The neoliberal left

[Timsup2nothin]

The secession of a repressed minority group almost always leads to two neighboring countries locked in a perpetual state of war, and the defense of a smaller country against an aggressor usually has to be repeated ad infinitum...unless of course you come back ten years later and just arbitrarily throw the aggressor into a state of complete chaos.

 

[VarrangianBard]

The secession of a repressed minority group almost always leads to two neighboring countries locked in a perpetual state of war, and the defense of a smaller country against an aggressor usually has to be repeated ad infinitum...unless of course you come back ten years later and just arbitrarily throw the aggressor into a state of complete chaos.

No, because the threat of your intervention is usually enough to maintain stability. The whole world is in an unprecedented state of peace right now, and it's because they're all terrified of getting bombed. Thats how korea isn't constantly at war, how russia hasn't retaken eastern europe, and how Iran hasn't reformed the persian empire

EDIT The key is to keep war goals limited, so that an aggressor is always incentivized to make peace. If you demand their head on a pike every time, like we've been doing, they have no reason not to fight us till the end

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Russia hasn't retaken Eastern Europe because they couldn't manage it when they had it. And the flip side is that under our protection our allies spread chaos and mayhem eastward as much as or more than we might be keeping it from spreading westward.

The middle east hasn't formed a regional cooperative union (did someone say long term stability was good?) because we jabbed a thorn into their collective sides three quarters of a century ago and routinely use threat of violence to twist it in the wound. Again, a net negative.

And peace is kept on the Korean peninsula by North Korean artillery aimed at Seoul as much as anything that we are doing. Or are you convinced we are backing "the good guys" who wouldn't be the least bit interested in reuniting Korea under their "enlightened" leadership?

 

[VarrangianBard]

Russia hasn't retaken Eastern Europe because they couldn't manage it when they had it. And the flip side is that under our protection our allies spread chaos and mayhem eastward as much as or more than we might be keeping it from spreading westward.

Which allies are you talking about? And Russia clearly wants more of eastern europe than it currently has. Maybe they don't want to go all the way to poland, but they have a lot of historical ties to ukraine that they would very much like to reaffirm with tanks.

The middle east hasn't formed a regional cooperative union (did someone say long term stability was good?) because we jabbed a thorn into their collective sides three quarters of a century ago and routinely use threat of violence to twist it in the wound. Again, a net negative

They haven't formed a regional union because it's a system of coallitons surrounding the two major powers, Iran and Arabia, who are divided as much by religious differences as by competing interests.

And peace is kept on the Korean peninsula by North Korean artillery aimed at Seoul as much as anything that we are doing. Or are you convinced we are backing "the good guys" who wouldn't be the least bit interested in reuniting Korea under their "enlightened" leadership?

Are you saying that the south wants to conquer the north? Ive met a lot of koreans, and they all say the same thing. HELL NO. They don't want a mass exodus of poor, brainwashed people flooding into their country, with the expense that comes with integrating them, and subsidizing their wages and healthcare. The same thing happened in germany after reunification. People were pissed that the impoverished east germans were taking all the jobs.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We should always keep in mind that we are most likely doing at least as much harm as good.

While I hate repeating myself, this seems like a really good place for this to have been said. Anyway...

"The evil Russians want to roll tanks! Eastern Europe would be a paradise if we just allowed the good guys to expand NATO right to the Russian border! OUR side is totally trustworthy. We trust us! Why don't they?"

"Those Middle Easterners are so divided! We should help them find ways to cooperate, by alternately arming ALL of them in turn! Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, back to Iraq, make sure the Israeli thorn is armed to the teeth, Egypt for a while, then not, then again...who else can we arm in order to help establish peace? Hey! Kurds!"

Korea is just so obviously going swimmingly that I suppose I have to just concede that one.

 

[VarrangianBard]

Well I guess we're just disagreeing at this point. Note that I didn't bring up NATO, I was mostly referring to Ukraine, not the Baltics. But the baltics are doing pretty good, thanks for asking. I also never said that arming various rebel groups was a good idea. And Korea... yeah! no war for 65 years is pretty good glad that's settled.

 

[Traitorfish]

IMO the best model is to have a dictatorship transition into a functional democracy, by providing initial stability, which later carries over into long term stability through free elections. Thats how it happened in almost every example of a functional democracy there is today.

Except Britain, France, Ireland, the United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland...

But, uh, you've got South Korea. That's a good start.

Or it would be, if the South Korea dictatorship had actually been stable, if it hadn't been three successive dictatorships, each of which ousted the other.

Um.

We have seen, here in the US anyway, that class-reductionism led to a racist left that alienated and excluded people of color, while race-reductionism led to reactionary nationalist and religious separatist movements. The actual originator of the phrase "identity politics" took all the important socialist positions mentioned in the text you quoted there. This is why you need intersectionality. Intersectionality is the opposite of fundamentalism or reductionism of whatever kind.

