Social Media Outrage/Cancel Culture

[BigFatMeanie]

queer communism? WTH?

[Omaha 680]

That lady now has 137 patreons for 482 bucks a month! Good for her!

Also:

Sophie Lewis (@reproutopia) is the author of Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family, and a free-lance writer interested in queer communism, based in Philadelphia. Due to the coronavirus, she has lost three months’ worth of income from speaking gigs

Huh. I guess the economic shutdown isn't all bad.

[LiveCoug]

That lady now has 137 patreons for 482 bucks a month! Good for her!

Also:

Sophie Lewis (@reproutopia) is the author of Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family, and a free-lance writer interested in queer communism, based in Philadelphia. Due to the coronavirus, she has lost three months’ worth of income from speaking gigs

[swampfrog]

I was unaware of this movement. What is the proposed alternative?

Communes of course.

[Omaha 680]

I was unaware of this movement. What is the proposed alternative?

Family.jpg

[wapiti]

In case anyone was wondering if the crazy doesn't hope to take advantage of pandemics. If one ever finds themselves wondering if there is anything in these movements threatening the nuclear family or if it's all just paranoid religious folk imagining things, read the linked article. The adherents may be few in numbers, but there are ideas sprinkled in these movements that do expressly wish to dissolve the family and are not hiding it.

Embedded Tweet

I was unaware of this movement. What is the proposed alternative?

[swampfrog]

In case anyone was wondering if the crazy doesn't hope to take advantage of pandemics. If one ever finds themselves wondering if there is anything in these movements threatening the nuclear family or if it's all just paranoid religious folk imagining things, read the linked article. The adherents may be few in numbers, but there are ideas sprinkled in these movements that do expressly wish to dissolve the family and are not hiding it.

Embedded Tweet

And thirdly, even when the private nuclear household poses no direct physical or mental threat to one’s person – no spouse-battering, no child rape, and no queer-bashing – the private family qua mode of social reproduction still, frankly, sucks. It genders, nationalizes and races us. It norms us for productive work. It makes us believe we are ‘individuals.’ It minimizes costs for capital while maximizing human beings’ life-making labor (across billions of tiny boxes, each kitted out – absurdly – with its own kitchen, micro-crèche and laundry). It blackmails us into mistaking the only sources of love and care we have for the extent of what is possible.

We deserve better than the family. And the time of corona is an excellent time to practice abolishing it. In the always lucent words of Anne Boyer: “We must learn to do good for the good of the stranger now. We now have to live as daily evidence that we believe there is value in the lives of the cancer patient, the elderly person, the disabled one, the ones in unthinkable living conditions, crowded and at risk.”


We do not know yet if we will be able to wrench something better than capitalism from the wreckage of this Plague and the coming Depression. I would only posit with some certainty that, in 2020, the dialectic of families against the family, of real homes against the home, shall intensify.

[swampfrog]

In fairness, the statement "Nobody even knows what socialism is" is likely taken out of context because it makes for good reading in an online article. Regardless, I have been informed, unequivocally and in context to this forum, that socialism is and can only be understood as socialism interpreted through the application of Marxist theory. Are you now saying there is some wiggle room; that the term socialism can be interpreted more broadly and less narrowly?

Here's an interesting distinction

For Bernie Sanders, the answer is because he wanted, and wants, to promote socialism. To make a distinction often lost on Americans with their two-party system, Social Democrats want to use policy to soften the edges of the free market. Democratic Socialists -- which is what Sanders calls himself -- want to reshape society to eliminate the evils of capitalism.

Does Kasparov get it right?

[swampfrog]

James Lindsay continues to get better at articulating his critique of Critical Social Justice theory.

This was a good read.

This is why I think it’s so important to learn what the critical method looks like and to understand how it goes wrong, so that we can avoid its seduction and its venom. The thing with critical methods—with coming to see only how we’ve failed and how everything is problematic—is that once you pick them up, even a little, it’s very hard to get away from them. The stink and the stain they constantly look for in everything gets in your own eyes, and you start to see it, even if just a little, in everything you look at. It’s a miserable way to live, and it’s defeating, the kind of thing that can really break the spirit of a person or a people.

