Naomi Klein agrees with me, represent the 99%

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Naomi Klein agrees with me, represent the 99%

TBC

 

Pondering

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-...

Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present. .....

For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white men most of all – these losses are unbearable. Donald Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism has nothing to offer that pain, because neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party. Trump’s message was: “All is hell.” Clinton answered: “All is well.” But it’s not well – far from it.

Pondering

If the left refuses to represent the 99% and get smart about fighting neoliberalism the far-right will continue to grow and with it racism and sexism. What is more important, punishing white men or fighting neoliberalism? I haven't been posting much because I can see the future so there is a feeling of futility. People will continue bashing Trudeau for four years after which he will win the next election most likely with another majority while everyone complains there is no difference between the Conservatives and Liberals and progressive voters were tricked into voting Liberal and if only the MSM weren't so corrupt people would know The Truth and the NDP would win the election and defeat neoliberalism.

Look at the numbers in Ontario. The NDP is barely more popular than Wynne and the Conservatives are well ahead of both. Federally the NDP is around 15% or lower and Trudeau's honeymoon is still going strong.

I genuinely believe that 99% of people would be better off if neoliberalism were defeated and that it can be defeated. Does anyone agree?

I also believe that the defeat of neoliberalism would lead to a new golden age that would see great strides made against racism, sexism and all other forms of oppression. We would also transition much faster to a green economy and health care would improve dramatically. We could eradicate poverty.

lagatta

No, she doesn't agree with you. I read her piece. You are always shitting on the Leap Manifesto and movements for social change. I see no reason to quote her piece (quoted above). Just read it.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

No, she doesn't agree with you. I read her piece. You are always shitting on the Leap Manifesto and movements for social change. I see no reason to quote her piece (quoted above). Just read it.

Yes, she does agree with me, and I totally support the Leap Manifesto just not the terrible sales job which seems designed to fail right down to the title.

iyraste1313

I genuinely believe that 99% of people would be better off if neoliberalism were defeated and that it can be defeated. Does anyone agree?

...of course! I have been engaged with people in resistance to neoliberalism and building their alternatives for years and years now......but it demands massive support...the work of anti neoliberal leftists is crucial...but also crucial is to distance themselves from the false profits of gutless social democrats who cave to the oligarchs every time they win any political power....

but political power is meaningless without building economic power base from the grassroots, something which people of the corporate dominated world do not seem to understand!
We must boycott the corporates...in our personal lives, as we become dependent on economic alternatives! As we build our political alternatives! 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Naomi Klein agrees with me

I'm glad you were able to convince her.

But if she talks about it, do you think she'll have the decency to credit you?  Or will she just act like she thought of it independently?

quizzical

i'm cooking chicken breasts tonight for my dinner. anyone got a good or unusual recipe out there? kinda tired of rotating through mine and don't want to make something not taste tested.  

ygtbk

quizzical wrote:

i'm cooking chicken breasts tonight for my dinner. anyone got a good or unusual recipe out there? kinda tired of rotating through mine and don't want to make something not taste tested.  

If this isn't too late, you can take a chicken tetrazzini recipe and a chicken thermidor recipe and kind of mix them up. That can be pretty good.

quizzical

mix what parts up? put pastry over the pasta?

mark_alfred

All I can think of is Shake 'N Bake, though that's likely too trite.

quizzical

a bit.

they were on for a good price here in food costs lots land. cheaper than thighs which i prefer.

i'd normally do a masala of some type with breasts but was feeling way too sluggish to give it heart.

ended up just roasting with my own rub some peppers and potatoes.

mark_alfred

I'm a vegetarian so I don't really have advice for chicken (beyond Shake 'N Bake, which I remember and liked as a kid years ago).  But, here's a good tofu recipe that possibly could be adopted to chicken.  It's Greek Baked Tofu with Dill and Mustard.  I'm guessing the ingredients could be similar, though perhaps cooking times or temperature would have to be adjusted to whatever is sufficient to thoroughly cook chicken.

ygtbk

quizzical wrote:

mix what parts up? put pastry over the pasta?

