Fund the police

[Era Might]

14 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

well, if you don't believe that some of our important institutions (academia, hollywood, news media) are drifting farther and farther left I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I am aware of COINTELPRO and the efforts of the US government against black civil rights and black power groups. In truth the Panthers were socialist AND there were a lot of racist policies in place. It's pretty hard for me to tease out how much of the resistance to MLK and Malcom X was due to racism vs how much was due to socialism/Marxism.

So you may say "see the government attacked Black people under the guise of resisting socialism and they're doing it again," as they say, history repeats itself. However, it doesn't appear to me to be a guise at all. America was much more institutionally racist, and there were groups and people actually pushing socialist ideology as a remedy to our social ills. Both can be true at the same time. The FBI came in and murdered Fred Hampton, probably because of both racism and anti-socialism. Neither justifies murder. Just like an anti-racist motivation does not justify murder. However, I think at the core, resisting Marxist ideology is a good thing that gets messy due to its association with various Black political movements. I don't think you're treating the topic with the nuance it deserves. Maybe because you see racism and anti-Marxism as both contemptible things? Or you don't find Marxist ideology an actual threat?

Again, maybe I am just super daft, but I do think there are Marxist actors trying to transform our society. Call me a wild conspiracy theorist or say I've fallen to the propaganda, but there is a BLM leader on record saying she and her comrade are "trained Marxists." And their statement of faith on their website IS far-left ideology.

Now to be fair, I think that they genuinely believe tearing down our society and replacing it with a Marxist, godless, and classless religion will remedy our social problems. In other words, I think they mean well. But I also think there's enough dead bodies stacked up in communist countries that might make you want to pump the brakes a bit.

I don't see any murals of Marx in black communities. I see murals of George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, etc. BLM is a movement and an organization, but it is not the basis of black politics. I can point you to plenty of black activist organizations that have nothing to do with Marxism. Personally, I think the infatuation with Marx is a white ppl thing. That's why Marcus Garvey was wary of black socialists as well as the black bourgeoisie, because he believed in one God, one aim and one destiny. He was for his people, not for dead European philosophers.

[Era Might]

49 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

However, I think at the core, resisting Marxist ideology is a good thing that gets messy due to its association with various Black political movements. I don't think you're treating the topic with the nuance it deserves. Maybe because you see racism and anti-Marxism as both contemptible things? Or you don't find Marxist ideology an actual threat?

For more nuance, I highly recommend the Stephen Kotkin video I posted before. He discusses the failure of communism and the paradox that the West won the Cold War, but is at risk of losing the post-Cold War. But Kotkin argues that just as the USSR was not brought down from without (it was reformed by Gorbachev from within), so the West can only destroy itself from within, and Trump is doing just that. Kotkin points out that populist authoritarianism is a way for the "losers" in society to have their voice heard. Trump didn't invent the role he's playing, the strong man who is above the corrupt system and comes to rule in the name of the ppl. Kotkin argues that America has a deficit of democracy that is making its political system unworkable as Trump erodes institutions like the press. Very nuanced, I had to listen to the lectures twice but they're worth the time.

[Luigi]

Trump has not eroded the press. The press has been eroding itself for decades. 

[Era Might]

8 minutes ago, Luigi said:

Trump has not eroded the press. The press has been eroding itself for decades. 

It's been changing. Social media is now the press. Hashtags become political campaigns or vice versa. Trump himself has adapted and made Twitter his press room. But as in everything else, Trump sees the actual press as a swamp, a leftist swamp. That's how authoritarians operate, outside institutions. They create a direct "contract" with the "ppl." I respect Trump a lot, he learned from Vince McMahon, I really think Trump is playing a role like a wrestler, like in the old days when they had good guys and bad guys like the Shah character or Hulk Hogan the Patriot. I think Trump sees all this political theater in that way, he'll say any racist thing he can because he's developing a storyline. But the wink at the camera is that he's Vince McMahon, he's the man behind the scenes orchestrating it all. Very clever.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Era Might

