What's Left? - How the left lost its way.

[Mr BoShambles]

For example: some people on the left advocate reparations for slavery. Many on the left favor economic 'free trade' reform so that the severe asymmetry of power within the WTO can be somewhat counterbalanced. Many favor social programs that attempt to give an economic leg up to those who are born underprivileged. There are several thousand of these I could mention.

The reasons why are complex and vary by example, but they are usually quite obvious. People on the left favor economic reparations and countermeasures to class stratification because it would benefit the lower and lower middle classes, and in turn help level the playing field for people who want to achieve success and financial stability in life but otherwise would simply be unable to do so.

Ok lets take this bit by bit. So how would you/the left reform free trade to address the asymmetry of power between states (which would exist in a world of 'free trade' or not)? And how would increased protectionism benefit the lower and middle classes in the worlds poorer countries? Is it not true that in many cases tariffs, barriers and quotas have an adverse effect on the lives of the majority in any given society while acting as a tool to priviledge the elite and the state monopolies they support. I am as against the stupid economic nationalist type protectionism we exhibit in the West as I am elsewhere... our agricultural subsidies being the best example.

Not sure exactly what kind of social programs you are suggesting. Generally speaking, although social/redistributive programs can often be ineffective and sometimes even counter-productive, I'm not against them per se. Depends on their intentions, how well planned they are and ultimately how effective they are in each individual case.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

For example: some people on the left advocate reparations for slavery.

Oh yeah and as for this bit, as you're fond of saying.... PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

Slavery was and - where it is still practiced - is horrific and unjust. Which slaves (or their descendents) do you want to be reparated? All current slaves and all the descendents of slaves in the world need to be reparated right? And by whom exactly? And how logistically is this process possible?

Very interested in what you have to say here.....

 

[bruno]

the current lack of conviction in any ideal - amongst the contemporary left - is demonstrated by a cultural relativism which justifies/turns a blind eye to all manner of persecution and oppression in other parts of the world on the basis that 'they're not like us, they've got a different regime of truth, you can't apply the same standards'. The actions of totalitarian dictators and religous fundamentalists can seemingly be justified and if not supported then certainly understood as a response to this so-called hegemonic structure of liberal markets, intellectual freedom, democracy and human rights. So much then for the traditional leftist stand against fascism, instead we have a growing 'West-bashing' sentiment combined with a sad apathy to the suffering of peoples in other parts of the world - Darfur, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea etc etc. In effect its all the fault of the 'West' (government and business alike) and thus the response of the left is passivity and isolationism. What a sad reflection of the left today - self consumed and devoid of principle!

it's always about doing what's best for others, isn't it. but troops and money will never be mobilised to liberate, this is pure fantasy. which is why it hasn't and will never happen in the case of the poor suffering peoples you mention, not until they have something to offer in return.

i don't know how 'leftist' this is but i feel it's the decent thing to do: respect the limits the other party has set out, engage constructively, negociate, nudge them in the right direction, let them find a way out of their own problems. or invade and pillage outright but spare us the lies about why you're doing it.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Whatever, I wasn't disagreeing with him, just making an attempt to understand what he was going on about.

You made no such 'attempt'; on the contrary, you summarily dismissed everything I was saying about Mailer.

Something I was only doing because he got all neurotic about me 'dismissing' his post when I was responding to something else.

Sheesh.

Again, you were directly responding to my post, dismissing it as irrelevant, and now - in your pop-psychological ignorance - you're yet again resorting to abusive, derogatory terms (neurotic, twit, etc), in a pathetic - and properly neurotic-paronoid - attempt to cover your tracks.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

it's always about doing what's best for others, isn't it. but troops and money will never be mobilised to liberate, this is pure fantasy. which is why it hasn't and will never happen in the case of the poor suffering peoples you mention, not until they have something to offer in return.

i don't know how 'leftist' this is but i feel it's the decent thing to do: respect the limits the other party has set out, engage constructively, negociate, nudge them in the right direction, let them find a way out of their own problems. or invade and pillage outright but spare us the lies about why you're doing it.