Learning to see the critical approach and to understand how it works, though, lets you see through it. While the critical story besmirches everything while claiming to be “real” about history and society, taking on a view that understands and rejects this cynical pessimism and its indefatigable wont to complain lets us reckon with what is really real instead. It lets us look at our history not through critical stain or some kind of rose-white-and-blue glasses that ignore where we’ve gone wrong but through clear lenses that let us accept our past failures, learn from them, and yet see having overcome them as successes and triumphs not only that we managed to achieve but also that we can keep achieving. It’s pride and hope, man, I tell ya.

[Pelado]

In fairness, the statement "Nobody even knows what socialism is" is likely taken out of context because it makes for good reading in an online article. Regardless, I have been informed, unequivocally and in context to this forum, that socialism is and can only be understood as socialism interpreted through the application of Marxist theory. Are you now saying there is some wiggle room; that the term socialism can be interpreted more broadly and less narrowly? If so, my statement that initiated this dialogue is not only reasonable, but logical in its implications and it is certainly not hilariously absurd.

Further, I am not arguing that the framers of the constitution were "pure socialists," but neither were they "pure capitalists." It is inarguable that they not only held ideas in support of profit sharing and wealth re-distribution but while governing enacted policies that enforced such ideas, among others similar in nature and intent. And as framers and original governors, the Federal Government in its current configuration and mode of operation is the fruit of their intellectual loins.

Through a modern lens that fruit, or more specifically the ideas and actions of the framers can reasonably be interpreted as representing more than efforts at "insuring domestic tranquility." In effect, they represent efforts aimed at (using my earlier words in support of a definition of socialism not interpreted through the application of Marxist theory) engaging in economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of [the US's] capitalist economy ... [in the interest of] welfare state provisions.

Whether or not the term socialism had been invented and employed in the era of the framers where such ideas were contemplated and such actions were undertaken is irrelevant. Again, we can only look back on that period of history through a modern lens. Attempts to look back and see what occurred exclusively through ancient eyes while fascinating does not facilitate modern understanding; it hampers it.

(As a tangential aside—and because Swampfrog got away with it—isn't that why in Mormondon members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints extol the virtues of modern day prophets and continuing revelation; to facilitate modern understanding?)

Bluntly, from my perspective if it walks, talks and acts like a duck, it's a damn duck, no matter how valiant an effort is made to comprehend original intent. Plainly speaking, neither you or I nor any writer of an article we can link to were present at the origins of the US Federal government, but we (in particular, and by extension my family in the US whether they agree with me or not) are privileged to be blessed by its actions for good or bad. And I am in favour of increasing the US Federal Government's evident socialist reach through the expansion of such things as medicare for all, because having lived in a country with universal health care I have seen the good in it.

Ok. I still disagree that "the very idea of a 'federal government' is in fact a socialist idea".

[tooblue]

I agree with swampfrog that we are talking past each other. I took (and continue to take) issue with your characterization of the idea of a federal government as a socialist idea. The idea of a federal government dates back at least to Madison, but many of the concepts included in the Constitution predated Madison's thinking. According to my googling, the earliest use of the word socialism was in the mid-1800's. The fact that the name "socialism" hadn't yet been applied to the concepts of socialism doesn't necessarily preclude Madison and the other framers from holding socialist views.

That said, I think I agree with Stella in this quote from the article you linked:

An expert on the origins of political thought says that nobody knows what socialism is, and yet you got upset when I questioned your claims of socialist underpinning for the concept of federal governments?

Further, your linked article gave definitions of pure socialism as well as original socialism:


Pure socialism would require equality of results. Everyone gets the same income, everyone has the same wealth.

Original socialism - government in control of everything - is a little further than what I would call classical socialism, defined simply as government control of the means of production.

Either way, I feel confident in saying Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Franklin, et al. did not advocate for pure socialism, original socialism, or even classical socialism. An argument could be made (and you've made some of them) that the framers were proponents of what I typically hear called "social justice" - a leveling of the playing field between the haves and the have nots through regulation and the tax code rather than through control or ownership of the means of production.

The preamble to the US Constitution enumerates at least one purpose that could be considered socialist under that definition:


Form a more perfect Union - not inherently socialist
Establish Justice - not inherently socialist
Insure domestic Tranquility - could contain socialist intent (see commentary below*)
Provide for the common defence - not inherently socialist
Promote the general Welfare - could contain socialist intent
Secure the Blessings of Liberty - not inherently socialist

Interesting expansion on the socialist aspects of promoting the general welfare from ACS, the self-described "leading progressive legal organization":


https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/t...neral-welfare/

In other words, in many ways, the state governments - which had much more power relative to the national government under the Articles of Confederation than they do under the federal government system established by the Constitution - embody more socialist ideas than the federal government. As such, the implementation of a federal government may have slowed the advance of socialism.


