Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Lagayscienza]

Cheers, Belinda. I'm glad someone read it.

It's not that I'm a radial, leftist revolutionary who wants to destroy capitalism and democracy. Capitalism is necessary. But it's harder, shaper and more brutal edges need to be smoothed. The playing field needs to be leveled a bit to allow real competition so that everyone gets a chance to participate in the economic life of a nation, and so that capitalist market economies run better and can be better managed for the benefit of all, instead of for the sole benefit of the top 1% who already own just about everything.

However, for that to happen, we is our democracies would need to elect governments who will break up the global mega-corporations that own and control everything and operate as quasi monopolies. The mainstream media in particular needs to be broken up so that working class people get balanced reporting and aren't tricked into drinking the right-wing cool aid that makes them believe that it is their own fault if they cannot get ahead - that they're too lazy or too stupid.

Working people have to work harder than ever these days and often work two or more casual jobs in the gig economy just to eat and pay rent. They will never get ahead because they will never have spare money or time to invest or start a business. They trapped on the treadmill of wage slavery and will never own anything. This is why the Australian dream of owning one's own home is now just a pipe dream for young working class people.

It's the same story with the American dream. It is a sad reality that those working class people in the American rust belts who vote for Trump are slaving away at digging their own economic graves ever deeper without understanding the real cause of their economic predicament.

[Belinda]

I understand so far. The phrase I don't understand is"break up" . How may the media, and the global mega coporations be "broken up"? We can democratically elect a left wing government however can a government produce revolutionary laws such as you describe? I say "revolutionary" because I think of revolution and economic evolution as poles of a spectrum.

The electorate also needs to be electrified by a new morality and a new consciousness of what is happening.

[Lagayscienza]

The huge media corporations are operating like monopolies/cartels. This restricts the range of views that can be expressed and heard in the mainstream media. The situation could be remedied by governments disallowing further concentration of media ownership and, where it is already too concentrated, requiring parts to be sold to different owners. This operates to some extent in Australia but the rules are very weak and need to be strengthened. This may require new legislation, but governments with majorities can enact whatever legislation they see fit. The difficulty is in getting alternative views about media concentration heard in the media so that people can make informed voting decisions. At the moment it would be a brave political party who said they intended to break up media monopolies. Such a party would quite simply be savaged by scare campaigns in the mainstream right-wing media. Imagine how it would go down on Faux News, for example.

[Pattern-chaser]

To describe most of our economic problems, we must think the unthinkable, and say the unsayable: the solution is not growth, especially continuous growth, it's *degrowth*!

We could ask AI for help determining how to live in balance with nature. However, I doubt that there is a way that would include any kind of freedoms for humans. If there is a way, all humans would have to adhere to the rules, which doesn't seem likely.

That sums it up fairly well, I think.

[Mo_reese]

Cheers, Belinda. I'm glad someone read it.

It's not that I'm a radial, leftist revolutionary who wants to destroy capitalism and democracy. Capitalism is necessary. But it's harder, shaper and more brutal edges need to be smoothed. The playing field needs to be leveled a bit to allow real competition so that everyone gets a chance to participate in the economic life of a nation, and so that capitalist market economies run better and can be better managed for the benefit of all, instead of for the sole benefit of the top 1% who already own just about everything.

However, for that to happen, we is our democracies would need to elect governments who will break up the global mega-corporations that own and control everything and operate as quasi monopolies. The mainstream media in particular needs to be broken up so that working class people get balanced reporting and aren't tricked into drinking the right-wing cool aid that makes them believe that it is their own fault if they cannot get ahead - that they're too lazy or too stupid.

Working people have to work harder than ever these days and often work two or more casual jobs in the gig economy just to eat and pay rent. They will never get ahead because they will never have spare money or time to invest or start a business. They trapped on the treadmill of wage slavery and will never own anything. This is why the Australian dream of owning one's own home is now just a pipe dream for young working class people.

