Pragmatic Leftist Theory

Personally, I'd like to abolish the stock market altogether. But this is an attractive, actionable policy

"How to end well: Humanitarians must better plan their exits" discusses common failure modes for aid organizations when they leave an area, and stresses the importance of planning for it. When I think of backlash around leftist policy, I see parallels. Any policy made in present representative governments seems very likely to get weakened/watered down/ended by the following election cycle; what goes into those policies to minimize the following harm/fallout?

Specifically, I am talking about what is a bachelor's degree in the US--a 4-year-degree that offers you few special, unique, or licensable skills, unlike a masters' or doctorate or trade schools.

In my view, this field of higher education is mostly about gating access to a small job market--the supply of jobs is so limitted that people are (decreasingly) willing to go into debt for a crab-in-bucket's chance at some employment. It also perpetuates class divisions, more now than it did when getting a degree was a real ticket paid non-physical labor.

It's also a highly extractive industry in its own right--price of higher ed has outstripped inflation for over 30 years while professors are being paid less. People are entering there working lives deeply in debt. This is a systemic issue.

The answer, I think, is not simply gov't paying for tuition because that does not deal with runaway costs.

Higher education has a priveleged place on the left, since its where many of us gained a broader worldview. But setting that aside, the institution itself qua institution is deeply problematic in the current system.

My only unique contribution to the topic--which I have not heard anywhere else--is removing higher education as bona fide occupational qualification without justification as to specific content or skills w/o other options to demonstrate mastery. That would leverage current law (in the US) to dethrone higher-ed supremacy, because we know most jobs that require or prefer a bachelor's degree don't practically really require an education that takes 4 years.

As someone who’s combative and self-righteous myself, I get those folks, honestly. I could very easily be a crusader in their vein. The ever-ongoing escalation against those who think they can ‘get away’ with just a little bit of assistance towards bad causes? “Fuck them! They deserve nothing! Humiliate them, ostracize them, cast them out!” The voice of God in your head is overwhelmingly, and it feels good to do so, to beat back every little inkling of evil trying to worm its way into normality.

On the other hand, that’s exactly why I try to police my own worldview for that. I’m tetchy and still largely insufferable on politics on a personal level, but that level of insufferability and tetchiness is more… universal to my character, than particular to my political views. Wish I could say I’m working on it, but the truth is I’m just trying to make it through the next day at this point, lmao.

And the truth is, there is some point to that voice - tolerating things normalizes them. But if your idea is to tolerate no evil views in the people you talk with, you will very quickly end up in the same situation as religious monastics and hermits - or inquisitions. You have to pick which evils, and what intensity, are worth going nuclear on, instead of whiting out massive groups with a broad brush, unless you're willing to do what monastics, hermits, and inquisitions do. And I would venture to say that... none of those are particularly good or moral choices.

Once you let that combative self-righteousness dictate how you see the world, everyone becomes an enemy, and that's not productive, healthy, or moral. It becomes a self-feeding isolation, an ouroboros of purifying and intensifying hatred, and… honestly, my entire ideological journey has been away from that, save an acquired hatred for libertarians around 2017. I had a taste of that self-righteous spiral early on in coming-of-political-age, thrill and all, and I still didn’t like where it went. It’s not good for anyone.

At the end of the day, I get their core point, that there are some things that you have to draw the line on - the idea of total tolerance or total left unity is a pipedream; injustice to the oppressed. But at the same time, so is total purity and correctness.

At some point your worldview has to account for the fact that most people are just trying to keep their heads down and get by, and so are you. The notion of infinite heroism, of infinite struggle against injustice, infinite wisdom, infinite discernment of good and evil, feels good, but is incoherent, impossible, and itself, unjust. You have to see that people are capable of being wrong, even horrifically wrong, but not always fundamentally broken so much as just trying to keep themselves afloat in the horrific melange that is our upbringing, our lives, and our environments.

I’ll brawl with folk all day long over issues I think are important, and I think they’re distinctly wrong over. More than I should, honestly, and almost certainly more savagely than I should. I absolutely go bare-knuckles on every point I feel is important, and that... sometimes leads to asymmetric views, where I can view someone as "Good fellow, sometimes has bad views that need to be confronted without softballing the implications, but don't we all?", because what's a little vicious disputation between gentlefolk and scholars? And they view me as "Insufferable foul-mouthed aggressive shithead", not necessarily incorrectly, lmao.

But shutting out people entirely has to be dire, a matter of values - or at least information hygiene. Take the learning moments where you can. Most people may not be directly convinced by an argument or ten, but their trajectory can be shifted by exposure to more correct views.

And for that matter, we should hope ourselves to be shifted to more correct views wherever we may be wrong.

A political 'utility party' that has tried to use tech to listen to people, and craft policy to match. They produce FOSS tooling for others to use, some of which is being picked up by major parties. Seems like good technology in this space could make it easier to understand where policy comes from.

Also, I adore the diagrams on their website.

It's important to find a balance between activism and having realistic expectations.

Even if we threw ourselves into The Cause(tm) 100%, there's no guarantee of change. For many people, that's disheartening. If they sold all their worldly possessions, worked 16 hours a day 7 days a week in the most radical ways they could imagine, the world still might not change because of them. But I prefer the mirror view - you don't have to be a martyr and an ascetic to support revolution. Every revolution in history was made possible by a much larger cadre than just the key figures and (now nameless) instigators.

