Latest Posts by grumpyoldcommunist - Page 4

Pretty sure that the massive industrialization experienced largely by the North, and the development of a complex state apparatus suited to the demands of the century is what allowed the US to become a world power. I doubt that agrarian landowners, many of whose activities actually disrupted peaceful economic and social reconstruction (such as the Klan and assassinating the president who had, all things considered, treated them with a decent amount of mercy) were in any way responsible for healing the divide post-Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln wasn’t the greatest US President because he led the nation through civil war, he’s the greatest because he lead the nation through civil war and then managed to completely prevent the numerous atrocities that oftentimes follow civil wars where the winning side proceeds to utterly annihilate the losers through systematic persecution/extermination.

Abraham Lincoln’s vision of unconditional forgiveness for the South (which admittedly took some time to enact and didn’t truly come to fruition until the Grant administration and the end of Reconstruction) is what enabled America to quickly recover from the war and go on to become a major world power by the turn of the century.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I agree with you; everyone thinks that their values and groups are sacred and beyond criticism. As a result, we fight over which policies are humanitarian without making sure that we actually agree on what "humanitarianism" is.

My reply to your original post was because it seemed to imply that progressives were/are incapable of acting upon anything but cynical power politics, when something closer to the opposite is true, I think: progressives genuinely support a particular, tribally informed form of humanitarianism that may not represent the country's (let alone humanity's) as a whole. The same holds true for most of the rest of us.

Likewise, I’d be willing to agree to a number of things progressives might want on immigration, but only in such a way that it would utterly ruin any political advantage they were hoping to gain from it.

If the concern is purely humanitarian and not political, they’d agree to the bargain, but of course it never was actually pure.

I had always assumed the opposite- that the "hot take" industry/phenomenon would continue for a much longer period, as we found new things to argue about and occupy "The Discourse". But maybe the stagnation is due to the fact that despite our having discussed certain topics to death (immigration, race, etc) they still persist and we can't do anything about them? Thus, talking about them over and over is a form of collective anxiety management, or less charitably, emotional masturbation, where we pretend that endless discussion is an acceptable substitue for action because we want to believe that words and discussion alone can have material consequences.

The homogeneity of the takes themselves can probably be attributed to groupthink, but also a fear of creativity and the associated fear that our ideas will be bad and will result in a loss of social status.

Singing from the same hymnal

I’m not one of those “don’t talk about politics, entertain me!” people, but it seems like so much of the media I consume - podcasts especially - have collapsed in subject matter and mostly give the same takes on the same circumscribed set of topics.

Yes, it’s good to be “relevent” whatever that means, but it’s a big world out there. It’s callous to say that the 542nd nearly identical immigration/asylum story with the same cast of stock sympathetic characters doesn’t add much to the debate, but, well, it doesn’t. Even for a pro-DREAMer and anti-wall guy like me. If your heartstrings weren’t tugged by 1-541, one more ain’t gonna help, assuming you’re listening to respectable establishment media like NPR at all. For example, regulations of all types are being rolled back at both the federal and state levels, with wildly diverse stakeholders and all manner of potential outcomes to discuss. Sure, you can pick out some discussion of these things if you are hellbent on proving me wrong, but they’re relatively few and far between.

Media will come out the other side, that I’m sure of, but my guess is that the archives will be a little embarrassing, with the 2016-2018 era (at least) carrying an “if you’ve heard one, you’ve heard them all” reputation. Perhaps history does this anyway; the late ‘60s lives in the popular memory as a series of protests against the Vietnam War, retconned as both popular and inevitable, which certainly wasn’t true at the time. Perhaps the history books will collapse this era into immigrants, sexual consent of relatively plugged-in white women and maybe some dead black men, though that wave may have crested by now. But doing so will inevitably miss dozens of silent revolutions going on all around us.

"My enemies are dehumanizing me by calling me a remorseless monster. Time to prove them wrong by dehumanizing them as a justification of cruelty towards them."

They REALLY don’t like the NPC meme. Keep pushing it! Maybe they’ll stop fucking calling us “Russian bots”.

Attention: Tumblr has Alex Jonesed the old Right Smarts account. Please follow this new account. Thank You!

So no king anywhere has ever said anything close to "I want to build up a massive army so I can beat my rival" or "I want to sleep with your wife"? From the other direction, are you also suggesting that ambition and ruthlesness are nowhere to be found among the peasant populations as well? From the other other direction, perhaps the stereotype of the lazy/fat noble exists for a reason?

Also just in general wrt “the king wants the same things as the peasants but the barons don’t”, I’m really skeptical of the amount of faith that monarchists tend to invest in that relationship because it seems like it has at least as much to do with the idea of kingly purity (e.g. “if only the Czar knew”) as with the actual relationship. But even where that relation exists, it’s not a statement that rulers of larger domains are more likely to agree with the peasants. The way the “king and peasants vs. the aristocracy” setup works even when it works is that the king is playing the two factions against one another and using the perceived legitimacy of his mandate – something lesser aristocrats lack – to defend himself against the faction otherwise most dangerous to his rule.  If you fragment that kingdom and now every barony is a tiny kingdom with its own court, the political class relations change completely; you can’t extrapolate them from how the region functioned as a province of a larger entity.

What is land theft? Who owns land? Is it whoever settled it first? Whoever defends it from challengers? Should individuals own land exclusively or do people who share a certain culture or race have a right to own land exclusively? How are culture and race defined?

Put it simply, to heavily paraphrase James Conolly, what use is it for black South Africans to drive out white landowners if they will only end up being exploited by their own black bourgeoisie? Does it really make a difference what color hand holds the whip?

No Country For White Men: This after The Leftist Media spent all yesterday saying Trump was lying and it’s a “conspiracy theory”

There's a problem here in that if we give socialism a broad meaning to the point where it can be applied to any political program involving state planned/owned/regulated economy, we end up with "socialism with Chinese characteristics". On the other hand, when I try to give specific, concrete examples of what I want socialism to look like or what I think it would grow into given sufficient organic development and trial-and-error experimentation, my definitions are so narrow I quickly end up looking like just another special snowflake whose own personal definition of socialism has never been tried, etc.

It's great that we discuss and debate our terms but I fear that leaving them too vague means we get bogged down in semantic infighting and our political results follow suit.