Love that The Orville made this song into intergalactic rally music.
Edit: if you like your sanity just stop reading now.
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
302 points (92.9% liked)
Leftism
2184 readers
38 users here now
Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!
Rules:
- Absolutely no fascism, right wing extremism, genocide denial, etc.
- Unconditional support of authoritarians will not be tolerated
- Good faith discussion about ideologies is encouraged, but no sectarianism
- No brocialism/sexism
- No ableism
- No TERFs/ anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric
- No racism
- No trolling
- No insults, dunking, or personal attacks
- No posting of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news
- Mods have final say
Posting Expectations:
- Comics/memes/shitposts/propaganda are only allowed on weekends
- Try to avoid liberalism unless discussing electoral politics. Even then, try to focus on tactical agreement towards leftist goals
- Only one meta post seeking consensus per person per day
- Posts about a particular ideology are ok, but remember the rules above
- Remember that there is no “right way” to implement leftist theory. This rule does not prevent academic criticism.
- Try to avoid extremely sensitive topics unless approaching them with appropriate care for intersectionality. Use your best judgement, and be prepared to provide respectable sources when having these discussions. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source in these cases.
- Post titles must be meaningful and relevant, except on weekends
Sister Communities:
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Solarpunk memes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Broadly, of course, the entire genre is no place for advancing class consciousness.
The cultural frame depicted within the overall genre, for example, as based on Star Trek following TNG, has been in many ways serving as an endorsement for the cultural ideals, especially for personal happiness and individual status, promulgated under neoliberalism.
I would wish for humanity passing beyond the current phase of culture in advanced countries, from the last several decades, of everyone constantly chasing the end of the rainbow, of seeking ever greater fulfillment from romantic partnership, and status from occupational advancement.
I don't know if I would describe a post capital society as neoliberal, if anything it's unironically anarcho-communist, with money only being introduced as a concept outside the federation. In addition, I would consider a depiction of an egalitarian, capital free society being one of the most advanced and humanitarian groups as a great vehicle for class consciousness.
Tho, I guess when a Tankie sees a society free from capital, they must think it neoliberal because they don't have a fascist vanguardist party controlling all capital.
No part or facet of your response has any relation to the substance of my comment.
Then you should really read up on some earlier communist literature to try and understand why the phrase "endorsement of neoliberal social relationships" in relationship to Star Trek is just plain stupid in any social framework, especially a post liberal left understanding.
I would try to address a substantive contribution to discussion.
I will not deconstruct your Gish gallop, straw man attacks, quote mining, ad-hominem attacks or assumptions, or other poisoning of the well.
Perhaps read again, from beginning to end, and then try to engage my remarks on their merits and in good faith, instead of building your own narrative after anchoring to few particular words.
you make assumptions about the structure and reason for relationships and work, on the relationship front, your statement makes absolutely no sense due to the very real lack of relationship between your point and political ideologies.
On the work front, you quite literally ignore any and all left philosophical musings that are post liberalism, as many if not all argue that work IS needed for a fulfilling life, Marx for example, argued the optimization, monotony, and exploitativness of the modern workplace has led to the alienation of labor, and a free society should allow people to work in many different fields of interest for, (you guessed it) greater fulfillment.
and THEN you went and tried to box this whole thing into an argument about class consciousness via cultural framing, and this is as wrong as you can be, this is why I recommended you read some more of the earlier literature, because it goes into things like the philosophical thought behind all this stuff, along with the analysis of material conditions and so on.
Sorry, but you have again provided a Gish gallop unrelated to the substance of my comment.
First you ranted about anarchism, money, and vanguardism, and now about labor alienation.
I specifically criticized the normalization of particular cultural constructs, such serial monogamy and career trajectory, that have become dominant under neoliberalism.
Did I assert an expectation for money to remain in the distant future?
Did I suggest that no one seeks meaning from productive activity?
No and no.
Did I ever "describe a post capital society as neoliberal"?
Big fat fucking "No!"
It is not worthwhile for me to unpack any more deeply.
