Is "heighten the contradictions" ever a valid political strategy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My short answer is "no".

My long answer is "no and if you even consider it you are a truly morally bankrupt piece of sh!t, f[inks] you."

[Antonio the Sixth]

My short answer is "no".

My long answer is "no and if you even consider it you are a truly morally bankrupt piece of sh!t, f[inks] you."

Couldn't agree more.

[Cassius]

Obviously, I don't personally agree with it at all - however I do think that in order for 'the left' (even if we exclude various far-left groupings from that term) to advance it's various causes (liberty, equality and all that jazz) it is going to have to do so increasingly by means that are not traditionally seen as democratic. I think this can be observed from the fact that most centre-left/leftist parties in Western Democracies are either in decline or have proven unable to break out of their traditional base of support (social-democratic parties being an example of the former and greens an example of the latter). Meanwhile, in the places where left-wing parties have enjoyed the most electoral success (principally Greece), this success has been more a result of the complete crack up of the society and the political system which existed within that society rather than a genuine embrace of 'left-wing' principles (and of course, in the case of Greece, it has proven difficult to enact a left-wing agenda even in government).

Maybe this isn't so different from past situations - one of the reasons that left-wing parties were able to break into office and enact transformative agendas in the 1930's and 40's was because of, as I put it, the crack up of society and political systems in a number of countries brought about by the international instability of the interwar period, the Great Depression and of course World War II (although I would argue that those crises were far more severe than those we are experiencing now). However, getting into office and enacting an agenda doesn't necessarily mean that you've locked in those changes and gained thousands of converts to your way of thinking - I mean, support for the welfare state and state ownership in postwar Britain was not built upon a sudden embrace of socialism on the part of most people, or their 'communitarian impulses' or whatever. It was built primarily upon the fact that you now no longer had to pay to see a doctor, that your child could now receive an essentially free education up to a university level, and that your wages went up as a result of more favourable pay settlements obtained by strong unions in state owned industries.

I believe that, in some respects, is the elephant in the room - left-wingers support x and x because they believe it to 'be right' (as well as the best way to do things), but I think most people, whilst they may support certain policies that are deemed left-wing (taking the railways into public ownership being on example), they don't support them because the believe in the principle of public ownership and are against the idea of private entities making a profit off things that should be public goods, they support it because they want to spend less money on rail fares. Therefore support for left-wing policies (and, I should add, right-wing ones) will be conditional on how it benefits the individual - not in a bizarro 'I've calculated the opportunity cost of x and x and I believe x to be the one that benefits me the most by x amount', but in a 'this will make my life easier' kind of way. Thus, when the left asks the public (as one example) to support taking in large numbers of refugees because 'it's the morally right thing to do', most people either think 'meh' or think 'yeah, but what's in it for me, stop preaching at me'.

I don't believe that concepts such as liberty and equality hold much real purchase over the minds of most people - sure, when pressed, few people would say 'I don't believe in either of those things', but on the other hand I think most people are far more interested in enjoying life and having as easy a time of it as possible (like myself), which sometimes works to the benefit of left-wing ideas, and sometimes doesn't. Thus I don't think the left can carry 'the people' with them on the strength of their ideas alone (much as I don't think the right can either) and that to make real strides to the society that they want they won't be able to do so entirely through democratic means.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My short answer is "no".

My long answer is "no and if you even consider it you are a truly morally bankrupt piece of sh!t, f[inks] you."

Couldn't agree more.

Do you agree with me that seatown was one of the worst sh!tposters in Atlas history?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is the strategy the German Communists used to bring down the more moderate parties, and in so doing aid the rise of the Nazis. Yeah, it's a really terrible political strategy.

[IceSpear]

This is the strategy the German Communists used to bring down the more moderate parties, and in so doing aid the rise of the Nazis. Yeah, it's a really terrible political strategy.

I don't think most people who embrace this "strategy" are historically literate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What I don't understand is how anyone can possibly think that it even works. Like for example based on it Margaret Thatcher would've brought about Prime Minister Corbyn (or some equivalent) decades ago...but no 18 years of Tory government and then the most right wing guy possible to lead the Labour Party. And Ronald Reagan sure didn't bring about a left wing Democratic Party or President.

[IceSpear]

What I don't understand is how anyone can possibly think that it even works. Like for example based on it Margaret Thatcher would've brought about Prime Minister Corbyn (or some equivalent) decades ago...but no 18 years of Tory government and then the most right wing guy possible to lead the Labour Party. And Ronald Reagan sure didn't bring about a left wing Democratic Party or President.

But Dubya brought a left wing revolution in 2004! Oh, wait. But he did in 2008! Oh wait, Obama is neoliberal scum.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My short answer is "no".

