:100:

Not much else to say, but that never stopped me. Notwithstanding what the right says about the left being sheeple, the simple fact is, they are cats. You can't herd cats. The right, however, loves a strong leader who tells them what they want to hear, and they will fall in goosestep behind him (or, her, if she's hot).

When practicing law, I used to sit in on meetings of various environmental groups. Jeesh! I came away thinking, no one hates the left more than the left. Or, if that was politics, I want none of it.

But yes, the Plutocracy creates division in the lower classes and there you have it.

As a side note, I saw so many working class people who refused to avail themselves of any government services (that they had paid for with their tax dollars) because they "didn't want to be no welfare queen!" They end up physically broke down in a hovel somewhere and dying early. Oh well.

Notwithstanding what the right says about the left being sheeple, the simple fact is, they are cats. You can't herd cats. The right, however, loves a strong leader who tells them what they want to hear, and they will fall in goosestep behind him (or, her, if she's hot). — James Riley

I don't think that's fair, actually. The "Left" (if they can be called that) fell right in line with Obama. At first it was borderline cultish, and it dissipated. The people who worship Trump didn't seem to get as disillusioned, but there were very different circumstances that accounts for that (social media and education levels come to mind).

Regardless, I think your point demonstrates how we separate ourselves from others and keep divisions going. I do this as well -- it's very difficult not to, when it looks as though one side is becoming a death cult. I wonder how I would have reacted to the rise of the National Socialist Party in the 30s if I were a German citizen, for example...what would have been the proper response (pre-Holocaust?)...given that Trumpism is even more dangerous, I don't think a Kumbaya attitude is appropriate. In that case, it's very hard to want to find any common ground with these people.

On the other hand, they're also deluded, mainly by outside factors (like media) coming from above that targets and exploits them -- their fears of changing demographics, their working class conditions, their latent racism, their lack of education, and the fears and values that have been instilled in them for the last 30 years (from "they're coming for our guns" to "keep government out of my social security").

Although you didn't ask, I personally tend more and more to want to talk with those who are already "there" mentally, or are at least reasonable. I'm not too interested in the die-hard Trump crowd -- they're a spectacle, and can't be ignored, but since they've shown they're immune to reason the only way to deal with them is to overpower them with a greater force -- a bigger army, so to speak (and of not just voters).

As a side note, I saw so many working class people who refused to avail themselves of any government services (that they had paid for with their tax dollars) because they "didn't want to be no welfare queen!" They end up physically broke down in a hovel somewhere and dying early. Oh well. — James Riley

That's interesting. Or look at the Republican states denying medicaid expansion or federal unemployment funding. It's truly insane. But that's where we are.

It’s true. Individualism is a problem for any collectivist project. Mao saw this well enough and wrote about it in his “Combat Liberalism. Mao’s solution was to “strengthen education”, “conduct affairs, make assignments and enforce discipline in a proper way”. I supposed it worked because the CCP will be celebrating its centenary this year.

And since we’re bringing up Hitler, anti-individualism was regnant in nazi and fascist ideology and for the same reasons: it was a threat to their statist projects and ideology.

The MLK quote is somewhat of a misquote, but the thrust is the basically same. And I’m not so sure he was against individualism because he was a fan of Emerson and Thoreau.

I don't think that's fair, actually. The "Left" (if they can be called that) fell right in line with Obama. At first it was borderline cultish, and it dissipated. — Xtrix

That's the thing: It dissipated; over Gitmo, Black Sites, etc. And that's what the left usually does: They turn on their own once in power. Because, of course, "they" could always do it better. As to the initial love, you have to remember he came in on the heels of Jr. who just broke the world.

Biden is still in the honeymoon that Obama and most POTUSs get.

Biden is still in the honeymoon that Obama and most POTUSs get. — James Riley

Maybe. If they can somehow get some of these policies passed, I think he’ll continue being popular and even gain some voters. But the likelihood is low with Mr. West Virginia in there. Plus I don’t know how hard Biden is willing to fight for these things. Very easy to propose (although I credit his administration for doing so), much harder to make a reality unless you really pull out the stops.

