My current plan is to have people go into office who would resist Republicans. The Vichy Dems are the ones fighting that.
Biden clenches the nomination.
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Status
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Then why compare the two?
A nation is just a grouping of people, it probably more originated in areas where the weather is fairly predictable and agriculture really took hold, since if you have to be nomadic then the ideas of borders are rather silly. But, if you can setup an area with stable weather and crops then you kind of need to protect those crops from random people coming around and taking them, either deliberately or casually. From there you get population growth and start to get bigger but with fewer personal connections and you need a looser idea to keep people working for a similar goal and then you get states and such.
I compare the two to show the underlying moral logic of both decisions, and how they are equally abhorrent. Nationality is not natural because common identity cannot be quantified to be socially salient as a mode of organisation on the political level. Especially in this age where linguistic access is much more likely to create relationships and groupings rather than some abstract national category is. This concept of 'needing a nation' only functions under the same morality used to detain the Japanese and to deport and detain Mexicans - that of the 'potential, unknown invader'. This works only under two pretexts, which can be examined in tandem - either an essentialist claim about 'human nature', which is decidedly false, or the materialist claim that this only exists under a scarcity of resources. The first one is entailed by the second one as a necessary ideological justification for nationhood, which is ahistorical in that it ignores the materialist aspects of the foundations of nations themselves, which first started off as kinship and familial relations as the locus of social organisation, not as abritary groups (tribalism into feudalism) and then developed into abstractions about cultural differences, further abstract social groupings such as 'citizenship' and leads us to the situation we have today. Nowhere does the question of 'who has the right to own land' ever come in, and even more so, 'who has the right to nature's resources?' overall. Humans have a universal right, so arbitrary division, in the context of material plenty from an efficient mode of economic production, is morally unjustifiable by the facts at hand.
You're not just moving the goalposts, you're switching games entirely. Obvious strawman is obvious.
Have fun defeating the Nazis by doing nothing.
My current plan is to have people go into office who would resist Republicans. The Vichy Dems are the ones fighting that.
What's going to be awkward is when the never Biden crowd does more to create a left wing party than your blind support of Vichy Dems. As I said before, I hold the power in these elections.
I think your fear of anarchy whilst your insistence on moral relativism, in that detention in one instance is more benign than the other already shows the cognitive dissonance and your own prejudices in calling me right wing. I refer you and your dengist talking points to my earlier posts in this thread.
If the Dems are Vichy France then who is De Gaulle, I want to keep this going. I nominate Bob Avakian for the PCF in this instance.
Electing Joe Biden is also doing nothing, at least on that score.
Why are we even discussing voting for a handsy senile dullard responsible for mass incarceration and making it impossible to discharge student debt? The DNC can get serious and pick someone else or it can perish.
You know, in your heart, there can only be Vermin Supreme.
And Ron Paul as Paul Painlevé.
Nah, I think Vermin Supreme surpasses De Gaulle in that he wouldn't pull any of that post-War shit. He's more like Camus and Sartre in the resistance.
Well to be a proper De Gaulle, they have to be someone who's name you don't really know until they're actually in the shit.
They also have to be a pain in the ass to their allies, enemies, and fellow countrymen.
Not at all. Greed exists independently of s monetary system. If you think that im saying that their synonymous, then you misunderstand me. My criticism isn't that money is inherently evil. My argument is that the existance of currency creates a type of economic structure that teaches people from a young age to take part in behavior that is greedy by nature. I dont think most people can even imagine a large scale economic sytem that exists without currency. Capitalism is inherently greedy. I think a system without currency is better suited towards an ideal christian society.
Theoretically a system of christian ethics could still exist with currency. But it would not be capitalistic in nature, as things like interest would not exist.
But here's the thing. I don't claim that money is inherently evil. But you DO claim that increasing wealth is a good or moral thing. Its a beneficial thing for the benefactor, but I would never call it moral. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. It is exploititive in nature, and merely taking part in it is facilitating evil. To say it is a moral good is to erect a golden calf. Much like the one that stands in wallstreet.
I find it funny that the true leftists are now being called right wing by a bunch of social democrats.
They are as self aware as their presidential nominee
Left and right are descriptive terms commonly applied to most political diametrics. That includes economics, social politics, etc. That's how they've been understood throughout modern political history, since they came into being to describe French monarchists and revolutionaries.
In terms of taxation, pretty much nobody would dispute that more "progressive" systems-- which place more of the tax burden on higher earners and corporation tax, and/or act in a redistributive way-- are associated with the left. The tax system placed a larger proportion of the burden of tax on the higher earners under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy than it did under Obama.
This is in part, of course, because of their different starting points. Obama inherited a very different Overton Window with regards to tax. But if you're going to be making comparisons between Presidents in vastly different times anyway, then you cannot simply ignore tax systems have been vastly more progressive in the past.
So you're basing it on an assumption.
An assumption Sanders has been quite explicit in not making (see his statement on the matter), and using that assumption to justify doing the opposite of what Sanders has encouraged voters to do.
...And you believe this is the most effective way of bringing about the kind of politics Sanders represents.
With voters like these, who needs opponents?
You are correct in that left and right are purely descriptive, but they're descriptive of parliamentarianism, and a good chunk of political philosophy in the last 200 years has not been confined to the chambers of parliament. In that sense, it is true in that it is a false dichotomy, in that it is a dichotomy imposed on an abstract social body with certain presumptions on the delegation of political agency. In this context, representative democracy means that the collective will of masses is instrumentalised for the function of parliamentary debate, transformed as political agency being indicated as the will for a particular set of ideals a candidate will carry to the talks and policy-making proposals. Within that constellation, the masses have totally alienated their right to exercise political action, so in the end it boils down to a value judgement, much in the same way that alienated labour means all labour is to some degree interchangeable from the point of view of the labourer relative to the amount of money and other material benefits that can come with it.
Consequently, both in how politics and economics are not things you can ignore, unless you have sufficient wealth to do it, which the masses do not possess individually, the choice to vote and the choice to work are both equally arbitrary. You cannot escape politics anymore than you can escape having to look for work so that you don't starve. With this qualifier for the constellation, someone seeing an economically advantageous choice, like Bernie Sanders, evaporate due to intra-party politics with a precedent for underhanded behaviour (not obeying its own formal rules) and the weight of ideology being against them suddenly turning in favour of that apparatus would mean either two things: contempt for the electorate, or compromise. And no amount of compromise is done because you get to decide the outcome at the negotiation table. Refusal to participate whilst witnessing this spectacle is a rational outcome from politics that alienates people from their own political agency.
With the DNC trying to shut him out this hard, there is no other choice but to let the DNC die. The whole point of Sanders staying on the ballot is to get concessions out of the DNC at the convention. But if the DNC doesn't want to hear how much they need the left to survive, they don't get the left. They want to survive on trying to take Republican votes? Let's see if they can.
And it's definitely the DNC pushing this, because their explained reason is a load of horseshit, fuck these people.
- Status