Sorry Bruno just to be clear - the stance that you are advocating is that we should not interfere in the goings on in any other sovereign state apart from quiet words every now and again if we think its necessary right? Perhaps we can make moral judgements regarding what we think is right or wrong but we cannot force these on other people/societies? Is that it in a nutshell?

 

[bruno]

ina nutshell, yes. i'm anti intervention for whatever bullshit reasons are given for it but above all because i believe in self determination and the dignity that comes with it.

edit: same stance as here http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=3696, and firmly against so-called multilateral interventions as well.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Sorry Bruno just to be clear - the stance that you are advocating is that we should not interfere in the goings on in any other sovereign state apart from quiet words every now and again if we think its necessary right? Perhaps we can make moral judgements regarding what we think is right or wrong but we cannot force these on other people/societies? Is that it in a nutshell?

Sorry, just to clarify, but who is this 'we' that you invoke here? The Chinese? The Iranians? The Russians? The Japanese? The South Africans? The Cubans? The Venezuelans? Given that they're so ruthlessly busy 'interfering in the goings on of other sovereign states'.

Perhaps they should all maybe take your advice, maybe get together, and - like the US - immediately establish 1,000 belligerent military bases in 135 countries around the world in order to enforce their 'moral judgements.' Starting with the US and UK ...

Maybe [as the UN would say].

 

[noel emits]

You made no such 'attempt'; on the contrary, you summarily dismissed everything I was saying about Mailer.

Well you are wrong. But so what if I had ignored your post you pompous *******? It was unnecessarily verbose and convoluted as usual. I will say what I wish to say whether you deem it sufficiently deferential to your self important bletherings or not.

Again, you were directly responding to my post, dismissing it as irrelevant, and now - in your pop-psychological ignorance - you're yet again resorting to abusive, derogatory terms (neurotic, twit, etc), in a pathetic - and properly neurotic-paronoid - attempt to cover your tracks.

Yeah name calling is low. You have to understand it was because you were being a total ******* ******* ***** and claiming I was lying when actually you had misinterpreted what I'd said.

Sorry everyone.

(That's not a "pathetic populist appeal to the approval of the 'other'", it's a considerate acknowledgment that no-one else cares about this bickering.)

 

[nomadologist]

Ok lets take this bit by bit. So how would you/the left reform free trade to address the asymmetry of power between states (which would exist in a world of 'free trade' or not)? And how would increased protectionism benefit the lower and middle classes in the worlds poorer countries? Is it not true that in many cases tariffs, barriers and quotas have an adverse effect on the lives of the majority in any given society while acting as a tool to priviledge the elite and the state monopolies they support. I am as against the stupid economic nationalist type protectionism we exhibit in the West as I am elsewhere... our agricultural subsidies being the best example.

Not sure exactly what kind of social programs you are suggesting. Generally speaking, although social/redistributive programs can often be ineffective and sometimes even counter-productive, I'm not against them per se. Depends on their intentions, how well planned they are and ultimately how effective they are in each individual case.

If you'd studied economics at all, you'd realize that there IS a happy medium between "protectionism" and changing economic policy so the third world doesn't constantly get shafted. Just because the EXISTING quotas/tarrifs/etc do not work well, this does not mean NEW ONES couldn't.

"Can often be ineffective"...show me the numbers on this?

 

[Mr BoShambles]

If you'd studied economics at all

You know nothing about me... to be frank you are both presumptuous and just plain rude. I'm interested in an open debate, you may not like some of my points and vice versa but resorting to this kind of shit is completely unecessary.

 

[nomadologist]

Excuse me? If you've studied economics, by all means use some to add depth to your points-of-view.

I think it's just plain rude and presumptuous to start a thread that is obviously intended to bait the non-conservative leaning posters (which includes most people on Dissensus) into an argument about the same old "Leftist" strawman that gets touted on here constantly by the usual suspects.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Well you are wrong.