*Insure Domestic Tranquility

A socialist perspective might interpret insuring domestic tranquility as keeping the peace by making sure the proletarians don't get the shaft from the bourgeoisie. This guy indicates that it was not just about calming the economic issues that gave rise to Shay's Rebellion, but also to prevent the states from disputes/wars, especially relating to westward expansion:

https://www.peterlang.com/view/97814...pter-007.xhtml

In fairness, the statement "Nobody even knows what socialism is" is likely taken out of context because it makes for good reading in an online article. Regardless, I have been informed, unequivocally and in context to this forum, that socialism is and can only be understood as socialism interpreted through the application of Marxist theory. Are you now saying there is some wiggle room; that the term socialism can be interpreted more broadly and less narrowly? If so, my statement that initiated this dialogue is not only reasonable, but logical in its implications and it is certainly not hilariously absurd.

Further, I am not arguing that the framers of the constitution were "pure socialists," but neither were they "pure capitalists." It is inarguable that they not only held ideas in support of profit sharing and wealth re-distribution but while governing enacted policies that enforced such ideas, among others similar in nature and intent. And as framers and original governors, the Federal Government in its current configuration and mode of operation is the fruit of their intellectual loins.

Through a modern lens that fruit, or more specifically the ideas and actions of the framers can reasonably be interpreted as representing more than efforts at "insuring domestic tranquility." In effect, they represent efforts aimed at (using my earlier words in support of a definition of socialism not interpreted through the application of Marxist theory) engaging in economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of [the US's] capitalist economy ... [in the interest of] welfare state provisions.

Whether or not the term socialism had been invented and employed in the era of the framers where such ideas were contemplated and such actions were undertaken is irrelevant. Again, we can only look back on that period of history through a modern lens. Attempts to look back and see what occurred exclusively through ancient eyes while fascinating does not facilitate modern understanding; it hampers it.

(As a tangential aside—and because Swampfrog got away with it—isn't that why in Mormondon members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints extol the virtues of modern day prophets and continuing revelation; to facilitate modern understanding?)

Bluntly, from my perspective if it walks, talks and acts like a duck, it's a damn duck, no matter how valiant an effort is made to comprehend original intent. Plainly speaking, neither you or I nor any writer of an article we can link to were present at the origins of the US Federal government, but we (in particular, and by extension my family in the US whether they agree with me or not) are privileged to be blessed by its actions for good or bad. And I am in favour of increasing the US Federal Government's evident socialist reach through the expansion of such things as medicare for all, because having lived in a country with universal health care I have seen the good in it.

[wuapinmon]

George Orwell was a socialist. I don't think anyone would call him a communist.

If anything, he became an anti-communist socialist.

[Pelado]

Again, what you are describing is an American problem. The rest of the world does not assign the same exclusive meaning to the term:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tru...nada-1.5010033

As you state definitions are fluid and so the definition "that stuck" is in fact being unstuck as we speak. And that is where the irrationality starts; it starts with an unwillingness to see beyond the marxist theory of socialism because it is far too easy to codify and then denigrate someone as socialist, rather than make the effort to engage in dialogue and understand their perspective.

I agree with swampfrog that we are talking past each other. I took (and continue to take) issue with your characterization of the idea of a federal government as a socialist idea. The idea of a federal government dates back at least to Madison, but many of the concepts included in the Constitution predated Madison's thinking. According to my googling, the earliest use of the word socialism was in the mid-1800's. The fact that the name "socialism" hadn't yet been applied to the concepts of socialism doesn't necessarily preclude Madison and the other framers from holding socialist views.

That said, I think I agree with Stella in this quote from the article you linked:

Stella Gaon, a theorist at Saint Mary's University in Halifax who specializes in the economic and intellectual origins of political thought [said] "Nobody even knows what socialism is."

An expert on the origins of political thought says that nobody knows what socialism is, and yet you got upset when I questioned your claims of socialist underpinning for the concept of federal governments?

Further, your linked article gave definitions of pure socialism as well as original socialism:

In its purest theoretical form, socialism required people to be equally rich, an ideal that Gaon said has never been attained in practice. In its original form, it also required the state to be in control of everything. No private businesses allowed.

Pure socialism would require equality of results. Everyone gets the same income, everyone has the same wealth.

