Anti work? or work reform?

 So....doreengate has spiraled out of control and now there is a schism in the anti work movement. As r/antiwork goes private due to brigading and massive backlash against mods leading to tons of bans, the moderators of r/antiwork made the sub go private. In the process, there seems to be a mass exodus to an alternative sub called r/workreform. 

r/workreform seems to be a much more mild subreddit, for the kind of person who is appalled someone like Doreen dare exists, much less represent the anti work movement. A lot of the more moderate posters on that sub are now like....wait wait wait, we're not REALLY anti work. The owner of the sub literally wants to abolish work and only works 20 hours a week? Here I am busting my butt full time and I just want fair treatment!

It's like they didn't understand what the sub was about. 

These schisms have existed within the anti work movement for a while. We had a hardcore leftist following that was actually anti work, and then a bunch of more moderate bandwagoners who just wanted to be treated better at work, not necessarily opposed to the concept. 

So...am I anti work, or for "work reform"? If you read this blog for a while, it should be quite clear I'm ANTI WORK. I dont just want mild reform. I don't just want better treatment around the edges, more human corporate overlords, I want to be FREE from the TYRANNY of work. I'm with Doreen. Even 20 hours is too much, and seeing the work reform people gatekeep people like her for not working full time seems to miss the point of the sub. 

That said, I tried going on workreform, and I dont fit in. Because like Doreen, I actually AM anti work.

HOWEVER, I want to make something clear. I'm NOT in the same tradition of thought as Doreen or the rest of the mod team there. Most of that sub is full on leftist, or more specifically anarchist. They oppose the state, they oppose the workplace, they oppose all hierarchies. I am, begrudgingly, a believer in the state, and of "capitalism." I'm not really enthusiastic about either. The state is just about keeping us safe, and organizing society as to provide for peoples' needs better. My ideas explicitly call for a state to implement. And, I'm somewhat for capitalism. While I'm not opposed to market socialism, I dont care either way. I am a supporter of markets, i'm lukewarm on "socialism" at best, and hostile to it at worst (in its more extreme forms). And honestly, I believe that anti work isn't a matter of "left or right", but "forward", to use a Scott Santens quote. 

Really. You can be capitalist and be for anti work goals, much to the dismay of the hardcore gatekeeping "leftists" of that subreddit, and you can be for leftism and be anti work. Likewise, you can be both capitalist or leftist, and merely be about reforming the institution. I would actually argue most leftists are essentially PRO work, and ultimately in the "reform" camp. Look at any communist country ever. They were for full employment. And worked long work weeks. They didn't abolish work. They actually believed people had a DUTY to work, and would enforce that by force.

I don't.I just believe people should have a right to say no, not just to any job, but all jobs. And that we should give everyone a UBI and other basic needs at a level to lead a dignified life and leave people to decide whether they wanna work for more. If they do, let them. if they don't, they don't have to. And over time, we could probably abolish a lot of work. This does not call for abolishing capitalism. If anything I think capitalism, with the proper safeguards in place, would probably be less coercive than any form of leftism or socialism. By providing for people a basic income, we could give them real freedom, or the right to say no, whether you prefer the van parijs or widerquist framing of the issue, and ensure people can meet their basic needs without being coerced to work.

We can also, instead of pursuing a policy of full employment, pursue one that explicitly limits our needs for work. Which could inevitably lead to fewer people working, and/or people working fewer hours. 

Again, my only real limitation of how far we can go with this is the practicality of it. As it stands we need SOME people to work. While this number should decrease over time, we need to slow the car down before we stop it. otherwise it's like hitting a brick wall and turning into windshield pizza. 

But yeah. I just wanted to make that clear. The anti work camp tends to insist you MUST be anticapitalist to be anti work. But then the work reform side seems to insist work shouldnt be abolished. I support abolishing work. I just believe doing so responsibly and in a way that works. And I believe UBI is the most pragmatic way to achieve real freedom and the end of wage slavery.

So don't get me wrong. I may not be "leftist", but I'm ANTI WORK. I'm not merely for reforming work.

Discussing the r/antiwork debacle

 So....if you surf r/antiwork, you might be wondering why it is currently private. The answer comes down to a subreddit wide meltdown over an interview given by u/abolishwork, the head mod and founder of the subreddit. They apparently went on fox news to discuss the movement...and...it did not go well.

Let's be honest. The big issue was that this person is not a public speaker. They did not give good answers to questions, and rocked back and forth in their chair the entire interview. It's been said she's autistic, which...I can believe, and that would qualify as stimming behavior, but this is NOT how to represent the anti work movement. It's impossible for one person to represent the entire movement fairly. And, in all fairness, also being an autistic NEET, I probably wouldn't do much better if caught off guard.

Still, I wouldn't actively pursue a fox news interview either. Some have questioned whether going on fox, a news network inherently hostile to left wing ideas, was a good idea in the first place. But if you do, you need someone cogent and able to...you know...answer questions persuasively. 

Now, before I get started answering these questions myself, I'm gonna be honest, if, in a LIVE debate, I would suck too. And I'm thinking about what I say before I say it, but, if we had someone on the top of their game answering, I'd imagine the interview would go a bit like this:

  Why do you like the idea of being home not working, but still getting paid by corporate America?

Well...first of all, let's just say the anti work movement is an extremely broad movement, ranging from leftists who want to abolish the idea of work, to people who just want to complain about unfair treatment at their jobs. Most members of r/antiwork DO work. 64% Work full time, with smaller numbers being part time workers or students. Less than 20% do not work in any capacity. 