[Norseman82]

https://www.gocomics.com/stevekelley/2020/07/02

Edited July 9, 2020 by Norseman82

[Aloysius]

yeah marxism is not particularly popular among the average black man any more than it's really particularly popular among the average white man.  Orwell's Wigan Pier is a great read for some scathing rebukes of the out of touch middle class socialists who deep down actually don't like the working class people they claim to represent and are actually just fueled by jealousy and hatred of the upper classes.  but anyway, it is usually small and committed people that drive movements, so we shouldn't ignore its influence on the leadership of some of these movements and organizations, either.

you can see with some of the leaders of these movements that they are definitely coloring it with marxist agendas, we can't deny that.  actually a few high level members of one of the BLM organizations recently resigned in disgust at this kind of hijacking.  there are people who want to just focus on the goal at hand, and others who argue that x, y, or z other cause that they're invested in is a necessary component of achieving that goal.  there's a kind of semantic overload happening on these phrases like "BLM" where a bunch of other causes are tacked onto it, and then anyone who opposes even one of those other causes is caught in a discursive trap where they can be accused of being against a movement just aimed at pushing back against police violence.

we're going through a bit of what seems to be, at least in part, a moral panic right now, not a baseless moral panic as there are definitely problems that need to be addressed, but the pattern of a moral panic where individual incidents get inflated to the point where instead of just talking about some problematic sides of policing and racial relations in America, it's being treated like police are just out there gunning down black people at random, and it would be helpful to point out that this is just not true--killings by police of unarmed black people are actually declining, and add to that it's hard to parse out which cases are or are not justified, but not all of them are unjustified.  any unjust killing by police is something that we should be spurred to outrage about, but keeping those injustices in perspective would go a long way to ensuring we don't fail at our task of balancing public safety concerns with these very necessary reforms.  just look at the huge uptick in violent crime in NYC and Chicago, etc, in the last couple weeks as the police seem to be pulling back from their previously more proactive roles.  there is a legitimate role for a police force in massive modern cities and we are only seeing a tiny foretaste of the disaster that would come if we act too rashly.  it's nice to imagine we could get by without a large number of cops but the realities of the modern atomized city are that the peacefulness of it is largely held together by some degree of force.  normally I have always hated when people bring up chicago death rates, etc, in response to problems with police brutality or police unjustly killing someone, but in this case when we are now talking about a potential massive cut to policing, it's a valid point when ppl like Terry Crews point it out because now we're talking about balancing different things--create vacuums where there has been a police presence keeping the peace in some of these major cities, and it's very predictable you're going to see death rates skyrocket (as they already have started to)

1 hour ago, Era Might said:

For more nuance, I highly recommend the Stephen Kotkin video I posted before. He discusses the failure of communism and the paradox that the West won the Cold War, but is at risk of losing the post-Cold War. But Kotkin argues that just as the USSR was not brought down from without (it was reformed by Gorbachev from within), so the West can only destroy itself from within, and Trump is doing just that. Kotkin points out that populist authoritarianism is a way for the "losers" in society to have their voice heard. Trump didn't invent the role he's playing, the strong man who is above the corrupt system and comes to rule in the name of the ppl. Kotkin argues that America has a deficit of democracy that is making its political system unworkable as Trump erodes institutions like the press. Very nuanced, I had to listen to the lectures twice but they're worth the time.

@Era Might, I actually have a hard time calling trump an authoritarian for the principle reason--what authority has he actually accumulated for himself?  He has not actually expanded the powers of the executive branch in any meaningful way that I can see, certainly not compared to his most recent predecessors in the office... his principle executive actions have seemed to be cancelling past executive actions and trying to withdraw troops from places to the large wailing and gnashing of teeth of the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies.  am I missing something?

what I have seen you describe is mostly something I could describe more as populism.  but authoritarianism should mean that he is at least trying to accumulate more authority for himself to rule.

