Friday, August 28, 2020

Brilliant but Infuriating

I am finally getting around to reading Herman E. Daly's classic and essential book Beyond Growth.

I have just finished reading the Introduction.  It is brilliant, as I expect the rest of the book to be, if I can get myself to read it all.

But it is also infuriating to me.  I could never have believed Daly would raise my anger so much.

In the final section of the introduction (reflecting the final section of the book), he insists, contrary to the very evidence he presents, that scientific materialism is incompatible with a concern for the environment.  He tells the story of a conference organized by Carl Sagan and others, meeting with religious leaders, to reach a joint agreement (which they did) regarding the environment.  He finds this whole exercise to be shallow (which perhaps it was) and impossible.

It is true that something else is required than scientific materialism.  But he is wrong to say that scientific materialism subsumes all value and ethical systems.  It is merely orthogonal.

All that's is required is a fairly simple set of values or ethical principles, such as humanism or rationalism.  I would call mine universalism and regard it more as an ethical system than a value system.

It seems axiomatic to me that I regard all other lives as something resembling my own, and therefore worthy of protection and respect.

This includes not only past and present lives, but future lives.  I am connected to all of these in that my existence was a product of past, a part of the present, and future lives will be in some ways a product of mine.

Future lives are not really even lives yet, but potentials.  There is a vast potential for humans to create a beautiful and mutually loving world for humans and other earthly living things, or to destroy it.  I would feel very badly about destroying it, and very happy about helping to maintain and enhance it's goodness.

When Sagan and others brought up the importance of the children they weren't just being cute, but in this same sense as I have just described.

This is in fact highly compatible with scientific materialism because in this system there is no other cosmic force that needs to be reckoned with.  There is no Christian or Jewish or Muslim god who is going to replace or enhance this world according to Their Plan and/or timetables.  Not surprisingly, monotheisms are associated with lack of concern for the environment as a leading priority.  They propose that all we need do is follow God's plan (short form: be fruitful and multiply) and God will take care of the rest.  In fact, it is monotheistic religions which are incompatible with environmentalism, and that explains a lot of where we are today.  Scientific materialism is relatively blameless, and in fact mostly associated with environmentalism.

Within a universalist perspective, We are the gods who bear much responsibility for how things unfold, from this point forwards.

Daly can't seem to get beyond his characterization of scientists and academics as value free postmoderns.  Though it may not be true of imperial economists and sociologists he has known, I believe many if not most scientists and academics reject value free postmodernism.   It does not require the (ultimately useless IMO) subjectivist mental gymnastics of an Alfred North Whitehead empiricism which a sense of human purpose at the center of all reality.  It only requires a sense that being fully human includes embracing some kind of value or ethical system.

Carl Sagan explains his concern for the future of the earth eloquently in the last episode of his series Cosmos.  He explains how it comes out of his system of values, and never finds it to contradict his scientific materialism, but rather to resonate with his awe (love) for the universe.

I believe we are indeed the children of countless accidents.  But that only makes our reality, and that of those like us, even more worth preserving.  There may not be time enough left in this universe for another identical set of accidents to occur, or even close enough to preserve the best of what we are.

Ultimately, to get Beyond Growth, we will have to get beyond traditional monotheisms and capitalism.  But there is no need to replace scientific materialism, only augment it with an appropriate ethical system.

Rall 2020, same as Rall 2016

In his latest screed telling people not to vote for Democrats, Rall is simply rehashing his old arguments.

There is no difference between Trump and Biden, he says.  I don't agree, nor do nearly all of my friends.

Chomsky had the best framing 20 years ago.  There are only small differences, he explained.  But when you're talking about the most powerful office in the world, even those small differences are important.  Everyone I respect follows that argument.

So Rall and his Ilk will forever have to claim there are "no" differences.  None at all.  Biden is just as much of a hate mongering racist, and treaty ending megalomaniac, Global Warming denialist, etc.  Sure.  BTW, I saw one thing yesterday from Biden which warmed my heart, finally.  He said he will restore US participation in the Paris Accord on Day One.  Council for a Livable World says they have often backed Biden for Senator because of his postive record in attaining nuclear arms agreements, the very thing which Trump has summarily ended.  But Rall says no differences.  Apparently he lives on Mars and doesn't care if this planet blows up.

Also Rall denies there even is such a thing as a Progressive Democrat.  I vote Democratic, therefore I'm not a progressive, in his dichotomy.  FDR, JFK, no progressives, only Democrats.  DSA and Communist Party, who endorse Biden, are not progressive at all.

Fine, he can vote for R. M. La Follette.  Might as well.

Finally, as does pretty much everyone who makes similar arguments, Rall sees voting as a "personal choice," not a mass struggle.

