Elections in various countries

[Lērisama]

Twice, surely? There on Sunday and back on Thursday.

No, because in return for representing such a remote location the Member would be given special SoopaPowaz to teleport back.

Maybe the Right Honourable Member for the Falkland Islands can teleconference from there to the House of Commons, or conversely teleconference with constituents from London.

But, but, but, but… TRADITION¹

¹ to the tune of the Fiddler on the Roof song

[Richard W]

Maybe the Right Honourable Member for the Falkland Islands can teleconference from there to the House of Commons, or conversely teleconference with constituents from London.

The latter's what's done for Clacton.

[Lērisama]

Maybe the Right Honourable Member for the Falkland Islands can teleconference from there to the House of Commons, or conversely teleconference with constituents from London.

The latter's what's done for Clacton.

Wait, Nigel Farage has enough interest in his constituents to speak to them, albeit remotely because he wouldn't be seen dead in Clacton‽ I think approximately three femtopinions better of him now¹.

¹ He is still many, many orders of magnitude great below 0, of course.

[rotting bones]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 930663.ece

Depression is starting to affect my work.

When I'm in an optimistic mood, I think: It's a win-win. Either TMC stays in power and treats me like a human being or a far right government comes to power, encouraging investors to "create jobs".

I can only sustain this mood for a few hours until I remember the horrible gig economy jobs today's governments use to lower unemployment figures. I would seek "employment" as a delivery driver if I knew how to operate a vehicle other than a bicycle.

Then the depression sets in. I wonder if BJP will bulldoze my building and laugh as I beg on the streets or strand me in no man's land at the Bangladesh border. (They have done both already, but IIRC in other states.) Online, they have been spreading memes saying that no one born in a Muslim family is really secular. We're all fundamentalists, apparently.

[rotting bones]

Just to be clear, Nazrul might be the national poet of Bangladesh, but our clan originates from what is now West Bengal. In fact, the Bangladesh Liberation War was allied with India from the beginning.

If BJP tries to say I'm Bangladeshi, I will call them all Pakistanis even if they kill me.

[rotting bones]

I would seek "employment" as a delivery driver if I knew how to operate a vehicle other than a bicycle.

BTW, there have been instances where customers refused to accept deliveries from Muslim drivers.

Edit: I wonder if the same problem exists in freelance coding.

[rotting bones]

Online, they have been spreading memes saying that no one born in a Muslim family is really secular. We're all fundamentalists, apparently.

Meanwhile, there are Islamist parties in West Bengal that are willingly helping BJP win this election.

[rotting bones]

Looks like BJP wins. There's no safe place for me.

PS. This is what I mean by failing upwards. Even after messing up so much, BJP is still gaining ground in India.

PPS. Representative democracy under a capitalist economy has led to good results for me 0 times so far.

[rotting bones]

https://scroll.in/article/1092633/in-ha ... ory-margin

https://scroll.in/latest/1092669/bengal ... s-to-power

BTW, regardless of what citizens in the West think, Modi and the BJP believe they are allied with the West and operate accordingly in matters of foreign policy. Religious fundamentalists, both Hindu and Muslim, were allied with the British Raj during the colonial period.

These facts are highly significant in predicting historical trends. They are the kind of thing the cultural narrative of the 21st century left as well as the "civilizational" narrative of the right gloss over without explaining.

It's so bad, many people can't even conceive of oppression in non-cultural terms. The alternative is obvious: material exploitation. The elites of various "cultural" and "civilizational" factions paint each other as the enemy* while secretly being in cahoots. The end game is to live a luxurious life by exploiting the poor across all factions.

*Despite being allied with the West in foreign policy, Hindutva routinely oppresses Christians and their missionaries in India. This is not publicized as much as religious restrictions in China (CommunistTM) and the Middle East (oil).

[rotting bones]

My reporter cousin says Jharkhand is BJP's next target.

[Raphael]

I could have posted this in the US Politics Thread, but I didn't want to distract from the ongoing discussion there, and it's basically an international issue anyway. There an interesting - though I haven't read most of it yet - piece on Liberal Currents, again by
Silvaria Lysandra Zemaitis, about liberalism and socialism. Since I myself think that without at least somewhat socialist economic policies, people starve, and without at least somewhat liberal underlying political structures and basic philosophies, people get murdered, and since I myself like to derive left-wing economic policies from an individual right to live and to have a reasonably sufferable life, instead of a belief in the supposed importance of "the collective", I'm quite sympathetic to the idea of combining the two approaches.

