“Homelessness is a result of expensive free time.”
The folks who are sharing dirty needles in filthy encampments, cooking up meth in derilect RVs, and committing property crimes to finance these activities are not suffering from “expensive free time.” Ditto for the women and their children who seek refuge from domestic violence by going to Mary’s Place. Economic issues are not at the root of their problems.
I think she's actually a radical Capitalist.
Capitalism, as described in the seven books by Adam Smith, Father of Capitalism, separates itself from Mercantalism, or Oligopoly Capitalism, but is neutral on the technological choices available.
Her positions skew further towards True Capitalism, as opposed to the Fundamentalist Radical Communism that calls itself Libertarianism.
Seems pretty clear that communists who imagine that people will give a shit about working when there is nothing to be gained from it (aside from pride in their work or some such) and communists who imagine that people who don't have to work at all are going to be universally happy with that (as opposed to rudderless and numb) are both willfully ignorant regarding human nature. The Marxist critique of capitalism raises plenty of valid points. Marxist visions for what comes after 'late capitalism' on the other hand all seem to be laughably naive.
The AOC quote is incomplete. The last part of that paragraph is, "the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die." And that is a very succinct summary of the age we live in, and the problems with the current quid-pro-quo model of labor in exchange for basic needs.
AOC will prove to be neither socialist, communist, or particularly wedded do democracy even. She's a poseur capitalist looking to maximize her own value. Her followers are part of her long con. Above everything, people should recognize that AOC values no one but herself.
As soon as I saw the article title, I said to myself “oh this MUST be a Mudede piece”. Thanks for your consistency, asshole 🙂
Cortez is a fucking idiot is what she is. Like the Republicans' Sarah Palin. The Green New Deal is a joke that Democrats slowly backpedaled out of because they knew it is ridiculous. Got mad that they had to vote on the their own damn bill they proposed. Lol. You know, one would think if the world is going to end in 12 years, according to Cortez, it would be important to get the bill voted on. :)
While she is busy worrying about farting cows, and paying people who are "unwilling to work", DNC is cracking under pressure from the regressive radical lefties, like Cortez.
I, however, am glad that dumbasses like Corrrrrrrrtez are in the DNC. Bad for the DNC, good for the rest of us. And as long as she is there, no one is going to take the DNC seriously. Like anyone does anymore anyway. Most people have ethics, morals, and principles. DNC has none of that.
3: How do you know people WON'T give a shit about working if they don't have to work just to survive? How do you know that people might not, in fact, work HARDER, because then they would do work that they actually WANT to do, that actually includes creativity, democracy, meaning and purpose? How do we know that it couldn't work to simply have all of us share out some of the drudgery, treating each other with respect and value as we all share that work, work, if shared fully, wouldn't have to take up more than a few hours of anyone's day? Why assume that life can ONLY be run by giving a few people the power to tell everybody else "do it MY way or IT'S YOUR BUTT!" When did we ever give positive motivation a chance? When did we ever actually TRY the idea-and no, nothing that was done in the Soviet Union after 1924 or ever in China counts as this idea, all of that was simply state coercion and represents a model that is extinct, that nobody wants to bring back-that we could organize life cooperatively, working with and valuing each other, each of us helping the other to live their best life and be their best self? Where was that ever tried, and if it never has been tried in practice, how the hell can anybody say that it was tried and failed?
7 the fact that you offered no actual reasons to object to the Green New Deal is proof that you have no valid argument against it. Why does it bother you that we have a proposal which recognizes TWO unchallengable truths
1) The climate crisis is real and is made worse by human activity, therefore human activity has to change if life on the planet is to continue;
2) There are many people whose livelihoods currently depend on jobs in the extractive sector, and when human activity changes, we must create equally well-paying jobs that don't cause climate damage, and if the private sector refuses to create them, then the democratic sector-those institutions the people can have a say in through elections-will have to do so, in the name of fulfilling the Constitutional requirement to "preserve the good and welfare" of society.