I realize more and more the importance of power in numbers, and that almost anything worth achieving can be done easier (and sometimes only) with groups of people working together. After writing this down, it feels like a truism -- and while that may be accurate, I don't see it showing up in our society (the United States) to the degree it does in others. — Xtrix

A fish stinks from the head.

The American political system is, in most states, based on the motto "winner takes all". As long as this is in place, in law and in popular culture, there's just no reason to place much value on working together with others.

Another thing that is bound to divide a nation is that the president of the country (which is the most powerful position in the country) can be / must be a member of a political party. In contrast, in some European countries this is impossible, and the person who is the president cannot also be a member of a political party, because they're supposed to represent all people in the country, not just a particular party.

Or look at the Republican states denying medicaid expansion or federal unemployment funding. It's truly insane. — Xtrix

I think the whole idea of there being Red and Blue states within one country is insane. It's a miracle the US has any semblance of functionality at all, given the political principles by which it is governed.

And then this whole notion of the president being a member of a political party! How could things not go wrong?! Sure, it's a system that keeps people on their toes all the time (as in, "Now we have 4 years of peace and prosperity, but in the next presidential term, we could be looking at the end of times if we don't make sure that our candidate win again!"), and it keeps them divided. But beyond that? Unless, of course, this system was specifically designed for controlling the population, making it impossible for the people to rebel in any effective way, and even making them lack the motivation to do so.

That's the thing: It dissipated; over Gitmo, Black Sites, etc. And that's what the left usually does: They turn on their own once in power. Because, of course, "they" could always do it better. — James Riley

I thought Obama was celebrated mainly by the cultural left who didn't really pay much attention to politics and economics and just enjoyed 'their guy' winning the competition. My memory is pretty early on Obama was depicted as an arch-neoliberal Citybank president, largely beholden to Wall Street. Cornel West certainly described him as a conservative front man, working to protect the existing privileges of the market system. His failures to do anything substantive about the crimes which led to the 2008 financial collapse was a scandal.

:100: Correct. That was all part of the "etc." I referred to. Occupy Wall St. kind of withered on the vine, Hillary never turned over her Goldman Sachs stuff. They are/were running interference for the Plutocracy. Not to mention trade deals for emerging markets.

much harder to make a reality unless you really pull out the stops. — Xtrix

True. I just don't know what pulling out all the stops would look like if you don't have the Senate in the bag. But it's too late to play nice. All bipartisanship has to be with the people and not the pols.

A fish stinks from the head.

The American political system is, in most states, based on the motto "winner takes all". As long as this is in place, in law and in popular culture, there's just no reason to place much value on working together with others. — baker

Agreed.

I think the whole idea of there being Red and Blue states within one country is insane. It's a miracle the US has any semblance of functionality at all, given the political principles by which it is governed.

And then this whole notion of the president being a member of a political party! How could things not go wrong?! — baker

I think that certainly adds to it, and it's exactly what the plutocrats want -- since they own both parties (this is slightly changing now, however, with Trump and Sanders). But it leads to a larger point: the lack of awareness of alternatives, whether it be how other countries function politically and economically, or a completely different view of what a human being is (and thus what an ideal society can be imagined to cultivate it).

Perhaps Americans should get out more.

True. I just don't know what pulling out all the stops would look like if you don't have the Senate in the bag. — James Riley

I imagine there must be some, even though I don't have concrete examples. But it won't be easy.

A major part of keeping the ruling minority class in the position they are, is keeping the majority divided. — Xtrix

Divide and conquer is a piece of it, but probably a small one. The ruling class has other, very robust tools:

Misinformation; relative and absolute poverty; the law (which is more on the side of the rich than it is on the side of the poor); the police (and if need be, armed forced); the obedience training programs of secondary education; the mass media; and so on and so forth.

