Are Greens/socialism Behind Lockdown Hysteria?

[Drareg]

Yeah I think I've probably just added to the confusion by throwing the term around. I use it in the sense of promoting the idea of workers taking and having control over their workplaces. I believe that the capitalist system of private ownership and wage-labour dehumanizes and alienates the people who work for large corporations, big businesses, etc., since selling your labor tends to turn you into just as much of a commodity as what you produce.

I also support the idea of a society without a state or class divisions. I think this chiefly can be worked towards in two ways (although there may be more): 1) organization of the working class to overthrow the ruling class (various political parties and movements that support this notion) with the majority group that historically been oppressed (the 99%) taking over the 1% in the aim of eventually transitioning to a stateless society without hierarchy 2) gradually opting out of and making obsolete archaic institutions (sci-hub is a prominent example of this), in practice, we might call this "agorism" as defined by Samuel Edward Konkin. Various ways to subvert state authority.

Personally I think Sanders and A.O.C are not full socialists even if they support some socialist ideas although they could potentially institute measures to reform the system in some small way, largely they would do nothing. The so-called "Democratic" system in place is designed to protect the interests of the rich no matter which candidate is voted in. If you look at countries which historically have had a desperate struggle between feudal lords owning the majority of the land and the working poor which at times, cannot even feed themselves or their families (and have to go on continuous hunger strikes), it becomes more apparent what the primary goal of most socialist movements are. In socialist countries with a state government the state price fixes certain goods to protect the farmers and working class from greedy sellers that would monopolize the market and price-gouge a certain good. In a centrally planned economy this becomes more apparent as to who this benefits, chiefly the majority who would otherwise pay exorbitant prices for all manner of goods.



Ask yourself why do immigrants cross the border in the first place? The majority of the time it is because their country has been devastated by endless wars and global capitalism. The majority of the time immigrants are looking for the opportunity to support their families and themselves. The solution to that problem, imo, is not to try to militarize the border to prevent immigrants from coming to America, which is largely ineffective in any case (there will always be workarounds). The militarization of the border could be better spent on many other things. The Socialist Party makes some good points here, imo:


Making it easier for immigrants to gain full citizenship and provide resources for them will help them integrate into society better and instead of doing cheap farm labor under the table they should have more options.

Its mainly elites and there own countries elites devastating their countries, the financial system is similar in their own country, it just takes a generation or 2 in the new country for them to start demanding higher wages when the elites will want it lower and the cycle will start again, if the citizens gain control the elites will set up business in a more accepting country.

They will be exploited under full citizen status , the excess of humans reduces real wages, it’s basic economics ,supply and demand problem relative to human capital.
The socialist parties are basically elites looking for cheap labor just like capitalists.

 

[Drareg]

I guess it depends on what you mean by socialism. Before things became exceedingly toxic after 2016, I actually wrote a great deal of stuff regarding political theory, libertarian philosophy/ethics, anarchism, economics, etc. and from my own experience most people who refer to themselves as "socialists" are not really socialists.

Organizations like the green party, Bernie Sanders, A.O.C, etc. are just using the title socialism as a PR booster for radical leftists. It sounds much better if people think of them as "democratic socialists" rather then what they really are, which is welfare-capitalists. There's a famous right-wing podcaster (Michael Malice) that is famously quoted saying "conservatism is progressivism going the speed limit."

You could literally invert this quote and it would perfectly describe most of the "socialists" here in America. That being American socialism is just "neoliberalism breaking the speed limit." My opinion is most of the outspoken voices—whether pro or anti lockdown—are typically just some form of liberalism.

There is some exceptions, such as the rent strike movement that occurred during the lockdown. But it wasn't really headline news, and after the protesting and riots started people all but forgot about it. I think there's a huge disconnect between real socialism, and what both conservatives and liberals perceive to be socialism, particularly here in the west. Which can be dangerous, especially when people start supporting something they know very little about.