Democracy has always been, and will always be, a mass struggle.  We argue with our friends and neighbors and try to get them to vote our way.  We work alonside others to be sure the votes are counted fairly.  Etc Etc.  The process is all about struggle, compromise, and working together.  To go along, you need to get along.  People get respect and challenge each other to do as much as they do.  Etc.  If we don't all work together, as hard as we can, the Masters win bigger.

Seeing Democracy as a personal choice, like a brand of soap you choose to use for yourself, is bourgeois and elitist.

The truth is, no matter who "you" choose, you get the same one as the rest of us.  And that's what it's about.

Finally, he makes an entirely bogus argument that non-voting caused the 2020 primary season to have more "variety."  That's a misreading of history.  It entirely had to do with Sanders (someone Rall won't give much credit for).  Sanders came close to winning in 2016 and created a very energized base.  It was clear Bernie was going to run again in 2020.  So the Democratic establishment actively encouraged more progressive candidates for THAT reason...to divide the vote Sanders would otherwise win with, and thereby make sure Bernie wouldn't win.

So it was all about Sanders and the movements he created.  It had nothing to do with the bourgeois elitist and out-of-touch non-voters in 2016.  They accomplished nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  And will continue to be ignored forever, since, after all, they don't vote.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Central Problems with Policing are in the laws themselves

Of course, Qualified Immunity is a terrible idea which leads to unaccountable policing.

But beyond that, there are many crimes we expect police to enforce with shouldn't be crimes.  This includes all criminal statues regarding use or possession of drugs, as well as the distribution of soft drugs including marijuana.  These should have no criminal penalties.  Even penalties for distribution of hard drugs should generally not be considered criminal or very important.  After all, Intelligence Services are often involved in such distribution, which they often use to raise money.

There should be no Civil Asset Forfeiture.

There should be no requirements for cash bail or accelerating penalties which turn poor people into criminals.

Personal immigration violations should also not be criminal.  In some cases, deportation might be called for, but not detention or fines so severe they result in people being detained.

Regarding immigration, serious criminal offenses should apply to things like illegally importing workers or knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants.  But not so much to the immigrants themselves.

Generally, most petty crimes should be seen as that.  Petty.  Not the sort of thing police officers put people into life threating situations about.  Only Grand Crimes, such as US officials lying to start wars, deserve that treatement.

But as things are rigged now, most frequently grand criminals aren't even prosecuted.  Epstein being a rare exception, and it took decades for him to be prosecuted.

For petty crimes, it's sufficient to serve people notices, as with residential code violations.

Draconian regimes like The Crime Bill are very harmful and should be undone completely.


Saturday, August 22, 2020

How Zionism Works

 Some Zionist friends of mine believe Israel treats all people fairly.  "Arabs" live anywhere in Israel and are not persecuted, they say.

Sadly the truth is very different.  As has been concluded elsewhere in the world, including the USA where "discrimination" is illegal, discrimination takes many forms.  Whenever people are identified as one thing or another, racism and apartheid slips in.

Tony Greenstein documents the highly discriminatory nature of land distribution in Israel.


Thursday, August 20, 2020

Don't fall for absurd sex panics

 I saw this unfold on Twitter, with a poll asking questions such as, "Is it OK for a 24 year old to date a 22 year old?  Is it OK for a 30 year old to date a 22 year old?"  My vote for "It's none of my damned business" got a solid 35%, but more votes went for cutting off that 30 year old.

In my opinion, passing the age of consent means just that.  It's like getting your drivers license.  You have no legal or moral restrictions that don't apply to everyone else past the age of consent.  Period.  And ageism is particularly disgusting IMO.  (Possibly some limitations if minors can be past the age of consent.  Minors may need permission of parent or guardian to date someone significantly older, or alternatively emancipation from dastardly parents they need to get away from.  But it's fairly common for 18 to be both the age of consent and full adulthood except for being served alcohol or being eligible to run for certain political offices.)

Of course this doesn't pardon any kind of harassment, sexual or physical abuse, threats, blackmail, etc.  Those apply regardless of age to all people.

Power differences???  Don't get me started, or make me laugh.  It might be the younger female student who has all the power.

Liza Featherstone tells the story behind the recent sex panic regarding a very progressive candidate being smeared, falsely as it turned out, for dating younger women.


Friday, August 14, 2020

The Answer

 I often wonder how to respond to comments like this, made by Karim Walker on Twitter.

Honest question. What have Biden and Harris done to earn your vote?

Eric Loomis gave an excellent response.

Notice the extreme individualism in how this is framed. It's about "me" not "us." It's about checking the boxes that I think politicians have, not about evicting fascists from office, even if replaced by very flawed people.