It's the same story with the American dream. It is a sad reality that those working class people in the American rust belts who vote for Trump are slaving away at digging their own economic graves ever deeper without understanding the real cause of their economic predicament.

I too read your post and I agree with most of what you say. We agree on what needs to be done but the hard part is figuring out how to accomplish it. We are in a capitalist influenced spiral where the rich get more power to make themselves richer which allows them more power, etc. Eventually the “big fish” will start eating each other.

To me this war for survival isn't Blue v Red or Dem v Repub but the Elite v The Common People. Granted the Dem Elite and the Repub Elite may disagree and squabble, but they stand together when it come to fleecing the rest of us. Therefore, breaking up the media monopolies, for example, will see all the media continuing to be owned by those in the Elite Class that share their common agenda.

The Lever (https://www.levernews.com/) is running an excellent article called “Master Plan” that reveals how political ideologues and corporate force have spent years developing a system of legalized corruption in the US.

[Belinda]

The huge media corporations are operating like monopolies/cartels. This restricts the range of views that can be expressed and heard in the mainstream media. The situation could be remedied by governments disallowing further concentration of media ownership and, where it is already too concentrated, requiring parts to be sold to different owners. This operates to some extent in Australia but the rules are very weak and need to be strengthened. This may require new legislation, but governments with majorities can enact whatever legislation they see fit. The difficulty is in getting alternative views about media concentration heard in the media so that people can make informed voting decisions. At the moment it would be a brave political party who said they intended to break up media monopolies. Such a party would quite simply be savaged by scare campaigns in the mainstream right-wing media. Imagine how it would go down on Faux News, for example.

It's necessary for people to be informed how to assess the honesty of a communications medium. I wonder if school curriculums allot adequate time in the school day for critical thinking . Obviously critical thinking falls under , not 'training' nor 'indoctrination' , but 'education'.

[Lagayscienza]

Cheers, Belinda. I'm glad someone read it.

It's not that I'm a radial, leftist revolutionary who wants to destroy capitalism and democracy. Capitalism is necessary. But it's harder, shaper and more brutal edges need to be smoothed. The playing field needs to be leveled a bit to allow real competition so that everyone gets a chance to participate in the economic life of a nation, and so that capitalist market economies run better and can be better managed for the benefit of all, instead of for the sole benefit of the top 1% who already own just about everything.

However, for that to happen, we is our democracies would need to elect governments who will break up the global mega-corporations that own and control everything and operate as quasi monopolies. The mainstream media in particular needs to be broken up so that working class people get balanced reporting and aren't tricked into drinking the right-wing cool aid that makes them believe that it is their own fault if they cannot get ahead - that they're too lazy or too stupid.

Working people have to work harder than ever these days and often work two or more casual jobs in the gig economy just to eat and pay rent. They will never get ahead because they will never have spare money or time to invest or start a business. They trapped on the treadmill of wage slavery and will never own anything. This is why the Australian dream of owning one's own home is now just a pipe dream for young working class people.

It's the same story with the American dream. It is a sad reality that those working class people in the American rust belts who vote for Trump are slaving away at digging their own economic graves ever deeper without understanding the real cause of their economic predicament.

I too read your post and I agree with most of what you say. We agree on what needs to be done but the hard part is figuring out how to accomplish it. We are in a capitalist influenced spiral where the rich get more power to make themselves richer which allows them more power, etc. Eventually the “big fish” will start eating each other.

To me this war for survival isn't Blue v Red or Dem v Repub but the Elite v The Common People. Granted the Dem Elite and the Repub Elite may disagree and squabble, but they stand together when it come to fleecing the rest of us. Therefore, breaking up the media monopolies, for example, will see all the media continuing to be owned by those in the Elite Class that share their common agenda.

The Lever (levernews com) is running an excellent article called “Master Plan” that reveals how political ideologues and corporate force have spent years developing a system of legalized corruption in the US.