Well said.
None of these political ideologies are anything they claim to be, riddled with obvious contradiction.
I’ve been curious for a long time as to why humans have not designed new political systems, we keep falling into left V right, libertarian, etc

Underlying it all is power seeking ,it’s bioenergetic in origin, they are loosing energy via a high serotonin bias etc and are looking for a charge of sorts from using other human beings, nearly all these politicians become millionaires after a few years in power and get retirement.

 

[Jessie]

Yeah I think I've probably just added to the confusion by throwing the term around. I use it in the sense of promoting the idea of workers taking and having control over their workplaces. I believe that the capitalist system of private ownership and wage-labour dehumanizes and alienates the people who work for large corporations, big businesses, etc., since selling your labor tends to turn you into just as much of a commodity as what you produce.

I also support the idea of a society without a state or class divisions. I think this chiefly can be worked towards in two ways (although there may be more): 1) organization of the working class to overthrow the ruling class (various political parties and movements that support this notion) with the majority group that historically been oppressed (the 99%) taking over the 1% in the aim of eventually transitioning to a stateless society without hierarchy 2) gradually opting out of and making obsolete archaic institutions (sci-hub is a prominent example of this), in practice, we might call this "agorism" as defined by Samuel Edward Konkin. Various ways to subvert state authority.

Personally I think Sanders and A.O.C are not full socialists even if they support some socialist ideas although they could potentially institute measures to reform the system in some small way, largely they would do nothing. The so-called "Democratic" system in place is designed to protect the interests of the rich no matter which candidate is voted in. If you look at countries which historically have had a desperate struggle between feudal lords owning the majority of the land and the working poor which at times, cannot even feed themselves or their families (and have to go on continuous hunger strikes), it becomes more apparent what the primary goal of most socialist movements are. In socialist countries with a state government the state price fixes certain goods to protect the farmers and working class from greedy sellers that would monopolize the market and price-gouge a certain good. In a centrally planned economy this becomes more apparent as to who this benefits, chiefly the majority who would otherwise pay exorbitant prices for all manner of goods.



Ask yourself why do immigrants cross the border in the first place? The majority of the time it is because their country has been devastated by endless wars and global capitalism. The majority of the time immigrants are looking for the opportunity to support their families and themselves. The solution to that problem, imo, is not to try to militarize the border to prevent immigrants from coming to America, which is largely ineffective in any case (there will always be workarounds). The militarization of the border could be better spent on many other things. The Socialist Party makes some good points here, imo:


Making it easier for immigrants to gain full citizenship and provide resources for them will help them integrate into society better and instead of doing cheap farm labor under the table they should have more options.

I went through a mutualist phase when I was younger and was very supportive of worker owned businesses. But over time I kind of just evolved into a pluralistic stance, I don't really take any definitive stand on the ownership of the means of production anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the confusion lies in the conflationism between capitalism and free markets. The former being diametrically opposed to free markets and the latter only possible in a post-capitalist society.

It really wasn't until the 20th century that these ideas became perverted, by such figures like Ayn Rand (some people blame Murray Rothbard as well, but I always found Rothbard's arguments to be far more nuanced. Not withstanding the delusional contemporary AnCap community of course). In a truly anarchist society, once the State and Capitalism is abolished, labor is freed to organize however they like.

I think the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is there will be a plurality of networks doing there own thing. Nothing will stop communists from being communist, and nothing will stop workers from owning co-ops. Wage labor will likely still exist (unless you forcefully suppress it), but it will exist to the extent that the labor market actually demands it. Workers that aren't interested in being risk takers or interested in being responsible for a firm's failure (or success) will demand to work for a single owner, that way they get a fix income (whatever the medium of exchange may be) and if the business fails the owner must cover the costs out of pocket.

Much in this light, I tend to distinguish a difference between "wage slavery" and "wage labor." The former being a symptom of modern capitalism, which relies on the State to enforce/protect capitalist property. The latter simply being a demand of the laborers themselves. Part of the reason why I left the political field is you can't have nuanced conversations like this anymore. Everything is hyperpolarized now. Truth is there's not much difference between Marx's call to seize the means of production and Rothbard's call for the laborers to "reappropriate" what's rightfully theirs.