Perhaps you enjoy pontification and pedantry, but you seem uninterested in discussing or engaging in good faith.
but you seem uninterested in discussing or engaging in good faith.
what exactly are you on about? you not understanding what liberalism, neoliberalism, class consciousness etc.. actually mean is not me arguing in bad faith, I told you SEVERAL times that they clearly don't mean what you think they mean and that you should read up on the subject mater.
and I'm sorry, but monogamy and career advancement isn't an exclusive to neoliberalism (you really think that only happened post thatcher?) and ironically in a communist system career advancement is still a thing.
you not understanding what liberalism, neoliberalism, class consciousness etc… actually mean is not me arguing in bad faith, I told you SEVERAL times that they clearly don’t mean what you think
What do I think they mean?
it doesn't matter what you think it means, in the same way you believing an elephant is something other than a large quadrupedal mammal with large ears and a long prehensile nose. so if you are talking about elephants and then talking about the effectivity of their claws and the hunting territory they maintain via markings on trees, it could be one of many other animals, but not an elephant. I don't need to start guessing at whatever animal you have miss identified as an elephant, to tell you it isn't an elephant.
concepts like long term monogamy or the idea of a career arn't inherently part of Liberalism nor neoliberalism, and only the career part tangentially part of class consciousness
You affirmed a belief of my not knowing the meanings of certain terms.
If you gave such an assertion, and did so in good faith, then you should be able to give an explanation of how I am understanding the terms.
Arguably, you should have sought more information before anchoring to such an narrow conclusion.
What has been your motive in responding to my comment?
Is your motive closer to an interest in broadening perspective and comprehension, or is it rather closer to an impulse for fostering discord and division?
You affirmed a belief of my not knowing the meanings of certain terms.
because you show that you don't know what they mean
If you gave such an assertion, and did so in good faith, then you should be able to give an explanation of how I am understanding the terms. Arguably, you should have sought more information before anchoring to such an narrow conclusion.
this is complete bullshit, and utterly disingenuous on your part, acting as if I have to construct your entire moral, political, social and economic system to tell you that you are fundamentally wrong, in something that you are demonstratively wrong on.
What has been your motive in responding to my comment?
calling out someone pulling a leftist cargo cult, because that generally harms the left by spreading misinformation and the idea that the left is the uninformed teens that the right paints us as.
Is your motive closer to an interest in broadening perspective and comprehension, or is it rather closer to an impulse for fostering discord and division?
don't you have a crystal chakra realignment to get to? because this sounds like "spirit science".
Based on your own enlightened, non-"cargo cult" understanding, from the books or other sources you would feel most inclined to recommend, how would you summarize the essential transitions in cultural ideals, respecting personal relationships and values, during neoliberalism?
The defining difference between liberalism and neoliberalism is the expansion of a focus on the economics, mainly adapting and building on some of the differences between the east and west block during the fall of USSR, there fundamentally wasn't a change in cultural ideals, personal relationships and values in comparison to its predecessors.
When did neoliberalism begin, according to your understanding?
the school of neoliberal ideology only came into inception post WW2, and didn't catch on until the thatcher and Regan era, and only actually gained much power after the collapse of the USSR, in part because it purported to explain the collapse of the USSR
Other than Reagan and Thatcher rising to highest office, which political or economic events would you identify as most significant for the transition from the period of embedded liberalism to neoliberalism?
unironic question, did you even read my last comment? no? let me repeat it:
the school of neoliberal ideology only came into inception post WW2, and didn’t catch on until the thatcher and Regan era, and only actually gained much power after the collapse of the USSR, in part because it purported to explain the collapse of the USSR
this help?
The removal of the US Dollar from the gold standard, and the Chilean coup d'état led by Augusto Pinochet, both occurred in the Seventies.
Do you associate either event with the transition from the period of embedded liberalism to neoliberalism?
no, because they quite frankly don't have much to do with the transition from liberalism to Neoliberalism.
But if you never actually looked into these ideologies and other philosophical frameworks of the time a shitty tankie can convince you they are all inherently tied together, unironically the Pinochet coup support was due to the prevailing idea of realpolitik that Neoliberalism ironically replaced (spheres of influence vs. globalized markets), and the abolishment of the gold standard happened during the Nixon administration and the prevailing economic theory at that time was various forms of NCS.
honestly, you should REALLY start actually reading into the philosophies themselves and not whatever collection of libertarian/tankie sources you get your information from.
