War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Fawlty]

Ramana Maharshi once said, "There is no greater myster than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality."

Is that also the same?

Could be, but that feels different. I think Kant's thing is well inside the boundaries of the first thing. Taken one way, that quote defines an irony of using scientific tools and methods (objectivity springing forth from its unknowing self).

Isn't Kant playing more with the irony that the journey is the true destination? Reminds me of how many practical things come out of the space program. We have to expand our thinking and tools, to do lots of science to get to the science.

What do you think?

 

[Trotsky]

This was a very good way to bring it home imo:

"It might slowly be dawning on the left that its giddy predictions of ascendancy have not yet materialized. Corey Robin, a left-wing writer who has previously heralded the left’s impending takeover of the Democratic Party, recently conceded he may have miscalculated. “We have nothing like the organizational infrastructure, the party organization, the intellectual and ideological coherence, or political leadership we need,” he wrote. “I don’t see anything on the horizon like the cadre of ideologues and activists that made the New Deal or Reagan Revolution.”

I have no idea where he's getting this (rhetorically about the substance of the quote, but also literally since I can't find the quote anywhere to vet his argument). The current ideological coherence and consistency of the American left is far, far greater than it was previous to the New Deal, and the volume of left-wing activists is as well: the left-wing activists preceding the New Deal were labor activists and neo-abolitionists who were miles upon fucking miles apart ideologically (and even within the labor movement you had socialists versus communists versus corporatists). Removing the bubbling of the labor movement, there was basically nothing in the way of left-wing activism reaching a critical mass, even comparable to the left wings in UK and Germany.

It would seem that the glue that holds this proposition together it institutional access: that, because the American government is perpetually open to conservative economists/voo doo artists, they are always on the horizon, while socialists have still be frozen out of Democratic administrations. Hell, even Van Jones being a communist 20 years prior to his appointment resulted in him being forced to step down. But, while I suspect there will be some penetration in the next Democratic administration no matter the nominee, I know that it will only take one left-wing president to open those doors.

 

[BarryDillon]

That was bad (and frankly should have ended Brazile's public life). But let's say that the extra prep time on that question gave Clinton a 5-point bump in the polls. She still wins by 7 points without it.



What does that mean in terms of concrete action that would translate to him getting fucked? The nomination isn't decided by reading the body language of the DNC. It's decided by votes.



"Bias" in the sense that people working in the DNC might have preferred Clinton? Sure. Bias in the sense of Sanders being fucked in the election? How? The charge seems utterly nonsensical to me.



I think that the emails are legitimate, but the way they were presented was incredibly dishonest, and designed to produce exactly the impact that it did produce. After the releases, Trump and the right generally were saying that the election was rigged and that Bernie shouldn't support Clinton, and many people uncritically swallowed a ridiculous narrative. If a hostile party has complete access to anyone's email history, they can use that to stir up dissension.



Sure, but that doesn't mean that people whose primary focus is the party winning in the general have to like it.



That's not my argument. My argument is that people's genuine feelings are being manipulated and/or that internal conflicts are clouding their judgment (for example True Progressives have hatred of the Democratic Party as an important part of their self-identification, and that naturally leads them to oppose the nominee or frontrunner, which they find different reasons to justify).



Nevertheless the implication is accurate. It absolutely was a rout, and the only "shenanigans" that could have had any impact was the leaked question, and the likely impact of that was far too small to be measured (actually negative since it became known). You know what I think of the "if you don't count voters who voted for the other guy, my candidate would have won" arguments.

I think that it's important to get this right because by accepting the ridiculous claim that Bernie was screwed out of the nomination, we open the door to thinking that if he loses again, that is proof he was screwed and that we should, as I say, shit on the provisions.

Clinton didn't report the illicit knowledge she gained either. I think that speaks strongly to her character, and not in a favorable way.

 

[luckyshot]

Could be, but that feels different. I think Kant's thing is well inside the boundaries of the first thing. Taken one way, that quote defines an irony of using scientific tools and methods (objectivity springing forth from its unknowing self).

Isn't Kant playing more with the irony that the journey is the true destination? Reminds me of how many practical things come out of the space program. We have to expand our thinking and tools, to do lots of science to get to the science.

What do you think?

I will have to think about it.

 

[BarryDillon]

I'm probably similar to Warren in that I have less interest in foreign policy.

You really need to remedy this. It's why you can't understand the left's disillusionment with center right Democrats.

 

[Fawlty]

I have no idea where he's getting this (rhetorically about the substance of the quote, but also literally since I can't find the quote anywhere to vet his argument). The current ideological coherence and consistency of the American left is far, far greater than it was previous to the New Deal, and the volume of left-wing activists is as well: the left-wing activists preceding the New Deal were labor activists and neo-abolitionists who were miles upon fucking miles apart ideologically (and even within the labor movement you had socialists versus communists versus corporatists). Removing the bubbling of the labor movement, there was basically nothing in the way of left-wing activism reaching a critical mass, even comparable to the left wings in UK and Germany.

It would seem that the glue that holds this proposition together it institutional access: that, because the American government is perpetually open to conservative economists/voo doo artists, they are always on the horizon, while socialists have still be frozen out of Democratic administrations. Hell, even Van Jones being a communist 20 years prior to his appointment resulted in him being forced to step down. But, while I suspect there will be some penetration in the next Democratic administration no matter the nominee, I know that it will only take one left-wing president to open those doors.