 

[Jessie]

Well said.
None of these political ideologies are anything they claim to be, riddled with obvious contradiction.
I’ve been curious for a long time as to why humans have not designed new political systems, we keep falling into left V right, libertarian, etc

Underlying it all is power seeking ,it’s bioenergetic in origin, they are loosing energy via a high serotonin bias etc and are looking for a charge of sorts from using other human beings, nearly all these politicians become millionaires after a few years in power and get retirement.

I think it's plain and simply a power grab. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once you get a taste, you never want to relinquish it.

 

[Energizer]

I went through a mutualist phase when I was younger and was very supportive of worker owned businesses. But over time I kind of just evolved into a pluralistic stance, I don't really take any definitive stand on the ownership of the means of production anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the confusion lies in the conflationism between capitalism and free markets. The former being diametrically opposed to free markets and the latter only possible in a post-capitalist society.

It really wasn't until the 20th century that these ideas became perverted, by such figures like Ayn Rand (some people blame Murray Rothbard as well, but I always found Rothbard's arguments to be far more nuanced. Not withstanding the delusional contemporary AnCap community of course). In a truly anarchist society, once the State and Capitalism is abolished, labor is freed to organize however they like.

I think the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is there will be a plurality of networks doing there own thing. Nothing will stop communists from being communist, and nothing will stop workers from owning co-ops. Wage labor will likely still exist (unless you forcefully suppress it), but it will exist to the extent that the labor market actually demands it. Workers that aren't interested in being risk takers or interested in being responsible for a firm's failure (or success) will demand to work for a single owner, that way they get a fix income (whatever the medium of exchange may be) and if the business fails the owner must cover the costs out of pocket.

Much in this light, I tend to distinguish a difference between "wage slavery" and "wage labor." The former being a symptom of modern capitalism, which relies on the State to enforce/protect capitalist property. The latter simply being a demand of the laborers themselves. Part of the reason why I left the political field is you can't have nuanced conversations like this anymore. Everything is hyperpolarized now. Truth is there's not much difference between Marx's call to seize the means of production and Rothbard's call for the laborers to "reappropriate" what's rightfully theirs.

While I agree with the overall premise of having nuance, I see socialism as a reaction against capitalism, the two ideologies are fundamentally opposed, and as a someone who would support living in a stateless, non-hierarchical society myself I don't see anarchists largely as doing anything to change the system except uttering quaint platitudes. They are unorganized, demoralized, and the only good movements I see that are actively trying to subvert the current system seem to fall under the umbrella of communist/socialist movements because they are more organized and have a robust political history along with aligning their movement and basing it on fighting for the working class.

The detractors usually like to point out the inherent contradictions as a reason not to use these political philosophies as some kind of inspiration or call to action, which I believe is what they were designed for. Not as just abstract, ivory tower theory, but meant to be put in practice somehow or serve as some kind of inspiration or guidance. Ultimately, the way I interpret communism is seizing power of the means of production and transitioning to a stateless society eventually, aka anarcho-communism, unfortunately, people seem to have a strong aversion to communism because they associate it with all kinds of bad things thanks to Western propaganda and the pseudo-communists who used the label of socialism/communism to exploit people when they were in reality, more aligned with fascist capitalism. It is true that power tends to corrupt and humans are prone to exploiting whatever system they can get their hands on.

I do however, agree with Drareg that it's important to be vigilant against corruption in all systems, however I am skeptical that some kind of anarchist society could be achieved without some kind of working class struggle at least in the near term future. A violent uprising would likely lead to some sort of power-vacuum of feudal lords and not at all be balanced. A peaceful transition would likely require a century of change in cultural values and thought, although things could potentially change much faster if more people found ways to opt out as much as possible of the current system (ie. practicing methods of "agorism").

