Even As A Jaded Adult, Every So Often I See A Gore Picture/video That Deeply Disturbs Me. I Perfectly

Depends on how we define "violence" and "outcomes". On the one hand, the 1993 World Trade Center attack. On the other hand, the 2001 World Trade Center Attack.

And even if right-wing terror didn't prevent Roe vs. Wade, it certainly resulted in several dead abortion doctors and a presumably significant amount of foiled abortions-no doubt percieved as victories in and of themselves.

Over the years I've found myself more and more frustrated with the American left for one specific reason: a lack of violent direct action. Sure we'll picket and we'll insult people on twitter, but nobody's picking up guns or throwing molotov cocktails. We're all cowards and none of us are willing to die for the cause.

The reason for this is that "dying for the cause" is useless, regardless of how sexy you may find it. Violent direct action is a waste of time (and often counterproductive) outside of a very specific set of political conditions, even if one totally ignores the ethics of it. The US right spent decades violently attacking dozens of abortion clinics and literally bombing the Olympics in their attempts to outlaw abortion, and all of these efforts combined have had a smaller impact on the issue than one singular court decision made possible by an incredibly boring “long march through the institutions” in law schools, legislatures, courts, agencies, etc.

Everyone wants to be the cool guy holding a molotov in own their individualist fantasies, no one wants to do serious work that actually produces outcomes. Everyone wants to die for the cause because it is easier than living for the cause.

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.

Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market forces.

The market is a good example of evolution in action; the try-everything-and-see-what- -works approach. This might provide a perfectly morally satisfactory resource-management system so long as there was absolutely no question of any sentient creature ever being treated purely as one of those resources. The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system, and is - without the sort of drastic amendments liable to cripple the economic efficacy which is its greatest claimed asset - intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged and wide-spread suffering of conscious beings.

It is, arguably, in the elevation of this profoundly mechanistic (and in that sense perversely innocent) system to a position above all other moral, philosophical and political values and considerations that humankind displays most convincingly both its present intellectual [immaturity and] - through grossly pursued selfishness rather than the applied hatred of others - a kind of synthetic evil.

Intelligence, which is capable of looking farther ahead than the next aggressive mutation, can set up long-term aims and work towards them; the same amount of raw invention that bursts in all directions from the market can be - to some degree - channelled and directed, so that while the market merely shines (and the feudal gutters), the planned lases, reaching out coherently and efficiently towards agreed-on goals. What is vital for such a scheme, however, and what was always missing in the planned economies of our world’s experience, is the continual, intimate and decisive participation of the mass of the citizenry in determining these goals, and designing as well as implementing the plans which should lead towards them.

- Iain M Banks, http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm

Aiming for the impossible

It seems like most of the leftist writing I see, from publications like Current Affairs or Jacobin to everyday posts on tumblr, abandon any attempts to imagine what a socialist society would look like in favor of arguing for a better welfare state, higher wages, unionizing, and so on. I understand that abolishing property may not be politically feasible in the immediate future, but fuck, why should we be afraid to openly call for the core of our political philosophy? Abolishing private property is literally the first and foremost (if not the singular) demand of Communists, and yet so many leftists apparently fall into the trap of arguing against income inequality/the market mechanism rather than against the fundamental injustice of private property itself. Fighting libertarians over income inequality is useful, to be sure, but what if income disparities in some circumstances are actually due to individual choice/outside factors unrelated to discrimination, and the market is working as fairly/efficiently as it could? Imagine if your only criticisms of feudalism focus on the actions of evil kings and exceptionally cruel farming conditions, rather than the roots of the system itself.

I chalk this tendency up to Freddie deBoer’s observation that most leftists “want to lose” and would rather live a safe, predictable life of endless struggle against capitalism rather than doing the hard, boring, unsexy work of envisioning and campaigning for alternatives. And I get it, change is hard and growth is painful, especially when it weakens your identity/self-perception. But fuck that, I want my kids to see snow days. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, “Aim for the impossible and you’ll get everything that is possible thrown in. Aim for the possible and you’ll get neither.”

Is it overconfidence, or performed enthusiasm? So much of liberal activism is based around not just the support of/opposition against the correct issues and worldviews, but also increasingly forceful displays of devotion. You win social capital for being the loudest but also risk losing it by challenging your betters.

It’s surprisingly hard to accurately parody wokeness. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an attempt that passed the ideological Turing test. Most of them focus on all the wrong things – it’s 2018, otherkin discourse has been dead for years – and miss subtleties in such a way that you can tell no one writing these things has actually interacted with Extremely Online types. Which implies that they’re not really parodying wokeness qua wokeness, but rather the version that trickles down to them via shitty right-wing outrage bait.