[Ares Land]

That was interesting, thanks!

Here's the look for any who'd like to check it out: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/sociali ... ments-end/

The unified path has been tried before in several countries, sometimes with good results.

The problem, though, is that the existing economic order will fight back, with the considerable resources at its disposal. An example of the worst case scenario is Allende; the best case scenario is Mitterrand in France, who essentially had to give up the socialist part (not without getting some good, long lasting results in the process, though).
So there's the twin temptation of either settling for mild liberalism/social democracy or on the contrary giving up on liberal democracy entirely.

Not to say it's an hopeless problem though. Being aware of the potential problems (and we have a pretty large body of experience now) is a huge plus.

[Raphael]

That was interesting, thanks!

Here's the look for any who'd like to check it out: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/sociali ... ments-end/

Dang, I forgot to actually post the link! I'm too young to turn senile I'm too young to turn senile I'm too young to turn...

[zompist]

Here's the look for any who'd like to check it out: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/sociali ... ments-end/

The unified path has been tried before in several countries, sometimes with good results.

It's a good article. It's a bit lacking in what a compromise would look like... some socialists wouldn't stand for any private firms at all; some liberals are terrified of progressives, much less socialists.

For modern Almea, I've posited that some countries alternate not between center-left and center-right, but between liberals and socialists. In either alternation, it only works if neither side completely outrages each other. But a lot of common ground would open up if you got rid of plutocracy and conservative notions baked into institutions. (E.g., balanced budgets, or not taxing the rich, or too many veto points.)

FWIW I now think the anarchists shouldn't be forgotten. If you want freedom for the worker and the rule of law, without the failures of either liberalism or socialism, anarchism has a lot of potential. (Especially the updated form of e.g. Bookchin, not the retro-rural dream of Kropotkin.)

The problem, though, is that the existing economic order will fight back, with the considerable resources at its disposal. [...]

Not to say it's an hopeless problem though. Being aware of the potential problems (and we have a pretty large body of experience now) is a huge plus.

Yeah, knowing is the first step. One reason the US New Deal could go as far as it did was that plutocracy pretty much destroyed itself in the Great Depression.

All the little things that added up to plutocracy could be reversed. For the US, the problem is that our political system basicially works only when one party is completely dominant (as the Republicans were for half a century after the Civil War, and the Democrats were for 40 years after the Depression), or when the parties are similar enough that there's a lot of common ground (which was roughly true from 1950 to 1980).

Institutions can be changed... we see that when the bad guys do it. Biden trusted too much in jump-starting spending, and in the relief of going back to norms-- that was not enough. Starmer seems to have trusted in either doing nothing, or the wrong thing. To reverse plutocracy will require a lot more boldness.

[Raphael]

If you want freedom for the worker and the rule of law, without the failures of either liberalism or socialism, anarchism has a lot of potential. (Especially the updated form of e.g. Bookchin, not the retro-rural dream of Kropotkin.)

How would the anarchists you mean 1) get there in the first place, and then 2) handle the existence of non-anarchists, or more generally people uninterested in going along with the way the new society is run, in their societies? Besides, how would they decide which of the various models for anarchist structures that their thinkers have come up with would be used?

I suspect that anarchism, like pacifism, is an idea that can only work if everyone supports it, which is another way of saying that it's an idea that can't work.

And I'm very sceptical about the possibility of human beings living together without some people having some kind of power over others. Even if it's not the kind of power structures you might first think of if you hear the word "power".

[Ares Land]

How would the anarchists you mean 1) get there in the first place, and then 2) handle the existence of non-anarchists, or more generally people uninterested in going along with the way the new society is run, in their societies? Besides, how would they decide which of the various models for anarchist structures that their thinkers have come up with would be used?

I suspect that anarchism, like pacifism, is an idea that can only work if everyone supports it, which is another way of saying that it's an idea that can't work.

And I'm very sceptical about the possibility of human beings living together without some people having some kind of power over others. Even if it's not the kind of power structures you might first think of if you hear the word "power".

I don't know to what extent the Zapatistas or the Rojava count as anarchist, but both seem promising.
Well, sadly, it seems the past sense is more appropriate now in the case of the Rojava. (I don't think that counts as a defeat for anarchism, though. It doesn't look like any Kurdish regime would have been allowed to exist for long.)

It's a good article. It's a bit lacking in what a compromise would look like... some socialists wouldn't stand for any private firms at all; some liberals are terrified of progressives, much less socialists.

