Human, you are not necessary.

[Malcolm]

Karma is a personal thing. If the killing isn't done themselves then it isn't wrong livelihood. A cook or medic doesn't kill so therefore no negative karma accrued. That's all I'm going to say about it, done with this thread.

With respect to this, if one agree with the goals of an army, i.e., support the killing in which it engages, one accrues the negative karma of killing one person, times the number of people in the organization. For example, if a mob of 100 lynches someone, everyone in that mob who agrees with and supports the action, where the intent to kill, the object that is the object of affliction (hatred in this instance), the deed itself and satisfaction in the performance of the deed of killing all possess 100 times the karma of one person killing another person. This is true, even if only one person shot the gun or strung the noose. But if one belongs to such a group, but does not agree with and find satisfaction in the commission of acts of killing, then one is free of that karma. In this case then, if one is a cook who is gungho and totally supports the military goals of that army, one accrues the negative karma of each act of killing times the number of people in that army who actively support and are satisfied with such actions. If one is a cook who does not support the acts of killing, but simple prepares food for the troops, then one does not have even one person's negative karma of killing. The same is true of nations. If you belong to a nation at war and you actively support and take satisfaction in the success your army has in killing enemies, then you have the karma of the number of people in that nation who are similarly-minded. If you disagree however, you bear none of that karma.

This is sounds more like a hindu interpretation of karma. Can you explain the difference?

This is straight out of the Abhidharmakoshabhasyam. The Hindu idea of karma is very different.

[ford_truckin]

With respect to this, if one agree with the goals of an army, i.e., support the killing in which it engages, one accrues the negative karma of killing one person, times the number of people in the organization. For example, if a mob of 100 lynches someone, everyone in that mob who agrees with and supports the action, where the intent to kill, the object that is the object of affliction (hatred in this instance), the deed itself and satisfaction in the performance of the deed of killing all possess 100 times the karma of one person killing another person. This is true, even if only one person shot the gun or strung the noose. But if one belongs to such a group, but does not agree with and find satisfaction in the commission of acts of killing, then one is free of that karma. In this case then, if one is a cook who is gungho and totally supports the military goals of that army, one accrues the negative karma of each act of killing times the number of people in that army who actively support and are satisfied with such actions. If one is a cook who does not support the acts of killing, but simple prepares food for the troops, then one does not have even one person's negative karma of killing. The same is true of nations. If you belong to a nation at war and you actively support and take satisfaction in the success your army has in killing enemies, then you have the karma of the number of people in that nation who are similarly-minded. If you disagree however, you bear none of that karma.

This is sounds more like a hindu interpretation of karma. Can you explain the difference?

This is straight out of the Abhidharmakoshabhasyam. The Hindu idea of karma is very different.

Alright, thanks.

[Queequeg]

Well, for starters the progressive identity in recent decades has become synonymous with PC, the so-called 'cultural Marxism' though the term is silly. This change has, IMO, shifted the attention from the urgent socio-economic issues to the hand-wringing and the identity crises of the urban elites.

On one hand, I sympathize with critiques of the PC/TriggerPhobic/SafeSpace approach to identity. On the other hand, you're dangerously close to dismissing identity issues by conflating them with "identity crisis of urban elites."

Urban elites are by and large, white and hetero. Whatever identity crisis they have has to do with their own issues, if anything. I recently read about a sociologist who has called it White Fragility". In progressives, it expresses as an exaggerated concern with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" (Consider - a few black and brown faces sprinkled into a predominantly white crowd is "diversity"; a few white faces in a predominantly black or brown crowd is, "WTF are they doing here?") For conservatives, it expresses as denials of racism and instead masquerades often as "law and order". Either way, the way I see it, most of the identity politics fight is about privileged white people disagreeing vehemently with each other.

If you are black, or brown, or yellow, don't fit conventional norms in terms of sexuality, or otherwise don't fit into the narrow scoped of appearance and behavior, you pretty much don't have a choice but to identify by those traits because you are not allowed, for a single moment, to forget who you are and "your place". BLM is not an urban elite identity crisis. Its a black protest against cops killing black men for no reason. LGBTQ agitation for marriage equality is about getting the law to recognize a broader scope of family structures.