Yes, it's the elite and not just the Reps or Dems. There is no true social democratic party in US politics. When it comes to maintaining the status quo, Republicans and Democrats are in it together. It's them against the working class. I can't see how this can change. Any move left by the Democrats would have them savaged in the far-right-wing controlled media. Imagine how it would go down on Faux News for example, or in the Murdoch press. But these are where most Americans get their news and "infotainment". And the likelihood of anyone forming a truly social-democratic party that had a chance of winning are approximately zero. So working people will continue to be squeezed until there's nothing left to squeeze.

Levernews' episodes on the "Master Plan" are very interesting. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, very few will see them.

[Sy Borg]

Trouble is, every government measure taken to improve inequality impacts the middle class and benefits corporations.

There is tremendous manipulation in high places, but not the places where people usually look (by design). I very much relate to the interviewer's atitudes:

[Gertie]

In a democracy the people who control what information voters get, and how it's framed, have a major impact on not just which party wins elections, but which parties, and views/ideologies, are considered within the scope of acceptability. What becomes normal and normative within a society, the sea we swim in without even noticing it. And as the Status Quo becomes normality ('Sensible Centrism), then real alternatives are suppressed, undermined, demonised, ridiculed.

Chomsky talks about Manufacturing Consent, as the way the wealthy and powerful maintain and grow their status within democracies. It doesn't require a secret cabal of elites plotting away, just shared vested interests in not rocking their yachts.

Very rich corporations own most of the media, which is where voters get information which informs our votes and general views. They have a stake in what we're told, and the slant the info is given. They also rely on advertisers, corporations, for their own profitability.

This is all built in to the system, and makes real change difficult.

The media also play an ideological role in focussing on distractions and scapegoats, to turn dissatisfaction away from the rich and powerful who are in charge. They create an 'Other' which is not like us, is scary and devious and parasitic. We saw it in the recent UK election, where the Far Right capitalised on the hate and fear spoonfed daily by the Right media about immigrants. It's happening all across the wealthy west. We're watching an even scarier and cruder version happening in the American election.

It's the bread and butter of fascism, which goes on to tell us our institutions have failed us, Progressivism has failed us, and we need a Strongman Authoritarian from Our Tribe to take control and sort these threats out.

And the 'Left' appease and feed the Right's narrative, as the Centre contiues to move ever rightwards. But the Far Right are never appeased, because they're being distracted from the real source of their grievances, and nothing gets better.

As long as we believe There Is No Alternative, only that offered by the Far Right, we're in big trouble.

[Sy Borg]

Above we see the problem illustrated clearly - one-eyed culture warriors. Partisans parrot every term and talking point of corporate-controlled mainstream media, universities, governments and schools, which ensures enough distractions to stymie any hope of reducing inequality.

The far left now champions corporate interests while the "far right" is touted as corporations' enemies.

[Pattern-chaser]

[...]

And the 'Left' appease and feed the Right's narrative, as the Centre continues to move ever rightwards. But the Far Right are never appeased, because they're being distracted from the real source of their grievances, and nothing gets better.

As long as we believe There Is No Alternative, only that offered by the Far Right, we're in big trouble.

The far left now champions corporate interests while the "far right" is touted as corporations' enemies.

You see, this confuses me. Traditionally, left and right have been defined by practical Capitalism. The left represented the 'workers' or the 'people', while the right represented employers and investors.

There have always been extremists, who hide behind the labels "left" and "right", and even "centre". But we should push them out from behind their disguises, and call them what they are: dictators or authoritarians.

So where does that leave us? Are "left" and "right" still meaningful, politically? If they are, do they retain their traditional meanings, or...?

[Gertie]

[...]

And the 'Left' appease and feed the Right's narrative, as the Centre continues to move ever rightwards. But the Far Right are never appeased, because they're being distracted from the real source of their grievances, and nothing gets better.

As long as we believe There Is No Alternative, only that offered by the Far Right, we're in big trouble.

The far left now champions corporate interests while the "far right" is touted as corporations' enemies.

You see, this confuses me. Traditionally, left and right have been defined by practical Capitalism. The left represented the 'workers' or the 'people', while the right represented employers and investors.