Divide and conquer would be more important if The People were united enough to pose a threat to the ruling class. I don't see much sign of revolutionary thinking taking over the masses, outside a small circle of friends.

Rugged Individualism is a ruling class friend. By all means! Encourage the masses to be individualists, rugged or not. Individuals should definitely pursue their unique set of interests. The ruling class, or the rich, have class consciousness. Let's not let the masses get infected by the kind of thinking that shows them that they are all in the same sinking boat!

Work? Strive? Persevere? We are all victims of a monstrous hoax!

Divide and conquer is a piece of it, but probably a small one. The ruling class has other, very robust tools:

Misinformation; relative and absolute poverty; the law (which is more on the side of the rich than it is on the side of the poor); the police (and if need be, armed forced); the obedience training programs of secondary education; the mass media; and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

I think misinformation is spread through the indoctrination centers (schools) and various media -- that's a huge weapon, yes -- perhaps bigger than lack of organizing. But on the other hand, as Chomsky points out often enough and which I see in my life (and is reflected in polling), people tend to see the real issues -- they just don't necessarily articulate them.

So if the numbers are there, and the information is (basically) there, what short of coming together is stopping us? The Occupy Movement and the Sanders' campaign are proof enough that it can happen. Both made inequality (a class issue) a focal point. That struck a nerve after 40 years of neoliberalism.

Rugged Individualism is a ruling class friend. By all means! Encourage the masses to be individualists, rugged or not. Individuals should definitely pursue their unique set of interests. The ruling class, or the rich, have class consciousness. Let's not let the masses get infected by the kind of thinking that shows them that they are all in the same sinking boat! — Bitter Crank

Yeah, exactly.

Just read this, by Anand Giridharadas, which also sums up nicely what I was driving at before:

The only solutions to our biggest shared challenges are solutions that have the following four characteristics: they're public, institutional, democratic, and universal. In other words, they solve the problem at the root, for everyone.

Anybody trying to sell you the notion that they have some quick-win, low-hanging-fruit, fill-the-gap thing that happens to be funded by the people causing the problem is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

What we have to do is reclaim the story that what we do together is more interesting, more compelling, more powerful, more valuable, than what we do alone.

The religion of the neoliberal era, the spiritual tradition of the neoliberal era, has been the notion that what we do alone is better and more beautiful than what we do together.

That was a massive propaganda push. It's incredibly counterintuitive. It goes in defiance of most traditions in the world, so it took a lot of work, but they did it. They pulled it off.

Margaret Thatcher literally saying, "There's no such thing as society” — which of your ancestors in any community around the world would have understood the notion that there's no such thing as society, only individual men and women?

That is a profoundly modern idea, a bullshit idea, a ridiculous idea, that none of our ancestors would have recognized, because all of our ancestors, wherever they came from, understood that they live in societies and would have felt dead to not live in societies of people with whom they had interdependence.

Over the last 40 years, we got sold this fraudulent religion, which only benefits those at the top, that what we do alone is great — and what we do together is corrupt, is tyrannical, is evil. It's false. It has hurt untold numbers of people. It's come crashing and burning down with Covid, which is the ultimate expression of a phenomenon where being left alone is literally death.

It's time to reclaim the story and venerate the tradition of valuing what we do together. — Giridharadas

I agree wholeheartedly.

:100:

The full Thatcher quote is actually more interesting than the simple phrase that always gets clipped.

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

This to me seems to be a classic statement of what is generally more an American frame of society versus individualism. I imagine it would have wide support. And these days here in Australia too, as neo-liberal ideas are ubiquitous - part of the Left and right - and seen widely as a form of common sense thinking.

Just read this, by Anand Giridharadas, which also sums up nicely what I was driving at before:


The only solutions to our biggest shared challenges are solutions that have the following four characteristics: they're public, institutional, democratic, and universal. In other words, they solve the problem at the root, for everyone.

Anybody trying to sell you the notion that they have some quick-win, low-hanging-fruit, fill-the-gap thing that happens to be funded by the people causing the problem is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

What we have to do is reclaim the story that what we do together is more interesting, more compelling, more powerful, more valuable, than what we do alone.

