that you're arguing that I'm ignoring the middle ground. My whole argument is that the labels of socialism/capitalism don't work well when you apply them to whole countries because they ignore all the overlap between the two.
Is Germany socialist? No, not purely. Is it capitalist? No, not purely. Is the government run fire department in Germany socialist? Yes. Is the free market trading that goes on in the Frankfurt stock exchange capitalist? Yes. Germany (like every other successful country in the world) mixes the two.
I maybe found a good analogy to make my point more clear: if someone wants deregulation or if deregulation is done, he isn't an anarchist and the deregulation is not anarchy, even though "removing rules" is definitely an anarchist method.
Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. An anarchist attempts to bring this state about. Deregulation is certainly a part of that . . . just as socialism is a part of communism. But there's a clear difference between deregulation and anarchy, just as there's a clear difference between socialism and communism.
-
Sorry, thanks to the great mobile view of this forum, I often don't know who I am answering to.
Like deregulation is not anarchy, the fire department is not socialism, even though it is state owned. In socialism everything is (or might be...) state owned, not everything state owned is socialist.
the labels of socialism/capitalism don't work well when you apply them to whole countries because they ignore all the overlap between the two.
And they don't work on the small scale. They describe ideologies.
-
Sorry, thanks to the great mobile view of this forum, I often don't know who I am answering to.
Like deregulation is not anarchy, the fire department is not socialism, even though it is state owned. In socialism everything is (or might be...) state owned, not everything state owned is socialist.
the labels of socialism/capitalism don't work well when you apply them to whole countries because they ignore all the overlap between the two.
And they don't work on the small scale. They describe ideologies.
OK. So you agree that socialism/capitalism don't work on large scale because they are never individually present. But now you're also saying that they can't work on small scale where they perfectly describe a situation. So, in your opinion when should these ideologies be used in discussion?
-
OK, everything that's state owned and every public service is socialism/socialist. I will not be able to make you considering my point.
-
https://twitter.com/paddygibson?lang=en
It's not a goal of BLM (after all, a movement doesn't necessarily have official, or discrete, goals, since many people can be involved in a movement and they can each want something different). But it's a goal of one of the principal organisers of the recent Australian BLM rally.
I read the first bunch of tweets on that feed and didn't see any stated goal to hand the means of production over to the workers. The closest I saw was the dude's tag line bio thing states he is a "socialist activist with solidarity" which could mean a whole bunch of things.
Not being a user of Twitter I don't know if it's possible but are you able to link to any actual statement by the organiser claiming what you claim is his goal?
-
In my eyes, socialism is always political and targeted to create a socialist society, where all means of production and the distribution of goods is controlled by the state. So labeling something like mandatory health insurance, infrastructure or the police as "socialist" is misleading in my eyes.
I see.
Not being aware of your personal definitions, I was going by the generally and widely accepted meaning of the term "socialist institution".
Sorry for the confusion.
-
https://twitter.com/paddygibson?lang=en
It's not a goal of BLM (after all, a movement doesn't necessarily have official, or discrete, goals, since many people can be involved in a movement and they can each want something different). But it's a goal of one of the principal organisers of the recent Australian BLM rally.
I read the first bunch of tweets on that feed and didn't see any stated goal to hand the means of production over to the workers. The closest I saw was the dude's tag line bio thing states he is a "socialist activist with solidarity" which could mean a whole bunch of things.
Not being a user of Twitter I don't know if it's possible but are you able to link to any actual statement by the organiser claiming what you claim is his goal?
"Solidarity" is an Australian revolutionary socialist organisation. You can google it.
-
Not being aware of your personal definitions, I was going by the generally and widely accepted meaning of the term "socialist institution".
Sorry for the confusion.
In German, the adjective "sozialistisch" (=socialist) is always political. The German Wikipedia explains this well. I already told you why "my personal definition" is different from your "generally and widely accepted meaning".
Using the same word for Socialism and the fact that the state is paying the firefighter is creating a false dichotomy.
In German, we use different words. We have a "social market economy" not "socialist market economy". We have a "Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs", not a "Federal Ministry for Labour and Socialist Agendas".
Maybe it's a German thing. In Germany, social security and the welfare state was implemented by Bismarck, a conservative monarchist who did this to fight socialism. Germany's current socioeconomic model is called "social market economy" not "socialist market economy".
For me, and probably most Germans, someone who is a socialist want's a different socioeconomic model (often combined with far-reaching eminent domain). I think the English language would profit from including this middle ground. So you could discuss something like maternity leave without having to explain that you don't want to end the American way of life.
(Because of the socialist/marxist/communist/"I fought in Vietnam so you don't have to live under a communist tyranny!!!11eleven" bogeyman.)
I don't think that this is a good use of the word "socialist". It's like when people say, Belgium, Sweden or Germany are socialist countries, because there is health care. Using the word socialist for everything is in my opinion a great trick from the right, to discredit a lot good ideas. Because Americans seem to be allergic to everything that's called socialist. Even if it is not socialism...
I know it is how the word was and is used and suggesting a different meaning makes me a cultural Marxist.