There have always been extremists, who hide behind the labels "left" and "right", and even "centre". But we should push them out from behind their disguises, and call them what they are: dictators or authoritarians.

So where does that leave us? Are "left" and "right" still meaningful, politically? If they are, do they retain their traditional meanings, or...?

I believe they're still meaningful politically in a democratic mixed economy, in the traditional way you describe. 

My quoted point is a practical one regarding how politics has been playing out in practice.  As Neoliberalism has become the normalised status quo in the wealthy democracies, in effect it's now the 'Centrist' position. But people are waking up to the fact that free markets don't everything best, de-regulation isn't the answer to everything, privatising every resource (even essential natural monopolies) and prioritising profit primarily benefits share-holders, and the benefits of unrestricted capitalism don't 'trickle down' much, or at least not without a strong progressive taxation system. 

Combine that with starving the remaining Public Services,  and telling us that Austerity for us is necessary while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful,  breeds disaffection with the system and 'politics as usual'.

And if the established parties on the Left effectively acquiesce to Neo-liberalism as the norm, as do the Centrists, then where is the practical alternative?   Thatcher said 'There is no alternative',  the debate is over.  And the major parties on the Left have largely failed to offer an alternative. 

Well Corbyn managed to sneak into leadership of the Labour Party, by being nominated by enough MPs who felt the Left should be represented in the party leadership race, but nobody expected him to win.  Those MPs were shocked at his popularity with the membership, with 500.000 ordinary people.  And then the Labour Party establishment did everything it could to get rid of him. 

When they couldn't, the media was ferocious in its monstering of him.  Especially after he nearly overturned the polls and beat May.  There was some fair critique, but the wall of opposition was because he and McDonnell offered a genuine alternative and a different vision.  The wealthy and powerful vested interests were genuinely scared.

Where-as they don't see the likes of Starmer as a threat to the status quo.  And they're right. 

Which leaves the Far Right to ride the tide of disaffection, fed by the distractions of the latest 'Other' scapegoats - immigrants, trans people, the liberal elite,  scroungers, corrupt institutions, wokeism, nationalism, etc. Trump isn't subtle about it, he'll peddle ''an immigrant ate my hamster'' or whatever ******** to fire up the 'othering'.  And half of America goes along with him. Then he questions democracy itself when he loses, effectively setting himself up as a  'Strongman' alternative to democracy.  And half of America goes along with it. 

[Mo_reese]

The far left now champions corporate interests while the "far right" is touted as corporations' enemies.

This statement is not true at all. In fact it's a right wing talking point.
There are three factions, the Right, the Neo-Liberals and the Left and they do not fall on a linear line, meaning the neo-liberals are NOT central between the Left and Right.

The Right, like Trump, are supported by conservative billionaires and want to dismantle all the social programs that help people. Ironically their supporters are the poorest in the Red States and believe their leaders when told that it's the fault of the Left (meaning the neo-liberals).

The "Far" Left has very little representation in the US government. Sen Sanders and maybe 2 or 3 other senators, AOC and the Squad of about 6 House Reps. They fight against the control of major corporations and billionaires. The want universal healthcare, strong unions, fair wages, and an end to corporate monopolies. Neo-Liberals do not agree on these issues.

The neo-liberal faction is made up of the Democratic wealthy elite like Obama, Biden, Harris, Clinton's, etc. They completely agree with the Right on the issues of tax breaks for the wealthy, war-war-war, genocide of Palestinians, and a huge defense budget. They are a little more sympathetic with the Left on social issues (to try to get Left votes) but not much.
The Right Wing calls the neo-liberals “the Left” in error.

[Mo_reese]

I believe they're still meaningful politically in a democratic mixed economy, in the traditional way you describe. 