Original socialism - government in control of everything - is a little further than what I would call classical socialism, defined simply as government control of the means of production.

Either way, I feel confident in saying Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Franklin, et al. did not advocate for pure socialism, original socialism, or even classical socialism. An argument could be made (and you've made some of them) that the framers were proponents of what I typically hear called "social justice" - a leveling of the playing field between the haves and the have nots through regulation and the tax code rather than through control or ownership of the means of production.

The preamble to the US Constitution enumerates at least one purpose that could be considered socialist under that definition:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Form a more perfect Union - not inherently socialist
Establish Justice - not inherently socialist
Insure domestic Tranquility - could contain socialist intent (see commentary below*)
Provide for the common defence - not inherently socialist
Promote the general Welfare - could contain socialist intent
Secure the Blessings of Liberty - not inherently socialist

Interesting expansion on the socialist aspects of promoting the general welfare from ACS, the self-described "leading progressive legal organization":

The Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare,” indicating that issues such as poverty, housing, food and other economic and social welfare issues facing the citizenry were of central concern to the framers...

The Supreme Court has ruled...there is no underlying constitutional right to a minimum standard of living. Similarly, the Supreme Court has not found a general right to education derived from the more explicit constitutional guarantees of political participation and equal protection that might be deemed to presuppose an educational baseline.

Many state constitutions, in contrast, articulate positive rights to welfare, health, education, and the right to work. One of the most specific of these provisions, article XVII of the New York State Constitution, states that “the aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state…in such manner and by such means” as the legislature shall determine. The Constitution of North Dakota provides a similarly specific right to education, stating that “the legislative assembly shall provide for a uniform system of free public schools throughout the state.” Alaska’s constitution, adopted at the time of statehood in 1959, addresses the public health of state inhabitants, as does Hawaii’s, which states that “the State shall provide for the protection and promotion of the public health.” Finally, many state constitutions also address the affirmative right to work and the right to organize as members of trade unions. For example, the New York State Constitution states, “employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” Several state constitutions also specifically address working hours and working conditions.

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/t...neral-welfare/

In other words, in many ways, the state governments - which had much more power relative to the national government under the Articles of Confederation than they do under the federal government system established by the Constitution - embody more socialist ideas than the federal government. As such, the implementation of a federal government may have slowed the advance of socialism.



*Insure Domestic Tranquility

A socialist perspective might interpret insuring domestic tranquility as keeping the peace by making sure the proletarians don't get the shaft from the bourgeoisie. This guy indicates that it was not just about calming the economic issues that gave rise to Shay's Rebellion, but also to prevent the states from disputes/wars, especially relating to westward expansion:

Nothing ensures a nation’s domestic tranquility more assuredly than the unity of its citizens. It was among the foremost goals of the Framers, and of such importance it was placed within the mission statement of the Constitution. In our time, we have thought it to mean keeping the peace through law and order, but those who constructed the document had an entirely different reasoning in mind. They had concluded a nation united under an equitable and firm charter of law was necessary to quell internal squabbles so as to not destroy the union of the sovereign states.

At the close of the American War for Independence the states bickered amongst themselves over western expansion: Due to this issue three separate sets of states had prepared for war against one another.1 Then internal rebellions emerged which either interfered with the process of government, or shut it down completely, the most famous being Shays’ Rebellion during the winter of 1786/7.2 Something had to be done before the nation spiraled into anarchy and collapse.

https://www.peterlang.com/view/97814...pter-007.xhtml

[swampfrog]

The difference being I didn't just show up. My views have been known for a very long time. And it is disingenuous if others now claim "you should know that the definition used here is narrow."

Fair enough, though that is context I wasn't aware of, and I've been around here for 9 years. It can't be overstated how difficult these conversations actually are. If I perceive myself as being read wrong I always try to respond as if that's my fault, even if I don't believe that to be the case. There isn't enough time in the day to keep track of all of the personalities and their corresponding belief systems.

Since the environment is casual, to engage in deeper topics will require constant repetitive messaging. Humans are not good at context switching.

[tooblue]

I'm in complete agreement here. I see this in other places also. This is why the importance of dialog is paramount. It works both ways, one just can't show up where the definition is known to be narrow, declare that they are a socialist, and expect the listener to grok them. That's irrationality on part of the speaker, not the listener.

The difference being I didn't just show up. My views have been known for a very long time. And it is disingenuous if others now claim "you should know that the definition used here is narrow."