By suggesting that advocacy that happens to concern identities as a diversion from urgent soci-economic issues (these are social and economic issues, by the way), you're more or less telling black people to stop being so uppity, and gay people to go back into the closet, in favor of the issues you privilege above others. (Letter from a Birmingham Jail, one of the greatest documents defining what it means to be American, IMO, has a lot to say about the suggestion that protesters should not be so aggressive). Ask a poor black person - does being black or poor matter more to you? You might get a variety of answers on that, but a lot of people are going to say, "Both - and they're related."

The PC/TriggerPhobic/SafeSpace is a problem, but be careful about taking critique of a particular faction of identity advocates too far.

This was the mistake of the so-called Bernie Bros and why BLM activists pushed back on Bernie.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, nor do I even know enough to draw even tentative conclusions. Here in Switzerland, there is certainly a social net, but many still fall through. Recent report indicates that at least 600000 people in a country of 8 million live below the poverty line. This is in one of the wealthiest places in the world. But the majority of the problems are due to the folks simply not coping due to personal and family issues and in many case consequent drug abuse, societal pressures and demands of the system, rather than the actual lack of support.

Maybe we need more love. Maybe modes of being where concern for fellows in a compassionate and supportive way are required to address the problems we face. Procedural protocols only go so far. The state can't mandate that we look at each other and be, for lack of a better word, human, to each other. A support center can only go so far with joyous color schemes; at some point, we just have to care for each other.

We need global action.

Svaha.

[Johnny Dangerous]

On one hand, I sympathize with critiques of the PC/TriggerPhobic/SafeSpace approach to identity. On the other hand, you're dangerously close to dismissing identity issues by conflating them with "identity crisis of urban elites."

They pretty much are. People who are not "urban elites" have a different set of social and economic circumstances to deal with if they are in groups that suffer especially egregious treatment. Beyond that, I think for large number of younger people these days identities can be almost part of an "extended childhood" period of figuring oneself out. I think it's a positive change that people can do it in the open, but pretending it bears any real relationship to the power structures that run our lives, or even the structures that specially effect these groups is questionable. in short, a lot of it is navel-gazing. I know people from across the sexuality/gender/racial spectrums who are working class, they approach it completely differently than the affluent liberals I know, the difference is unmistakable, most liberals with money live in a bubble. This is especially noticeable if you live in an insular area where this culture is the norm. The problem with these politics is not that they are "wrong" about oppression, but that their model quite literally disallows the possibility of political solidarity.

A typical political action from within this milieu is (taking this from real life event near me) a seminar that involves a group of black activists telling their (yes, usually upper class) " white allies" how to be proper "allies". Do you see any real change coming from a model like that? I'm asking honestly, maybe i'm missing something, but I find it baffling.

Urban elites are by and large, white and hetero. Whatever identity crisis they have has to do with their own issues, if anything. I recently read about a sociologist who has called it White Fragility". In progressives, it expresses as an exaggerated concern with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" (Consider - a few black and brown faces sprinkled into a predominantly white crowd is "diversity"; a few white faces in a predominantly black or brown crowd is, "WTF are they doing here?") For conservatives, it expresses as denials of racism and instead masquerades often as "law and order". Either way, the way I see it, most of the identity politics fight is about privileged white people disagreeing vehemently with each other.

I'll agree on that, the biggest fights I've had in meat space over this kind of thing were with affluent white liberals who were shocked that I didn't agree with every last part of their very loud, publicly proclaimed ideology.

If you are black, or brown, or yellow, don't fit conventional norms in terms of sexuality, or otherwise don't fit into the narrow scoped of appearance and behavior, you pretty much don't have a choice but to identify by those traits because you are not allowed, for a single moment, to forget who you are and "your place". BLM is not an urban elite identity crisis. Its a black protest against cops killing black men for no reason. LGBTQ agitation for marriage equality is about getting the law to recognize a broader scope of family structures.