I was thinking more cooked elbow pasta on the bottom, cooked chicken with some kind of cream of mushroom and fried mushrooms as the middle layer, and maybe a little parmesan and breadcrumbs on top. Spices to taste. Bake for say 30 minutes until bubbly.

It's really not an exact science, so I'd say use whatever you've got.

lagatta

I was wondering why you'd bought breasts aka meat-based tofu. If I do buy dead poultry parts, it is the thighs.

I blanched some tuscan kale (cavolo nero) but am too tired to sautée it. Tomorrow.

My tiny black cat, Livia, is wonderful.

 

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

I blanched some tuscan kale (cavolo nero) but am too tired to sautée it. Tomorrow.

My tiny black cat, Livia, is wonderful.

 

Oh, I read that all wrong the first time. Whew.

mark_alfred

Laughing ^

lagatta

Oh that was funny. She is too little and thin - she'd only be good for soup.

Can they read our minds? She started staring at me with a MOST startled expression.

I do have soup going in my crockpot - chicken bones and scraps, and vegetable scraps such as the dark green parts of leeks. Day for that. I've also bought some miso paste, a good base for vegetarian soups, in addition broth made with only the veg scraps, no chicken...

It is chilly, but a bit later I'll go down to Parc du Portugal and visit the spontaneous Leonard Cohen memorial. I wonder what they'll name for him here?

quizzical

mark will be eating your linked recipe with tofu. am a liker and eater of tofu.

ygtbk will try your casserole too on my need comfort food days.

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Naomi Klein agrees with me

I'm glad you were able to convince her.

But if she talks about it, do you think she'll have the decency to credit you?  Or will she just act like she thought of it independently?

We agree with each other. We share the same opinion. I'm sure many other people do too although apparently not here. The primary focus here seems to be dividing the 99% into sub-groups that oppose each other rather than trying to unify people against the main threats of climate change and poverty both driven by neoliberalism under the control of the massively wealthy.

Still the establishment left refuses to embrace a Sanders or a Corbyn fighting them all the way.

I'm sure progressive women have to deal with allies who are sexist. Gian Ghomeshi may be an extreme example but he is far from a rarity. Women MPs face a lot of sexism. If feminists would only fight for causes alongside feminists there would be far fewer women in environmental groups and anti-poverty groups.

The people that must be led to fight against neoliberalism will not all be feminists and some will not have an indepth knowledge of racism and some will think people on social assistence are a drain on society. Some will be white men who do not consider themselves privileged. Naomi Kline referred to them.

Rather than focusing so much on privilege it might be more profitable to focus on oppression.

 

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Oh that was funny. She is too little and thin - she'd only be good for soup.

Can they read our minds? She started staring at me with a MOST startled expression.

I do have soup going in my crockpot - chicken bones and scraps, and vegetable scraps such as the dark green parts of leeks. Day for that. I've also bought some miso paste, a good base for vegetarian soups, in addition broth made with only the veg scraps, no chicken...

It is chilly, but a bit later I'll go down to Parc du Portugal and visit the spontaneous Leonard Cohen memorial. I wonder what they'll name for him here?

Sounds like you live a privileged life.

lagatta

I live in social housing, and below the poverty line. I am fortunate to know how to cook (thanks mum, and my uncle, her baby brother - who is now about Leonard Cohen's age). I am privileged to live in a very nice, but of course small, flat in a coop near the Jean-Talon market - but I have belonged to the local tenants' association for over 25 years, sometimes worked and often volunteered there, helping other tenants access better housing. I believe that you also live in social housing in an equally pleasant area just south of mine. I shop down there too, because Supermarché PA, Segalls etc are often cheaper than the market, especially in wintertime. I bought the miso paste at PA where it was on sale a couple of weeks ago for less than half standard supermarket or natural food shop prices. Did you notice that the rest of what I cooked was made with frozen scraps I had saved? Soup is a classic way to use scraps to make a nutritious meal - remember Mafalda?

I am a freelancer, and wound up not going as I did have work to do. I have zero employment security and when I turn 65, my income security will much improve, but of course, I'll also be closer to death.

