Classical liberalism

[MajorRewrite]

Here are some specific examples of "woke" ideas that go beyond merely being "aware of social injustice," and instead lean hard into illiberal, group-identity concepts:

Your focus on “woke” leans hard into culture war MAGA talking points about things that don’t even exist in some cases (such as reparations).

 

[Lazaran]

Your focus on “woke” leans hard into culture war MAGA talking points about things that don’t even exist in some cases (such as reparations).

I’m pretty sure SimonDumb is referring to "reparations" in California like this:


Search Assist

The descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce were compensated with the return of Bruce's Beach, a California oceanfront property that was seized from them in 1924 due to racial discrimination. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the return of the land, which is valued at nearly $20 million, as part of efforts to address historical injustices.



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Socialism inevitably will lead to a loss of freedom

There is a right wing political party that is literally taking away your freedoms today and dismantling the institutions of your democracy. And yet you still seem mostly worried about a hypothetical socialism.

I think a really important question for you is this: why are you so consistently worried about the left when the right is in reality, right now, today, turning your country into an illiberal state?

As you admit, what seems to bug you the most is the behavior of students - or, more precisely, how students have been portrayed to you by right wing media - and not what Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries et al are doing.

Do you ever wonder why the right wing media talks endlessly about trans rights and safe spaces and DEI and not, you know, the actual policies of the Democratic Party - reigning in oligarchs, clamping down on tax evasion, making voting easier and not harder, strengthening our rights and protections in corporate and environmental law etc?

Why do you think the media does that?

4) The Fairness doctrine is illiberal. Privately owned media companies should be free to express whatever views they want.
5) The concept of "hate speech," which is embraced by some in the Democratic Party, is illiberal. There should be no laws against so-called hate speech.

reparations for something that ended 160 years ago

I don't pretend to have a full explanation for where we are. The events of the last 10 years have surprised me.

Do you think it’s possible that your confusion about how and why America arrived at authoritarianism might be linked to you not seeing a problem with the increasing prevalence of disinformation and racist narratives?

Case in point: you seem unaware that, despite slavery officially ending in the 19th century, ongoing discrimination against black people in banking and housing and education and employment has prevented them from building generational wealth and property.

This is going to sound a bit sassy but you know that’s the whole point of being woke, right? That’s it, right there. Being woke is being aware of exactly that. And being anti-woke is to obscure or deny that reality.

 

[SimonDoom]

There is a right wing political party that is literally taking away your freedoms today and dismantling the institutions of your democracy. And yet you still worry about a hypothetical socialism.

I think a really important question for you is this: why are you so consistently worried about the left when the right is in reality, right now, today, turning your country into an illiberal state?

I think we should worry about all forms of illiberalism, from every direction. I don't think we have to "choose." I'm consistently worried about the illiberalism of the left, and I'm consistently worried about the illiberalism of the right.

As you admit, what seems to bug you the most is the behavior of students -

No, I did not, and do not, admit that. It bothers me, and I think it's a big problem, but what happens on campuses is not as big a problem as what the government does.

the actual policies of the Democratic Party - reigning in oligarchs, clamping down on tax evasion, making voting easier and not harder, strengthening our rights and protections in corporate and environmental law etc?

That's not the way I see the policies of the Democratic Party. I see the overall arc of Democratic Party governance as one of increasing government control and an erosion of our basic rights, although on some issues (like voting), their record is a lot better than that of the Republicans.

Do you think it’s possible that your confusion about how and why America arrived at authoritarianism might be linked to you not seeing a problem with the increasing prevalence disinformation and racist narratives?

No, I don't think that's possible, because I'm keenly aware of the way social media creates disinformation cocoons. And while I certainly SEE disinformation, I also strongly oppose government attempts to criminalize or regulate it.

Case in point: you seem unaware that, despite slavery officially ending in the 19th century, ongoing discrimination against black people in banking and housing and education and employment has prevented them from building generational wealth and property.

I've been an avid student of US history since the late 1970s, and I've studied slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination laws, and the American legal system and US Constitutional case law over the last 35 years, so I'm not at all unaware of any of this. Unless you studied American history in school and practiced in the field of discrimination law as a lawyer, I very likely know more about these subjects than you do. That doesn't make me right, but it does offer a defense to the charge that I'm "unaware," because I'm not unaware. I just disagree. I strongly believe the solution to historical discrimination does not lie in group identity-based policies.

This is going to sound a bit sassy but you know that’s the whole point of being woke? That’s it, right there. Being woke is being aware of exactly that.

No, I don't agree with that. "Woke" represents the adoption of a left-wing, Marxian approach to social injustice in that it sees people as being members of groups and the victim of large social forces rather than treating them as individuals. It's a prism for seeing things I completely disagree with. The way to achieve justice, IMO, is to treat people as individuals.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I think we should worry about all forms of illiberalism, from every direction. I don't think we have to "choose." I'm consistently worried about the illiberalism of the left, and I'm consistently worried about the illiberalism of the right.



No, I did not, and do not, admit that. It bothers me, and I think it's a big problem, but what happens on campuses is not as big a problem as what the government does.


That's not the way I see the policies of the Democratic Party. I see the overall arc of Democratic Party governance as one of increasing government control and an erosion of our basic rights, although on some issues (like voting), their record is a lot better than that of the Republicans.



No, I don't think that's possible, because I'm keenly aware of the way social media creates disinformation cocoons. And while I certainly SEE disinformation, I also strongly oppose government attempts to criminalize or regulate it.