I doubt Dan or I would lend anything but support to this idea, but things on the more vocal, insular parts of the left have really moved away from agitation on actual concrete social issues altogether (such as gay marriage, justice for victims of police etc.) to developing long lists of pronouns, police one anothers talk, etc. It is it's own subculture now, the problem is that many of it's (usually more vocal, younger) members don't realize it is a subculture, and that you cannot get everyone to subscribe to the exact mores of your subculture. Beyond that, if you focus on nothing but these sorts of issues (I live in a town where people do this) you get literally -nothing- done politically because you spend all your time on call-outs within your own community. not only does this get nowhere, it makes for a community of ostensibly "left" people who do not trust each other -at all-. I cannot think of a better way to discourage people from being politically active than an ideology which precludes the possibility of a common cause or struggle.

By suggesting that advocacy that happens to concern identities as a diversion from urgent soci-economic issues (these are social and economic issues, by the way), you're more or less telling black people to stop being so uppity, and gay people to go back into the closet, in favor of the issues you privilege above others. (Letter from a Birmingham Jail, one of the greatest documents defining what it means to be American, IMO, has a lot to say about the suggestion that protesters should not be so aggressive). Ask a poor black person - does being black or poor matter more to you? You might get a variety of answers on that, but a lot of people are going to say, "Both - and they're related."

Naw, that's not what he's saying I don't think. For my part, I think it's really stupid that people can opine for hours on end about these sorts of issues without talking class, since they are all directly pinned to one's economic status. But hey, that is the American Left's political landscape currently, anything to avoid the elephant in the room. The navel gazing has only intensified since Trump took office and the stakes were raised.

This was the mistake of the so-called Bernie Bros and why BLM activists pushed back on Bernie.

BLM has it's own factional fighting and organizational issues, I don't think you can call out "Bernie Bros" as if they are some group that had something to do with Bernie's campaign and use them as evidence that the campaign was strategically wrong somehow. At least here in Washington the BLM spokespeople made absolute fools of themselves in their "criticism" of Bernie, where they could have provided a real, valid critique, they just interrupted a rally and ranted for a while, they did nothing. When you can't put together a coherent critique yourself, or even articulate what you need, the people you are trying to influence are unlikely to listen, it was a mistake on their part. Of course the activists themselves put it down to the "privilege" of the entire crowd, and were unable or unwilling to see the fact that their tactics freaking sucked, and that matters...so I would say as far as bringing the "identity" and "class" sides of the left together, it is both sides that need to make some adjustment.

[Grigoris]

Naw, that's not what he's saying I don't think. For my part, I think it's really stupid that people can opine for hours on end about these sorts of issues without talking class, since they are all directly pinned to one's economic status. But hey, that is the American Left's political landscape currently, anything to avoid the elephant in the room. The navel gazing has only intensified since Trump took office and the stakes were raised.

As far as I am concerned: if it don't talk Class, it ain't Left.

[Kim O'Hara]

As far as I am concerned: if it don't talk Class, it ain't Left.

...and it it ain't Left, it condones oppression.


Kim

[Queequeg]

On one hand, I sympathize with critiques of the PC/TriggerPhobic/SafeSpace approach to identity. On the other hand, you're dangerously close to dismissing identity issues by conflating them with "identity crisis of urban elites."

They pretty much are. People who are not "urban elites" have a different set of social and economic circumstances to deal with if they are in groups that suffer especially egregious treatment. Beyond that, I think for large number of younger people these days identities can be almost part of an "extended childhood" period of figuring oneself out. I think it's a positive change that people can do it in the open, but pretending it bears any real relationship to the power structures that run our lives, or even the structures that specially effect these groups is questionable. in short, a lot of it is navel-gazing. I know people from across the sexuality/gender/racial spectrums who are working class, they approach it completely differently than the affluent liberals I know, the difference is unmistakable, most liberals with money live in a bubble. This is especially noticeable if you live in an insular area where this culture is the norm. The problem with these politics is not that they are "wrong" about oppression, but that their model quite literally disallows the possibility of political solidarity.

