DocWatts

Which is why it's not worth engaging Bad Faith Actors on the Right, for the reasons you outline; if someone has no interest in solving any of the issues that we care about, then yeah, it's a waste of time. The problem is when you begin drawing false equivalencies between Centrists or Liberals and the Right, for the reason that the former (Centrists and Liberals) tend to be much more amenable to making progress on things like wealth inequality, climate change, racial inequities, etc. What we should realistically be shooting for is to move the Overton Window to the Left, and make it so that Progressive Ideas become more and more acceptable in main stream political discussions. The way this is done is by making a compelling case that our ideas are reasonable, and by being willing to work with others within the system. Why do you think Bernie Sanders has been so successful? Do you think he'd be one of the most powerful people in the US Senate right now if he'd run as an Independent, and made a point of alienating the very people he'd need to work with in order to get anything accomplished? Or is it that he had enough Wisdom to know that the path of least Resistance for effecting change is to work within the system in order to change the rules of the Game.

Literally every political identity in existence has the capacity to adopt a victim mentality, whether justified or not. Yeah Leftist movements have been treated like shit at many points through history, but that doesn't give us the right to act like bullies and jerks ourselves (this is coming from someone highly sympathetic to democratic socialism, for what its worth). The context of my post was specifically in regards to the moralizing I sometimes see that drives a wedge between The Far Left and potential Liberal or Centrist Allies. It's completely counter productive, and only serves to make people draw false equivalencies between The Far Left and the Far Right. If we want to convince people that our ideas are worth taking seriously, it's on us to show that we're the ones being reasonable, and part of that includes means being able to engage with other people acting in Good Faith that we just happen to disagree with on some things. That doesn't mean engaging with Bad Faith actors on the Right, but it does mean not alienating people you could potentially work with to make progress on a variety of issues.

Okay then, here's my hot take. Probably not a radical viewpoint here, but certain people will take it that way: People on the Far Left need to chill the fuck out and stop demonizing Liberals and Centrists, and learn to play nice with other worldviews and perspectives in order to get anything accomplished. Seriously, the amount of moralizing from elements of the online Left feels like a mirror image of the same high horse that Libertarians ride into conversations on, and only serves to make Progressive ideas seem unreasonable to everyone else.

Legislation that would make Washington DC 51st state introduced to Senate https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/washington-dc-51st-us-state-senate-b1793590.html For those outside of the US, Washington DC has roughly the same population as the state of Alaska (around 700,000), but no Voting rights within the House or Senate. The practical effect of statehood for DC would be to add two seats to the Senate which come from an area that's overwhelmingly Democratic. As such, Republicans will be vehemently opposed to this (though they'll of course couch their opposition in Constitutional terms supported by antiquated arguments from the Founding Fathers that are no longer relevant in modern times).

This is maybe a fifteen or thirty minute drive away from the picture below, taken from Gross Pointe, a rich suburb that lies on the border of Detroit.

Is that really so surprising in a country where the division of both Wealth and Social Capitol is so extraordinarily uneven? We have some of the best research institutions in the world, yet if you drive to an elementary school in a neighborhood twenty minutes away you'd be forgiven for thinking you'd crossed the border into a developing country. If anything, this speaks to huge developmental imbalances within American society and institutions

Unless I'm completely misremembering, I believe it was A Theory of Everything, though I don't have a print copy offhand to find the exact quote. It was in the section where he was discussing examples of the Mean Green Meme and drops Bernie Sanders name when coming up with examples.

Insightful guy, but clearly suffering from some of the Boomeritis that he describes in his work, through his demonization of Green. Just off the top of my head, when talking about the Mean Green Meme in one of his books, of all of the countless examples of dysfunctional Green he could have brought up... he mentions Bernie Sanders of all people. While I still respect Wilber for his body of work, he's also clearly out of touch with the times.

I'm guessing they'll run a slightly more respectable scumbag with a veneer of professionalism this time around. Plenty of examples from fiction they could turn to for proofs of concept:

I know some of the Left are upset that the $15 an hour minimum wage increase would set in gradually over four years rather than increasing all at once, when to me it seems like a necessary compromise to give small businesses time to adjust. The larger issue is that the increase doesn't include a provision to update the minimum wage according to the Inflation Index on a yearly basis, which means having to fight this same battle over and over again every ten to fifteen years.

@Consilience Not sure if either of these apply in your case, but people over a certain income threshold ($87k) as well as people who were claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return were not eligible for the last round of stimulus checks.