I will say, for myself, that I DO like the idea of people being home and not working, and still getting a check. Why? Because freedom. In America, we love to talk about freedom. We love to talk about being able to do what we want without the tyranny of the government telling us what to do. yet the overwhelming majority of us work jobs that many of us hate. And we do it because we have to. Because we have basic needs that can only be acquired by money, and in order to get that money, we need to work.

All I support is the right to say no. Give people a basic income at a truly basic level so people have the freedom to say no to employment that would otherwise feel forced to participate in. And when you do participate in it, you are micromanaged and tyrannized on levels that if the government was doing it to people directly, we would consider them a tyrannical dictatorship that should be resisted at all costs. Yet because these guys are quote unquote "voluntarily" choosing this, and it's private entities, it's all of the sudden okay.

But you're not being forced to work, this isn't slave labor. You've applied for a job, you've agreed to the terms and conditions of the employment, and you know you can walk away from that job at any time and quit, so I don't really understand what this is about except it sounds like people are just being "lazy"? Are you encouraging people to be lazy?

You know, early critics of capitalism considered wage labor under capitalism to be what is called "wage slavery". It's basically the difference between owning and renting a person. In a wage labor system, people still have self ownership on paper, but they are otherwise coerced to "rent" their time out in the form of their labor in order to survive. I mean, I ask anyone watching to ask yourself this. Why do you work? Do you like your job? If you don't like your job why are you working it? What would happen to you if you quit? I'm sure most people would answer along the lines of money. They work for money. And they'd imagine if they didn't work their jobs that they would have bills they couldn't pay. And then their water and electricity would get shut off, and they wouldn't be able to afford their medicines. Speaking of medicines, healthcare is tied to jobs, and if you quit your job you lose your health insurance, which might make it difficult for you to seek care you need, especially if you have a chronic illness that requires care. Some might lose their home, which, it being in the middle of winter is devastating because people are ill equipped to survive the elements this time of year, especially in much of the country. So let's be honest, when we talk about people losing their income, we're talking about people potentially being put in life threatening situations or in situations that over time would greatly reduce their lifespans. Work is a matter of pure survival for most. And that's what makes it coercive. We live in a society of "you work or you die" whether we like it or not. 

So, when we talk about quitting, we're at best talking about people switching from one form of employment to another, which is just the equivalent of switching masters in this "master slave" type system. Rent yourself to someone else. Sure, there's the whole "start your own business" cop out some people (cough, fox news types) cough like to throw around, but honestly, not all businesses are useful, not all are successful, and not everyone has the vision, drive, ability, or means to run a successful business. 

As for laziness. Laziness is a made up term to denigrate people who dislike working. We all should be "lazy" to some extent. Because that keeps the system in check. It seems dystopian that we expect everyone to have this insane work ethic where they'll sell themselves into servitude for wages they can barely live on and an oppressive boss who runs them ragged for 40+ hours a week, where if people call out the insanity this system is, we call them "lazy." We should all be a little "lazy." We should all be willing to point out the insanity of this and seek to build a better system so that we don't have to do this any more.

What do you think is like a good work day, how many hours, you know, a solid work day in your ideal society?

Well if you're talking "ideal" I would say 0. We should seek to reduce and eliminate all involuntary labor and automate as much work as we can to keep the society productive. However, I understand that this is merely the "ideal". In the realm of reality. I think we should reduce our work WEEK (let's do this in weeks not days since that can be debated), to maybe 30-32 hours (4D8H or 5D6H) to start, maybe moving to 24-25 if we can (3D8H, 4D6H, or 5D5H). I know John Keynes in talking about "the possibilities of our grandchildren" back in the 1930s predicted an economy productive enough to provide for everyone's needs in 15 hours (say, 3D5H). Rutger Bregman who wrote "utopia for realists" argued for 15 hours, and argued people are more productive with fewer hours and that with 40 hours we just end up filling our days with drudgery and that leads to inefficiencies. I do think 15 is unrealistic at this time without some level of sacrifice to our living standards so I like the 25-30ish range, but ideally? We should strive to work as little as possible. Work is a means to an end. As in, we work to produce what we NEED. We treat it as an end in itself, as if it's a "higher calling" as per calvinism and the protestant work ethic, which has leaked into our popular mainstream American culture.

And what do you do?

Oh, I'm a self employed activist who sets their own hours. I advocate for my anti work goals full time.

(See? you gotta use the lingo!)

And how old are you?

30s

And is there something you want to do besides being (whatever you are?), do you aspire to do anything more than (insert employment of choice), or is that kind of your pinnacle?

Honestly, if anything gives me purpose in life, it's advocating for my anti work goals. I don't view personal fulfillment in terms of traditional employment. i dont dream of labor. The only reality of labor is we need to do it for money. And the less we need to do the better. I seek a future in which people can pursue their dreams and have the real freedom to do what they want, whether that is within the context of employment or without. I seek to free society from having to do drudgery just to survive, and I view advocating for this goals as more personally fulfilling than any "job". 

It is a free country, not everything is free, but it is a free country

Yeah until you have to slave away for someone else's profits or die of resource denial. Some "freedom."

---------

Honestly, doing the interview in my head, I see part of the problem right now. Fox...isn't going to let you talk. It's gonna put pressure on you, it's gonna cut you off. Doreen was trying to speak, and in retrospect her answers weren't HORRIBLE, but she was never given the room to express her views.