The solution to global warming will be a technological one, not a change in human behavior. The mostly promising solution is an enviromentally harmless material that can be shot into the atmosphere that will block out heat but let in light. Such materials already exist, and thousands of people are, as we speak, refining and perfecting them. So relax folks. Help is on the way.
@8 I know this because we have real world examples (and yes the Soviet Union and China are very much valid ones). Been to Cuba? There are people there who work hard simply because they enjoy their jobs, they think it is their duty to 'serve the revolution' or some such, in spite of the fact that everyone, except maybe government officials, is paid ludicrously inadequate salaries. My ex-girlfriend, a doctor, is such a person. The vast majority just don't do anything or the work they do actually do is shoddy and productivity is abysmal. It just plain sucks.
Marxists all seem to have this vision of a post-capitalist utopia that looks like Jehova's Witness's heaven: children frolicking with apex predators, neighbors all pitching in to build the newlyweds a house, lush gardens, trees heavy with ripe fruit. Reality is everyone gets to be equally poor, not everyone gets to be equally rich, and for the most part everyone gets to be equally listless, not everyone gets to revel in their limitless leisure time.
@10 I feel better already. Thanks!
There's also that plan to terraform Mars, so we have a back-up if the geo-engineering fails, or backfires. Deep breath. It's gonna be OK!
Ironic positions are always popular. If your commentary is of the form "Look, I am a (liberal/conservative/socialist/communist/anarchist/whatever) too, but even I think (insert name of politician of the same political persuasion described above) is crazy!", you will be guaranteed a spot on the talk show circuit.
Why is Milo popular in some circles? because he's a gay man who opposes gay rights, he's married to a Black guy and yet opposes Black civil rights. Why does Chris Vance have a standing invitation from Bill Radke to sit on the panel of the Week in Review? He's a conservative who opposes Trump. Why does anyone care about Meghan McCain at all? Because she's a Republican stalwart who opposes the Republican leadership.
That's because we've been conditioned for years to instinctively feel that a moderate position is better than an extreme position. That's true even when it's illogical. In the 1860's those who were extremely opposed to slavery were on the right side of history, whereas those moderates who wanted to go slow, make concessions to the slaveholders and avoid the Civil war at all costs were on the wrong side. Yet, we are now told again and again that extremism is akin to insanity.
To appear moderate, and therefore sane, one must stand in opposition to an extreme position. Therefore, you must find someone who takes an extreme position- whether that's Kshama Sawant or AOC- and declare "While I am a socialist, even I think (Sawant/AOC) is too far to the Left. That makes you he equivalent of Chris Vance, ironic, and therefore interesting.
It's a cheap stunt that contributes nothing to the conversation.
@3 "human nature"
human behavior is largely the result of adaptation to environmental conditions, not "human nature" as if it were forever frozen in time. I am not claiming to have a solution but it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that people having more free time could lead to an explosion in creativity and meaningful work (by opposition to flipping shitburgers).
Human values-which is what we're really talking about here, not "human nature", which doesn't really exist anywhere but self-justification used by bigoted reactionary bullies to excuse their continued and deliberate choice to be bigoted reactionary bullies-vary from human to human and are constantly changing. most of the world no longer accepts slavery and human sacrifice as necessary elements of life...more and more of the world accepts that LGBTQ identity and relationships are not a choice or a sin but simply something that is part LGBTQ people, and and accept that it is simply cruel to try and force LGBTQ people to either cease being LGBTQ or to hide that aspect of themselves. Most of the world no longer accepts that white "Christian" societies have any intrinsic claim to superiority over any other societies-and utterly rejects the notion that an economic system run solely for the short-term self-interest of the few is the only POSSIBLE way life can be run, or that the mass of humanity will only exert effort in life if said mass has to exert said effort on nothing more exalted or inspired than the struggle to survive on a day-to-day basis.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.