The religion of the neoliberal era, the spiritual tradition of the neoliberal era, has been the notion that what we do alone is better and more beautiful than what we do together.

That was a massive propaganda push. It's incredibly counterintuitive. It goes in defiance of most traditions in the world, so it took a lot of work, but they did it. They pulled it off.

Margaret Thatcher literally saying, "There's no such thing as society” — which of your ancestors in any community around the world would have understood the notion that there's no such thing as society, only individual men and women?

That is a profoundly modern idea, a bullshit idea, a ridiculous idea, that none of our ancestors would have recognized, because all of our ancestors, wherever they came from, understood that they live in societies and would have felt dead to not live in societies of people with whom they had interdependence.

Over the last 40 years, we got sold this fraudulent religion, which only benefits those at the top, that what we do alone is great — and what we do together is corrupt, is tyrannical, is evil. It's false. It has hurt untold numbers of people. It's come crashing and burning down with Covid, which is the ultimate expression of a phenomenon where being left alone is literally death.

It's time to reclaim the story and venerate the tradition of valuing what we do together.
— Giridharadas

I agree wholeheartedly. — Xtrix

It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. Socialism historically has been instrumental in breaking down any societal story that connects communities, be it religion, nationalism, ethnic traditions etc... . Granted a lot of those stories are suspect in that they also serve to justify certain power structures and all inequalities and injustices that come with that. But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas.

Recent woke/identity politics are only the next iteration and further splintering of shared categories that may bind a communities together into something more than a collection of individuals. The focus is for the most part on how any cultural tradition/practice discriminates or impinges on individuals freely expressing their particular individuality. The idea that an individual might in some cases have to give up some of their individuality for a common good is almost blasphemous...

Anyway, my intention is not to bash the left here, just to say that neo-liberalism is far from the only cause, and that if there is to be a solution (i.e. "valuing what we do together") we probably should take all causes into account.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too?

The full Thatcher quote is actually more interesting than the simple phrase that always gets clipped.

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. — Tom Storm

And it's a strawman.

And it's a strawman. — baker

I prefer to think of it as a red herring.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too? — ChatteringMonkey

No, I think this is backwards anyway. Once the original sense of community is lost, it cannot be rebuild. It's like an arm that was cut off and then sewn back on: it's never quite the same and doesn't have the same functionality.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too?
— ChatteringMonkey
No, I think this is backwards anyway. Once the original sense of community is lost, it cannot be rebuild. It's like an arm that was cut off and then sewn back on: it's never quite the same and doesn't have the same functionality. — baker

I dunno if that is true. It's seems to me that given the chance people will look for ways to build communities, i'm thinking of fans of sports-club for instance, or even the recent rise of far-right/nationalism/populism can be seen under that light. It won't be the same (and maybe that's a good thing), but new forms of community will be built it seems to me.

The full Thatcher quote is actually more interesting than the simple phrase that always gets clipped. — Tom Storm

Is it? It sounds like more of the same to me.

It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. — ChatteringMonkey

This is true, of course. As influential as it is, neoliberal ideology would not have been sufficient to somehow build individualistic proprietarianism ex nihilo. It has deeper roots in the politics of the catholic church, the Protestant reimagination of faith as something inherently individualistic. It's path has also been charted by the bourgeois revolutions starting in the late 18th century and the proprietarian society that resulted from them.

But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Marxism is literally the most powerful political movement in recent history. The only movements of comparable scope and influence are the major world religions (and perhaps capitalism, though there is an interesting discussion about that to be had). Given the tremendous influence on world history exercised by this ideology, it seems weird to claim that it hasn't "build" anything.