[full disclaimer: arguing he is not accurately described as an authoritarian should not be seen as an endorsement of him, lol, I am not a Trump supporter, just think it's good to try to be accurate about what one criticizes him over]

[Era Might]

21 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

yeah marxism is not particularly popular among the average black man any more than it's really particularly popular among the average white man.  Orwell's Wigan Pier is a great read for some scathing rebukes of the out of touch middle class socialists who deep down actually don't like the working class people they claim to represent and are actually just fueled by jealousy and hatred of the upper classes.  but anyway, it is usually small and committed people that drive movements, so we shouldn't ignore its influence on the leadership of some of these movements and organizations, either.

you can see with some of the leaders of these movements that they are definitely coloring it with marxist agendas, we can't deny that.  actually a few high level members of one of the BLM organizations recently resigned in disgust at this kind of hijacking.  there are people who want to just focus on the goal at hand, and others who argue that x, y, or z other cause that they're invested in is a necessary component of achieving that goal.  there's a kind of semantic overload happening on these phrases like "BLM" where a bunch of other causes are tacked onto it, and then anyone who opposes even one of those other causes is caught in a discursive trap where they can be accused of being against a movement just aimed at pushing back against police violence.

we're going through a bit of what seems to be, at least in part, a moral panic right now, not a baseless moral panic as there are definitely problems that need to be addressed, but the pattern of a moral panic where individual incidents get inflated to the point where instead of just talking about some problematic sides of policing and racial relations in America, it's being treated like police are just out there gunning down black people at random, and it would be helpful to point out that this is just not true--killings by police of unarmed black people are actually declining, and add to that it's hard to parse out which cases are or are not justified, but not all of them are unjustified.  any unjust killing by police is something that we should be spurred to outrage about, but keeping those injustices in perspective would go a long way to ensuring we don't fail at our task of balancing public safety concerns with these very necessary reforms.  just look at the huge uptick in violent crime in NYC and Chicago, etc, in the last couple weeks as the police seem to be pulling back from their previously more proactive roles.  there is a legitimate role for a police force in massive modern cities and we are only seeing a tiny foretaste of the disaster that would come if we act too rashly.  it's nice to imagine we could get by without a large number of cops but the realities of the modern atomized city are that the peacefulness of it is largely held together by some degree of force.  normally I have always hated when people bring up chicago death rates, etc, in response to problems with police brutality or police unjustly killing someone, but in this case when we are now talking about a potential massive cut to policing, it's a valid point when ppl like Terry Crews point it out because now we're talking about balancing different things--create vacuums where there has been a police presence keeping the peace in some of these major cities, and it's very predictable you're going to see death rates skyrocket (as they already have started to)

The biggest obstacle to any real change IMO is the inability to admit black ppl not merely into the political process but into the political agenda. To even recognize that black ppl have something like national status, equal to the natives. The Liberal programming of the Great Society is dying off. White ppl don't have to save black ppl anymore or pretend that black ppl and white ppl are integrated. Malcolm X was remarkably simple and direct about what he wanted. He didn't want integration, he wanted black ppl controlling those areas where they were a majority. As long as black ppl owned and controlled their own communities, they would not be economically or politically dependent on white money. This is the same principle that defeated apartheid in South Africa. But Americans don't see black ppl in the same way they would see black South Africans. White and black can easily coexist as long as black ppl control their own communities. That requires political existence, black ppl have to think black, not merely American. But black ppl have been here longer than white ppl, they have more interest than anyone to see America thrive. But they won't be disregarded anymore.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

Well, sorry but I deeply and fundamentally disagree with that kind of segregationism.  I'm all for subsidiarity and local power and local control, but defining that based on race and making it a separate nation?  No, not a chance.  Integration is the present and the future.  We're more than half a century from the Loving decision, and there are plenty of 'mixed race' families, including a few friends of mine, where do they fit into this?  Sorry but no, black Americans are about 13% of the population, there is zero way to disconnect them from the completely intertwined way they are embedded in American society.  Trying to divide the nations instead of us all coming together as Americans?  Sorry, but that's a non-starter for me.

[Era Might]

25 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

yeah marxism is not particularly popular among the average black man any more than it's really particularly popular among the average white man.  Orwell's Wigan Pier is a great read for some scathing rebukes of the out of touch middle class socialists who deep down actually don't like the working class people they claim to represent and are actually just fueled by jealousy and hatred of the upper classes.  but anyway, it is usually small and committed people that drive movements, so we shouldn't ignore its influence on the leadership of some of these movements and organizations, either.