I am privilged to be highly educated, and mostly (but not entirely) white. Other than that I don't think I'm particularly privileged, except in certain experiential senses. But those are due to my activism, and my related studies.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
I live in social housing, and below the poverty line. 

Me too.

lagatta wrote:
  I believe that you also live in social housing in an equally pleasant area just south of mine.

Yes, I would call myself fortunate rather than privileged. I moved 3 blocks over and I love my apartment and my neighbours many of whom are Portuguese or Spanish.

lagatta wrote:
remember Mafalda?

lol, she didn't like soup.

lagatta wrote:
I have zero employment security and when I turn 65, my income security will much improve, but of course, I'll also be closer to death. 

Me too which also makes me feel fortunate. I expect/hope to still have a lot of life in me well past 65.

lagatta wrote:
I am privilged to be highly educated, and mostly (but not entirely) white. Other than that I don't think I'm particularly privileged, except in certain experiential senses. But those are due to my activism, and my related studies.

Your activism and related studies could be considered a function of a privileged life. Privilege is always relative. As Ken recently mentioned, academic/activist interpretation of the word is different from a layperson's interpretation of the word. As a layperson I interpret "privileged" as meaning someone with above average wealth and power that is unearned.

Academic/activist interpretation seems to be that people are either privileged or under-privileged. It's a dichotomy. Average people don't understand it the way activists mean it.

Pondering

From 2010

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/noam_chomsky_has_never_seen_anything...

“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”...... The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.” “I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack. What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”....

Chomsky reserves his fiercest venom for the liberal elite in the press, the universities and the political system who serve as a smoke screen for the cruelty of unchecked capitalism and imperial war. He exposes their moral and intellectual posturing as a fraud. And this is why Chomsky is hated, and perhaps feared, more among liberal elites than among the right wing he also excoriates. When Christopher Hitchens decided to become a windup doll for the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, one of the first things he did was write a vicious article attacking Chomsky. Hitchens, unlike most of those he served, knew which intellectual in America mattered. [Editor’s note: To see some of the articles in the 2001 exchanges between Hitchens and Chomsky, click here, here, here and here.] “I don’t bother writing about Fox News,” Chomsky said. “It is too easy. What I talk about are the liberal intellectuals, the ones who portray themselves and perceive themselves as challenging power, as courageous, as standing up for truth and justice. They are basically the guardians of the faith. They set the limits. They tell us how far we can go. They say, ‘Look how courageous I am.’ But do not go one millimeter beyond that. At least for the educated sectors, they are the most dangerous in supporting power.”...

 

lagatta

Your activism and related studies could be considered a function of a privileged life.

What reactionary bullshit. Back to cookery...

quizzical

....i had the best from scratch chocolate cake last night. the chocolate icing had a note of peanut butter in it.

the note was so faint i wasn't sure at first if my taste buds were imagining it.

all in all a fabulous cake.

lagatta

That sounds lovely, though I'm more inclined to savoury baking. The sun is brilliant right now, though I suspect it is still chilly out. I really want to get to the Cohen memorial at Parc du Portugal. That is very close to Le Chaînon, a good charity shop that funds a centre for women who are homeless or otherwise in crisis.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'mma make some ham tonight.  Not a "real" ham (certainly not for two people!) but just one of those little ones.

Recently I discovered the joys of browning some sausages in my Dutch oven, then tossing in some onion and celery, a generous handful or two of moong dal (lentils) and some water.  The sausages flavour the lentils, the lentils keep the sausages moist... it's a win.  So I'm going to try it with a wee ham.  Maybe I'll throw in a few cut-up potatoes and carrots this time.

Maybe on the side, some okra.  My No-Frills has nice frozen baby okra for 99 cents a bag.  Hard to go wrong with that, unless you're one of the 99% who despise okra.

Anyway, not really trying to disrupt this thread; just like talking food.

quizzical

lagatta, i'm not a big chocolate fan at any time prefer salty and sour but was at the aftermath of a bday party and i couldn't let the 4 and 5 year olds down..... 

magoo i think i'm making enchilada soup for dinner with the rest of the cheap chicken breast i got.  i don't like okra.

lagatta

I love baby okra; not the larger ones that are the only kind one finds "fresh" here. I also have a bag of them in the freezer compartment, bought for the same price from a nearby Arab store (with Middle-Eastern and Maghrebi foods; I'm unsure what country management is from).