On the contrary.

But so what if I had ignored your post

We can now take that as a final, grudging admission.

you pompous *******?

Your posts here are the very definition of pomposity ("T'll say whatever I like even when I'm obviously wrong.").

It was unnecessarily verbose and convoluted as usual.

You had some difficulty understanding it?

I will say what I wish to say whether you deem it sufficiently deferential to your self important bletherings or not.

Very Norman Mailer. Proceed with your incoherent adolescent babblings.

Yeah name calling is low. You have to understand it was because you were being a total ******* ******* ***** and claiming I was lying when actually you had misinterpreted what I'd said.

It was you who made such a claim about yourself, finally admitting it above.

Sorry everyone.

Yet another acknowledgement of your embarrassing droolings hereabouts.

(That's not a "pathetic populist appeal to the approval of the 'other'", it's a considerate acknowledgment that no-one else cares about this bickering.)

If you couldn't care less about all of this (something I already pointed out about you up-thread but which you predictably denied), then stop clogging up bandwidth with your infantile ravings and fuck off ...

 

[nomadologist]

Normal Mailer just died--just saw the obit today...

Let's put this Mailer shit to rest, yeah?

 

[Gavin]

Normal Mailer just died--just saw the obit today...

Let's put this Mailer shit to rest, yeah?

Dead but already forgotten...

 

[Guybrush]

In Mr BoShambles defence (not that he cannot defend himself), most economists are still much more sceptical of tarifs and other trade barriers than are laymen, to say nothing of politicians.

And how would increased protectionism benefit the lower and middle classes in the worlds poorer countries?

That’s the somewhat sticky part: it probably wouldn’t. Certainly not short-term, anyway. Long-term? It’s hard to say. On the other hand — would increased protectionism benefit the lower and middle classes in the U.S.? Quite possibly, hence why almost all of the topline Democrats are much more sceptical of free-trade/globalization/you-know-what-I-mean today than they were ten or so years ago.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Thanks Guybrush

 

[nomadologist]

Ok, first, I am also sceptical of tariffs and trade barriers.

If you'll scroll up, you'll see that I don't think the current modes of economic approach to globalization and the "developing" world are sufficient or even justified on any level. I would argue for drastic policy shifts that would END interventionism and protectionism and promote third world development without military occupation, invasion OR NGO-style efforts to "rebuild" through aid-funded charity.

Yes, this would be highly complex and difficult to determine.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I would argue for drastic policy shifts that would END interventionism and protectionism and promote third world development without military occupation, invasion OR NGO-style efforts to "rebuild" through aid-funded charity.

Ok Nomad, using your superior economic nous would you be kind enough to outline how you would go about promoting this 'third world development' that you refer to? (Don't forget that your first three policies are ENDING military interventionism, economic protectionism, and NGO style programmes.)

It might be worth just explaining what you consider the word 'development' to mean - a definition would be good.

Oh yeah I'm still interested in those economic reparations for slavery that you were talking about before. Any thoughts on how you would put together a policy for this as well?

 

[nomadologist]

Ok Nomad, using your superior economic nous would you be kind enough to outline how you would go about promoting this 'third world development' that you refer to? (Don't forget that your first three policies are ENDING military interventionism, economic protectionism, and NGO style programmes.)

It might be worth just explaining what you consider the word 'development' to mean - a definition would be good.

Oh yeah I'm still interested in those economic reparations for slavery that you were talking about before. Any thoughts on how you would put together a policy for this as well?

I will outline my ideas at length later when I don't have other windows open with readings I need to do. These are not simple ideas and this will require more energy to focus than I have right now. I'm a little, eh, tired.

Second, I never said that I *personally* think that reparations are a great idea, or an unproblematic one. I said that many people on the left feel this way, in order to add a counterpoint to your one-dimensional and downright ridiculous characterization of a monolithic "left"...

 

[nomadologist]

"nous" is so overused on Dissensus...I wish people would just use "knowledge" when they mean it...