So to sum this up: I tell you that we use the word in German differently and why I think it is the better way. You tell me:
If you don't want to use the correct definition of socialism, that's your prerogative. But an expectation that others will conform to your personal heterodoxy is an unreasonable position to take. A government provided service where the government controls the means of production and distribution is socialist by definition. Now, if you personally want to call it a purple watermelon . . . that's up to you. But this incorrect use of terminology will make your argument more confusing.
Don't think that there is anything left worth discussing.
-
I just want to emphasize that firefighters are actually the most socialist thing in Germany. It is owned "by all", paid by all, and even if you as a town didn't wanted one, you are forced by the central government.
And you (as a person) can even forced join the firefighters if there aren't enough otherwise. Because the need of the many outwight the freedom of the single person. That is the core of socialism.
"Community-oriented" or however you want to call it, is without force.
The socialist notion is that if the greater good is clearly by the many, the lesser good of the individuum has to stand back, by force if necessary.
(In communism everyone would see the greater good and do that without being forced. You can cleary see the reason why communism will never work ;) )
-
And still, nobody calls the Feuerwehr in Germany sozialistisch.
-
"Solidarity" is an Australian revolutionary socialist organisation. You can google it.
So another group entirely and nothing about BLM wanting to put the means of production in the hands of the workers then.
-
It's fun to get into discussions of what exactly socialism is, and get off the silly notion that BLM is explicitly Marxist because some people associated with it like Marxism.
I am hardly a socialist, being an entrepreneur and a landowner. However, I think there are a lot of things that the so-called free market is utterly crap at providing. Those include health care (for examples, see the current US clusterfuck). None of that has anything to do with BLM, which pretty much boils down to 'Stop killing us with impunity'.
'Don't kill us' should really not be a political statement except in a society built on violence.
-
"Solidarity" is an Australian revolutionary socialist organisation. You can google it.
So another group entirely and nothing about BLM wanting to put the means of production in the hands of the workers then.
Except the Australian BLM protests were organised by one of its members.
And having attended similar protests before, there's always a huge overlap when you go there, between the ostensible cause (BLM) and a whole bunch of other fucking causes I care nothing about (to do with radical left wing politics).
If you can't see why that - and the stupidity of trying to organise mass protests during a pandemic - would turn me off, then good for you. I've explained why I don't like it and why I see it as disingenuous.
Just as I see the shitty statistics-whoring of the Australian BLM movement as also incredibly disingenuous.
There are rational and reasonable approaches to trying to right systemic racism. What the Australian protesters are doing is more akin to demagoguery and populism. I hate that, from any angle. I prefer civil, intelligent discourse that acknowledges problems without trying to conflate multiple issues or turn a complex thing into a simple worldview.
-
Except the Australian BLM protests were organised by one of its members.
And having attended similar protests before, there's always a huge overlap when you go there, between the ostensible cause (BLM) and a whole bunch of other fucking causes I care nothing about (to do with radical left wing politics).
If you can't see why that - and the stupidity of trying to organise mass protests during a pandemic - would turn me off, then good for you. I've explained why I don't like it and why I see it as disingenuous.
Just as I see the shitty statistics-whoring of the Australian BLM movement as also incredibly disingenuous.
There are rational and reasonable approaches to trying to right systemic racism. What the Australian protesters are doing is more akin to demagoguery and populism. I hate that, from any angle. I prefer civil, intelligent discourse that acknowledges problems without trying to conflate multiple issues or turn a complex thing into a simple worldview.
I can see why it would put you off. I was merely point out that socialism abounds in many aspects of the society you choose to live in. Since you don't seem put off by those aspects I wonder why the mere idea of it being a motivating factor of single one of the organisers is starting to put you off supporting the idea that entrenched and systemic racism within our society should end.
-
There's a difference between democratic socialism and revolutionary socialism. The latter entails giving the means of production to workers. The former entails mild redistribution.
And I can support a broad movement (like racial equality or gender equality) without supporting the actions of a particular manifestation of that movement, even if the manifestation is popular at a given point in time.
-
None of that has anything to do with BLM, which pretty much boils down to 'Stop killing us with impunity'.
'Don't kill us' should really not be a political statement except in a society built on violence.
I don't know if the BLM organization is explicitly Marxist. However, it seems to be reasonably explicit "radical left" in that they push not only for "don't kill us".
When I read their mission statement, the rhetoric pretty much synchs with most radical left positions in communist-leaning groups (speaking about European radical left political groups here in case that you US folks have different trigger words).
To quote their https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) (bolded by me the parts that are (also) standard fare of radical left identity policy lingo):
"We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
So, yeah, I totally see where BloopBloop is coming from.
Edit: Not to mention that they don't refer to a specific US problem but claim global representation ...
-
And having attended similar protests before, there's always a huge overlap when you go there, between the ostensible cause (BLM) and a whole bunch of other fucking causes I care nothing about (to do with radical left wing politics).
Generally politically active people tend to be politically active if something urgent crops up. Surprise!
Ever wondered why you never see "capitalist" demonstrations? Why are there never huge crowds of people demonstrating for the continuation of e.g. low minimum wages, "deregulation" and such things?
I prefer civil, intelligent discourse that acknowledges problems without trying to conflate multiple issues or turn a complex thing into a simple worldview.
I prefer it too. And even more do those who profit from the status quo. Because civil, earnest discussions don't change anything.