just got back from the rally
March 19, 2020 9:37 PM   Subscribe

As it turns out, Better Things Aren't Possible

We all like to laugh at the centrist slogan, “better things aren’t possible”, but it seems to me this moderate socialist insistence on the continuity of socialism with our present has some similarity, in that it attempts to circumscribe our understanding of better things to those which seem possible within the limits of the world as it currently is. I think it’s understandable that we respond to the difficulty of bringing about a better world by trying to accommodate ourselves to the idea that this better world isn’t really possible. Centrism’s flat rejection of better things is the silliest version of this, while social democracy’s moderated vision of the better world is more sophisticated but ultimately responds to the same impulse; and the ultraleft positions I’m more sympathetic to have their own version.
posted by the man of twists and turns (31 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite
 
METAFILTER: Abolish “houses” and the bourgeois distinction between “inside” and “outside”!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:38 PM on March 19, 2020 [3 favorites]


You’ll pry me out of my cold, dead house when ... *sobs* ... someone comes visit me with cake and furniture ... *sobs*
posted by drivingmenuts at 9:58 PM on March 19, 2020 [3 favorites]


Abolish “houses” and the bourgeois distinction between “inside” and “outside”!

The phrase “the big room” established the opposite of this as canon, wherein “the big room” means out-of-doors, and therefore in a built space, and thus, inside. There is no bourgeois distinction between the spaces, because there is only inside.
posted by mwhybark at 11:11 PM on March 19, 2020 [6 favorites]


This is the, I think still under-appreciated, point of Marx’s On the Jewish Question.

Jews: Please stop killing us.

Marx: ACTUALLY ALL LIVES MATTER
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:05 AM on March 20, 2020 [10 favorites]


The dialectical position is not to suggest that the capitalist system has good parts and bad parts, and thus to judge the bad parts by the standards of the good parts. The dialectical position is that the good parts are the bad parts. [...] You can’t criticise the reality of the capitalist system by reference to the ideals it generates, because the way in which the ideals are realised tells you what the ideals really are [...]

That makes sense, but I don't see how or why this mode of analysis is limited to capitalism. In fact, I think that this idea (which I understand as a variation of "you shall know the tree by its fruits") is precisely the thrust of some of the IMHO strongest arguments against socialism, namely that the problem with socialism isn't so much the ideals in themselves but the way in which they've historically been realized.

It is one thing to strive for a people-centered system under which the working people are masters of everything, or to say that citizens have the right to work, which is guaranteed by the state, but then to actually live in respectively North Korea or the Socialist Republic of Albania is quite a different matter. By which I don't mean to dismiss the possibility of better things, but rather -- in the spirit of the linked piece -- to remark that socialist ideals don't in themselves constitute or guarantee "better things".
posted by dmh at 3:01 AM on March 20, 2020 [21 favorites]


We all like to laugh at the centrist slogan, “better things aren’t possible”,

Indeed, much the way we all like to laugh at the popular radical slogan, “let’s have a revolution that leads to nothing but misery for all”.
posted by Segundus at 3:49 AM on March 20, 2020 [25 favorites]


I haven't read the article, and won't, but the comments are making me think of the guy in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy who built an asylum for the world.
posted by Jacen at 4:04 AM on March 20, 2020 [1 favorite]


Hold stick near center of its length. Moisten pointed end in mouth. Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion.
posted by Foosnark at 4:22 AM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]


I think that this idea (which I understand as a variation of "you shall know the tree by its fruits") is precisely the thrust of some of the IMHO strongest arguments against socialism, namely that the problem with socialism isn't so much the ideals in themselves but the way in which they've historically been realized.