A typical political action from within this milieu is (taking this from real life event near me) a seminar that involves a group of black activists telling their (yes, usually upper class) " white allies" how to be proper "allies". Do you see any real change coming from a model like that? I'm asking honestly, maybe i'm missing something, but I find it baffling.

I don't think we see things too differently. I'm not talking about that college campus type of identity politics. That's what I'm referring to by PC/Trigger/Safespace stuff. I don't know if that's urban elite stuff, though I'm sure there is overlap.

There are, however, unique concerns if you are black,if you are brown, yellow, gay, that don't just reduce to economic class. And its not about adolescent navel gazing. A lot of these issues are about real money and power.

Just as an example, a couple years ago, a former cop named Peter Liang, was convicted of manslaughter. Liang is of Chinese decent. What happened is that he was patrolling a stair well in a project. The lights were blown out, so it was dark. Someone came into the stairwell and startled him and Liang's gun went off. The bullet ricochted down the stairwell and struck a black man who died from the injury. If Liang was Italian or Irish or Latin or Black, he would have had a police association protecting him. But Asians who are relatively new in NYC don't have that, or at least one that is organized and has pull. Fortunately for Liang, the judge set aside the jury conviction and reduced the conviction to criminally negligent homicide and sentenced him to 5 years probation which in the scheme of things is probably fair. I firmly believe, the DA pursued charges on him because he's Asian, and Asians don't have the kind of inside power to protect themselves. Those of us who spoke up on this and tried to do something for the guy are not wrestling with Asian identity crises. We see how race plays out in real life, in real power. This is real life. Liang was facing prison, as a cop, and he was being used as a political prop.

Not everything to do with identity is about navel gazing.

I doubt Dan or I would lend anything but support to this idea, but things on the more vocal, insular parts of the left have really moved away from agitation on actual concrete social issues altogether (such as gay marriage, justice for victims of police etc.) to developing long lists of pronouns, police one anothers talk, etc. It is it's own subculture now, the problem is that many of it's (usually more vocal, younger) members don't realize it is a subculture, and that you cannot get everyone to subscribe to the exact mores of your subculture. Beyond that, if you focus on nothing but these sorts of issues (I live in a town where people do this) you get literally -nothing- done politically because you spend all your time on call-outs within your own community. not only does this get nowhere, it makes for a community of ostensibly "left" people who do not trust each other -at all-. I cannot think of a better way to discourage people from being politically active than an ideology which precludes the possibility of a common cause or struggle.

No arguments out of me. We aint got time for that shit. But not all advocacy that involves identity is this. That's my point. Some of this is real, and needs to be dealt with, now, not at some future time when we finally have an economically more just society. We can do both. And we'll do both with a full court press. Just don't tell me to just be quiet about issues that affect me as a non-white person so that we can focus everything on economic issues - that tells me, you don't get it.

Naw, that's not what he's saying I don't think. For my part, I think it's really stupid that people can opine for hours on end about these sorts of issues without talking class, since they are all directly pinned to one's economic status. But hey, that is the American Left's political landscape currently, anything to avoid the elephant in the room. The navel gazing has only intensified since Trump took office and the stakes were raised.

I didn't say he was. The sentiment cuts it close, and sometimes goes overboard.

Bernie, when he was pressed on why he wasn't more vocal about issues like BLM, basically said what Dan suggests - economic issues affect everyone and action on these issues is immediately needed - as though action on these other issues are not. That's fine, but, and he well knew, he was going to get blow back for taking that stance. To his credit, he stood his ground, though he has come around and has made efforts to connect with black advocates.

I'm not expecting people to get on board with every issue that affect this group or that. You don't need to cover your prius in bumper stickers for every cause. Have your causes. I'll have mine. When our interests come together, let's work together. When they don't and we otherwise don't conflict, don't tell me to subordinate interests that affect me to advance one agenda or another that you think is most important. I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just going say, "thanks for your input. " and keep doing what I need to do.