That's the problem with going on Fox News. She probably had noble intentions here to go on the network and educate people about her views...but let's face it, fox isn't gonna give her a chance to express her views well. They're gonna keep asking questions while you're answering the previous one mid sentence to throw you off your game. And of course, it had to get personal. It had to be like "what do you do?" and "is that all you aspire to be?"

That's the thing about going on hostile networks. They ask the questions, they frame them from their perspective, and they only give you a few seconds to answer and the purpose isn't to let you get your views out, it's to make you look bad. That's why Doreen kind of crapped the bed here. I didn't realize it until now, doing this exercise myself, but that's precisely what happened.

She never should have agreed with the interview. They're not gonna softball her. They're there to destroy her and make her look bad. That's why I would never do fox news myself. I dont like to give in person interviews for the same reason. It's much harder to control the discussions in those environments. You're under THEIR control. THEY ask, and you have to answer. That's how it works. They're there to be the bully. 

Doreen tried, but eh, Fox didn't really want to hear the truth. They were there to screw her. And in doing so they basically caused a crapshow on the subreddit.

All morning and afternoon there was constant criticism. Even I offered light criticism of the interview, not feeling like they prepared an answer and if they were gonna do it they should have a more professional PR person. But...let's be honest. It's fox. They're gonna do this regardless of who speaks. Because they don't care about the anti work movement. They just wanna make them look bad. 

Honestly, I think the lesson to learn from this is don't trust fox, and don't let interviews like this break the solidarity of the subreddit. I haven't seen the sub in this much chaos ever. It's like the interview destroyed whatever sense of unity there was. That's bad for the movement, but that's kind of the point.

That said, I think the lesson to learn here is not to let fox news interviews get in your head. It happened, it sucked, let's move on. No. Doreen shouldn't resign. Nothing should change. They shouldn't have even done the interview.

So how can the dems unscrew themselves before 2024?

 So, this is a post I've been having in my head recently, and it's asking, how COULD the dems dig themselves out of the mess they have now, before 2024? Quite frankly, I'm not sure that they could, even if they embraced a left wing platform. 

Here's the thing. Biden and the dems dug themselves into a hole, and are facing unique circumstances that put them in a VERY BAD position for the 2022 midterms and 2024. We got here, primarily because of the dems' propensity to compromise, but also because the timing is bad. Timing is everything. I've said it before, I seriously wonder, had the republicans won in 1976, if we'd live in the same country today, and I have to wonder that about 2016 onward.

Under a traditional set of circumstances, the answer to me would be obvious. Distance yourself from centrism, run someone to the left. But as someone, on a message board I frequent pointed out, it's not 2016 any more, and that energy might be gone. 

We could stand to reason that this is the case, and that events of the past 6 years have put the dems in a bad position.

Think about it, in 2016, we were in a position where we were coming off of the great recession. Numbers on spreadsheet were good, but despite the low unemployment numbers, we still felt the recession. Other than temporary aid we had little to no progress on issues, and the dems just sat there looking all pretty talking about job creation and how they couldnt do anything because "democracy is hard work", and "I'm not a king". While I can understand Obama's hands were tied, in the 2014 mid terms, I would've argued the dems could've fared better had they took the fight to the republicans and pointed to the obstruction and said GIVE ME A CONGRESS, AND I'LL PASS ALL OF THESE THINGS WE NEED. 

But...Obama didn't do that. He was a pushover, and outside of my own state of PA where we wanted to get Corbett out, the dems suffered nationwide losses as they got destroyed all over the country. 

In 2016, it could've been argued that we needed someone like say, Bernie Sanders, or given my current politics, Andrew Yang, and I'm almost certain that they could've won independents on the rust belt.

But...that was the 2016 moment, 2016 was either a realigning election year or a precursor to such, and I would argue a lot of those white working class independents shifted toward Trump since then. They started seeing the economy as good, and started believing in MAGA, and got sucked down alt right rabbit holes, blah blah blah. 

In 2020, the environment we ended up with was totally different. And it was largely due to COVID. COVID introduced new debates in the country that strengthened the "economy" argument in favor of the GOP. While Trump was in charge, and handled covid VERY poorly, the GOP had an economic argument to make. it went like this. "Those democrats want to implode the economy and shut everything down to keep people safe", we want to open stuff back up again even if it means people will die. And sadly, we learned almost half the country literally is that sociopathic they'd let old people and min wage workers die if it meant they can go to ihop for brunch again. 

Still, due to Trump being the leader of the country, and handling COVID poorly, enough people were sane enough to barely elect Biden. But it was close. And honestly Trump still got record votes himself.

But that leads us to where we are today. What really defined 2020, was COVID and it was a referendum against Trump. The dems didn't win because they had a mandate or were popular, they won because they were the "not trump" candidate. Biden had the charisma of wallpaper and his agenda was equally unambitious. 

And while I would have possibly argued a further left view would've went over in 2020 given people liked the stimulus checks and we should've been providing for people all along, now, as the economy reopens, we have the kinds of economic conditions deadly to democrats.

For most of my adult life, the big problem with the economy has been that workers have been screwed. There aren't enough jobs. pay is low. And people are mistreated and unhappy. But in 2021, we finally got the tables turned. But now...we have inflation. And we're in the age of the "anti work" movement taking off. And while I'm a proud supporter of that, it's wearing on independents. Independents dont like being screwed at work. They dislike low pay and bad opportunities, but at the end of the day, they still want that brunch at ihop, and dont care how many have to suffer to get there. And the upper class people? Forget it. The upper class in this country is blindly ignorant and sociopathic of their fellow man, not willing to go without minor creature comforts that require literal servants to provide for a period of time to ensure better worker rights.