I'd disagree; things like Medicare for all, defunding the police, and eliminating the Senate filibuster are actual points of contention between Progressives, Liberals, and Centrists within the Democratic Party. Raising the minimum wage is something that most of the Democratic Party is on board with. That said, there's not a chance in Hell of Republicans supporting this, which is why budget reconciliation is the only feasible way this could pass.

That's great news. Though it will live or die depending on whether it can be passed through the Budget Reconciliation process, because Republicans will certainly nuke this from orbit with the filibuster if it has to go through the usual channels...

Breakdown of the $1.9 Stimulus Package Biden has proposed : https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/14/biden-stimulus-package-details-checks-unemployment-minimum-wage.html - Direct payments of $1,400 to most Americans, bringing the total relief to $2,000, including December’s $600 payments - Increasing the federal, per-week unemployment benefit to $400 and extending it through the end of September - Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour - Extending the eviction and foreclosure moratoriums until the end of September - $350 billion in state and local government aid - $170 billion for K-12 schools and institutions of higher education - $50 billion toward Covid-19 testing - $20 billion toward a national vaccine program in partnership with states, localities and tribes - Making the Child Tax Credit fully refundable for the year and increasing the credit to $3,000 per child ($3,600 for a child under age 6)

I'm mostly active in the Society and Politics section, and one of the most useful things about this forum is getting a variety of different perspectives about world events, and having some of my viewpoints challenged in thoughtful ways. Occasional Trump Cultist aside, this forum has been great at having productive and respectful discussions on a variety of issues. In my day to day life (even before Covid) I've had very limited opportunities to interact with people from other countries, so discussing things with people outside of America has been engaging and valuable.

@Preety_India I'll preface this by saying that this is also a somewhat Reductionist account for the problems facing Society, but as opposed to Marx's 150 year old theory, this is at least more representative of the world we now live in. The Precariat : General term for people living in postindustrial economies who possess low Social Capitol, and are subjected to a precarious socio-economic existence - Most people working in Service Industry jobs such as Retail, who don't make a living wage and possess little to no job security - People who still work in formerly middle class blue collar jobs (like coal mining or truck driving) which are quickly becoming obsolete, and who are facing the looming threat of losing their livelihoods - People who provide vital services (home care workers, teachers) whose work isn't rewarded by the market, and who typically work for low wages (if in the private sector), or are aren't given the tools and support to do their jobs (public sector workers like teachers). - These people provide the base of support for populist movements both on the Left and the Right The Consumptariat : Refers to people who may or may not be well off economically, but who don't possess the Social and Informational Capitol to contribute in a meaningful and fulfilling way to Postindustrial society. Their role is instead reduced from one of participation to passive consumption. - Older people who the digital revolution has passed by. (Think of your grandparent who doesn't know how to use a Computer, and needs help logging on to facebook, and then proceed to share fake news articles because they don't know any better). - People who are in a position of financial stability due to reaping the rewards of the old, pre-digitized system, but whose skills are no longer those that are required to secure a comfortable existence - People lacking media literacy, and who consume media passively and uncritically. Fox News viewers are the most obvious example that come to mind. - Includes most toxic aspects of materialist consumer culture. Includes people who are driven to consume and display material wealth as a measure of social status, but who aren't contributing to postindustrial culture in any meaningful way - Can include people whose cultural norms are threatened by the direction society is heading in - There is a lot of overlap with the Precariat, but can include people who are financial well off that are nonetheless excluded from participation in society The Netocrats (aka the postindustrial aristocracy): Refers to people who possess the cultural capitol to thrive in a Postindustrial economy - Software engineers, digital artists, social media influencers, venture capitalists. People working in skilled trades that can't be outsourced or automated. - People who are tech and media savvy, and are in a position to contribute to the cultural environment, rather than just being a passive consumer - People who have the skillset and cultural capitol to enjoy a secure existence in a postindustrial, digitized economy - People whose cultural norms aren't threatened by the direction that society is heading in Precariat wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat#:~:text=In sociology and economics%2C the,portmanteau merging precarious with proletariat. Brief description of The Consumptariat https://books.google.com/books?id=auBiDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT285&lpg=PT285&dq=Consumptariat&source=bl&ots=t1lplU1E87&sig=ACfU3U3c_tS9eRapqfM7QpzZehStK0oyTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC8LyqqrfuAhU5AZ0JHTgOBlAQ6AEwA3oECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=Consumptariat&f=false Netocrat wikipedia article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netocracy