First Principle

 Eric Loomis on Twitter:

Sometimes people ask me, "How do we start a general strike?" My answer is always, talk to your coworkers and family members who you probably don't like that much, because they are the ones who have to be on board with this.

Yep.  It's way different from the kind of democracy which involves pulling a lever.  To merely chose between the Red and Blue teams of the CIA Establishment, which is nonetheless a very useful thing to do, we merely need line up those who already support the Blue side and get them to vote.

But to have the overwhelming majority and unity needed for radical change, it goes beyond that.  And we are nowhere close.

Loomis adds:

In truth, the general strike fantasy is an anti-politics that erases the hard realities of organizing and dealing with people in favor of a romanticized vision of revolutionary activism that erases the politics of real life humans with real life contradictions and personalities.


Politically she seems very much like Obama, not only promises not being met but sometimes fighting for wrong side.

At least we get some progressive rhetoric in the deal, the occasional temporary half measure, and it even seems, once in a blue moon, she can be moved by public outcry.

That puts here above and beyond Trump/Pence of course, as they maximize the bad side and stir wacko protests for more.

At this point her selection seems inevitable, even possibly preordained.  She's long proven her ability at following establishment orders while claiming the reverse, the essential quality for being a US President, which her VP selection sets her up for.  In addition to being the perfect counter to "Law And Order" Trump.  Go Team Blue!

And at least she's not Hillary or Susan Rice.


Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Dodged the Greater Imperialist

 Of all the women on the short list for Democratic Party Vice President, Elizabeth Warren was clearly the best.  She has been a fighter for the common good (since the Obama administration, anyway).  She is not a socialist, but often pushing against the constraints of neoliberalism.  But there were lots of strikes against her, from her Republican past, her fake Native American claims, her not really being far enough left to endorse Bernie who was the clear front runner on the left, and in fact actually attacking Bernie over his once giving her a fair estimation of her chances, allegedly.  I should have lost all respect for Warren at that point, however I'm beyond losing all respect for US politics and politicians--I have none.  Though Bernie was better on everything, Warren was second best (or something like that, after Gravel and Tulsi maybe, but they were never going to get anywhere inside the war media complex).

And, most of all, there was never really was a sliver of a chance of a hope that Biden would select her as VP, and I knew that, though I still kept hoping and making her my #1 choice in surveys.

Between the two other top candidates Rice and Harris, Rice appeared to be the greater imperialist, associated with the destruction of Libya.  Rice didn't even show us her chops running for President.  My sense is she's a soft spoken imperialist--the most dangerous kind.  Therefore, Harris was the best choice we were likely to get.

Harris is a strong and articulate speaker, and seems well talented to be a good attack dog for defeating Trump now and Republicans in general later.  

Californians can easily replace her with someone equal or better in the Senate, whereas in Massachusetts the fact that Warren got elected was a near miracle.  We need Warren to continue to be in the Senate.

Harris was not actually a cop, she got a law degree and became a prosecuting attorney, ending up as the Attorney General of California, where she had a fairly predictable record of punishing non-crimes and letting big business criminals off-the-hook.  Anyone else rising to that position would be the same.

Nothing to get upset about, instead a slight feeling of relief is warranted.



Friday, August 7, 2020

Unity

I keep waiting to see Biden give some kind of lip service to the left.  I'd heard of some things but never dug deep enough to find them. On many obvious things, like Medicare for All, or Legalizing Marijuana, he hasn't moved one millimeter as far as I can tell.  But anything he said make me feel better, any kind of token gift or promise to the left.  I wouldn't believe it, but I would feel better about supporting him and send some money.  He'd be recognizing my existence.  Of course I'll vote for the Democratic Nominee, and even send them some money once they are nominated.  But Biden hasn't actually "won" the Democratic Nomination yet.  Why should I put my thumb down on the scale for the candidate I like least before the convention?  There could still be some kind of miracle at the Convention.  Such things have happened before.  Once the convention is over, then, that's a good enough excuse to send the winner of the nomination a contribution to help Defeat Trump.

But the emails I get from Biden and DNC are nothing but dispiriting.

I got nothing, Zip, Nada, about any Biden plans or hopes, other than Defeating Trump.  No vision, no specific promises, nothing.  (Apparently the little people don't get promises, because that might suggest weakness in the promises already or later made to oligarchs.)

"Unity!" is what they are calling for.

In other words, "Sit down and shut up."

I'm sorry, but that's worse than not good enough.  I'm not just being ignored, I'm being bossed around.

A lot of Democrats have that attitude also.  "Don't say anything that might hurt Biden," they say.

That's totalitarianism, and it turns a lot of free thinking people off.