So now, as the price of goods and services goes up from supply shortages, and people quit their jobs leading to longer wait times, more expensive services, and lower quality service, these entitled people who at this point just want to go back "to normal" are screaming. They're posting "no one wants to work any more" memes. They're complaining about inflation. And they're laying the blame squarely on the democrats.

Now, I'm gonna be honest, these systemic problems are NOT the democrats' fault. But, much like during Carter, republicans are masters of propaganda and spin and are good at taking advantage of a cranky populace who wants cheap crap during bad times, to paint it as a democratic problem. I mean, now those $1400 checks and expanded unemployment are being blamed for inflation and work avoidance. It doesn't matter if it's true. What matters is if people think it's true. And given the dems have been for regulations on masks, and giving people money, they're coming under assault from a GOP looking to argue that things were better under trump. And I think they can make a good case. Not because of anything Biden or Trump did, but just appealing to the zeitgeist of the time. "Remember how great things were in 2019? We wanna go back to that", is just enough to get a wide variety of americans on board.

Meanwhile, Biden is just...stuck. he isnt doing anything for some, but for others hes seen as doing too much. Americans dont like to take their medicine. Literally. And they're blaming the left for vaccine and mask mandates, and shutting down businesses, and none of this wouldve happened if we just kept things open, and giving people money is bad, and blah blah blah. Again, none of this stuff is true, but because the average American thinks in terms of emotions and nostalgia, and not policy, it's working. Which is why the GOP is poised to win by a landslide.

ironically, by being as moderate as he is, Biden is guaranteeing, in this environment, that everyone hates him. The left hates him because he's ineffectual and not doing anything. The right hates him because this wouldnt be happening if our orange god emperor with glorious blonde hair were in charge. And sadly, that means the dems are screwed.

And here's the thing about moving left. Again...2016...isn't 2022. The problems are different. The problem isnt as much that people cant get jobs or jobs pay badly. Due to the fact that theres more people who wanna hire than workers available due to a combination of covid deaths, boomers retiring, and people staying home to take care of kids or avoid the pandemic in general, they cant get the workers they need. And given the inflation due to supply shortages, left wing ideas like giving people money or encouraging widespread worker strikes aren't going to win over the masses. Because the masses are selfish, and that pendulum of self interest has swung from left wing ideas to argue for better working conditions and pay and maybe even questioning the idea of work itself in my case, to trying to go back to normal so middle class people can go to brunch like they did in 2019. 

That's the messed up thing about America. THings stay the same because just enough people are comfortable enough with the status quo that they dont want change, and fight against change. If the system benefits 55% of the people at the expense of the other 45%, you'll have glacially slow progress if no progress at all. And people like the status quo, as crappy as it is for someone like, say, me. They would love to see me enslaved, and serving them french fries at mcdonalds, because if they cant get their fries cheaply and right now, that's a "problem" that needs to be solved for them. This is why our economy is so screwed.

 I never realized the average american was this sociopathic, but here we are. And if they're fighting like this vs Biden, who is basically not really responsible for these problems, he just inherited them and hasnt been able to do anything about him due to being stonewalled at every point, then what will they do against someone like say, me?

Would Bernie be able to win in this environment? probably not. Because the solutions dont meet the problems any more. ANd honestly, Bernie's solutions were never that great. Again, I'm starting to see why people turned on the new dealers during the carter years. That paradigm was never that great, and then you get a little inflation and supply shortages to the mix and everyone loses their mind. Suddenly, Ronald Reagan sounds like a great idea. And we're kind of in that environment again. It's one of the reasons I feel malaise about politics again. 

Now, that said, if the dems ran someone further left, could it work? Eh...maybe? I actually think someone who is more capitalist and who can pivot a bit better like yang COULD work. Like, despite this, I actually think Yang STILL might be a good candidate. Why? because he has cross party appeal. Republicans like him...until they find he has that D after his name. he talks in ways that people can relate to them. And he, the basic income guy, would probably ACTUALLY be able to market worth a crap, arguing that "hey, no, the problem isnt UBI or giving people money, it's XYZ". Like...that's a problem the centrist dems fall into. They end up ruining it for the left by buying into right wing talking points. like Biden is starting to go all republican on covid where he's getting lax with it and starting to sweep it under the rug and pretend the problem doesnt exist. As the meme goes, 2020: shut everything down, 2021: get the vaccine, 2022: it is what it is. Biden just cares about normalcy no matter the cost and will pivot right in a desperate attempt to save face with the right, even though they'll hate him no matter what he does. Because it isnt about policy for the right. It's about who is in charge. When trump is in the right forgets all about the problems and blames them on dems. When a dem is in charge, they blame them on dems. 

A lot of dems do this too. That's why the progressives hate on the pink hat type dems who liked clinton. When the argument is "we wanna go back to brunch", the center likes that message, but the actual left hates it. But lets face it, the normal left is just gonna take about solutions that wont do anything and sticking it to millionaires and billionaires, and i dont think those are the issues on most peoples' minds. Not to mention most dems like way too bureaucratic solutions for them to appeal to the average american. its like the average american wants something different than what the traditional left offers. That the traditional left isnt that great.

That's why I think Yang would be good. He can promote left wing ideas like UBI and M4A...while still being relatable. And I could see him being dynamic enough to pivot to the right, and actually explain the problems to the american people, while countering traditional right wing talking points. And because he is an independent left leaner, he still might be able to reach some on the right.