But I thought okra would be too much for a rice I did with Tuscan kale (the black kind that is a beautiful dark green when blanched, and is milder, less bitter and less tough than the curly kind, sort of a riff on the "paella project" http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/the-paella-project-tus... (old NT article, I googled "paella project" and didn't turn up the other variations.

I didn't want to make a risotto, and didn't have either risotto rice or Bomba rice for paella on hand, and didn't feel like shopping for anything. The only rice I had other than basmati, which would be wasted if stirred as in this recipe, was some cheap parboiled rice I'd also bought for $1 for 2lb or so. It was ok.

I also had one of those little formed hams that look sort of like a miniature rugby ball; it is rare that I buy ham but it was also very cheap at Segall the Stinky Store, and surprisingly good. I just diced part of it, sautéed the dice with onions, a tomato, garlic etc, as well as a "saffron" cube - probably mostly turmeric, paprika and salt, but there was a bit of saffron powder listed and a glass of rice, added some of the stock I was making and some water. I also added quite a bit of chopped parsley leaves at the end (the stems go into the stock). It is suprisingly good. It made  quite an amount: my challenge is always to finish such dishes, as my appetite has declined over the last couple of years.

I'll probably do the okra with tomato and some ground meat; ideally lamb if it is not too costly or fatty. You can also make a vegetarian version just with the tomato and onion, but combining that with lentils would also make a complete meal.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Your activism and related studies could be considered a function of a privileged life.

What reactionary bullshit. Back to cookery...

Seriously. Sorry I hurt your feelings but there are many people for whom your education was unattainable. Some people defeat an under-privileged childhood, or defeat being raised in a right-wing or racist household, but certainly not all.

I can't understand indigenous people being Christians and believing in God. For anyone it is pretty much the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus to me but how can any indigenous person with even a modicum of knowledge of their history be a Christian? Personally I think it is because they were brainwashed.

What about POC who are racist against each other? Personally I think they have been brainwashed.

To me personally the goal is to change their way of thinking. All too often the goal of the left seems to be to condemn people not change their minds. It is no wonder the right has made such great strides.

wage zombie

I'm sure the 99% really appreciates all the recipes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The left is like "Mom" who makes you brush your teeth, and makes you finish your vegetables.

The right is like "Dad" who lets you have firecrackers, and sneaks you a cookie before dinner.

It's not that Trump somehow challenged supporters to change their minds about anything, it's that he urged them not to.  Telling people that they're just fine and everyone else is the problem is always an easy sell.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The left is like "Mom" who makes you brush your teeth, and makes you finish your vegetables.

The right is like "Dad" who lets you have firecrackers, and sneaks you a cookie before dinner.

It's not that Trump somehow challenged supporters to change their minds about anything, it's that he urged them not to.  Telling people that they're just fine and everyone else is the problem is always an easy sell.

It is. Maybe the left should try it. Follow the money.

Step one, blame the people that have most of it.

Step two, take the money away from them.

Step three, redistribute it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The thing is, Pondering, you aren't the ONLY person here who thinks the left should "represent the 99%".  It's not as though anybody is really arguing against that idea.

It's just that MOST of the 99% are middle-class or lower in income.  There aren't much of any affluent people who are sincerely interested in supporting transformative change.  I'm all for including those who are, but there just aren't a hell of a lot.

So I'm not sure what you are arguing for that is in conflict with what you think most people here are supporting.

In any case, we already know that the Liberal Party can never be a party of the 99%...it simply doesn't want to be and has too many vested interests paying to keep it from being that.

That's part of the reason so many people here take a different view than you do on what Trudeau pere' did during the October Crisis.  He wasn't just attacking the FLQ...he was using a couple of acts that no one other than the FLQ was responsible for to crack down on and repress the entire Canadian left.  It was never just about "terrorism".  It was about preserving the existing order at all costs.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

Step one, blame the people that have most of it.

Step two, take the money away from them.

Step three, redistribute it.