My view is that the class distinctions proposed in Marxist Theory aren't so much wrong as they are a Reductionist and somewhat outdated way of looking at Society. Sure, divisions between people who own Capitol and people who sell their labor do exist, but some people on the far Left cling to 150 year old theory like nothing's changed over the course of the last century and a half. Here's just one Concrete example of how Marx's Theory is outdated: it fails to make a clear distinction between service industry workers and creative professionals, who in a technical sense are both proletariat because they both sell their labor rather than having access to Capitol; but still live in two different worlds as far as how creatively fulfilled they are, and how much control they have over their lives. A more updated model, though still somewhat Reductionist, has been proposed, and looks something like: - The Precarait (A general term for people in society who happen to find themselves suffering from precarious socio-economic conditions, and are excluded in some degree from making meaningful contributions to society. This would include both the working class as well as many middle class people whose livelihoods are being threatened by globalization and automation). - The Consumptariat (People who benefit from more stable socio-economic conditions, but are out of step with the larger culture, and are excluded from Contributing to society, only participating in it as Consumers.). - The Neocrats (The movers an shakers of Society, who possess the cultural capitol and skills to meaningfully contribute to our globalized, digitized age).

Good critique on developmental models like Spiral Dynamics from 'The Listening Society', that's worth keeping in mind:

Might be worth an addendum video of its own to the Spiral Dynamics series : 'Limitations of the Spiral Dynamics'. Or more broadly : 'Limitations of Developmental Psychology'. Powerful as Spiral Dynamics is, I do think that it tends to be overemphasized to some degree, and it might be worth taking some time to point to deconstruct the model in order to point some of its Limitations (for example how it tries to squeeze several dimensions of a person's development down to just one axis; namely thier cultural value code). And that models of developmental psychology like SD aren't immune to being applied in a reductionist way.

The Republican Party has a long history of using Voter Suppression tactics as part of its political strategy for the last half century (when more people turn out to vote, Republicans tend to lose elections). This is almost always done in a targeted way towards poorer districts that are disproportionately black, and who reliably vote Democrat. Voter Suppression is primarily done through gerrymandering, and through creating obstacles that make it harder to Vote. This will include closing Voting locations, restrictive voter ID laws, and limiting the ability to vote by mail. The idea is to place obstacles thay will dissuade people from Voting in a targeted way. These obstacles aren't nearly as hard to overcome if you're an affluent person, but were chosen to be especially difficult for poor people to navigate. The reason why this has been increasing as of late is a 2013 Supreme Court decision overturning parts of the Voting Rights Act, legislation that was drafted to prevent just these sorts of Voter Suppression tactics.

Basically this is advocating for an abandonment (in this instance) of the larger principle of accountability for people who commit crimes while in High Office, in exchange for a tactical political advantage. I'm not sure I like this at all. It sets a terrible precedent if people who hold high office can commit flagrant crimes, up to and including insurrection, and not face any consequences for it. And even if you're right and Trump running again would fracture and cripple the GOP, the emergence of a large crypto-fascist third party could come with unexpected consequences. Off the top of my head it could lead to an even larger increase in radicalization and political violence. It could lead to this potential 'Patriot Party' to wash thier hands of electoral politics once they realize that they have no chance of winning elections, and increasingly resort to terrorism as a means to effect political change. The two political parties have at least some moderating influence on these people, who's to say what might happen when that last constraint is removed.

Correctomundo; this is a structural issue built into the very foundation of our legislative system. As such, it's going to be very hard to change this without radically restructuring our entire legislative system. It's something we will probably just have to live with, as our time and energy would be more fruitfully spent on more achievable goals like abolishing the electoral college and restoring the Voting Rights Act.

Public ownership of the means of production is one way of doing Socialism, but there are also more Libertarian forms of Socialism which focus more on workers democratically owning the businesses they work for, where businesses still operate within a market system. What I see as a more workable system would probably end up being a blend of Social Democracy and Market Socialism. Most of the economy would still consist of businesses competing within a market framework, but businesses are run much more democratically than they are now. This wouldn't necessarily have to mean every workplace would be fully democratic, but could mean that companies above a certain size would have to include worker representation on its board of directors. In firms that are still traditionally run, the inherent power imbalance between employee and employer would have to be addressed in some way, either by much stronger protections for workers, or making it much easier for employees to start a Union. This system would also include public ownership of Industries that are essential to public well being, but only in places where Markets do not function well (health care, utilities, public transit, etc).

Incredibly instructive video from David Pakman on a focus group in which Trump supporters explain why they believe the things they do. Cringe inducing yet quite informative on how evident it is that these people have been programmed by manipulative Right Wing media.