It ISNT 2016 any more. And I'd argue Bernie's moment has come and gone. Traditional left wing solutions arent gonna be workable in these troubling times. What we need to do is raise interest rates to put the brakes on the economy a bit so that there arent so many excess jobs, and inflation goes down, and THEN, we can talk about UBI and M4A again. This would be painful for a lot of Americans...but that's ultimately what laid the success for Reagan. The 1982 recession. It ended stagflation, and got the economy in a working state. We need to do that. And then, we can start arguing for left wing solutions from there.

But we can't do much as long as theres a "worker shortage" and as long as there's inflation. Left wing ideas look really bad in that context. So...raise interest rates, maybe cause a mini recession, and then come back with an actual New New Deal to solve the economic problems as we know them. If we get the economy under control, and THEN push for our solutions, things will work better. But nothing is gonna work as long as we're still reeling from pandemic induced shortages and inflation.

Let's talk 2024

 So...there's been a lot of talk about 2024 recently in the blogsphere and internet news reporting, and it's really unclear what's happening.

Biden's losing popularity like a rock in free fall. There's a lot of rumblings to replace him with someone else, like Harris, Pete, Klobuchar, etc., but here's the problem with that. The systemic factors that are contributing to Biden's popularity decline....won't be saved just by replacing them with another dittohead.

That's the fallacious logic of the democrats. They don't understand that the problem with the democrats is...the democrats, so they think merely replacing one figurehead with another will solve all problems. You know, like voters are stupid. Sadly, some are, but let's be honest. You could easily replace Biden with another equivalent candidate ideologically and you'll get the same result. Why? because they're the same thing as what you have. Any change is just the placebo effect of a different face.

I think this guys really buy that Obama hype too much, thinking if you get a cool charismatic black guy, you can repackage the same old politics in a more palatable form. What if I told you that Hillary lost in 2016 because she was a third term of Obama that no one wanted? What if I told you that Biden is just white male Hillary? That's how I see it. While there are personality differences between them that might make some difference, with obama being more charismatic, and Hillary being more blunt about how worthless she would be in office, let's face it, they're all ditto heads, you could replace one with another, and nothing would fundamentally change. 

The progressive wing as we know it seems done. Bernie is too old. Nina Turner I'm not sure will have the popularity given she can't even win a deep blue house primary. And honestly, I'm kinda cooling on the hard left anyway.

Marriane Williamson is being touted as a 2024 candidate recently. I don't know if she would have the experience to be good, but honestly, she's grown on me a lot. I was originally in the camp that she was a bit of a loon but after listening to her speak on Yang's podcast and others, eh...I find her relatable, especially given the spiritual direction I've gone in recent years. She means well, she believes in progressive ideals, and she would fight for them. She's also pretty comfortable with Yang and seems to like UBI, so I could see her being closer to me than a traditional progressive would be anyway. 

And of course, there's Yang. Yang isn't declaring anything, but he did hint recently on his podcast he believes SOME third party challenge will come in 2022, I wonder if he was talking about himself. previously he talked about not running against the democrats and splitting the vote, but more recent rhetoric seems to indicate he might be willing to use his platform to do it, even suggesting, when talking with Williamson this week that maybe forward should hold their primaries later if they do run someone, so that all of the losers from the two parties can jump in. I might be willing to get a piece of that action if so. 

Honestly, I think something like a Yang/Williamson ticket for 2024 would be one of the best things that could happen given the current environment. I mean let's face it. With the GOP they're either gonna run Trump again or you're gonna get a loon like DeSantis, or someone like Mike Pence...and on the democratic side, if Biden doesn't run, they'll just run one of the aforementioned dittoheads. 

That said unless it looks likely that a progressive can win within the dems, I might just be better off putting my energy in a third party. Forward would be ideal, given my ideals are basically human centered capitalism. Greens are tolerable, but let's face it, I'm not huge on the ego socialism focus. I don't see the future as jobs programs and the like. I'd rather see UBI and a more moderate economic approach that doesn't bring us closer to "socialism." 

Anyway, that's my take. For now, Yang/Williamson 2024, although i could go for a dem if someone like Williamson runs and actually gets somewhere. I think Yang and Williamson understand the situation we're in, and they're starting to say "yeah maybe if you marginalize us, maybe we WON'T support you in the general". A good development to see. You can't get anywhere playing nice with these people. if you can't beat them from within, beat them from the outside. Just beat them.

More on the lockean proviso and Widerquist's lectures

 So I did the lectures out of order, I did #2 first due to my greater interest in the topic, and then went back to 1, which discussed the lockean proviso directly. And, I'm gonna be honest, I dont necessarily agree with Widerquist on this one. He makes some good points about state violence over time. I mean, you ask a native american if they're better off under american systems over history and the answer is no. You ask a black person who was a slave, the answer is no. I mean, American and western history is a history of conquest and economic subjugation. And we often destroyed native ways of life in order to force capitalism on them.

At the same time, looking at things now...I dont really agree. Here's why. Who are arguably the worst off in society? Sure, the poor, but there's different grades of poor. We would argue the working poor are better off than the homeless. And then we gotta take into consideration the likes of the incarcerated.