We can try another.
The privatization of national industries under Thatcher, and the firing of striking air-traffic controllers under Reagan, both occurred in the Eighties.
Do you associate either event with the transition from the period of embedded liberalism to neoliberalism?
unironically, can you not read?
the school of neoliberal ideology only came into inception post WW2, and didn’t catch on until the thatcher and Regan era, and only actually gained much power after the collapse of the USSR, in part because it purported to explain the collapse of the USSR
what's next, you are going to ask about when the ideology was first devised? I get it you have an aversion to reading, but maybe you should try more of it
Are you able to name or to describe any important individuals, groups, events, policies, or ideas, related to neoliberalism, in any more detail than simply repeating the same sentence?
I'm not your teacher, I have told you often to go read up on this stuff yourself.
also, your own inability to read isn't cause for me to further lecture you
I'm asking nicely as a mod in this situation to please provide a source for mutual understanding. The very origin of this argument seems to stem from the operative word "promulgated", which means "to make known to the public; popularize or advocate". This, to me, means that you're both on the same side arguing semantics. I'm not picking sides here, I generally agree with your description on the origins of neoliberalism, however I think a source on neoliberalism would go a long way in reaching an understanding.
If you insist someone else is wrong, then you should be able to provide an explanation more useful and more verifiable than some nebulous and meaningless word salad.
You should also be able to give such an explanation without ranting insults, or forming every sentence centered around the word "ironically", or constantly lamenting of some imagined infiltration by "tankies".
It is rather alarming that someone who has been so hotheaded, cocky, and brazen, about the subject of neoliberism, would not understand that the gold standard was a central policy under the Bretton Woods system, which codified the core tenants of embedded liberalism, the period preceding neoliberalism.
It is also alarming that someone would not understand how the Pinochet regime was formally based on neoliberal policies and ideals, as expressed by the "Chicago boys", who were central to the coup being backed by the US.
I even gift wrapped privatization and strike busting, but all you could do was fall back on your shtick about the Soviet Union.
The Cold War and its end obviously shaped all of geopolitics during the relevant periods. Being unable to give any more particular explanation of neoliberalism reveals unequivocally how much you are full of shit.
Bretton woods wasn't liberalism, in fact its base tenets of government responsibility is fundamentally anti-liberalism/anti-neolib, the abolishment of the gold standard also had nothing to do with neoliberal anything (ironically Neo-Liberals prefer the gold standard back)
the Pinochet regime was not based on neoliberal policies, not everything that is anti-communist post 1945 is neoliberal, Pinochet's regime was what we would call "fascist", now as any good fascist the ideology in incoherent but due to strong ties between state and capital they would enact some policy from the neoliberal playbooks while also claiming to be as such, but that's as credible as the "socialist" dictators in Africa, just that instead of courting the soviets, they were courting the Americans.
as for the "gift wrapped privatization and strike busting" I believe I mentioned Thatcher and Regan, or do you think I use names like the English name eras like the "Victorian period"? no, I specifically mentioned them because they did this stuff.
as a side note, I don't care much for liberal civility politics, so I will gladly call you out for an inability to actually think about the choice of words, and understand why you may be somewhat intimidated by reading up on the philosophical literature regrading these things Mr."monogamous fulfilling relationships are a product of neoliberalism". It is hilarious how you seem to have actually had a cursory read up on neoliberalism, even if you clearly didn't understand it completely
You think the policies under Bretton Woods were not liberal.
You are so full of shit.
The only accurate statement I found in all of your comments is that Star Trek depicts a moneyless society. You're right. It does. Nicely done.
You are a hotheaded buffoon.
You think the policies under Bretton Woods were not liberal.
The Bretton Woods economic philosophy strongly advocated for Keynesian style government interventions in currency and international trade, this puts it strongly at odds with Liberalism, one of who's central pillars is that the government should not interfere in economics
The period of such policies, developed under Bretton Woods, is called the period of embedded liberalism, as I mentioned several times.