Okay, but: when?

The last significant left-wing formation in the United States that you can plausibly argue emphasised class to the exclusion of race was the Socialist Party in the early twentieth century. All the movements that followed them- the IWW, the Communist Party, the New Left- were all explicitly and emphatically anti-racist. The parts of the left that weren't willing to talk about race were absorbed into the New Deal coalition and shortly afterwards stopped talking about class, either, which they'd never much enjoyed talking about the place in the first place.

The thing is, you do see exactly this phenomenon in Europe, of leftists who are happy to hammer on about class, but are uncomfortable talking about race. What you don't see is the development of American-style "identity politics" as a response. So somewhere along the line, the narrative has got pretty scrambled.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well I guess we're just disagreeing at this point.

Yes, because you seem desperately committed to "we are the good guys doing good in the world" and I gave up believing that a long time ago.

Note that I didn't bring up NATO, I was mostly referring to Ukraine, not the Baltics.

So was I.

 

[VarrangianBard]

Except Britain, France, Ireland, the United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland...

Oh sorry, I guess none of those countries were ever ruled by despots who didn't give a damn about the people. I guess Henry the VIII, Napoleon, Charles the 12th of Sweden, etc. were all just figments of our collective imagination, America never had a revolution to free themselves from perceived tyranny, and former British colonies weren't offshoots of a society that gradually freed itself from hereditary rule. No, of course, democracy just HAPPENS. How could I forget?

Yes, because you seem desperately committed to "we are the good guys doing good in the world" and I gave up believing that a long time ago.

I never said we were. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, are all quagmires we never should have stepped foot into, and undoubtedly made the world worse. In the last 20 years we've made terrible decisions that have fiscal and political ramifications for decades, if not centuries. But that doesn't mean a military action is inherently negative. I agree that generally speaking, pure pacifism would be 100 times better than a stupid use of force, but that doesn't mean use of force has to be stupid. I thought I made several examples where our use of military led to a better outcome, but you're for some reason arguing that those actually were... worse outcomes?

 

[Senethro]

Oh sorry, I guess none of those countries were ever ruled by despots who didn't give a damn about the people. I guess Henry the VIII, Napoleon, Charles the 12th of Sweden, etc. were all just figments of our collective imagination, America never had a revolution to free themselves from perceived tyranny, and former British colonies weren't offshoots of a society that gradually freed itself from hereditary rule. No, of course, democracy just HAPPENS. How could I forget?

Your statement about dictatorship transitioning into democracy was so over-generalized that you shouldn't be surprised (or so defensive) when someone comes along and knocks a few holes in it. Britain transitioned from very autocratic to parliamentary democracy fairly gradually over many centuries, France underwent revolutions and big swings each way, New Zealand was founded in a time where the British monarchy had already (arguably) been wrestled into constitutional status.

 

[VarrangianBard]

Your statement about dictatorship transitioning into democracy was so over-generalized that you shouldn't be surprised (or so defensive) when someone comes along and knocks a few holes in it. Britain transitioned from very autocratic to parliamentary democracy fairly gradually over many centuries, France underwent revolutions and big swings each way, New Zealand was founded in a time where the British monarchy had already (arguably) been wrestled into constitutional status.

Yeah, you're right. Not mentioning monarchies and colonial governments as forms of dictatorship made it pretty weak.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

No, of course, democracy just HAPPENS. How could I forget?

One of your idiotic leaders even argued democracy could be spread with war. The MSM went along. I would be extremely cautious taking what both the government and the MSM say at face value as it has proven to be disastrous to the extreme.

I never said we were. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, are all quagmires we never should have stepped foot into, and undoubtedly made the world worse. In the last 20 years we've made terrible decisions that have fiscal and political ramifications for decades, if not centuries.

The big problem is that what you call terrible decisions with lasting ramifications someone else calls and sees different. You are in huge trouble if that someone is running your country and doesnt even get punishment. As a result of the huge missuse of power you are essentialy turning into police state. Saying nothing of the incredible suffering inflicted.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I never said we were. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, are all quagmires we never should have stepped foot into, and undoubtedly made the world worse. In the last 20 years we've made terrible decisions that have fiscal and political ramifications for decades, if not centuries. But that doesn't mean a military action is inherently negative. I agree that generally speaking, pure pacifism would be 100 times better than a stupid use of force, but that doesn't mean use of force has to be stupid. I thought I made several examples where our use of military led to a better outcome, but you're for some reason arguing that those actually were... worse outcomes?

More like agreeing with you that sometimes we luck into a "less bad" outcome...maybe. I've been known to be pretty positive about the outcome in the defense of Kuwait myself, but I acknowledge that there is no way of knowing what good a united Iraq/Kuwait might have done in the long run so I temper my enthusiasm. So I fall in the "use of force might be stupid, or it might not, but fact is we do it a lot and seem to think it is the go to solution" camp. Having been a part of "diplomacy" by threat of ultimate force I'm not a fan.