But ultimately, what am I always arguing about? Well, wage slavery, duh. And what is the alternative of wage slavery? Propertylessness. And what's so bad about propertylessness? Well, you are going to live a very shortened life if you live that way. But is being homeless that much different than the state of nature? Arguably being homeless IS living in the state of nature. You get no resources for yourself. You end up pan handling and living under bridges. you might even decide to live in the woods in rural montana or something and make a living hunting. But honestly, the life is harsh, and unstable, and unsafe, because it's the state of nature. People who are homeless are more at risk from the elements, because they have to live like those who lived thousands of years ago. They are more prone to disease, like those who lived thousands of years ago, because they lack medical treatment. The problem with being homeless is largely lack. And while widerquist would argue the homeless dont have access to the commons, I feel like he forgets that without a state guaranteeing safety, the state of nature is a huge free for all. if you have good land, and someone else wants it, they might just kill you and take it. I mean arguably that's how states got their start anyway. And there's always been a dark side of humanity that wants to take what's someone else's. You think genghis khan or alexander the great were anything more than glorified warlords? I mean, they're just raider gang leaders, if raider gangs took over much of the world. Statist violence is, as such, often a result of the state of nature. Because humans come together to survive, some humans will steal from others and enslave others to survive. And our society of nation states arose out of the victors of those engagements, which is why so much of human history has such a tragic background, and why people like widerquist can now argue that states dont fulfill the lockean proviso...because they often used violence on others.

That's just...human history. Like, I like Widerquist a lot. I even consider myself an indepentarian which is based on his ideology. BUT, let's be honest. I like him more for his work on UBI. I don't agree with him on states necessarily being bad. If anything, a nice modern state with a military and police force is the only thing stopping a lot of people from living like the worst in our society currently do. And I'm not saying, in cases where they become genocidal or seek to enslave others, those people are arguably WORSE off than a state of nature, modern wage slavery is a bit softer in that sense. It uses the threat of living like in the state of nature to extract labor out of people, when in reality, we could be living better than such a state in the first place. And we should seek to strive to make our states better places to live in. With less exploitation, more freedom, more prosperity, and a higher level of well being. So...does a modern society largely fulfill the lockean proviso? Sure, if it's a western society. We can argue a lot about the nature of a lot of the third world, or the violence of communist states like say, North Korea or China or the USSR, I think those states you have a much less rosy picture given the state violence that can occur could make people worse then relatively "free" people living in a state of anarchy, but in say, 21st century US, or western Europe, or any country based on western ideas, even if they're in the far east like japan or south korea, or australia or something, yeah, you're likely gonna be better off in a society, even if you're among the worst off. 

Arguably the only people worse off are people who are actively imprisoned or on death row, because, again, state coercion and violence. But even then, if they lived in an anarchistic state many of those people would be terrorizing others in some way so their lack of freedom of often legitimate.

On that subject we REALLY need to end the war on drugs though. 

So are states and the social contract legitimate in my eyes? Sure. Does that mean that states shouldnt be pressured or strive to be better than they are? Of course not. There's always room for improvement and just because something is better than "nature" doesnt mean that it's optimal or ideal or should be accepted.

Is the left really interested in real progress, or do they just want to tear people down?

 So, shower thought, but I've been ripping on a lot of the left lately, and I have to wonder, is the left really interested in progress, or do they just wanna tear people down? A lot of them don't seem to support helpful solutions to problems, and seem more interested in owning the rich and white people, than in actually making progress.

Like SJWs often seem to focus more on racial issues or gender, or sexuality based issues, than on solving issues for everyone and building stronger systems. While there are issues there, they don't seem interested in actually fixing problems for everyone. If you mention problems being a white male working class person, they'll just tell you to stfu and check your privilege while pushing for affirmative action. They miss the point that while more social mobility among POC, or women, might help them out, due to limited opportunities in the system as a whole, it might make white men poorer in theory. But it's like this doesn't matter to them because privilege. So they think if you push for affirmative action or quotas it will improve some peoples' lives, but those opportunities come at the cost of others. The left also fails to see how this actually also plays into white grievance politics and is a huge reason the right has so much power in this country. Because the dems fail to look after their interests, they end up supporting the right instead, because at least they'll maintain their opportunities and taxes over it. No one might get any improvements at all, but people will support the crappy status quo to preserve their privilege, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose otherwise. I think the left needs more universal programs that strengthen the social systems and as such the social fabric in general, but the left would rather fight racialized culture and economic wars over minor scraps while the system goes to hell in a handbasket. This is why states like west virginia, that used to have socialist roots, are now so right wing. It's a state of white coal miners and the dems don't care about white people and wanna abolish coal jobs. Admittedly I'd want to abolish coal too, but at least I wanna give everyone a UBI. if the future is gonna be crappy service economy anyway, might as well get a UBI to fix the economy. 

And then you have the economic left. I had a discussion someone recently about taxing the rich. ANd one thing a lot of lefties hate is the idea of rich people getting away with not paying taxes, or paying less than others. Like, they will support 90% tax rates, despite the laffer curve being at 70%, because they'd rather the rich be forced to pay, than to actually acquire as much revenue as possible and actually be able to, you know, fund things with it. It's a huge reason these guys turn on UBI and other socdem stuff once the logistics of who pays for it is hammered out. UBI is bad because the flat taxes or the VAT required to pay for it is "regressive", meaning that the poor pay more in marginal taxes than the rich. But, if you can't tax the rich at those rates and get revenue, well, what are you gonna do? I'd rather, you know, fund programs that help people, and see UBI as a big equalizer. But that equalizing potential becomes less attractive if blah blah blah regressive. never mind the poor are still net recipients, they just care more about that stupid marginal tax rate than about results. 

But yeah, it's the same thing with capital gains. If you tax capital gains at 90%, no one realizes capital gains, capital gains revenue goes down. You're best off closer to 30-40%. But if you tell the left this, they'll think you're doing apologetics for the rich. They dont think it's fair. Their concept of fairness trumps their concept of actually getting things done. 

