No, America Will Not Be Canceled

In which Tyler Cowen makes points I've tried to make in the past, only much more coherently and eloquently:

I am sitting in the car outside the doctor's office, waiting for my wife's appointment to end, reading my book. A quote:

https://quillette.com/2020/08/16/the...ge-of-marxism/

I found this article a very interesting synopsis of the tension between liberalism (which includes liberal and conservative political philosphies) and Marxism in the context of 2020 United States; where at the end the author prognosticates one of two outcomes will happen:

1). Either the Marxists will win and we will end up a 1 party totalitarian state
2). Liberals and conservatives (who are both actually liberals in the ideological sense) will have to join forces against the Marxists, and re-affirm our conservative democratic traditions that recognize there is such a thing as a legitimate opposing viewpoint.

We obviously can't have the working class talking about class.

Also, it's functionally not just a synonym or euphemism, because it's implied that an increase in income increases "socioeconomic status" but it obviously doesn't affect whether you're getting paid for your labor less than what it's worth or you're getting paid to own stuff and profit off other people's labor.

I really like that analogy.

seems like a false dichotomy to me

what makes those the only 2 possibilities?

Because everyone who thinks that Trump and his supporters are scum is a Marxist and hates freedom and democracy, amirite?

I would just repeat my earlier criticism of this labeling, while accepting that there are a few points of similarity. The people the author has in mind are radical, revolutionaries even. At least some. Not that you have to have radical politics to believe in the need for police reform. But in any case not all revolutionaries are Marxist.

I have some sympathies with more radical political views on the left (and many disagreements), but I am very skeptical of them taking over the Democratic party. I'm not too impressed by with the analysis.

The article isn't that long, and the author articulates his position much better than I ever could. So if you were that curious it would probably be best to just read the article. I could probably also find pertinent sections to copy-paste like WN does.

Anyways, I actually had the same thought the author was discounting the possibility of a conservative 1 party totalitarian state emerging.

Anyways, the part of the augment I found most interesting is that the author contends that democracy requires a political ethos that competing viewpoints are valid.

And Marxist political philosophies, including modern day progressivism, do not accept this premise. So therefor democracy is not really compatible with progressivism.

It might interest you to learn that this is commonly called "fascism".

Not just opposing viewpoints, but identities, I would say. Pluralism. Maybe you might say that the right is too intolerant of the latter and some on the left overzealous about the former.

But as far as social norms about speech, Cowen's point about perspective is important, imo.

I would guess the larger, related problem is social solidarity. That's really the function of pluralistic values here. The notion that there's some larger commitment that binds us together and transcends our differences. Liberal ideals being one example of how that could work, as a kind of civil religion, so to speak.

My view is that the cultural problem has been much worse on the right over the last 20 years, if we're talking about rejecting ones opponents as illegitimate. In the Trump era, some parts of the left are catching up, a bit.

this is nonsense

the left is full of competing viewpoints

are no viewpoints invalid?

are all viewpoints equally valid?

doesn't how a viewpoint conforms to facts and logic affect its validity?

I would say no/no/yes to those questions

and even if we agree about how things are, there are going to be disagreements about how good or bad that is and how things should be

and even if we agree on how things are and how we want them to be, there are going to be disagreements on how to get there from here

so show me some evidence to support this claim that a leftist or progressive viewpoint is incompatible with disagreements

It seems the common thing you hear is that the problem with our society is that it isn't democratic enough, and Trump is a manifestation of this. However, I kind of see it as the opposite. Trumps are what happen when a liberal society becomes too democratic, and the people have too much voice.

I think the real truism might be that liberalism and true democracy are what is not compatible. You may always need a "liberal elite" buffer who are committed to liberal values in a way the public never will be.

The elites of the Republican Party clearly didn't want Trump to be President, and actively opposed it; but they didn't have the power to stop it. Most people recognize Fox News as a mechanism that turned the right down a dark path. It seems to me this is true, but not for the reasons given. It seems what Fox News accomplished was bypassing the liberal elite class and speak directly to the people and force non-liberal values.