Recent woke/identity politics are only the next iteration and further splintering of shared categories that may bind a communities together into something more than a collection of individuals. — ChatteringMonkey

Identitarian conflict predates "left wing ideology". It might even be the original form of conflict. The emergence of a left wing ideology has briefly restructured conflict in Western democracies along class lines (roughly in the period 1930 to 1980). The class structure of politics has broken down in the time since, and identitarian conflict has re-emerged.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too? — ChatteringMonkey

True enough. We should not imagine that building a better system is easy or that it comes without tradeoffs. Utopias are important as guiding lights, but they are also dangerous if they are used as justification.

Marxism is literally the most powerful political movement in recent history. The only movements of comparable scope and influence are the major world religions (and perhaps capitalism, though there is an interesting discussion about that to be had). Given the tremendous influence on world history exercised by this ideology, it seems weird to claim that it hasn't "build" anything. — Echarmion

Marxism didn't "build" the communities, or "Marxist" states... it usually had to devolve into some kind a authoritarian person-cult to created some kind of shared ideology (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc...)

Is it? It sounds like more of the same to me. — Echarmion

Perhaps it does sound like more of the same to you. To me it sounds far less absurd than the incongruous four word slogan she has become known for by critics. I always like context - especially from people whose worldview I disagree with.

Marxism didn't "build" the communities, or "Marxist" states... it usually had to devolve into some kind a authoritarian person-cult to created some kind of shared ideology (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc...) — ChatteringMonkey

This view isn't compatible with the evidence. There were significant Marxist movements around the world, united by a shared vision. They were occasionally close to coming to power in Germany and France. Nor can either the USSR or the PRC be reduced to "Stalinist personality cult". In the beginning, genuine hope and Identification with the ideals of Marxism existed. And there was genuine societal transformation that is visible until today, for example in the area of women's rights.

Edit: Or consider the example of North Vietnam: There is widespread agreements among analysts of the conflict that the North won because northern fighters were strongly motivated. They knew what they were fighting for. Despite the fact that the North Vietnamese government can hardly be said to have been more beneficial to the ordinary people, it was still able to provide a motivation that South Vietnam was never able to match with its soulless military juntas.

Marxism didn't "build" the communities, or "Marxist" states... it usually had to devolve into some kind a authoritarian person-cult to created some kind of shared ideology (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc...)
— ChatteringMonkey

This view isn't compatible with the evidence. There were significant Marxist movements around the world, united by a shared vision. They were occasionally close to coming to power in Germany and France. Nor can either the USSR or the PRC be reduced to "Stalinist personality cult". In the beginning, genuine hope and Identification with the ideals of Marxism existed. And there was genuine societal transformation that is visible until today, for example in the area of women's rights. — Echarmion

I'm not denying that some people genuinely hoped that they could built a Marxist state. But i'm not talking about what people hoped or wished for, I'm looking at what existing communities actually were built around. Marxist movements where political movements looking to overthrow the existing structure, looking to tear down... in the first place. Whatever came after was something else. Maybe we can quibble about the details of what it exactly was, but I think my original point still stands, ideologies of the left don't really offer us something substantial to build communities around.

And I mean this shouldn't be surprising really, if you look at what the common values of the left are, they are critical or reactionary for the most part... they don't stand on their own. It's freedom from something else, non-discrimination in reaction to some discriminatory traditional practice, equality as a reaction to inequalities created by existing societal structures, etc...

The lack of organization comes from the fact that both political parties are inconsistent and hypocritical. They adopt opposing view points. The left asserts that they are all about "choice" in one domain, but then deny choice in other domains. This is because both parties have both liberal and authoritarian tendencies. What about a party that has only liberal tendencies? Well, that would be the Libertarian party.

It's seems to me that given the chance people will look for ways to build communities, i'm thinking of fans of sports-club for instance, or even the recent rise of far-right/nationalism/populism can be seen under that light. It won't be the same (and maybe that's a good thing), but new forms of community will be built it seems to me. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course people build communities. But I'm pointing at the difference between a community build for the purpose of survival and a community built for some lesser purpose, such as the purpose of entertainment. Nowadays, people seem to be willing and able to build mostly the latter.

Looking at your chart, where do Libertarians come down on government limitations on personal responsibility?