Same with student debt. The common argument is that it's "regressive". Meaning it helps wealthy professionals. Yeah but it also helps broke *** millennials screwed by the economy. Like, you know, me. But they just go back to seeing me as "privileged" and go back to wanting to help people in the ghetto. Despite me also being a ghetto. While being white and college educated. Ya know? It's ridiculous.

Everything with them is sticking it to the rich, and white people, while pushing for means tested programs that only help constituencies who they want to help. if you support universal programs for, you know, everyone, and actual functional tax systems to fund them, like, you know, I do, then they hate you and crap on your ideas all day.

I hate to call it like this, but that's how it is. And this is ironically why large swaths of people end up being conservative as a result. After dealing with the cesspit that is the left, it's no wonder a lot of white working class people decide to instead vote for lower taxes and dismantling safety nets. They aren't benefitting from these ideas. They're expected to pay for them. And they're bitter and want people to get jobs and support themselves.

I dont endorse these sentiments. I throw my lot in with my own brand of left wing ideals. One where I focus a lot less on things like race and identity, and a lot more on actually getting stuff done, like UBI and healthcare. I want actual progress. I want to remake the system in my own image here. And I believe most would be well off for it. Including a lot of those core constituencies dems claim to care about. Really? African Americans won't benefit from UBI? What do you think about stockton CA experimenting with it then? Is it bad? No of course not, it freaking works. West virginia coal miners would ALSO benefit from UBI. You see, I wanna help everyone, regardless of skin color, or gender, or desire for other genders. I don't wanna play games about omg this tax isnt as progressive as i want, we didnt tax the rich enough, this isn't means tested enough, blah blah blah. I wanna help everyone. Why is that so rare to see these days in politics? It's ridiculous. it's why I get so burned out. 

I feel like if the forward party took off, and I use that as an example as I see the yang gang having similar ideals, then I could see us bringing in not just democrats, but also some populist republicans. I think it could trigger a realignment of sorts. Of course, getting people on board with a third party and out of this tribalistic crap everyone is locked into is the hard part, but if people would just be reasonable, I think we could do a lot to change minds and cause positive change.

Is Sanders' movement toxic?

 So...this is a touchy subject for me, as I've been a long time supporter of Sanders as documented in this blog since its inception, with me cutting ties with the movement far more recently as I go in my own direction. So I have a mixed and naunced perspective that most would not hold. I would say ultimately it is at this point, but I do think a topic I've come across online is worth talking about. 

To quote a guy in a thread I read asking about this and responding:

I like Bernie Sanders a lot in terms of his ideas and his proposals. I like the fact that he pushes for medicare for all. That he highlights wealth inequality and the negative impacts of poverty. I liked the fact that he was one of the few politicians on a national stage to acknowledge some of the disastrous impacts of certain American policies in the past such as the coups in Iran and Guatemala(which hardly any politician does). 

 I mean, absolutely, I love sanders on some level. I decided in 2014ish that America was screwed and that to solve our problems, we needed a "new New deal". My envisioning of it was based on UBI, M4A, and free college/student debt forgiveness. And Sanders was the dude in 2016 who channeled that energy best. He was never a perfect fit for my views, but he was the best we had at the time, and felt he did a good job advocating for change in the right direction.

However I have always had a different attitude to his movement. I like him but I never liked elements(and I say elements) of his movement. Specifically what were called the "Bernie bros". The reason being goes deeper than simply "oh they attacked the Democratic establishment". That actually doesn't bother me that much. The DNC establishment should be critiqued. What I disliked what that they seemed to normalise and amplify certain elements that were toxic in nature that were able to cover themselves under the label "left". 

  I mean, as someone who was a "bernie bro" for a while, i'm gonna say this. The dems crapped on us, and then told us to fall in line. We criticized the dem establishment because we felt like we had to. They weren't listening to us. They were slandering us and giving us the finger but then demanded our support. So as a result, a lot of us got pissed and became rather toxic about things. I admit it's getting out of hand NOW, but at the time, back in 2016, that behavior seemed more justified.

What I mean is that coming out of the "Bernie of Bust" type movement was a combination of tankies, political nihilists, reactionaries and bait and switch political contrarians who called themselves "leftists". And as far as I am concern they were unhelpful to any type of progressive cause and often times just perpetuated the circular firing squad.

 Bernie or bust was originally a reaction to the democrats screwing us and then demanding our support in 2016. They basically screwed us, told us we're not getting anything we wanted, and then demanded our support. Bernie or Bust was just us saying "No!". That's all there is to it. The dems tried to bully us and we told them to screw off. 

During the 2016 convention when you had the Mothers of the Movement(the mothers of the unarmed black youth who were killed that spark the Black Lives Matter Movement) endorse Clinton after the primaries were done, you had many of these types actually booing their speeches when they were talking about their experiences, which I found quite despicable. 

 Now, this is where things start getting dicey. This behavior DOES happen on the bernie left a lot. I see yang still get a lot of crap for endorsing biden. Never mind he's publicly explained his behavior again and again, both in "Forward" and more recently on his podcast, but the Bernie or Busters do get excessively toxic for people who throw their support behind establishment candidates after the major fights are concluded. Like that's my issue with them. They're too tribalistic, and too rigidly far left, that anyone who doesn't meet their insanely unreasonable purity tests isn't one of them. I mean for me to be saying this, considering I was a bernie or buster, well, there's some validity to it. 

The fact that a lot of them have actually turned on progressive Congress people like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and launch pretty vicious personal attacks on her from the left, which makes no sense to me.