 

[Lexicus]

Okay, but: when?

The entire 19th century, and much of the 20th. Even today there are repeated calls (e.g. the OP) for "the left" to go back to the imagined olden days when we focused on economics and ignored identity.

The last significant left-wing formation in the United States that you can plausibly argue emphasised class to the exclusion of race was the Socialist Party in the early twentieth century. All the movements that followed them- the IWW, the Communist Party, the New Left- were all explicitly and emphatically anti-racist. The parts of the left that weren't willing to talk about race were absorbed into the New Deal coalition and shortly afterwards stopped talking about class, either, which they'd never much enjoyed talking about the place in the first place.

It seems like you're defining "the left" here as a very small section of what I would call "the left."

The thing is, you do see exactly this phenomenon in Europe, of leftists who are happy to hammer on about class, but are uncomfortable talking about race. What you don't see is the development of American-style "identity politics" as a response. So somewhere along the line, the narrative has got pretty scrambled.

Please explain further. I don't know what narrative you mean. My view is that identity politics began long ago in the mists of prehistory, not as a "response" to class-reductionism. Class-reductionism is to some degree an imagined thing in any case, as people in the present-day who call for the left to ignore identity and focus on economics are in fact themselves practicing (white, male, reactionary) identity politics.

Or it would be, if the South Korea dictatorship had actually been stable, if it hadn't been three successive dictatorships, each of which ousted the other.

Um.

We and the Stalinists really screwed up the whole thing. The PRK would have been great, but...

 

[Berzerker]

Not winning a single war for decades while skyrocketing the national debt is being so good at war? Are you also selling rain? Becouse I could use some...

If we won our wars nobody would mess with us and we couldn't practice for the future, wars are innovation accelerants. Gotta have veterans for training new soldiers too.

Not that we should be bragging, but we did take out Iraq twice

Bush sees a pissed off Saddam massing troops on Kuwait's border and doesn't tell him we have an interest in Kuwait's continued existence? We prefer peaceful resolutions to inter-Arab disputes yada yada? We have the last 3 decades of disastrous foreign policy because of Bush's reluctance to be honest and straightforward...or maybe we wanted Saddam gone now that he served our purpose with Iran and let him think we wouldn't care.

But surely these people understood toppling Saddam and promoting 'democracy' would result in the Shia majority bonding with Iran. Maybe we want to play the Shia off against the Sunni and we're helping the former because a divided Muslim world is preferable to a united one. I remember an interview with Baker and I think he said we thought Saddam would take the northern oil fields (that were the focus of one of Iraq's gripes), not the whole country.

So then Bush tells Iraqis to rebel and ends the war and wont help them rebel, Bush stands down and Saddam slaughters the rebels. I think the explanation was "stability". A decade later under Bush's son we invade Iraq again because Afghanistan was unsuitable for our war on terror because of Pakistan's 'stability'. And for the 8 years between these two criminals Clinton kept Bush's army in Saudi Arabia to enforce sanctions on Iraq knowing damn well it was making us a target. Both Clinton and Bush were greeted by terrorist attacks on the WTC when they didn't redirect our policy. Was all this just bungling politicians or a replacement for the Cold War? Sorry, went on a rant...

 

[VarrangianBard]

Please explain further. I don't know what narrative you mean. My view is that identity politics began long ago in the mists of prehistory, not as a "response" to class-reductionism. Class-reductionism is to some degree an imagined thing in any case, as people in the present-day who call for the left to ignore identity and focus on economics are in fact themselves practicing (white, male, reactionary) identity politics

I vehemently disagree with this statement. YOU are the one labeling this argument a white, male, reactionary one, in what appears to be an effort to discredit it.

First, a call to focus on class rather than race isn't a "white", phenomenon. It's a view shared by most Asians, and an ever growing number of Hispanics. And lets not forget the 15% of black voters who describe themselves as independent or republican.

Second, lumping together women's issues with racial issues is disingenuous. If "white men" are the problem, it implies that "black men" or "asian men" are blameless in keeping women from achieving parity. It also completely ignores the 40% of women who DON'T believe they are suffering from inequality, and are holding the movement back more than anyone.

Third, calling it "reactionary " is clearly an ad hominem attack. You might disagree with the argument, but you have to consider it on it's own merit, not just write it off.

 

[Lexicus]

YOU are the one labeling this argument a white, male, reactionary one, in what appears to be an effort to discredit it.

*clutches pearls tighter*

First, a call to focus on class rather than race isn't a "white", phenomenon. It's a view shared by most Asians, and an ever growing number of Hispanics. And lets not forget the 15% of black voters who describe themselves as independent or republican.

