Wednesday, June 19, 2019
and, did i watch sanders' speech?
i did.
and, i couldn't tell if he was standing on stilts or not as he was projecting his bourgeois fantasies.
there isn't a better option, and there hasn't been in decades. that is all i've ever said. but, it has long been pointed out by leftists of all types that he really shouldn't be calling himself a socialist, and he really drove that home pretty strongly by citing a person (fdr) who made it his life goal to stop a socialist revolution from happening - and succeeded.
he talked a lot about how freedom requires economic rights, but he didn't address the actual fundamental issue, which is whether a capitalist state will allow for these kinds of guarantees. i might put forward the argument that if these things were possible without a more structural kind of change then we'd already have them.
so, can you have a jobs guarantee in a capitalist economy? for a few minutes, maybe, but it will be gotten rid of as soon as the capitalists can figure out how to do it, and so long as they have the system on their side they're going to succeed in getting rid of it, eventually. can you have a right to housing in a society that agitates for a surplus of labour?
the left tends to come down pretty hard on hippies for just enunciating this shit without extrapolating on the reasons we don't already have it, or in understanding why the economy is designed to deny it.
and, the bankers may even sign off on his economic bill of rights, if there's enough people in the streets. but, good luck getting the courts to enforce any of it - that will take 200 years of building precedent.
the narrative is that sanders is the change candidate, but the more he speaks the more he's demonstrating that he really isn't, that he's just another moderate reformist that doesn't really get it.
i did.
and, i couldn't tell if he was standing on stilts or not as he was projecting his bourgeois fantasies.
there isn't a better option, and there hasn't been in decades. that is all i've ever said. but, it has long been pointed out by leftists of all types that he really shouldn't be calling himself a socialist, and he really drove that home pretty strongly by citing a person (fdr) who made it his life goal to stop a socialist revolution from happening - and succeeded.
he talked a lot about how freedom requires economic rights, but he didn't address the actual fundamental issue, which is whether a capitalist state will allow for these kinds of guarantees. i might put forward the argument that if these things were possible without a more structural kind of change then we'd already have them.
so, can you have a jobs guarantee in a capitalist economy? for a few minutes, maybe, but it will be gotten rid of as soon as the capitalists can figure out how to do it, and so long as they have the system on their side they're going to succeed in getting rid of it, eventually. can you have a right to housing in a society that agitates for a surplus of labour?
the left tends to come down pretty hard on hippies for just enunciating this shit without extrapolating on the reasons we don't already have it, or in understanding why the economy is designed to deny it.
and, the bankers may even sign off on his economic bill of rights, if there's enough people in the streets. but, good luck getting the courts to enforce any of it - that will take 200 years of building precedent.
the narrative is that sanders is the change candidate, but the more he speaks the more he's demonstrating that he really isn't, that he's just another moderate reformist that doesn't really get it.
at
09:06
listen: i could easily hang out at an afro-beat prog-reggae bar, if it was actually good. barry adamson night would be a riot. it's not "black" that i don't like. my dad may have been part african, remember. i've been listening to jazz and blues and what they used to call r'n' b of all colours for my whole life. it's hip-hop specifically that leaves me cold, because i don't like the politics underlying so much of it, and i have no interest in this kind of toxic masculinity that seems to be the purpose underlying the genre.
i don't like hip-hop for the same reason that i don't like heavy metal, and much of what passes for "punk" these days. it's not about race, really - it's more about gender. and, you know i have gender issues.
but, that's not the conversation going on in detroit, right now. the conversation going on in detroit right now is explicitly about race, and i'm not trying to co-opt it, i'm just pointing out how i intend to navigate it. i've always gone to "black events", periodically. that's not going to change, now. i just have a different concept of "black" than so many people seem to.
back in the early 00s, when i was in ottawa, i dated a girl that had a sister that lived in the apartment complex at elgin & mcleod, across from the museum. she used to take me down to the parking garage there on the weekends to go to this carribbean drum party that would run until four in the morning. and, i would drum with the rastas all night - it was always a good time, and they knew me for my musical training. i could hold a beat as well as they could, i wasn't your average syncopationless white kid, so they were always happy to see me. in fact, they would throw these skinny white bitches off the drums and put me on them - "you, you play, you got it.....wait, you want this, first?".
see, and i would think that detroit ought to identify more with the more developed side of the african musical tradition. being black in detroit should be more about tapping into this deep, rich heritage - because it's such a historically wealthy city, and it actually has a black middle class. if it was me, i'd be more irritated about losing my actual heritage than itchy about bringing in rappers from los angeles.
but, i'm just the polite white kid from canada. all i can do is watch and take notes, and ultimately vote with my feet.
i don't like hip-hop for the same reason that i don't like heavy metal, and much of what passes for "punk" these days. it's not about race, really - it's more about gender. and, you know i have gender issues.
but, that's not the conversation going on in detroit, right now. the conversation going on in detroit right now is explicitly about race, and i'm not trying to co-opt it, i'm just pointing out how i intend to navigate it. i've always gone to "black events", periodically. that's not going to change, now. i just have a different concept of "black" than so many people seem to.
back in the early 00s, when i was in ottawa, i dated a girl that had a sister that lived in the apartment complex at elgin & mcleod, across from the museum. she used to take me down to the parking garage there on the weekends to go to this carribbean drum party that would run until four in the morning. and, i would drum with the rastas all night - it was always a good time, and they knew me for my musical training. i could hold a beat as well as they could, i wasn't your average syncopationless white kid, so they were always happy to see me. in fact, they would throw these skinny white bitches off the drums and put me on them - "you, you play, you got it.....wait, you want this, first?".
see, and i would think that detroit ought to identify more with the more developed side of the african musical tradition. being black in detroit should be more about tapping into this deep, rich heritage - because it's such a historically wealthy city, and it actually has a black middle class. if it was me, i'd be more irritated about losing my actual heritage than itchy about bringing in rappers from los angeles.
but, i'm just the polite white kid from canada. all i can do is watch and take notes, and ultimately vote with my feet.
at
08:40
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)