 Yeah, stuff like this is why I no longer consider myself a bernie or buster. The fact is they do start attacking allies over minor transgressions and failing to go as extreme as they want. I can understand disappointment with AOC, but I also kind of understand the reasoning behind her actions. She's only one person and doesn't hold enough power to change the system by herself. So sometimes she has to bend and play the game. I understand the distaste with this, but I also understand why she does it. I also think it's ridiculous how these same people will scream about Yang despite him recognizing these corrupting influences and deciding to form his own third party to resist them. But apparently that's not good enough because he mildly supports Israel, and is a "capitalist" who likes UBI and not "socialism."

Which is where I get pissed at these guys. Seriously, screw the far left. The Bernie movement betwen 2016 and 2020 radicalized with all of this "socialism" nonsense where now I swear a lot of the hardcore bernie or busters are now tankies who wax nostalgically for the USSR despite never living through it. It's baffling to me. Like when Bernie said he was for socialism, it seemed clear it was a mild form of democratic socialism that's barely distinguishable from social democracy in practice outside of rhetoric. but now hardcore Bernie supporters are LITERAL COMMUNISTS. And they crap on anyone who isn't.

This is why I no longer associate with these people. Yang's human centered capitalism is a far better description of my ideology than what the Sanders movement has morphed into in the past few years.

The fact that a lot of them have gone on to push some really reactionary positions during the pandemic. For instance, Jimmy Dore, Max Blumenthal, the Greyzone and others who came out of the Bernie or Bust movement have been openly pushing anti vax conspiracy theories

 Yeah, this is another issue. Wayofthebern, the Jimmy Dore show, they were islands of sanity for me in 2017, and while they were a bit conspiratorial in 2016 over the dems screwing us, they werent entirely wrong, despite sometimes going too far with it with stuff like Seth Rich being murdered by the DNC. As they transitioned to the Trump era, they started accepting a lot of Trumpian BS about stuff like pizzagate and being against vaccines, and blah blah blah. Like, they just completely went off the deep end. And eventually, I realized I couldn't tolerate this stuff any more, and I couldn't follow them. Imagine being so anti democratic party you start sounding like a republican just to own the libs. All while simultaneously being leftists. it's ridiculous. 

Moreover I have just found that in discussions with these people they have political double standards and are not consistent. They believe that reserve the right to attack the mainstream democratic party(which deserves a lot of critique) but think themselves above criticism. They talk about Bill Clinton and Joe Biden's role in the Crime Bill and ignore Bernie Sander's role in voting for it. They say things like "I could never vote for Clinton or Biden because they voted for wars" and then proceed to vote for Bernie Sanders despite his own record of voting for interventions in places like Afghanistan or Somalia. Its one thing to critique the Democratic Party from the left, which I have no problem with. Before the Bernie movement a proper left perspective was not well represented in American politics. But the reactionary and tankie elements that crept into it I think are kind of a cancer that needs to be called out.

 Of course, and this is one issue I think Yang is getting it right, despite me not necessarily seeing it at first with his forward party stuff. it's tribalism. These guys are tribalistic. They are so into gatekeeping their side, that they alienate anyone who has the slightest deviation from their perspective, while sometimes having weird double standards with people they like. Bernie isnt even a saint among these people any more, but they still give him leeway on a lot of stuff. If a more moderate dem came out in favor of bernie's 2016 positions they would HATE them now. Heck, I knwo this because I'm in the Yang Gang. And Yang is pretty freaking far left economically. He actually argued in forward he saw himself as further left than sanders because he wanted to give people UBI and not even Bernie would go there, but now Yang is constantly lambasted and can't do anything right because he's not a full blooded "socialist". Never mind BERNIE isn't either really. Dude's just a socdem with socialist rhetoric. 

It's ridiculous. This is a huge reason I cut ties with Bernie's movement. While I dont like the more moderate dems either because at this point everyone is either a Biden apologist or a full blown tankie, the fact is Sanders movement has bifurcated into those two camps. Some, including bernie himself are being absorbed into Bidenworld, which is why they face so much criticism from the left. Some of it deserved, but they just demand insane levels of purity that are impossible to meet. The other camp moving toward the far left.

And me, I don't like EITHER of these guys. I cant' stand Biden. I WAS Bernie or Bust for a reason, but that reason was so that I could accomplish specific goals Biden clearly fails on. But the actual Bernie or bust people are so far gone they're literally these weird socialist reactionaries these days. It's bizarre. These guys can't be reasoned with. I tried. I'm literally to the point where I'm like, okay, screw Biden, I hate Biden, I hate the dems, but I also hate these guys too. I'm not some socialist reactionary. Sorry, I'm not. I just want to accomplish the goals I set out for at the dawn of the 2016 election cycle, UBI, M4A, free college/student debt forgiveness. And at this point I would probably keep climate change and electoral reform as high priorities too.

That's why I keep saying that my views haven't changed much. I mean, I've been reading old stuff I wrote in 2016, and I really haven't. But the world has changed around me, and it's not in a good place right now. The left is too left. The dem establishment remains centrist and evil. I'm not happy with anyone. Except maybe the yang gang, and even then if you asked me to nitpick I'd find nitpickings there. I've already laid my grievances with yang and his movement out here before. I'm not afraid to criticize my heroes. That's the thing. I'm not a tribalistic guy who will just mindlessly follow some movement. I will follow those who suit me best. And given my politics it seems harder and harder to find people who I agree with these days. As I said last year, it's like everyone on the left is either a dem syocphant, or they're a full blown socialist, with no nuance in between.