Don't ever give up an opportunity for low-risk high-reward activism, nor for activity which can make a large difference but consumes very little of your limited resources. Yet also understand that the world isn't your's to fix. Focus on playing your part.

Vote, especially if you have mail-in voting. That's dirt-cheap cost in time and energy. Harm reduction is... as we're seeing today, worth literal millions of lives. Protest? Certainly, whenever the opportunity arises. One more voice in the crowd is one more voice it's harder to drown out. Activism? Absolutely. Donating your time multiplies the efforts of everyone else. Throw a brick in your local riot? Fuck yeah. A riot is the language of the unheard, and if the powers that be won't listen, a few bricks can make them nervous and wake them up for 'negotiations'. Talk about a strike with your union? Golden fuckin' language. Few things are as strong as workers' solidarity.

... but at the same time, understand that the burden is not wholly on you. If you missed a midterm election or made a bad choice in a presidential election, you don't have to crucify yourself forever for it. If you know that voter suppression is going to be fucking gruesome at your polling place and you have a family to take care of, make the risk calculation for the specific election you're in, and act according to your best judgement.

If you're two payments late on rent and your boss has threatened you with dismissal if you miss another day, one more voice in the protest is generally not going to be the difference between life and death for The Revolution(tm). If you're juggling multiple jobs or just barely staying away from putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger as-is, the nice local party organizer who says you'd make a great part-time member of the team will understand if you can't help at this juncture of your life.

If you're out of jail on parole and know that getting caught means you'll be behind bars for a disproportionately long time compared to your contribution, you don't have to be one of the rioters. If the worst should come to pass and literal Pinkertons start fucking knocking on your door and plausibly threatening your spouse and kids for your strike, picking the lives of your loved ones over ideology is not something that reasonable people will condemn you, personally, for.

(Conversely, if you skip a vote because you really wanted ice cream; or a protest because a new game came out that day; or refuse an activist role you're suited for because it might cut into your masturbation time; or condemn a riot because 'violence bad 🥺'; or refuse a strike because it might interfere with your yearly productivity bonus... fucking take a step back and consider what a small cost it is to be a tolerably moral human fucking being)

Above all, it is not your burden on a personal, private level. You have a moral duty to do what you reasonably can, but it is not morally necessary for everyone to demand demand miracles or martyrdom of themselves. We are not fascists; everyone is not educated to be a hero. Miracleworkers and martyrs are needed, make no mistake. But to pursue that specific path is something one must decide for themselves. And often neither are actually given the choice - it just happens.

You don't have to even be the first brick thrown or the name on the plaque when they put up a statue to the original strike's proposers, though if you see the opportunity, it would be really swell. But be ready and proactive in doing your part.

First, I know what most of you are going to say. I myself was an internet atheist 20 years ago, quoting Dawkins and Sagan at magic-sky-daddy believers. But this isn't about convincing anyone to believe.

This is about pragmatics. And, pragmatically, the single biggest enemy right now is the conservative Christian right. Anything to fracture that coalition benefits the left.

Luckily, their gospels are pretty left-wing. So, I offer for your consideration, the Christian angle.

I encourage those of you who went to Sunday school to brush up on your Scripture. Matthew is a treasure trove. When you're talking to someone on the right, start hitting them with chapter and verse.

If nothing else, this is initially shocking. They're supposed to be the Christians, and you're some filthy commie reminding them that Jesus called the wealthy priests hypocrites, and told us to feed the hungry and aid the sick.

They have defense mechanisms against your crybaby commie talk. They don't have defense mechanisms against their own scripture. At worst, you shake them loose from their script and confuse them, giving you openings for gentle deprogramming.

At best, they might reflect on their leadership and how closely they follow Jesus' commands. Anyone who really believes in him and really reads the gospels is going to wind up a leftist, whether they call it that or not.

Just food for thought. Read up on what Jesus said, use that against the people who claim to follow him. You don't have to believe yourself to recognize a powerful rhetorical tool.

Not Christianity, Jesus.

Part of a response I received in a thread on .ml

https://midwest.social/post/41018287

I was invited here to participate in discussion. But when I visit, all I see is a bunch of anti-tankie posts from a prolific anti-tankie, an Atlantic smear article about DSA from months ago, and a few genuinely good discussions. Let's get those numbers up, and start drowning out the "based" memes.

As of today, the most divisive and urgent issue du jour, is about the government shutdown, and the legislative drama surrounding it. People are angry.

There are a lot of people directly affected by the shut down. I know someone who is basically working for free at her govt job because she's scared she will lose her job completely. A department of 20 workers, reduced to a staff of 4 temporary slaves. She doubts she will get back pay, but hopes she will. Many of her coworkers will not. My friend doesnt think about it like that, but that is def one major pain point in the middle class.

I'm willing to bet the dem house legislature is just gonna fold with no healthcare demand, which is a seriously pressing issue for workers who rely on ACA.

Back of the napkin, about 45% of ACA recipients are at or below the poverty line. ACA subsidies cut off below 65k indiv/130k fam.

That bracket would include many government workers, except govt workers receive healthcare. 65k is like barely middle class in the US, with housing costs, soaring energy bills, etc.,

Interesting and tragic how the shut down is just a way to divide the working class over material issues, especially the working poor vs the middle class.

I checked the sidebar and it doesn't say.