The problem with that, is there are still a significant population who support the status quo, support the disgusting military regime in the US, support the ridiculous two-party sham that they like to call "Democracy", and to me, I am probably going to have to renounce my citizenship as an American eventually if the military-industrial complex continues doing what it does and move somewhere else that is more peaceful, because I don't want to be apart of it and in some way, endorse it or stand by it. That won't change the world, but at least it won't be in the foreground of my consciousness anymore. I am fully cognizant of the fact that I may be wrong about all this, but clearly the current system does not work, so I am open to alternatives. The idea of a plurality of networks is all well and good, but when your community needs to defend itself against outside tyranny, that seems like it could be a big problem, so whatever networks did form, would need to figure out a way to defend themselves and each other.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The problem with that, is there are still a significant population who support the status quo, support the disgusting military regime in the US, support the ridiculous two-party sham that they like to call "Democracy", and to me, I am probably going to have to renounce my citizenship as an American eventually if the military-industrial complex continues doing what it does and move somewhere else that is more peaceful, because I don't want to be apart of it and in some way, endorse it or stand by it.

You ever read The Constitution of The United States? I challenge you to find the word "Democracy" in there one time. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and it was a legislative democracy instituted in THE UNITED STATES with the Organic Act of 1871. The United States of America has always been a Republic.

Of note, before you renounce any citizenship, you might actually want to claim and/or certify your citizenship-

 

[Giraffe]

Tucker: Brace yourselves, climate lockdowns are coming - YouTube

It's the same situation in Germany.

 

[Drareg]

Tucker: Brace yourselves, climate lockdowns are coming - YouTube

It's the same situation in Germany.

I can’t see the public buying this after corona hysteria, let’s see.

 

[ddjd]

This is an interesting article, worth a read, I must say I found throughout this lockdown the gloating of the climate hysteria brigade nauseating, I think the current green front as many know already is political socialism of sort or communitarianism ,whatever it is or not we do know it’s delusional and more mental illness/incoherency by their behavior.

There is and has been a sincere green movement before it was hijacked by the thunbergs ,green peace,extinction rebellion and the like, they were not fascists or mentally ill, it was a reasonable argument.
Lockdown Sceptics – Stay sane. Protect the economy. Save livelihoods.


"There’s a lot more detail on Neil Ferguson and his mistress in today’s papers. If you Google Antonia Staats it brings up her LinkedIn account, which describes her as a “senior activist/campaigner” with Avaaz, although her LinkedIn profile is no longer available. According to Wikipedia, Avaaz is a US-based charity that was launched in January 2007 and promotes global activism on issues such as climate change, human rights, animal rights, corruption, poverty and conflict. During the 2008 Canadian election campaign, the then environment minister John Baird called Avaaz a “shadowy foreign organisation” and said it was funded by George Soros.
This will be grist to the mill of those conspiracy theorists who believe that many of the scientific experts advising governments during this crisis – not just here, but around the world – are linked to activists and campaigning groups with a green agenda and are deliberately exaggerating the risks posed by the virus to persuade politicians to inflect needless acts of economic self-harm. Their object, according to this theory, is to destroy capitalism. And in case you’re wondering exactly what they’d like to see in its place, over 200 “artists and scientists”, including Madonna, Robert De Niro and several Nobel Prize winners, signed a letter to Le Monde this morning demanding that the world not “return to normal” and urging us all to stop “the pursuit of consumerism” and instead try and bring about “social equity”. Sounds a lot like socialism to me – and we all know how that ends"

View: https://twitter.com/Gerard39delaney/status/1486325438540619780?t=3Rct-gIRxTbEnQTYvmFayw&s=19

 

[Drareg]

View: https://twitter.com/Gerard39delaney/status/1486325438540619780?t=3Rct-gIRxTbEnQTYvmFayw&s=19

Its hilarious, he was in his 60's here I'm guessing, 20 years on he's somehow magically changed to a humanitarian, he's a fascist.