My long answer is "no and if you even consider it you are a truly morally bankrupt piece of sh!t, f[inks] you."

Couldn't agree more.

Do you agree with me that seatown was one of the worst sh!tposters in Atlas history?

Well, he was utterly terrible, but when you have posters like Krazen, MK, Bronz, Willips, etc., etc., it's hard to call him "one of the worst".

[Kingpoleon]

You mean people who think pale pastels can't be beautiful?

[Murica!]

No(wants the "peasants to plot revolution whilst sipping champagne")

But you guys are aware that people that do support it don't think that voting will do it, right?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No(wants the "peasants to plot revolution whilst sipping champagne")

But you guys are aware that people that do support it don't think that voting will do it, right?

[Murica!]

No(wants the "peasants to plot revolution whilst sipping champagne")

But you guys are aware that people that do support it don't think that voting will do it, right?

What does the killer of the Corvair have to do with this?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That was his message and plan in 2000.

[Murica!]

That was his message and plan in 2000.

I think you may actually be an idiot.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

See the reference to Nader here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/29/susan_sarandon_is_perfect_spokeswoman_for_neverhillary.html

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Obviously, I don't personally agree with it at all - however I do think that in order for 'the left' (even if we exclude various far-left groupings from that term) to advance it's various causes (liberty, equality and all that jazz) it is going to have to do so increasingly by means that are not traditionally seen as democratic. I think this can be observed from the fact that most centre-left/leftist parties in Western Democracies are either in decline or have proven unable to break out of their traditional base of support (social-democratic parties being an example of the former and greens an example of the latter). Meanwhile, in the places where left-wing parties have enjoyed the most electoral success (principally Greece), this success has been more a result of the complete crack up of the society and the political system which existed within that society rather than a genuine embrace of 'left-wing' principles (and of course, in the case of Greece, it has proven difficult to enact a left-wing agenda even in government).

Maybe this isn't so different from past situations - one of the reasons that left-wing parties were able to break into office and enact transformative agendas in the 1930's and 40's was because of, as I put it, the crack up of society and political systems in a number of countries brought about by the international instability of the interwar period, the Great Depression and of course World War II (although I would argue that those crises were far more severe than those we are experiencing now). However, getting into office and enacting an agenda doesn't necessarily mean that you've locked in those changes and gained thousands of converts to your way of thinking - I mean, support for the welfare state and state ownership in postwar Britain was not built upon a sudden embrace of socialism on the part of most people, or their 'communitarian impulses' or whatever. It was built primarily upon the fact that you now no longer had to pay to see a doctor, that your child could now receive an essentially free education up to a university level, and that your wages went up as a result of more favourable pay settlements obtained by strong unions in state owned industries.

I believe that, in some respects, is the elephant in the room - left-wingers support x and x because they believe it to 'be right' (as well as the best way to do things), but I think most people, whilst they may support certain policies that are deemed left-wing (taking the railways into public ownership being on example), they don't support them because the believe in the principle of public ownership and are against the idea of private entities making a profit off things that should be public goods, they support it because they want to spend less money on rail fares. Therefore support for left-wing policies (and, I should add, right-wing ones) will be conditional on how it benefits the individual - not in a bizarro 'I've calculated the opportunity cost of x and x and I believe x to be the one that benefits me the most by x amount', but in a 'this will make my life easier' kind of way. Thus, when the left asks the public (as one example) to support taking in large numbers of refugees because 'it's the morally right thing to do', most people either think 'meh' or think 'yeah, but what's in it for me, stop preaching at me'.

I don't believe that concepts such as liberty and equality hold much real purchase over the minds of most people - sure, when pressed, few people would say 'I don't believe in either of those things', but on the other hand I think most people are far more interested in enjoying life and having as easy a time of it as possible (like myself), which sometimes works to the benefit of left-wing ideas, and sometimes doesn't. Thus I don't think the left can carry 'the people' with them on the strength of their ideas alone (much as I don't think the right can either) and that to make real strides to the society that they want they won't be able to do so entirely through democratic means.

This. The biggest problem the left faces is that people are selfish, and leftism is about giving up some of your own things for other people to benefit others. Most people aren't good enough to do that.

[ingemann]

This. The biggest problem the left faces is that people are selfish, and leftism is about giving up some of your own things for other people to benefit others. Most people aren't good enough to do that.

Crap the Left's biggest problem is it like the right represent some interest groups, and behave like it's altuism to represent those interest groups interests. Traditional the Left represented the Working Class (no matter race) or small farmers, which was massive groups, this allowed the Left to be a strong force. In the West the problem was that the Left won, they improved the livelihood of the Working Class so that it had less interest in voting for the Left's traditional policies, while the small farmers became irrelevant.