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/2eme92q.jpg[/IMG]

mark_alfred

Quote:

It is. Maybe the left should try it. Follow the money.

Step one, blame the people that have most of it.

Step two, take the money away from them.

Step three, redistribute it.

I believe the Trudeau Liberals already did this.  So problem solved in Canada.

lagatta

I certainly won't lose a moment of sleep over this shit, but I'm really insulted. In many ways, I did have an underprivileged childhood, if you mean poor and chaotic. My father was very ill for most of my childhood, and it was very difficult for women such as my mum to make money to support her progeny while being a caregiver. I am NOT whining about my life, millions or billions of humans have experienced similar crap, many in warzones or areas without proper plumbing. I'm very insulted that the insinuation that I'm a longterm activist grows out of privilege.

It is also very hypocritical to call for this perfect "antineoliberalism" while shitting on existing forces of the left where you live and voting Fiberal. The NDP is not anti-neoliberal. True, but my MP Boulerice (while not perfect is). And then we shit on Québec solidaire, and Progrès Montréal tant qu'à faire. I'm very proud to have been able to vote for progressive voices on those three levels of government.

If you joined local activist groups - no, not the Black Bloc, there are plenty of good groups that are utterly peaceful, for people of all ages and capacities - I don't think you'd keep on shitting on everyone who attempts to change things - and probably, you'd begin to question the Fiberals. Or not.

mark_alfred

~

swallow

lagatta wrote:

I certainly won't lose a moment of sleep over this shit, but I'm really insulted. In many ways, I did have an underprivileged childhood, if you mean poor and chaotic. My father was very ill for most of my childhood, and it was very difficult for women such as my mum to make money to support her progeny while being a caregiver. I am NOT whining about my life, millions or billions of humans have experienced similar crap, many in warzones or areas without proper plumbing. I'm very insulted that the insinuation that I'm a longterm activist grows out of privilege.

It is also very hypocritical to call for this perfect "antineoliberalism" while shitting on existing forces of the left where you live and voting Fiberal. The NDP is not anti-neoliberal. True, but my MP Boulerice (while not perfect is). And then we shit on Québec solidaire, and Progrès Montréal tant qu'à faire. I'm very proud to have been able to vote for progressive voices on those three levels of government.

If you joined local activist groups - no, not the Black Bloc, there are plenty of good groups that are utterly peaceful, for people of all ages and capacities - I don't think you'd keep on shitting on everyone who attempts to change things - and probably, you'd begin to question the Fiberals. Or not.

Best recipe yet. 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
The thing is, Pondering, you aren't the ONLY person here who thinks the left should "represent the 99%".  It's not as though anybody is really arguing against that idea. 

Except the primary focus is dividing the 99% not uniting the 99%, and attacking the parts of the 99% that are being used by the 1%. (Really the puppet masters are above the 1%) There is zero focus on the puppetmasters. The closest anyone gets is going after corporations.  The impression I get is "we already know everything and we are right and anyone who doesn't agree with us in all things is either stupid or stubborn." Underlying that I read a deep pessimism, the belief that radical change and rapid progress is impossible or that catastrophe is the only way it will happen.  

Ken Burch wrote:
In any case, we already know that the Liberal Party can never be a party of the 99%...it simply doesn't want to be and has too many vested interests paying to keep it from being that. 

I have never suggested they are or could be. That is a role the NDP has the potential to fulfil but isn't. Instead they are a failed liberal party that throws scraps to progressives but I'm supposed to support them just because they aren't the official Liberal party. If the NDP puts forth a Sanders or a Corbyn they will have no stronger supporter than myself including joining the party and knocking on doors.

I'm not interested in discussing old history. Here is a current issue. This person is saying the same thing Naomi Klein is saying.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/11/left-woo-white-voters

If the left can woo back white voters, it would benefit everyone Remi Adekoya

But in light of current happenings, I think it is time white leftist-liberals started paying less attention to defending people like me and focused on reconnecting with the white voters, traditionally their base, whom they have lost along the way.