I've been an avid student of US history since the late 1970s, and I've studied slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination laws, and the American legal system and US Constitutional case law over the last 35 years, so I'm not at all unaware of any of this. Unless you studied American history in school and practiced in the field of discrimination law as a lawyer, I very likely know more about these subjects than you do. That doesn't make me right, but it does offer a defense to the charge that I'm "unaware," because I'm not unaware. I just disagree. I strongly believe the solution to historical discrimination does not lie in group identity-based policies.



No, I don't agree with that. "Woke" represents the adoption of a left-wing, Marxian approach to social injustice in that it sees people as being members of groups and the victim of large social forces rather than treating them as individuals. It's a prism for seeing things I completely disagree with. The way to achieve justice, IMO, is to treat people as individuals.

You might like reading Tony Judt, perhaps the greatest historian of the last generation. I think his appeals to universalism, over group identity, would speak to you - as they do to me.

Shortly before he died he gave a speech which was printed as a book, Ill Fares The Land. He uses his knowledge and skills as a historian to examine the universalism of the post-war years in the USA and Europe and argue for how the fracturing of that has caused so many problems. It’s a short book and really excellent.

(Just don’t read the preface by Ta-nahesi Coates in the latest edition, where he complains it doesn’t talk about black people enough!).

 

[MajorRewrite]

Woke" represents the adoption of a left-wing, Marxian approach to social injustice in that it sees people as being members of groups and the victim of large social forces rather than treating them as individuals. It's a prism for seeing things I completely disagree with.

3 thoughts

1. The civil rights movement, suffrage movement and gay marriage legalization were good things that are all about “people being members of groups”. Oppressed groups.
2. The blatant and open use of racial gerrymandering by Republicans is an ongoing problem that’s all about voters being oppressed as members of groups.
3. Anti-poverty social safety net programs (like Social Security and Medicaid) treat people as members of (age and financial) groups. Libertarians oppose such things because they value ideological purity over pragmatism and the mitigation of suffering.

 

[Wilson23]

No, I don't agree with that. "Woke" represents the adoption of a left-wing, Marxian approach to social injustice in that it sees people as being members of groups and the victim of large social forces rather than treating them as individuals. It's a prism for seeing things I completely disagree with.

But it is not an ILLUSION. The large social forces exist and they matter. The most out-there Fourth Wave feminists are describing very real problems when they talk about "intersectionality" and stuff.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

3 thoughts

1. The civil rights movement, suffrage movement and gay marriage legalization were good things that are all about “people being members of groups”. Oppressed groups.
2. The blatant and open use of racial gerrymandering by Republicans is an ongoing problem that’s all about voters being oppressed as members of groups.
3. Anti-poverty social safety net programs (like Social Security and Medicaid) treat people as members of (age and financial) groups. Libertarians oppose such things because they value ideological purity over pragmatism and the mitigation of suffering.

Right, I think the center-right is largely untroubled by a specific group being singled out for discrimination - but always deeply troubled if that particular group is then singled out for help based on that discrimination. The worry always goes in the same direction. It's a one way street.

And I think you're right about pragmatism: if you're so determined to hold onto the idea that you are sensible and other people are radical then you're simply not going to spot, understand or fight against real-world authoritarianism.

It's really notable to me that real-world, actual illiberalism is almost completely ignored by folks such as SimonDoom while the imaginary or hypothetical kind bothers them so much more.

No solutions for real-world illiberalism are put forward. And no explanation for how we got here is ever possible. To them, it's all just so confusing, none of it adds up...and apparently this confusion isn't worth any kind of examination...

 

[Chernosoth]

Charles Marohn at Strong Towns labelled himself a communist at home, a socialist in his city, a 1980s Republican at the state level, and a libertarian at the national level. He sees different principles and responsibilities for different levels of social and government organization. Families aren't national governments.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Slavery reparations. The California legislature, controlled by Democrats, has signaled it supports what would amount to a race-based wealth transfer for something that ended 160 years ago, in a state that was not a slave state. Absurd, illiberal, woke.

People who argue against reparations seem to forget that there are many examples of reparations being paid.

It's just that the reparations have been paid to the slave-owners rather than the slaves.

Haiti, for example, paid France three years' worth of national income, plus interest! And the French passed on that debt to America in 1915, who occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934 to 're-establish order' and safeguard its national interests. It was finally paid off completely by the early 1950s. So much for America's involvement with slavery ending in the 1860s...

British slaveholders were given reparations in 1833 amounting to 5% of Britain's national income. It was financed by an increase in the debt, which itself was paid through taxes (mostly modest, midlevel households, given the regressive taxes at the time). Those slave-holding families continue to enjoy significant financial and real estate portfolios today.

In America of course it was cheaper to fight a civil war than pay - because the slave economy was far too large for the govt to realistically consider compensation. The laws of abolition were quietly accompanied with laws forbidding vagabondage and begging, though, so at least the land-owners were able to continue exploiting the ex-slaves.

Matthew Desmond calculates that it would take about $177 billion each year to lift everyone out of poverty in the USA. By a neat coincidence, we could plug the poverty gap if the top 1% of American households paid their unpaid federal income tax as we'd raise an additional $175 billion each year.

Given the significant overlap between those who live in poverty and those who are descended from slavery, I personally see no issue with the country making a concerted effort to go after those unpaid taxes and put the money to use to alleviate poverty. Not a single tax would have to be raised. It would be a moral good and an economic good. It would lift us all.

 

[Wilson23]

Charles Marohn at Strong Towns labelled himself a communist at home, a socialist in his city, a 1980s Republican at the state level, and a libertarian at the national level. He sees different principles and responsibilities for different levels of social and government organization. Families aren't national governments.

The socialist idea is simply that society should be like a family. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- that's how a family works. Tiny Tim cannot earn money, but he still gets a seat at the dinner table.