I see leftist social media today accomplishing some of the same things, with the same results.

I agree that liberalism and democracy are not compatible

Well, the real argument is that the Marxist viewpoint is incompatible with disagreements. There really isn't a plan B other than the proletariats overthrowing their capitalist slavers and ending inequality.

I am not sure this is even a particularly controversial take. So I guess where there may be disagreement is whether progressivism in 2020 is a true Marxist movement.

how are feudalism and slavery different from capitalism here?

isn't opposition to slavery incompatible with opposing viewpoints?

isn't opposition to the divine right of kings incompatible with opposing viewpoints?

isn't opposition to abortion incompatible with opposing viewpoints?

isn't hating ketchup incompatible with opposing viewpoints?

I don't think that the problem is "not enough democracy" but I also doubt that the problem is really that we have too much democracy, either. It seems to me like focusing on a symptom expressed via the political system (populist voting) instead of the actual root causes (cultural fragmentation and antipathy between groups, other social problems...). Reducing the power of popular political movements isn't necessarily going to make them go away. Also, seems like a strange tick for someone who is often skeptical of elite influences in politics. :P

Unrelated, I think you always end up focusing on the excesses of the left, but you seem not to notice so much the excesses of the right along similar lines, which I think are further developed. Maybe it's just because of where you live. Remember when the 2012 RNC recommended immigration reform out of concern for alienating hispanic Americans? Remember moderate Republicans (I mean RINOs)? If you can say that the current American right is not ideologically intolerant it's only to the extent that it's true that Trumpism is more about identity than ideology. But both among the electorate and in positions of power I think the GOP has become much less ideologically diverse. My other point is that on the right it's not only a vocal movement of people mostly separated from the levers of power. Trump is president, and his ascendancy within the GOP is pretty complete.

Meanwhile the Democrats nominated Joe Biden. It's certainly true that parts of the culture of the left are more important and dominant now than in the past, as exemplified in social movements like #metoo and BLM. Of course I think there are good reasons to support those movements, without necessarily having to endorse the most radical political views of some members of either movement, or every excess of so-called "cancel culture". But the point here is just that they actually enjoy far less power than you seem to think. Consider the fate of police reform bills in California, for example. Hence my skepticism about this argument that the left is going to become such a powerful force that the GOP and Democrats must team up to fight off a Marxist revolution. That sounds like fan fiction to me.

the left has no political power in this country

the idea of an impending marxist revolution is absurd

I am guessing this is something that happens everyone, so it is not California specific. But it does seem to be a thing here that when you actually read bills (including all the pork) the truth of what the bill is actually about is often very different than what the proponents of the bill or their media mouthpieces convey.

So without looking at the actual text of the bills, I am very hesitant to say the repudiation of those reform bills is an indication California is resistant to police reform.

It could be the bills just aren't very good, and have provisions that go way beyond reasonable policies reform, and repudiating them is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not saying that repudiating them isn't reasonable (I don't know), I'm saying that the people you are worried about couldn't get them passed in state where supposedly they enjoy the most power and influence. It's a way of measuring their power, not the quality of the bills they support.

the people overwhelmingly support medicare for all and legalizing marijuana

I don't know what the prevailing opinion on police reform is but even if 80% of americans wanted to abolish the police, it wouldn't happen because the police are the enforcement arm of the ruling class

A false dichotomy where one of the options is totally nuts.

rename thread to POG Politics

_one_ of the options?

it's your thread

if you want to encourage or discourage certain topics or cenversations, I'll respect it

or if you're down for this being another POG politics, you can invite birdman

Barack Obama is a Muslim not born in the US was a widespread and common view on the right. What the opponents of cancel culture fail to do is treat it properly in the milieu of modern discourse. It's simply one of many ideas that are given platforms today that many people think don't deserve one. They can't of course do something so obvious because it undercuts their preconceived, data independent thesis that cancel culture is somehow a unique threat. When the reality is it's now so easy to spread fringe or unpopular views that many(9/11 truth, birtherism, antivax etc) end up becoming popular !!