This is not masochism, it is self-interested rationality. The progressive movement remains the biggest ally of ethnic minorities, our strongest defenders against the always possible tyranny of a white majority. But a left that lacks the potential for winning elections courts political irrelevance. Political irrelevance would mean the left loses the capability to effectively defend minority rights and fight discrimination. 

We can’t ignore numbers in politics. The reality today is that without wooing back significant sections of white voters, (who still have the numbers to decide elections, as we saw in the US with Trump and the UK with Brexit), the left will only grow weaker and rightwing populism stronger.

I’m not suggesting progressives throw minorities under the bus and cease fighting racial or sexual discrimination, but regular white folk need to see progressives as their defenders too, not just champions of minorities, which is too often the perception many white people have of the “cosmopolitan left”. The left needs much more focus on socioeconomic issues such as inequality and stagnant wages, the stuff that resonates with regular white voters. Of course, it resonates with me too – it’s not as if this would be to switch to an issue which excludes minority interests.

Some of the current anti-immigration sentiments in the west are racially motivated, but some of it results from exhaustion with the fierce competition neoliberalism has thrived on in recent decades. Some people enjoy competition, but for most it is stressful, exhausting and keeps them on edge. Small wonder many want to restrict movement of labour. If neoliberalism makes everything a competition, it should be no surprise that white majorities have come to see newcomers as rivals for jobs and resources......

The liberal movement can only help minorities if it can retain the white vote and gain power. If that means focusing less on identity politics, then so be it

 

 

 

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

I certainly won't lose a moment of sleep over this shit, but I'm really insulted. In many ways, I did have an underprivileged childhood, if you mean poor and chaotic. My father was very ill for most of my childhood, and it was very difficult for women such as my mum to make money to support her progeny while being a caregiver. I am NOT whining about my life, millions or billions of humans have experienced similar crap, many in warzones or areas without proper plumbing. I'm very insulted that the insinuation that I'm a longterm activist grows out of privilege.

It is also very hypocritical to call for this perfect "antineoliberalism" while shitting on existing forces of the left where you live and voting Fiberal. The NDP is not anti-neoliberal. True, but my MP Boulerice (while not perfect is). And then we shit on Québec solidaire, and Progrès Montréal tant qu'à faire. I'm very proud to have been able to vote for progressive voices on those three levels of government.

If you joined local activist groups - no, not the Black Bloc, there are plenty of good groups that are utterly peaceful, for people of all ages and capacities - I don't think you'd keep on shitting on everyone who attempts to change things - and probably, you'd begin to question the Fiberals. Or not.

Well now you know how other people feel when they are called privileged solely based on sex or colour. Not everyone has access to the education you have had. Not everyone has had a hard-working mother. Money isn't the only way people can be privileged. I vote QS and PM. I vote QS despite the fact that they are sovereignist because I perceive them to be genuinely progressive and they do get elected in my riding but they have failed to come even close to the success younger right-wing parties have achieved. That isn't "shitting on them" that's just the truth.

I recall you are against the formation of a Quebec NDP. You would deny people a political voice on the left unless they vote QS. How is that democratic? How is that serving the 99%?

Maybe if Boulerice wins the leadership race and formulates an anti-neoliberal platform I will vote NDP as I used to but I would still much rather have the "fiberals" than the "reformcons" by a huge margin. The "fiberals" broke promises but generally speaking they are doing what Canadians want them to do and they did not hide their nature prior to the election. Trudeau repeatedly said that it is the job of the PM to get resources to market and that he was strongly in favor of trade deals. The NDP has become a pale imitation of the Liberals. That is why Mulcair almost won and it's why the NDP is down below 15%. Now that Canadians have the Liberals back they don't need a pale imitation of them which is what the NDP was running as.

Nobody here likes to acknowlege that Harper was running in first place for a time. The ten year political itch got him more than anything else. The notion persists that "progressives" are split between the Liberals and the NDP and if only people knew the truth about the Liberals they would vote NDP but there is nothing to support it.

If a party comes along that will fight trade deals and income inequality I'll support them. The NDP paying lip service to those issues doesn't fool me. Federally the NDP has made itself irrelevant with it's Red Carpet Tours and attempts at political one upsmanship against the Liberals that nobody but political junkies pay attention to.