Embedded liberalism is the name scholars give to the postwar period, between the periods of classical liberalism and of neoliberalism.
You contribute nothing except noise.
Star Trek has no money. That means I'm smart and everyone else is a tankie.
Sure Embedded Liberalism was the point of the ideology between liberalism and neoliberalism, but just because it existed as a concept doesn't mean that it was what was enacted, Bretton Woods wasn't Embedded Liberalism.
by that logic, was imperial Germany socialist/communist?
also, I call you a tankie because you used neoliberal as a catchall terms describing all things you view as wrong with society, and that seems to always play out that those who see neoliberalism as the existential boogieman end up being tankies.
I asserted that the period preceding neoliberalism is called embedded liberalism.
It is.
Yet, you insisted on objecting anyway.
It's fine though; you don't need to agree.
If someone offers an idea that you fail to comprehend, or mentions discourse outside your knowledge, then you can always fall back on name calling.
You act as if all political thought has ever been a serial affair.
I'm not objecting to the fact that in the paradigm of liberal thought embedded liberalism came between liberalism and neoliberalism, BUT there is economic theory outside Liberalism, and Keynesian economics is outside of liberalism, and liberalism was not always the driving political force enacted by the US government. The Bretton Woods era was one of these times that the American government did not follow the liberal politics
I asserted that the period preceding neoliberalism is called embedded liberalism.
You insisted on objecting, repeatedly.
You only conceded after I submitted a comment containing the assertion but otherwise tailored to an absolute minimum, omitting any content that you might seize as yet another opportunity to label me as a tankie, a liberal, or an ignoramus.
You could only concede that I had given an accurate assertion by being embarrassed for having denied it.
Throughout the entirety of the conversation, you have clung to two overarching convictions...
- You are more insightful and informed.
- Any contribution you find disagreeable is impermissible.
Yet, you have contributed nothing yourself.
You are just a buffoon who has nothing to say except that everyone else is always wrong, whatever anyone does say.
ya, I'm going to object when it's wrong, asserting that Bretton Woods is Embedded Liberalism because it came between the Era of Liberalism and Neoliberalism is just fundamentally unsound, what parts of Bretton Woods were Liberal? because I have clearly articulated that the government intervention requirements in Bretton Woods are antithetical to Liberalism.
Listen, clown, I am not going to delve into your weird hangup that no one should be allowed to use the term liberalism to describe any conditions or system except ones that resemble, to your particular satisfaction of purity, the tenets of classical liberalism.
Embedded liberalism is the name given to the system of the postwar period, following the period of classical liberalism, which collapsed during the Depression, and followed by the period of neoliberalism.
The policies of the period were, as you indicated, based on proposals largely attributed Keynes, and included facets such as regulation, welfare, and stimulus, not strongly represented in classical liberalism. Yet, Keynes was liberal, and Keysian economics is a variant of liberal economics. Keynes was also a leading figure in the Bretton Woods agreement.
The agreement was core to the policy of the ensuing period, which is called embedded liberalism.
If you have grievances with the standard terminology or scholarly consensus, then please channel your animus toward an appropriate target.
Now, if you insist on being too arrogant and too dogmatic to engage the conversation constructively, then please simply refrain from responding.
Also, stop hurling dismissive labels whenever you encounter an opinion or observation that challenges your own insulated doctrine.
Ah yes, they need to invent some form of future society no one has seen or invisioned yet. Only then can they make a televisions show worth watching.
There is validity and usefulness in criticizing how cultural ideals are promulgated through media.
The subject may not interest you, but such criticisms have been valid and useful. Their intention is not that they target the choices of those who created particular works, but rather to describe the social systems that function to protect prevailing cultural ideals within a period and locale.
To make the matter plain, you might notice how personal relationships and values changed as depicted in Star Trek TOS versus TNG, in tandem with the time periods when the series were created.
Again, though, the criticism is not strongly related to the idea that the creators need to invent some form of future society no one has seen or invisioned [sic] yet".
In fact, the future setting of the particular genre is incidental. Media often represents conditions following ideals more than facts.