Not everyone concerned with issues that relate to identity is whiny a little bitch trying to figure out who they are.

[Malcolm]

As far as I am concerned: if it don't talk Class, it ain't Left.

...and it it ain't Left, it condones oppression.


Kim

This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

[MiphamFan]

What reason would the working class in America have to identify with e.g. the Bangladeshi or Honduran working class?

Sympathizing with their plight, sure. But identifying with them is a completely different matter, not least to say supporting them at the expense of their own interests (by things such as outsourcing and unrestricted immigration).

The Marxist argument for open borders and immigration is purely an accelerationist scenario which leads to a quicker collapse of capitalism, but even they acknowledge that it would cause suffering in the interim. Engels himself said this, I remember quoting him somewhere here. He defended the idea of protectionism to build up one's own industrial base against a capitalist touting "free trade".

Social democracy, which is not even Marxism, cannot work without clearly defined borders, whether it's a municipiality or a nation-state

[Malcolm]

The Marxist argument for open borders and immigration...

Social democracy, which is not even Marxism, cannot work without clearly defined borders, whether it's a municipiality or a nation-state

Actually, it’s capitalism that wont be confined within borders and national identities. Rightly so. At tremendous expense to our ecosystem, less humans, percentage wise, live in abject poverty today than when I was born in 1962. No form of Marxist socialist economic could have accomplished this. In fact, most of the beneficiaries of modern capitalist development are in formerly communist countries.

[MiphamFan]

The Marxist argument for open borders and immigration...

Social democracy, which is not even Marxism, cannot work without clearly defined borders, whether it's a municipiality or a nation-state

Actually, it’s capitalism that wont be confined within borders and national identities. Rightly so. At tremendous expense to our ecosystem, less humans, percentage wise, live in abject poverty today than when I was born in 1962. No form of Marxist socialist economic could have accomplished this. In fact, most of the beneficiaries of modern capitalist development are in formerly communist countries.

Yes, that's part of Marx's economic argument. Capital constantly seeks new markets and will expand as far as it can, in doing so it lowers the price of goods for consumers and benefits them unintentionally. But it will eventually run into diminishing returns, resulting in a falling rate of profit and eventually be unable to expand further, which in Marxian theory results in communism.

[Malcolm]

The Marxist argument for open borders and immigration...

Social democracy, which is not even Marxism, cannot work without clearly defined borders, whether it's a municipiality or a nation-state

Actually, it’s capitalism that wont be confined within borders and national identities. Rightly so. At tremendous expense to our ecosystem, less humans, percentage wise, live in abject poverty today than when I was born in 1962. No form of Marxist socialist economic could have accomplished this. In fact, most of the beneficiaries of modern capitalist development are in formerly communist countries.

Yes, that's part of Marx's economic argument. Capital constantly seeks new markets and will expand as far as it can, in doing so it lowers the price of goods for consumers and benefits them unintentionally. But it will eventually run into diminishing returns, resulting in a falling rate of profit and eventually be unable to expand further, which in Marxian theory results in communism.

I know. Marx”s description is correct, his prescription for capitalism entirely wrong, since all Marxist movements degenerate into nationalisms and ruined economies. Why? People always choose tribes over class. The market, however, is the one place where people are able to exercise influence irrespective of class or tribe, where the movement of capital by design is not impeded by protectionist policies, which are never effective.

[Kim O'Hara]

As far as I am concerned: if it don't talk Class, it ain't Left.

...and it it ain't Left, it condones oppression.


Kim

This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

Gee, thanks. Nicest thing anyone has said to me for weeks.

For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

Where's the strawman smiley gone? I need it!
Seriously, once upon a time conservatism was reasonable enough, compassionate enough, for my comment to have been unfair. Not any longer - or not in the US or Australia, at least, where conservatism has been hijacked by the neoliberals and the loony right.
But I suspect that's a topic for another thread.


Kim

[Malcolm]

...and it it ain't Left, it condones oppression.


Kim

This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

Gee, thanks. Nicest thing anyone has said to me for weeks.