you can see with some of the leaders of these movements that they are definitely coloring it with marxist agendas, we can't deny that.  actually a few high level members of one of the BLM organizations recently resigned in disgust at this kind of hijacking.  there are people who want to just focus on the goal at hand, and others who argue that x, y, or z other cause that they're invested in is a necessary component of achieving that goal.  there's a kind of semantic overload happening on these phrases like "BLM" where a bunch of other causes are tacked onto it, and then anyone who opposes even one of those other causes is caught in a discursive trap where they can be accused of being against a movement just aimed at pushing back against police violence.

we're going through a bit of what seems to be, at least in part, a moral panic right now, not a baseless moral panic as there are definitely problems that need to be addressed, but the pattern of a moral panic where individual incidents get inflated to the point where instead of just talking about some problematic sides of policing and racial relations in America, it's being treated like police are just out there gunning down black people at random, and it would be helpful to point out that this is just not true--killings by police of unarmed black people are actually declining, and add to that it's hard to parse out which cases are or are not justified, but not all of them are unjustified.  any unjust killing by police is something that we should be spurred to outrage about, but keeping those injustices in perspective would go a long way to ensuring we don't fail at our task of balancing public safety concerns with these very necessary reforms.  just look at the huge uptick in violent crime in NYC and Chicago, etc, in the last couple weeks as the police seem to be pulling back from their previously more proactive roles.  there is a legitimate role for a police force in massive modern cities and we are only seeing a tiny foretaste of the disaster that would come if we act too rashly.  it's nice to imagine we could get by without a large number of cops but the realities of the modern atomized city are that the peacefulness of it is largely held together by some degree of force.  normally I have always hated when people bring up chicago death rates, etc, in response to problems with police brutality or police unjustly killing someone, but in this case when we are now talking about a potential massive cut to policing, it's a valid point when ppl like Terry Crews point it out because now we're talking about balancing different things--create vacuums where there has been a police presence keeping the peace in some of these major cities, and it's very predictable you're going to see death rates skyrocket (as they already have started to)

@Era Might, I actually have a hard time calling trump an authoritarian for the principle reason--what authority has he actually accumulated for himself?  He has not actually expanded the powers of the executive branch in any meaningful way that I can see, certainly not compared to his most recent predecessors in the office... his principle executive actions have seemed to be cancelling past executive actions and trying to withdraw troops from places to the large wailing and gnashing of teeth of the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies.  am I missing something?

what I have seen you describe is mostly something I could describe more as populism.  but authoritarianism should mean that he is at least trying to accumulate more authority for himself to rule.

[full disclaimer: arguing he is not accurately described as an authoritarian should not be seen as an endorsement of him, lol, I am not a Trump supporter, just think it's good to try to be accurate about what one criticizes him over]

The Trump situation is unique because as you point out, he doesn't actually control the country's institutions. But if you compare Trump with other authoritarians around the globe, he fits the model. Kotkin discusses this, he breaks authoritarianism down to a formula. You don't have fascism anymore because you don't need it. You don't need outright violence to exercise authoritarian control anymore. With populism more generally, you just need democratic deficit, democratic mechanisms, political entrepreneurialism and stories that you can keep going back to, like immigrants or black ppl or leftists. This is the formula for populism. Authoritarianism is more about institutions. Trump has not eliminated institutions because he can't. But his entire campaign is built on extra-institutional power and capital. He bypassed his own party and is independently wealthy. Trump has said the press is an enemy of the ppl. That's the kind of authoritarianism he exercises, he discredits and muddies and embarrasses. He learned long ago how to play the media.

3 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

Well, sorry but I deeply and fundamentally disagree with that kind of segregationism.  I'm all for subsidiarity and local power and local control, but defining that based on race and making it a separate nation?  No, not a chance.  Integration is the present and the future.  We're more than half a century from the Loving decision, and there are plenty of 'mixed race' families, including a few friends of mine, where do they fit into this?  Sorry but no, black Americans are about 13% of the population, there is zero way to disconnect them from the completely intertwined way they are embedded in American society.  Trying to divide the nations instead of us all coming together as Americans?  Sorry, but that's a non-starter for me.

Integration is a national myth. It's not about having mixed families. Black ppl are a nation unto themselves, with their own history. White ppl only deal with middle class black ppl. In reality, America is very segregated. Black ppl live with black ppl. White ppl with white ppl. The idea of an American "nation" only works when the nation works for everyone. Black ppl are as American as anyone else, but being American doesn't require the ideology of integration. Black ppl are still black ppl and that is not a biological statement it's a political recognition. I think conservatives would prefer to deal with black ppl as black ppl rather than as Democrats.