What evidence could you possibly have for your contentions about Asians and Hispanics? What do the 15% of black voters who identify as Republican or independent have to do with this at all? Do you even know what 'class reductionism' refers to?

Second, lumping together women's issues with racial issues is disingenuous. If "white men" are the problem, it implies that "black men" or "asian men" are blameless in keeping women from achieving parity. It also completely ignores the 40% of women who DON'T believe they are suffering from inequality, and are holding the movement back more than anyone.

Please point out where in my post I even use the phrase "white men". Also please explain how calling a perspective "white, male, reactionary" does any of what you're saying here.

Third, calling it "reactionary " is clearly an ad hominem attack. You might disagree with the argument, but you have to consider it on it's own merit, not just write it off.

I think you just don't know what "reactionary" means.
To quote wikipedia,

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.

We can see that this definition, in fact, perfectly fits those I applied it to in the part of my post you quoted. People today who call on the left to ignore identity are, essentially without exception, reactionaries. We can see an example of this this quite clearly in innonimatu's OP and his other postings on this subject, in which he quite clearly and openly expresses the desire for the left to return to a status quo ante, before the Pandora's box of "identity" was opened and the left started focusing on all this postmodern nonsense.

I can explain at length why I think these views are silly but as I didn't get any real engagement from my first post in this thread I don't see much point to it.

 

[VarrangianBard]

What evidence could you possibly have for your contentions about Asians and Hispanics? What do the 15% of black voters who identify as Republican or independent have to do with this at all? Do you even know what 'class reductionism' refers to?

Evidence? Personal experience mostly. All of the asians I know are salty they had to work harder than anyone else to get into college, and coming from a hispanic family I can tell you that our views don't deviate very much from those of whites. Black voters not identifying as democratic suggests they have disagreement with the actions of the democratic party, including their version of identity politics.

Please point out where in my post I even use the phrase "white men". Also please explain how calling a perspective "white, male, reactionary" does any of what you're saying here.

Clearly I was referring to "white, male". And I thought I did. There's nothing "male" about wanting to provide social services on a class-based metric rather than a race based one, just as there's nothing "white" about the oppression of women. Lumping them together obfuscates the issue, and assigns undue blame to those who are considered to be "white, male"

We can see that this definition, in fact, perfectly fits those I applied it to in the part of my post you quoted. People today who call on the left to ignore identity are, essentially without exception, reactionaries. We can see an example of this this quite clearly in innonimatu's OP and his other postings on this subject, in which he quite clearly and openly expresses the desire for the left to return to a status quo ante, before the Pandora's box of "identity" was opened and the left started focusing on all this postmodern nonsense.

Yes, pretend that the word doesn't have any negative connotations whatsoever when referring to a liberal movement.

 

[Lexicus]

Evidence? Personal experience mostly.

Say no more fam, I don't accept anecdotes in online debate. In any case, even if you did have actual evidence for your contention it would be meaningless as nonwhites can still hold the perspectives I call 'white'. Unlike some other people, I'm not an identity-reductionist.

Clearly I was referring to "white, male". And I thought I did. There's nothing "male" about wanting to provide social services on a class-based metric rather than a race based one, just as there's nothing "white" about the oppression of women. Lumping them together obfuscates the issue, and assigns undue blame to those who are considered to be "white, male"

I don't agree with you. And I don't see where I said there was anything "white" about the oppression of women. I'm not sure where I lumped anything together, in fact.
I think you're reading my words with a lot of assumptions baked in, and those assumptions are making you respond to things that I didn't actually say.

The only people I 'blamed' for anything were

people in the present-day who call for the left to ignore identity and focus on economics.

Now, most of these people are white men, of course, but not all of them are. Nonetheless they are all (whether wittingly or not) engaging in the identity politics of the aggrieved white man.

Yes, pretend that the word doesn't have any negative connotations whatsoever when referring to a liberal movement.

Your hang-ups relating to the word "reactionary" are not my problem.

 

[VarrangianBard]

In any case, even if you did have actual evidence for your contention it would be meaningless as nonwhites can still hold the perspectives I call 'white'. Unlike some other people, I'm not an identity-reductionist.

Got it, so if an ethnic minority disagrees with what you think they ought to believe, it ceases to be a minority perspective. How convenient for you.

On the contrary, since these views do nothing but reproduce the oppression of people who aren't white men, there is something very white and male about them.

How does helping people based on their class rather than their race or gender reproduce the oppression of people who aren't white men? If someone is poor, they will get help. Since a disproportionate number of black people are poor, they will still benefit disproportionately. Since a disproportionate amount of single mothers are poor, they will also benefit disproportionately.

Your hang-ups relating to the word "reactionary" are not my problem.

On the contrary, you are the one responsible for your use of language. If you willfully ignore connotation, that's on you. Try replacing "reactionary" in the quote above with N***** and see how well that works for you