It took special conditions that might be hard to reproduce, but the French communists were historically willing to make such compromises, even at times when they were (at least on paper) perfectly aligned with Moscow. I suspect it's more a question of power dynamics than actual ideology.

[zompist]

If you want freedom for the worker and the rule of law, without the failures of either liberalism or socialism, anarchism has a lot of potential. (Especially the updated form of e.g. Bookchin, not the retro-rural dream of Kropotkin.)

How would the anarchists you mean 1) get there in the first place, and then 2) handle the existence of non-anarchists, or more generally people uninterested in going along with the way the new society is run, in their societies? Besides, how would they decide which of the various models for anarchist structures that their thinkers have come up with would be used?

Note, I was bringing up anarchism in the context of Zemaitis's article, which talks about liberal and socialist failure-states, but talks about the latter is if it's always centralized power gone mad, Soviet-style. There is and has been for over a century a strain of leftist thought that rejects capitalism and state power. In fact she's aware of this— she cites Emma Goldman, who was an anarchist— but it would have been nice to be more explicit about non-authoritarian leftism.

Orwell was more impressed by the anarchists than with any of the other forces fighting in Spain... though this was a very low bar.

Would I hand power over to the anarchists? No, but I think they're people worth listening to, unlike (say) tankies. They tend to be very clear-headed about the problems with authoritarian socialism, while sharing the ideal of real equality. I haven't yet read an anarchist who (to my mind) really understands the level of organization above the individual workplace; I also think they're way too optimistic about the enthusiasm of ordinary people for self-government.

[Travis B.]

It is interesting that you make a contrast between 'anarchists' and 'socialists' or 'leftists', as typically anarchists see themselves as being socialists, and anarchists will readily use the category of 'libertarian socialism' to include both anarchism and forms of libertarian Marxism such as council communism.

Personally, as a former anarchist, I see the anarchists as having a lot of good ideas but having a bit too much faith in the general population, likely naively seeing authority as the source of all evil. To me, oppression need not come solely from capitalism and/or the state, and hence I personally disagree with anarchists who see the concept of 'rights' as only being necessary so far as capitalism and/or the state exist. Likewise, I do not think things like racism and sexism can be done away with simply by doing away with capitalism and the state.

(These days my views are closer to council communism except that I do not share the council communists' abstentationism, as I see abstentationism as inevitably only helping the right and not hastening the Revolution.)

[zompist]

It is interesting that you make a contrast between 'anarchists' and 'socialists' or 'leftists', as typically anarchists see themselves as being socialists, and anarchists will readily use the category of 'libertarian socialism' to include both anarchism and forms of libertarian Marxism such as council communism.

They are certainly leftists; my point in fact was that Zemaitis was ignoring this swatch of leftists who are well aware of authoritarian failures.

Personally, as a former anarchist, I see the anarchists as having a lot of good ideas but having a bit too much faith in the general population, likely naively seeing authority as the source of all evil. To me, oppression need not come solely from capitalism and/or the state, and hence I personally disagree with anarchists who see the concept of 'rights' as only being necessary so far as capitalism and/or the state exist. Likewise, I do not think things like racism and sexism can be done away with simply by doing away with capitalism and the state.

Agreed. Blaming things on "capitalism" is sometimes a bad habit that obscures rather than helps.

[malloc]

Personally, as a former anarchist, I see the anarchists as having a lot of good ideas but having a bit too much faith in the general population, likely naively seeing authority as the source of all evil. To me, oppression need not come solely from capitalism and/or the state, and hence I personally disagree with anarchists who see the concept of 'rights' as only being necessary so far as capitalism and/or the state exist. Likewise, I do not think things like racism and sexism can be done away with simply by doing away with capitalism and the state.

Quite. The explosive growth and unshakable popularity of reactionary politics has definitely shaken my faith in humanity. It seems increasingly obvious that humans have strong inclinations toward tribalism, violence, and superstition that require some active effort to curb. If nothing else, we need institutions like universal education that teach people how to reason rather than relying on their gut and acclimatize them to people outside their "tribe".

FWIW I now think the anarchists shouldn't be forgotten. If you want freedom for the worker and the rule of law, without the failures of either liberalism or socialism, anarchism has a lot of potential. (Especially the updated form of e.g. Bookchin, not the retro-rural dream of Kropotkin.)

Glad to hear that you're finally giving anarchism some consideration, decades after our heated debates on the subject. Despite my dimming faith in humanity and shifting political understanding, I still sympathize greatly with anarchism and hope that we can approach something like it in the future.