My quoted point is a practical one regarding how politics has been playing out in practice.  As Neoliberalism has become the normalised status quo in the wealthy democracies, in effect it's now the 'Centrist' position. But people are waking up to the fact that free markets don't everything best, de-regulation isn't the answer to everything, privatising every resource (even essential natural monopolies) and prioritising profit primarily benefits share-holders, and the benefits of unrestricted capitalism don't 'trickle down' much, or at least not without a strong progressive taxation system. 

Combine that with starving the remaining Public Services,  and telling us that Austerity for us is necessary while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful,  breeds disaffection with the system and 'politics as usual'.

And if the established parties on the Left effectively acquiesce to Neo-liberalism as the norm, as do the Centrists, then where is the practical alternative?   Thatcher said 'There is no alternative',  the debate is over.  And the major parties on the Left have largely failed to offer an alternative. 

Well Corbyn managed to sneak into leadership of the Labour Party, by being nominated by enough MPs who felt the Left should be represented in the party leadership race, but nobody expected him to win.  Those MPs were shocked at his popularity with the membership, with 500.000 ordinary people.  And then the Labour Party establishment did everything it could to get rid of him. 

When they couldn't, the media was ferocious in its monstering of him.  Especially after he nearly overturned the polls and beat May.  There was some fair critique, but the wall of opposition was because he and McDonnell offered a genuine alternative and a different vision.  The wealthy and powerful vested interests were genuinely scared.

Where-as they don't see the likes of Starmer as a threat to the status quo.  And they're right. 

Which leaves the Far Right to ride the tide of disaffection, fed by the distractions of the latest 'Other' scapegoats - immigrants, trans people, the liberal elite,  scroungers, corrupt institutions, wokeism, nationalism, etc. Trump isn't subtle about it, he'll peddle ''an immigrant ate my hamster'' or whatever ******** to fire up the 'othering'.  And half of America goes along with him. Then he questions democracy itself when he loses, effectively setting himself up as a  'Strongman' alternative to democracy.  And half of America goes along with it. 

Well said. If we must put the neo-liberals on the same linear line as the Left and Right then it should look like this:
Far Left (no one)............Left (Sen Sanders).................. (mid point).........Neo-Liberals (Obama)........Right(Bush).....Far Right(Trump)
Or
Left Fascist (no one)...........Social Dems........................(mid point)........Dem Corporatists........Repub Corporatists....Right Fascist (Trump)

[Gertie]

The far left now champions corporate interests while the "far right" is touted as corporations' enemies.

This statement is not true at all. In fact it's a right wing talking point.
There are three factions, the Right, the Neo-Liberals and the Left and they do not fall on a linear line, meaning the neo-liberals are NOT central between the Left and Right.

The Right, like Trump, are supported by conservative billionaires and want to dismantle all the social programs that help people. Ironically their supporters are the poorest in the Red States and believe their leaders when told that it's the fault of the Left (meaning the neo-liberals).

The "Far" Left has very little representation in the US government. Sen Sanders and maybe 2 or 3 other senators, AOC and the Squad of about 6 House Reps. They fight against the control of major corporations and billionaires. The want universal healthcare, strong unions, fair wages, and an end to corporate monopolies. Neo-Liberals do not agree on these issues.

The neo-liberal faction is made up of the Democratic wealthy elite like Obama, Biden, Harris, Clinton's, etc. They completely agree with the Right on the issues of tax breaks for the wealthy, war-war-war, genocide of Palestinians, and a huge defense budget. They are a little more sympathetic with the Left on social issues (to try to get Left votes) but not much.
The Right Wing calls the neo-liberals “the Left” in error.

That's pretty much how I see it too in America, including where you've placed Harris.

If the Far Right are now calling the establishemnt Left ''Neo-liberals'', it's a symptom of how much the major parties have shifted to the Right, and normalised it as Centrist, or even Leftist! The tragedy is they see going further Right as the only viable alternative available to vote for. They're sliding down a dangerous path.

There was a moment when Bernie and Corbyn, against all the odds, just might have become the leaders of America and the UK, and demonstrated that a Leftist government can do better, that there Is an Alternative.

I doubt we'll get that chance again for a long time.