Utopianism and idealism have long plagued the left, as Marx and Engels pointed out a century and a half ago. But these days, the leftists are tilting at wind...
This is actually quite good; addresses the western left's obsession with purity and martyrdom without producing a single useful result.
I really don't think this is true. Take the people here for example; people bring up all the time they hate the hiring process, they hate the feeling of isolation going to jobs where there are no other leftist. These are things are are addressable without hurting anyone outside of the bosses. Organization can game the hiring process, it can coordinate so you are more likely to get hired on at the same time as other leftist, it can eventually put a leftist in charge of the hiring process and give you an in. From there you can seed the ground for a union, etc.
I just look around and I really don't think the material needs most people have are at the imperial plunder level. The very grandiose stuff I feel like is people searching for a psychological balm to deal with the state of the world when steady work with people who are already ideological allies would serve that need better.
I largely agree, but the fact remains that many movements do address these things, and they still aren't particularly more successful. A lot of it is a matter of material conditions, plus brutal government repression.
And the fact is, also, that so much of the US economy is made of global south plunder that it's basically a guarantee a huge amount of the working class does benefit from it in some way.
I just look around and I really don’t think the material needs most people have are at the imperial plunder level.
I agree completely and I think arguments concerning labor aristocracy too often are used for the same sort of moralizing that the video talks about, which leads to an incomplete view of how imperialism impacts workers in the imperial core. For example, two of the biggest issues for the working class in the US are healthcare and housing. If countries like Cuba and DPRK can solve these issues while dealing with attempts by the US to starve them out, I highly doubt that an end to imperialism would prevent the US (or whatever comes after) from solving these issues as well. In fact, given the massive amounts of money and resources given to waging wars across the globe, ending imperialism might make solving these problems even easier.
Even among higher paid professionals, for the reasons you point out, there is great dissatisfaction with various aspects of capitalism that can be addressed without relying on imperialism. I do think access to many cheap consumer electronics, gasoline, meat, and other goods would be impacted, but I'm not sure that would be enough of a detriment to dissuade people from supporting an end to capitalism if ending it can solve those larger problems. Seems like it would be much more productive to win people over by addressing those material conditions that can be effectively addressed without harming workers elsewhere.
Maybe I'm missing something though, and I'd be open to hear other opinions about this.
So while they can see the issues as you’ve described them, they won’t breath life into your movement but sap away its energy for their own interests.
Is this based on real present day material conditions, or is it a hypothetical based on historical examples? While I don't think we should ignore those examples, it's also important to recognize that things may have changed, and groups that may have previously been part of a prosperous middle class no longer feel as happy and secure as they once did. I'm not saying we should feel especially sorry for them or focus on them at the expense of groups who have it much worse, but I just think it's not productive to ignore them completely or even brand them an enemy.
The lifeblood of historical communism was in unskilled labor, poc, migrant workers, and the rural poor who were the most effective organizers.
I don't disagree with this and it makes sense that more activity would happen where the need is the greatest. However, I do think that it can be problematic when folks on the left see this solely through the lens of moral alignment, as it would tend to lean toward a poverty fetish and "white savior" type mindset where people are primarily concerned only with having the morally correct position. This sort of thing seems somewhat common across the western left, especially online.
access to many cheap consumer electronics, gasoline, meat, and other goods would be impacted, but I’m not sure that would be enough of a detriment to dissuade people from supporting an end to capitalism
Loss aversion is a big motivation in normal human psychology, forget about Burger Country lunatics
I really don't think this is true. Take the people here for example; people bring up all the time they hate the hiring process, they hate the feeling of isolation going to jobs where there are no other leftist. These are things are are addressable without hurting anyone outside of the bosses. Organization can game the hiring process, it can coordinate so you are more likely to get hired on at the same time as other leftist, it can eventually put a leftist in charge of the hiring process and give you an in. From there you can seed the ground for a union, etc.
I just look around and I really don't think the material needs most people have are at the imperial plunder level. The very grandiose stuff I feel like is people searching for a psychological balm to deal with the state of the world when steady work with people who are already ideological allies would serve that need better.
I largely agree, but the fact remains that many movements do address these things, and they still aren't particularly more successful. A lot of it is a matter of material conditions, plus brutal government repression.
And the fact is, also, that so much of the US economy is made of global south plunder that it's basically a guarantee a huge amount of the working class does benefit from it in some way.
I agree completely and I think arguments concerning labor aristocracy too often are used for the same sort of moralizing that the video talks about, which leads to an incomplete view of how imperialism impacts workers in the imperial core. For example, two of the biggest issues for the working class in the US are healthcare and housing. If countries like Cuba and DPRK can solve these issues while dealing with attempts by the US to starve them out, I highly doubt that an end to imperialism would prevent the US (or whatever comes after) from solving these issues as well. In fact, given the massive amounts of money and resources given to waging wars across the globe, ending imperialism might make solving these problems even easier.
Even among higher paid professionals, for the reasons you point out, there is great dissatisfaction with various aspects of capitalism that can be addressed without relying on imperialism. I do think access to many cheap consumer electronics, gasoline, meat, and other goods would be impacted, but I'm not sure that would be enough of a detriment to dissuade people from supporting an end to capitalism if ending it can solve those larger problems. Seems like it would be much more productive to win people over by addressing those material conditions that can be effectively addressed without harming workers elsewhere.
Maybe I'm missing something though, and I'd be open to hear other opinions about this.
deleted by creator
Is this based on real present day material conditions, or is it a hypothetical based on historical examples? While I don't think we should ignore those examples, it's also important to recognize that things may have changed, and groups that may have previously been part of a prosperous middle class no longer feel as happy and secure as they once did. I'm not saying we should feel especially sorry for them or focus on them at the expense of groups who have it much worse, but I just think it's not productive to ignore them completely or even brand them an enemy.
I don't disagree with this and it makes sense that more activity would happen where the need is the greatest. However, I do think that it can be problematic when folks on the left see this solely through the lens of moral alignment, as it would tend to lean toward a poverty fetish and "white savior" type mindset where people are primarily concerned only with having the morally correct position. This sort of thing seems somewhat common across the western left, especially online.
deleted by creator
Loss aversion is a big motivation in normal human psychology, forget about Burger Country lunatics