For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

Where's the strawman smiley gone? I need it!
Seriously, once upon a time conservatism was reasonable enough, compassionate enough, for my comment to have been unfair. Not any longer - or not in the US or Australia, at least, where conservatism has been hijacked by the neoliberals and the loony right.
But I suspect that's a topic for another thread.


Kim

I am not a conservative, however, the so-called “conservatives” of today have abandoned even a thread of pretense which connects them to the actual meaning of the word.

[Quay]

... People always choose tribes over class. The market, however, is the one place where people are able to exercise influence irrespective of class or tribe, where the movement of capital by design is not impeded by protectionist policies, which are never effective.

You shoot down your own assertion that people always choose tribes over class with that last sentence. The extremely wealthy have deliberately chosen class over tribes because they do indeed exercise influence over the markets and can move capital wherever they like irrespective of tribes. Just look at the gatherings in Davos or the guest list at any ultra-exclusive resorts of the world. One can even look at European aristocracy over the last five or six centuries and see the trend of crown embracing crown irregardless of who they were before they acquired them.

Having said that it is also true that people without economic mobility will usually choose tribe over class. One of those odd things that makes Marxism a one-size-fails-all kind of solution.

[Malcolm]

... People always choose tribes over class. The market, however, is the one place where people are able to exercise influence irrespective of class or tribe, where the movement of capital by design is not impeded by protectionist policies, which are never effective.

You shoot down your own assertion that people always choose tribes over class with that last sentence. The extremely wealthy have deliberately chosen class over tribes because they do indeed exercise influence over the markets and can move capital wherever they like irrespective of tribes. Just look at the gatherings in Davos or the guest list at any ultra-exclusive resorts of the world. One can even look at European aristocracy over the last five or six centuries and see the trend of crown embracing crown irregardless of who they were before they acquired them.

Having said that it is also true that people without economic mobility will usually choose tribe over class. One of those odd things that makes Marxism a one-size-fails-all kind of solution.

No, the market does not care what tribe or class to which one claims allegiance. It has no feelings. It doesn't care about anything. It will, as a quasi-organism, always seek to expand to the limits of whatever growth is possible.

The ultra wealthy are not proper class, and often, if not always, move against each other. They are different than the aristocracy, not bound by tribe and family. Sure, they can influence the markets, but it is usually in their best interest not to mess with the markets.

[Grigoris]

This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution.

[Queequeg]

This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution.

Not sure if bourgeois is the right word. It was primarily led by white, male stakeholders, urban and rural. It is correct to point out that women were generally limited to supporting roles, as was the culture of the time, and blacks or native Americans, if they were involved, were incidental.

[LoveFromColorado]

This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution.

Not sure if bourgeois is the right word. It was primarily led by white, male stakeholders, urban and rural. It is correct to point out that women were generally limited to supporting roles, as was the culture of the time, and blacks or native Americans, if they were involved, were incidental.

Isn't "white, male stakeholders" the very definition of bourgeois?

Digressing slightly, I think it would be a good first step in our current environment to do away with categories of "liberal" and "conservative", "left" and "right". The uber-elites of today (regardless of their self-categorization of "left" or "right") have done a good job in the West of dividing the population into such tribes and divisions where previously (and naturally) none existed, at least by that definition.

I think a first step towards social healing would be to dissolve these manufactured categorical divisions that are artificially taught and are radically different from their historical meanings (well, that and automating all of the food and medical industries so that people do not have to work for survival any longer but that's typically not the most popular idea... yet)

[LoveFromColorado]

The ultra wealthy are not proper class, and often, if not always, move against each other. They are different than the aristocracy, not bound by tribe and family.

I agree. When you are liberated from the masses via wealth, your interests are (often) no longer about class. You are interested in self-preservation of that financial liberation regardless of the cost (with some exceptions abiding, of course).

I think most people tend to think that they would somehow be "different" but I think that would shortly change once they are gifted a billion dollars. If one is not generous when one has little then that fact likely won't change when one has abundance. Money does not produce character and right living.