cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/32730153
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right.” — George Orwell, 1984
Donald Trump: ‘What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening’
Accurate.
Orwell got that part wrong, at least: the real-world Party “intellectuals[sic]” can’t argue for shit, are thoroughly unsubtle, and even a rando like Winston could demolish them easily in a good-faith debate. The issue is that the Party faithful doesn’t fucking care about that, so they traffic exclusively in fallacies and bad-faith tactics.
They don’t need to argue. If a person makes good arguments such as Katie Halper, Joy Reid, Brianna Joy Gray, and many other journalists, they simply get fired and never invited back. They decide who gets to argue.
I disagree.
the real-world Party “intellectuals[sic]” can’t argue for shit
They don’t need to articulate or argue in good or bad faith if all media propaganda is on their side, aside from some ‘independent’ platforms.
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” – Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, 1933 to 1945
“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.” – Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, 1933 to 1945
MAGA is splitting up a bit due to what Trump promised versus what he is delivering.
Promised:
- To be anti-war, for peace.
- The Jeffrey Epstein List.
Independent journalists and commentators have reported on this split between the duopoly and the working class.
I was writing in response to pretty much just this bit:
the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer
That’s about choosing to debate and being good at it, not leveraging media propaganda to avoid it.
Thanks for explaining!
January 6 was a day of love, OP.
LOVE.
/s
White power shaman did nothing wrong!
If only it was like the Black Panthers Rainbow Coalition, while showing off our 2nd Amendment rights.
An independent (from the duopoly, oligarchy) working class movement.
But we know what happens when we come together, class solidarity, as the working class while showing off our 2nd amendment rights.
Throughout the late 1960s, the militant Black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for Black people to arm themselves.”
The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
They also organized a march to the Capitol to draw attention to their cause of fighting against a government that sought to infringe on their right to bear arms. On May 2, 1967, 30 fully-armed Black Panthers occupied the California state Capitol. The demonstration was motivated by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford’s bill to repeal the law allowing Californians to openly carry weapons, a direct response to the Black Panthers’ “police patrols.”
The group of activists occupying the Capitol with fully loaded weapons on full display was an unforgettable sight. However, their demonstration backfired and the bill passed both the state Assembly and Senate, with support from the NRA. In addition to repealing open carry gun laws in California, Mulford made it illegal to take firearms into the Capitol. On July 28 it was signed into law by Governor Reagan, who later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA supported restrictions on who could carry guns on the streets in order to decrease hostility towards European immigrants—who were known to openly carry weapons at the time—within the country. And after the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, the NRA backed the Gun Control Act that passed the same year, which put substantial restrictions on the purchase of guns based on mental illness, drug addiction and age, among other factors.
Ironically, it was the gun control laws that were put into effect against African-Americans and the Black Panthers that led “rural white conservatives” across the country to fear any restriction of their own guns, Winkler says. In less than a decade, the NRA would go from backing gun control regulations to inhibit groups they felt threatened by to refusing to support any gun control legislation at all.[1]
The problem with this quote, and things like Ur-fascism is they apply to both sides if you look at the full picture, especially the further away from the center you get. And when I say center I do not mean neoliberals/cons, I mean social democrats/liberals.
Lol, it applies as strongly to liberals as anyone else. Get this horseshoe theory bunk out of here.
Uh… Yeah? If you’ve never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, it’s a phenomenal and bone-chilling read, but as a minor spoiler you’d figure out not too far into the book: Orwell, an anarcho-socialist(asterisk), is critiquing authoritarianism through an attack on Soviet-style socialism.
Well, technically he’s attacking a fictional strawman of soviet-style socialism, which ends up drawing more on British liberalism.
Ah yes, much like Catch-22 is a strawman of war. Or The Handmaid’s Tale is a strawman of patriarchy and theocracy. You know what, like, themes are, right? Is “dystopia novels aren’t literally reality but are designed to critique existing political structures through an exaggerated late-stage version of them” too nuanced for ML?
too nuanced for ML?
Is there a rule when you join .world that you have to explicitly point out .ml user’s instance every time you see them? You realize this is just lazy ad-hom.
As for 1984, it’s a critical description of British authoritarianism, which is then projected onto the USSR in a “I have already depicted you as a soyjack” kind of way. Which makes sense given your reference to Catch-22, which is based on the authors own experience in WW2. Meanwhile Orwell’s own experience was composing lists of communists and minorities for the British government (and being a rapist, bust that’s neither here nor there).
Ultimatum, describing a one dimensionaly evil society, then pointing at your ideological enemies and declaring “this may not describe you in any literal sense, but it’s you thematically!” is a completely vacuous thing that anyone can do to anyone and there’s no real way of arguing one way of the other.
Haven’t read it. I know about it obviously but never gotten around to it. I’ll probably read it soon though, I’ve been putting it off too long.
The problem with this quote, and things like Ur-fascism is they apply to both sides if you look at the full picture
That is why it is called a duopoly; they both work against the working class while offering crumbs so as to keep us thinking that they fight for us.
We need an independent (from the duopoly, oligarchy) working-class movement to address the systematic issues that continue to increase the struggles we all face.
TIL
“Ur-Fascism” or “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt” is an essay authored by the Italian philosopher, novelist, and semiotician Umberto Eco. First published in 1995, this influential essay provides an analysis of fascism, a definition of fascism, and discusses the fundamental characteristics and traits of fascism. Drawing on Eco’s personal experiences growing up in Mussolini’s Italy and his extensive research on fascist movements, the essay offers his insights into the nature of fascism and its manifestations.