Meanwhile, CUPE and the Council for Canadians are doing battle against neoliberalism. The only reason I can't be fully opposed to PR is because I have so much respect for the Council of Canadians and they support it. They are focused on the 99%.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Step one, blame the people that have most of it.

Step two, take the money away from them.

Step three, redistribute it.

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/2eme92q.jpg[/IMG]

There's a reason Robin Hood is so popular.

I'm not very familiar with world history. Has there ever been a revolution that didn't include the population turning against the wealthy?

mark_alfred

Klein suggests that lower income people (IE, "a hell of a lot of people are in [economic] pain" .. "Donald Trump speaks directly to that pain") were attracted to Trump and repelled by Hillary.  But that's false.  Lower income people (less than 50K) mostly voted for Hillary.  Just do a search for "exit poll".

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The real story is the millions of low-income voters who didn't vote for anyone.  The Democrats COULD get those votes if they spoke to their needs and acknowledged their humanity and value, but they don't.  It's just "the middle class...the middle class...the middle class", as if it's possible to build a sustainable progressive politics by getting the allegiance of the "we don't like your kind 'round here" crowd.  This election proves that Democrats CAN'T get those votes and shouldn't try.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There's a reason Robin Hood is so popular.

And that reason is that he gave away other people's money.

mark_alfred

Did he also take selfies and move to privatize parts of Sherwood Forest to pay off the give-away?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
There's a reason Robin Hood is so popular.

And that reason is that he gave away other people's money.

Those "other people" were feudal lords who had taken their wealth by pillage and coercion.  He wasn't robbing the lower middle class, for Maid Marian's sakes.  What the Friar Tuck is your problem?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Did he also take selfies and move to privatize parts of Sherwood Forest to pay off the give-away?

Well, back then the only people who could "take selfies" were painters.

Quote:
Those "other people" were feudal lords who had taken their wealth by pillage and coercion.

Just like today, yes?  Elon Musk is wealthy because he stole money from everyone.  Ted Rogers just stole money from everyone.  Warren Buffett stole it all.  And that's why we must:

1. blame the people that have most of it.

2. take the money away from them.

3. redistribute it.

I'm not arguing against progressive taxation.  I'm arguing against the facile explanation that it's all the fault of "the rich" and that the answer is just to take their money.

Feel free to side with Pondering, though.  I think she really means it this time.  I bet she's wearing a Guy Fawkes mask even as we speak.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Furthermore, despite the "tech bubble" mythos, the accumulation of wealth in most cases now is largely down to speculation, property manipulation(the rentier economy) and, well, luck.

OK.  But if I were somehow against wealth as the outcome of luck, I suppose I'd have to start with lottery winners, but I don't begrudge them "luck".  When did wealth become illegitimate because of luck?  If anything, I'd think that ALL luck would need to be illegitimate if some of it is.

Quote:
Nobody has wealth because they are personally superior

I would be very reluctant to stray down the road of suggesting that the wealthy must be somehow better than us.

At the same time, using Elon Musk as an example, how's YOUR electric car working out for you?  Is Musk's car doing well because he was lucky, and you (and your electric car) were not?

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm not siding with Pondering.  Frankly, I think she starts most of the threads just to bait people and it's hard to tell what, if anything she actually supports beyond the idea of proclaiming her own superiority.  It's just that the "other people's money" thing is a Milton Friedman-Margaret Thatcher thing and it has nothing to do with reality.

Yes, some people have done some things that played some role in their own accumulation of wealth.  But no one has ever been a totally self-made person(and in the Robin Hood era, no one was self-made at all...there were no "start-ups" in medieval Europe).  Furthermore, despite the "tech bubble" mythos, the accumulation of wealth in most cases now is largely down to speculation, property manipulation(the rentier economy) and, well, luck.  Nobody has wealth because they are personally superior, and it has now become clear that the wealthy are no longer willing to tolerate the preservation of any significant level of social welfare OR any real victories for anti-oppression politics that don't in some way get to be claimed as victories for their personal "brands" (witness all the bazillionaires who habitually oppose for publicity shots with the third-world children they pretend to be helping).

Pages