And then there are stories like Rall's, where Biden might even be worse than Trump in a few areas, such as in ending the War in Afghanistan.  I see a lot of those.  I'd like to see Biden make it clear he is better, not just assume his voters believe that already, because they may not by the time the day comes.

I argue against those who make wrong claims like "both parties are the same" etc.  Or that it is not important to defeat Trump.  It is very important to defeat Trump!  But not so important as to give up our core principles of free thinking, universal criticism, and free speech.

Now some may criticize me for not following Alinsky principles here.  Fine, I say.  Alinsky had a few victories, but where is the Alinsky project now?  Most direct Alinsky programs ended in failure, and the Alinsky project as a whole has not produced significant change in most people's lives.  There are a lot of reasond, but many believe the main one is that, untlimately, it matters what people believe.  There's only so much that fake unity, falling in line to win today's victory, can accomplish.

It's true that fake unity, falling in line, does matter once and awhile, such as on Election Day.  I'm not arguing against that.  I'm arguing against the idea that we shouldn't honestly criticize our own side.

Then others may ask, since when have Republicans and Fascists (and I repeat myself) honestly criticized their own side?

Well of course, never.  But in their own terms, Republicans and Fascists are critical nearly all the time.

Republicans believe in the magic of tax cuts, if we hollow out the government and give more power directly to the capitalists, paradise will have arrived, they say.

And Republican politicitions often deliver on this desire, and have been delivering for 40 years!  If only Democratic Politicians had delivered as consistently and well on their promises!  Taxes on the wealthy are a pittance today compared with 1980.

But this doesn't stop Republicans, and Republican commentators, and Republican media, from endlessly saying it's not enough!  They never stop complaining about Republicans not fully following Republican principles and ideals.

And some on the Republican side even dare to criticize War and Empire.  I'm thinking of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.  We always wonder how real this criticism is.  Reading such articles, we wonder how it is that such people can even think of voting for another pro-war Republican President.

But, when election day rolls around, sure enough, all the alleged Republican anti-warriors bite their ideals in the ass and vote for another Republcian president even when he's clearly more a danger to peace than otherwise.

In short, members of the Republican Party refuse to sit down and shut up.  Except on Election Day.  And this approach has paid off in 40 years of further rightward tilt in the republic.

Nowhere, ever, do I see Republican pols call for "unity" as a thing.  They wouldn't dare.  And better than that, they don't need to.

In truth, Republicans take the opposite approach.  They hand out the cans of gasoline to ideological arsonists.  They push crazy to new heights every day.  And there is a reason for this.  It's as Barry Goldwater said.  Extremism in the pursuit of extremist ideals is fine, so long as those ideals serve the wheels of capitalism.

On the other side, "Loonie Leftists" who only crime is the wish to see peace and equality, are not allowed.  The Democratic Party as an institution is a sheep herding operation, that delivers anti-capitalist and anti-war voters to capitalists.  They don't want the people wandering too far off the path of capital and empire...and that is the whole point of the operation--to keep them from doing that.  Minor deviation from strict capitalist principles is allowed in the interests of suppressing calls for greater ones.  Criticism is to be as muted as possible, instead we sing songs of fake unity and punish our dissidents as being Republican-Lovers.

Many on the Left are not standing for that for one second.  They will stand firm to their principles, and cast their votes for sure losers like Green Party candidates, with the vengence of injured pride.  This is also quite acceptable to the Capitalists and Imperialists, because they know that at the end of the day, it amounts to nothing, weakening rather than strengthening any true movement forwards.  So the more they criticize The Duopoly and demand personal purity, the better, from the Capitalist perspective.

Communists know we must defeat the Republicans as our first priority in electoral politics.  So wel will vote for Democratic candidates, who are the only ones capable of doing that at this time, and perhaps ever in a Madisonian republic such as the USA as long as it exists.  And we will support and campaign for them as long as we can be honest doing so.   We will not hide the distaste of necessity.  But we also know that electoral politics is not everything in politics, it is only one highly limited tool in the box.  Other than on Election Day, we must use those other tools, or submit to be sheep herded by capitalist managers.  And the most powerful tool for those other days has always been sharp, accurate, and fearless criticism.  If we lose that, we lose our reason for being.  And if people see us never doing anything but genuflecting to the slightly pinker shade of capitalists, they will lose trust in our feelings and interest in our battles.

Every election is the most important election of all time.  If we abandon our principles just to win any one, we might as well just pack up and put on clown clothes.  No one will care what we say and just change the channel instead.

It's only voting as such that requires compromise, because that is what voting in a Madisonian republic is.  We can pull the wheel ever so slightly in one direction or the other, or dance on the hub in a useless celebration of purity.