I didn’t only mean it in the context of party politics, I also meant it in the right-left spectrum as it is generally understood and how it manifests in discourse, but especially in online discourse. I find that the online left is as punishing of any disagreement with the agenda as MAGA is, if not even more.
I find that the online left is as punishing of any disagreement with the agenda as MAGA is, if not even more.
What a shock, you find people who you disagree with disagree with you more than people you agree with. Very interesting insight.
I agree!
Yes, the right-left spectrum is always used as a divide-and-conquer strategy to keep the working class fighting each other instead of uniting and forcing politicians to push for populist policy like the two lists below:
We won’t agree on 100% of our views, but we may agree on some of these points.
Eleven Demands for Real Democracy:
- Fix big money in politics and government
- Healthcare for all
- A minimum standard of living for everyone
- End the wars
- Racial and criminal justice reform
- Respond to the climate emergency
- Reject censorship
- Immigration reform
- An election system we can trust
- Revamp taxation and funding
- Democratize the enterprise[1]
What We Stand For:
1. Fight the Rich! End the Billionaire Class & Their System
2. Workers Need a Real Raise — $25/Hour Minimum Wage [Living Wage]
3. Good Union Jobs for All
4. Stop the Climate Catastrophe — Take Big Energy Corporations into Workers’ Ownership
5. Fight Racism, Sexism & All Oppression
6. Stop Mass Deportations
7. Medicare for All & Quality Affordable Housing — Tax the Rich
8. End the Genocal War on Gaza — No Military Aid, No Occupation
9. Bring Down Trump, the Billionaires & Their Two Parties
10. No More Sellouts — We Need a New Mass Party[2]
I agree with the eleven demands except with the final one. I’m sorry but the more people are involved in decision making the worse a company runs. That’s also true of governments but in governments that’s kind of a feature not a bug.
I actually end up agreeing with most of this although I know we might disagree when discussing the particulars of the more subjective things in the list. The one thing I fully disagree with is rising the minimum wage. It really doesn’t make a difference in the end unless youre basically price controlling everything else (which is also not good), and it hurts small businesses the most. I think there are better solutions like pegging it to inflation and regional cost of living.
I’m also very suspicious of UBS and UBI type of arrangements. Contrary to popular belief some of these are not socialist policies but rather neoliberal policies. Not in all cases, like healthcare and education are good examples of stuff that should be funded publicly. But childcare for example is very iffy to me, I’d rather have the government pay a salary to one of the parents (or even both?) until the kids are of school age than have government funded child care so that the parents can spend all day working. Seems like enabling the worst parts of capitalism.
I’m sorry but the more people are involved in decision making the worse a company runs. That’s also true of governments but in governments that’s kind of a feature not a bug.
I think we are taught to believe that we need to be ruled by corporate hierarchy so as to function efficiently to maximize profits, but when profits and shareholders are not the primary goal, humans can work well together without falling apart.
Cooperatives are what they are explaining. Democracy at Work is a source I enjoy; I included information below.
I think there are better solutions like pegging it to inflation and regional cost of living.
I agree!
But childcare for example is very iffy to me, I’d rather have the government pay a salary to one of the parents (or even both?) until the kids are of school age than have government funded child care so that the parents can spend all day working. Seems like enabling the worst parts of capitalism.
I agree as well!
Great points and explanations, thanks for taking the time to explain them to me in simple terms!
About Co-ops
“By democratizing workplaces, worker co-ops can give shape to a real, daily democracy on a society-wide basis.” - Richard Wolff
We believe cooperatives (and specifically worker co-ops) are a critical component to realizing a more sustainable, equitable, and democratic future. Read more to learn why.
What is a cooperative?
A co-op is a business that is owned and self-managed by its members with the principle of “one person, one vote.” There is no boss, CEO, or Board of Directors who can make decisions by themselves and for their own personal benefit. Co-ops are people-centered, and are driven to create sustainable enterprises and long-term stability for all involved in them.
The values that form the base of any cooperative are self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. The management structures and day-to-day operations are designed according to the needs and desires of the co-op members and can vary greatly.
There are many types of cooperatives:
- Worker Co-op: A business that is owned and controlled by the workers, who together decide the business operations, strategic directions, profit distributions, etc. – Examples: Equal Exchange, Cooperative Home Care Associates
- Consumer Co-op: Owned by members who direct the co-op to purchase the goods or services they need, ensuring better availability, and more. This model is often seen in groceries, electrical distribution, childcare, banking, and housing. – Examples: UW Credit Union, REI
- Producer Co-op: Producers of a product band together to have a greater market share. Members are usually businesses themselves, not individuals, and such co-ops are often seen in agriculture. – Examples: Dairy Farmers of America, Ocean Spray
- Purchasing Co-op: Purchasers of a product band together to improve their purchasing power. Members are usually businesses themselves, not individuals. – Examples: ACE Hardware, Independent Pharmacy Cooperative
- Multi-Stakeholder Co-op: Owned and controlled by a mix of members and workers. – Examples: Weaver Street Market, Boisaco Inc.
Cooperatives are not a new idea. Today, the International Cooperative Association’s research shows that “at least 12% of humanity is a cooperator of any of the 3 million cooperatives on earth.”[1]
Edit:
- Added missing source [1]