[Aloysius]

he seems to fit a 'pattern' except with none of the actual content that makes 'authoritarianism' actually what it is.  he doesn't even seem to WANT to accumulate more authority to himself.  it just seems like the kind of criticism of Trump that's destined to spin up his opponents and leave his supporters and a certain number of independents rolling their eyes because they don't see him as being authoritarian because he's not accumulating (or even attempting to accumulate) more authority for himself over the institutions.

his pattern of fighting with the media conglomerates also fits the pattern of a populist.

MAYBE one could convince me he has proto-authoritarian tendencies.  maybe.  but generally speaking looking at the actual kinds of policies he does and tries to get done and the means by which he does them and tries to do them, he is actually relatively normal except with some belligerence, some crass and problematic rhetoric, and a streak of populism.  where's the authority that would make it authoritarian?  I really think this is the kind of hyperbolic argument that fuels greater support for trump because people see it and think it's just not gelling with what they're observing about his actual actions.

although who knows, maybe it's a successful strategy, I can't be sure how it's falling on the general public's ears.  but what it isn't is something that I've been at all convinced is true, because to me the fundamental aspect of an authoritarian has everything to do with the authority they attempt to accumulate and wield (outside of institutions, of course)

[Era Might]

4 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

he seems to fit a 'pattern' except with none of the actual content that makes 'authoritarianism' actually what it is.  he doesn't even seem to WANT to accumulate more authority to himself.  it just seems like the kind of criticism of Trump that's destined to spin up his opponents and leave his supporters and a certain number of independents rolling their eyes because they don't see him as being authoritarian because he's not accumulating (or even attempting to accumulate) more authority for himself over the institutions.

his pattern of fighting with the media conglomerates also fits the pattern of a populist.

MAYBE one could convince me he has proto-authoritarian tendencies.  maybe.  but generally speaking looking at the actual kinds of policies he does and tries to get done and the means by which he does them and tries to do them, he is actually relatively normal except with some belligerence, some crass and problematic rhetoric, and a streak of populism.  where's the authority that would make it authoritarian?  I really think this is the kind of hyperbolic argument that fuels greater support for trump because people see it and think it's just not gelling with what they're observing about his actual actions.

although who knows, maybe it's a successful strategy, I can't be sure how it's falling on the general public's ears.  but what it isn't is something that I've been at all convinced is true, because to me the fundamental aspect of an authoritarian has everything to do with the authority they attempt to accumulate and wield (outside of institutions, of course)

I just completely disagree that Trump is not trying to accumulate power to himself. That's the man's whole purpose in life, to glorify his own name. Now he has secret service protection for the rest of his life. He installed his family and friends in government positions that will be a stepping stone for them. He put his own son in law in charge of foreign policy. Who knows what deal he has with Melania for standing by him, but she's no dummy either. There is nobody in the world more powerful than Trump. And the presidency is just the seal on his power, not the source of it. That's how a real gangster operates.

[Aloysius]

Integration is not about getting rid of all forms of racially separate communities, but about creating a system in which moving between those and mixing and matching is possible so that as much as is possible is left as voluntary as possible and the system is as fair as possible.  majority black communities can and do elect their own people to political office in the forms of mayors and city councils and district attorneys, etc.  nothing wrong with that.  but you seem to be arguing for some kind of all-black ethno-nationalist separation... how exactly would that work?  do black people get to vote as to whether they get to be their own separate nation?  what about the patriotic American ones that want to stay within the American system?  do they have to join the separate black nation if they lose the black people vote?  how much do mixed race people get votes?  what about the non-black spouses of black people, can they vote as to whether to move into this separate level of jurisdiction?  do all-black communities just get carved out as separate, or does everyone have to move to a particular territory?  or will there just be small reservations with some kind of distinctive 'black government', does that black government have authority over all black people or just within the territory of the reservation? 

I'm sorry, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, all options just sound awful.  Everyone living in the United States is part of the same nation.  If we wanted to, we could territorially divide into separate nations.  But racially dividing into separate nations?  Really bad idea.