I'll have to defer to your point about the New Deal because I don't have the knowledge for that. The Reagan point was strong enough on its own, as conservatives goose-stepped together to "Make America great again" (literally a campaign slogan of his). I also don't think it changes the point that the left is not at the level of ideological coherence needed to reform everything, and I don't think you'd disagree with that, because you (and @BarryDillon) also argue that people akin to me are holding back the movement.

The bigger thing the piece is right about is that the left hasn't moved as much as progressives expected/wanted it to, and I think his point about the rightward force on the party as a result of the midterms is really strong. The Democrats didn't pick up 40 seats because everyone wants to be a socialist, and those voters have added mass to the center left.

 

[Fawlty]

I will have to think about it.

In b4 you seek to understand the human mind's ability to create increasingly complex and meaningful patterns within the categorical limits of its own perceptions.

 

[BarryDillon]

I'll have to defer to your point about the New Deal because I don't have the knowledge for that. The Reagan point was strong enough on its own, as conservatives goose-stepped together to "Make America great again" (literally a campaign slogan of his). I also don't think it changes the point that the left is not at the level of ideological coherence needed to reform everything, and I don't think you'd disagree with that, because you (and @BarryDillon) also argue that people akin to me are holding back the movement.

The bigger thing the piece is right about is that the left hasn't moved as much as progressives expected/wanted it to, and I think his point about the rightward force on the party as a result of the midterms is really strong. The Democrats didn't pick up 40 seats because everyone wants to be a socialist, and those voters have added mass to the center left.

If you start supporting a war with Iran, expect a flaming bag of shit on your doorstep, playa.

 

[Fawlty]

If you start supporting a war with Iran, expect a flaming bag of shit on your doorstep, playa.

lol fair

Definitely not a fan of rattling sabers with Iran or intervening with arms or further sanctions in Venezuela. Foreign policy is moving in a bad direction again.

 

[BarryDillon]

lol fair

Definitely not a fan of rattling sabers with Iran or intervening with arms or further sanctions in Venezuela. Foreign policy is moving in a bad direction again.

Please try not to forget that Biden supported the Iraq War.

 

[BarryDillon]

 

[Fawlty]

Please try not to forget that Biden supported the Iraq War.

Okay, I'll think of a sermon to deliver to your choir too.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Clinton didn't report the illicit knowledge she gained either. I think that speaks strongly to her character, and not in a favorable way.

I don't think we even know enough to say about that. Did it actually get to her, was it presented as a leaked question to her, etc.

 

[BarryDillon]

Okay, I'll think of a sermon to deliver to your choir too.

Please make sure it fits in with Sepultura guitar riffs.

Thanks in advance!

 

[BarryDillon]

I don't think we even know enough to say about that. Did it actually get to her, was it presented as a leaked question to her, etc.

That's a lot of unearned credit that you give her. More than you gave Bernie regarding his decision about the legislative filibuster. That seems like a bias to me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's a lot of unearned credit that you give her. More than you gave Bernie regarding his decision about the legislative filibuster. That seems like a bias to me.

I'm not giving her any credit. Just saying that we'd be jumping to a conclusion.

My take on Bernie on the legislative filibuster is that he's not sincere. But I think that's kind of good because it's a bad position.

 

[BarryDillon]

I'm not giving her any credit. Just saying that we'd be jumping to a conclusion.

My take on Bernie on the legislative filibuster is that he's not sincere. But I think that's kind of good because it's a bad position.

What leads you to believe that he's not sincere though?

He's not a guy who's spent his political career flip-flopping.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What leads you to believe that he's not sincere though?

He's not a guy who's spent his political career flip-flopping.

Because if he actually wants to accomplish anything, which I believe he does, he'll have to flip on the issue if and when it actually matters. I think I'm actually giving him credit here.

 

[BarryDillon]

Because if he actually wants to accomplish anything, which I believe he does, he'll have to flip on the issue if and when it actually matters. I think I'm actually giving him credit here.

If he can't get things done without it(which I agree is likely), he may need to change his position. But, there is no reason to assume bad faith on his part

 

[Trotsky]

I'll have to defer to your point about the New Deal because I don't have the knowledge for that. The Reagan point was strong enough on its own, as conservatives goose-stepped together to "Make America great again" (literally a campaign slogan of his). I also don't think it changes the point that the left is not at the level of ideological coherence needed to reform everything, and I don't think you'd disagree with that, because you (and @BarryDillon) also argue that people akin to me are holding back the movement.

You're changing the conversation here, though. He was specifically talking about the grassroots left-wing insurgency ("the left's takeover") of 2015 on, not the left half of the country in general. The left as a force within and without the party is very coherent and strong; it's not a matter of arriving at ideological agreement so much as it is bringing the rest of the Democrats to heel. In terms of that group (we can call them democratic socialists as a shorthand), the policy orthodoxy is much more coherent and far more self-maintaining than the reactionary conservatives (that's basically what Reaganites were: traditional conservatives who were exceptionally meager in number but despised the Eisenhower moderate faction and needed to rebrand their bunk economics by cloaking them in national renewal and veiled racial fears) whose only binding issue was upward distribution of wealth, an issue that they could not state in plain or honest terms. With the Reaganites, you could have a vast array of policies so long as that fundamental goal of upward redistribution was present. For the left, there is a much more rigid nucleus of policies that necessarily flow from a shared ideology of economic and democratic justice.