"Finally, we gradually eliminate all words from our vocabulary. The working classes hate words. They’re all illiterate, probably; I assume they communicate in grunts and squeals. We must learn to squeal like they do. Roll around in the muck. Hide your delicate bourgeois face in a plastic snout. Lap up corn syrup from the trough. Drape yourself in a soiled flag and grunt the name of Jesus Christ. Squeal, piggy, squeal."

-Sam Kriss

also with all due respect the main reason the left loses so much is that y’all refuse to compromise on the language and messaging you use to speak to voters. i swear if you rebranded “defund the police” as “invest in community safety from the ground up” most white suburban moderates would be like “that sounds great” and i know that because that’s how i’ve literally reframed it to white suburban moderates who think “defund the police” means we’re going to live in a scary lawless mad max world

Communism is when you do a lot of unpaid overtime and are expected to be grateful for the privilege, apparently.

There were many incredibly hardworking peasants and workers in the USSR who achieved astonishing things in service of the revolution, but the fact that they had to make such extraordinary sacrifices is itself a tragedy, and should not be celebrated.

The individual referred to in OP's post was actually named Nikolai Ostrovsky (Pavel Korchagin was the main character of his fictionalized autobiography). He lived a short life full of hardship and sacrifice and died at 32. I think the best way to honor his memory would be to create a world in which such sacrifices are no longer necessary.

wait till i tell "i don't dream of labor" crowd about pavel korchagin who became soviet national role model for basically working himself to multiple disabilities to save town from freezing in the winter during russian civil class war. he wrote autobiographical novel while already blind for which he became famous. and in it there was a scene where anyone who refused to work in those terrible conditions were asked to give up their communist card. because you can't claim to call yourself a communist without being ready to put in as much work as you can. and that wasn't just him ussr was able to withstand these critical first years thanks to selfless underpayed work put by it's people towards rebuilding country's wealth. getting rid of feodal lords and capitalists was enough motivation imagine that! the fact so many people who call themselves communists on here seem to be proud of flaunting their individualism and complete lack of proletarian morals is an insult to all revolutionary workers of the past. go call yourselves libertarians or something.

Kids are dumb and will say weird shit; of they hear this from their parents, what's the context? Is this a case of genuine conviction or edgy lower-class humor? For all the fervor over Muslims, I've yet to see any investigative journalism over how Muslims in Europe actually raise their kids to interact with society at large, and whether they use homeschooling, etc to their advantage like fundamentalists in the US. There also seems to be no concerted effort from even the right-wingers to attack Islam as an ideology/belief system anymore, which is a shame.

Even preschoolers are radicalizing in Belgium “They threaten to murder ‘infidels’, slice their necks, call classmates pigs”

A recently started initiative “Network Islam-experts” records issues of radicalized students. Since 2016 there have been 481 cases of schools who encountered ‘problems’. Today for the first time a case-file was made public involving toddlers.

An East-Flemishs school network made an internal report named “indoctrination among toddlers”, it details problematic behavior:

“Citing Arabic verses during playtime, refusing to come to class because it doesn’t fit their beliefs, not coming to school on Friday for ‘religious reasons’. A girl refuses to give a boy a hand or to stand in line near boys.”

Sadly these are the least frightening cases:

A preschooler already has a ‘friend’ in Morocco she will be married to later. A child threatens to murder ‘infidels’. Calling non-Muslim students ‘pigs’. Making the motion of slicing someones neck.”

After conversation with parents it was concluded they support these actions and found them funny.

1, 2, 3

Idea: Resolve this problem by giving workers the power to fire colleagues that they deem lazy or dangerously incompetent. Terminated workers have the right to defend themselves in a court-like environment, with consideration given to the importance/inherent danger of their job and the consequences of letting them stay or forcing them out. Terminated workers are compensated with unemployment benefits and recieve assistance from local government in finding a new occupation.

No ruling class has ever acted like gentlemen, precisely because rulership rooted in exclusive rights and privileges (property, literacy, religion, rank, prestige, etc) requires and incentivizes constant paranoia to ensure that the non-elite don't get too uppity.

As long as conflicts of interest exist between leaders and citizens, the ruling class will consist mostly of frightened, grasping, strivers, and almost nothing can be done to produce gentlemanly conduct from them.

If you want your elites to behave like gentlemen, you have to give them the status and the security of gentlemen.

If you make a project of keeping your elites scared and on their toes -- if you work to convince them that they have to scrabble for every advantage and that they're always in danger of falling into the abyss -- then you will have elites who act like frightened, grasping strivers. Which is what you have. Do you like it?

I've made this point like a dozen different ways by now. Perhaps someday I'll actually write the essay, instead of tossing off yet another few frustrated paragraphs.