I am not saying the system we have is perfect.  But if you're not striving for equal human rights for equal people who all have to live together and democratically work together to set up governments to protect the rights of everyone who lives within that area, well maybe we just have fundamentally different values. 

17 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I just completely disagree that Trump is not trying to accumulate power to himself. That's the man's whole purpose in life, to glorify his own name. Now he has secret service protection for the rest of his life. He installed his family and friends in government positions that will be a stepping stone for them. He put his own son in law in charge of foreign policy. Who knows what deal he has with Melania for standing by him, but she's no dummy either. There is nobody in the world more powerful than Trump. And the presidency is just the seal on his power, not the source of it. That's how a real gangster operates.

if he's only accumulated the same amount of power as other presidents, you can't exactly call that authoritarian (at least not in a way that is saying Trump is particularly authoritarian compared to other presidents).

every president puts loyalists into positions of power, the couple family positions are a step beyond that, but friends and loyalists?  par for the course, mostly donors and political favors.  again, nothing particular to trump that makes him more authoritarian than other presidents.

at the moment Trump can be said to be the 'most powerful man in the world', which is a phrase commonly applied to every president.  I am asking for what ways he is attempting to accumulate or wield power outside of these institutions, because I just don't see it.  he seems very interested in his own popularity and brand, but not so much about trying to gain more political power, I'd have to hear what concrete things he's done above and beyond what other presidents have done. 

[Aloysius]

-------------------

btw, Era, please tell me if I'm misrepresenting you on this idea and needlessly overstating my opposition, because I really hope I am.  I guess the word 'nation' can have many kinds of uses.  if it is segregationism and separationism, then yes I strongly condemn it and believe in love and brotherhood for all races under one system of government that we strive to make as fair as is possible down here in this valley of tears with our fallen natures the way they are.

[Era Might]

21 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

-------------------

btw, Era, please tell me if I'm misrepresenting you on this idea and needlessly overstating my opposition, because I really hope I am.  I guess the word 'nation' can have many kinds of uses.  if it is segregationism and separationism, then yes I strongly condemn it and believe in love and brotherhood for all races under one system of government that we strive to make as fair as is possible down here in this valley of tears with our fallen natures the way they are.

This is the 100 year anniversary of the 1920 Universal Negro Improvement Association convention in New York City. This was the first democratically elected, worldwide government of, by, and for black ppl in history. If we need a model to start from, the philosophy and opinions of Marcus Garvey are the best place to start. There's a great book called Black Power and the Garvey Movement by a historian named Theodore Vincent. It's a good introduction to what Garvey achieved for and with black ppl by organizing themselves, including their own worldwide government which did not replace participation in national governments, but it gave black ppl their own form of organizing, including their own newspaper, The Negro World. I say all this to say that everything is possible for black ppl. But not if they live in the context of white politics and subsuming everything to the preservervation of America as a nation. If the idea of America is not working, then it's time to change the idea or at least introduce new ideas. The list of great black intellectuals is endless, but I would start with CLR James from Trinidad.

I would write more on the history and nature of nationalism but I'm typing on a phone.

[Aloysius]

Ok, I am not at all opposed to organizations that would help organize people, politically or otherwise, although they can't claim they speak for all black people just because they have the same color skin--there is a diversity of opinions, they're not a monolith.  But they can speak for themselves as an organization and work to affect positive change in the world and for black people.

All I want is us all to live and love each other as brothers and sisters.

I am of course aware of the deep history of 'nations' as a concept, though it is a concept that has had different meanings in different times.  There are many troubling theories out there that I consider outdated but are swirling around out there anyway that center themselves around that term 'nation' though, terms that sow division and hatred between communities, basically anything that is "ethno-nationalist" (particularly ethno-nation-statist, at least, but anything that tries to sow division between peoples based on race as some kinds of 'nations' that should be competing with each other) I associate with what GK Chesterton called the "race religion" which is basically self-idolatry, "the curse of race religion is that it makes each separate man the sacred image which he worships. His own bones are the sacred relics; his own blood is the blood of St. Januarius."

Anyway I'll give a look to some of the things you mention, should make for interesting historical reading if nothing else.