I'd walk this further and argue that there's certain fundamental human behaviours that will happen whether you like it or not, and any system of social organisation that doesn't anticipate them is bound to get a nasty surprise. Among these, that I'm aware of:
  • About 10% of people are bastards, and will disrupt your system if it's large enough
  • About 10% of people cannot be persuaded to ignore other people and focus on their self-interest, even if your group explicitly values this
  • Humans tend towards co-operation, especially in times of stress (in case you've designed a system where you expect people to not pool their efforts for shared interest, John Adams)
  • Humans form in-groups and out-groups instinctively and reflexively, and there is no way to put all of humanity in the same in-group
  • There will be people who feel a sense of ownership over the group, and they will expect their level of commitment to be acknowledged in some fashion
So I tend to get suspicious at the idea that it's not necessary to be able to chart some course from here to there. I know the 10% rule scuppers a lot of idealised systems, where they only work if everyone in the society agrees and there's no method of conflict resolution.
posted by Merus at 5:29 AM on March 20, 2020 [37 favorites]


This seems prefaced on multiple abstractions and assumptions and probably only really applies to arguing on social media?

I would go further and say it only really applies to arguing on social media amongst groups of people who have been strawmanning people they disagree with for so long that their only conception of those opponents is the shit they themselves made up about them.
posted by tocts at 5:44 AM on March 20, 2020 [25 favorites]


Marx’s On the Jewish Question.

Marx’s “On The Jewish Question” is an attack on the anti-Jewish work of the same title written by Marx’s former mentor, Bruno Bauer. Marx’s attack is based on economics, as one would expect. Marx did not foresee that Bauer would soon establish race at the base of his campaign against Jews. Race theory would of course go on to have quite a history. It was Bruno Bauer who, unwilling to countenance the notion of a Jew as the the fulcrum of human history, first advanced in modern times the idea that Jesus is a myth.
posted by No Robots at 6:17 AM on March 20, 2020 [7 favorites]


Huh, well, I thought it was a good article.

I also enjoyed the Dig episode on Full Surrogacy Now.

I've never felt like I fully understood the idea of dialectic, but I do think this article gets at one of the most important points Marx tries to make, which is that there are profoundly different ways of seeing and understanding society lurking there right under the surface. Values like "justice" or "freedom" bend and break easily in our minds when they encounter existing social structures and power relations. Incremental change toward social democracy is well and good, but if we're not able to think past "North Korea" (or centrist slogans or Pelosi's approach the coronavirus bailout) it just feels like we aren't trying very hard.
posted by ropeladder at 6:28 AM on March 20, 2020 [2 favorites]


I scanned the article at the link and quickly concluded it was the kind of asinine prattle that gives leftism a bad name. I cannot imagine the argument outlined in the opening paragraphs being seriously offered by anyone who has ever accomplished anything in the real world, where recognizing obstacles to your program and finding ways around them is where most of the work is.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:43 AM on March 20, 2020 [10 favorites]


I have zero tolerance for political speech - left, right, or center. Why? For me it is either a catalog of platitudes, or an I am right and you are wrong argument bolstered by pleading from the text, either Marx, the Constitution, the Bible, what have you. The use of language is extremely sloppy, abstract nouns slung around with little or no attempt to nail down what is meant beyond assuming we all know what they are talking about. Freedom! What exactly do they mean by freedom? Whose freedom? Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? And out come the platitudes to try to answer these questions. I would rather hear some straight forward arguments, defining of terms, and actual reasoning and not it’s true because XXXXX said so. Human society is a truly overwhelmingly complex thing and anyone who proposes simple solutions is a fool.

Oh, I would agree though that capitalism sucks. Just look outside at the empty streets to see what it has wrought.
posted by njohnson23 at 8:58 AM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]


As a self-described socialist, this just reminds me of all those times I point to actual, scientific studies that show that nearly all humans have structural changes in their brain when they have access to power over others. These structural changes results in less empathy in the person holding power over others. This certainly insinuates that having power itself is enough to change how a human functions.

I'm nearly always summarily shouted down about "something something... human nature argument... not even worthy of a response..."

Well, I mean, I guess fuck science in favor of your ideology then, guys... Glad to hear that you all had it figured out and we didn't need science or something what the fuck? Their feels about past "human nature" arguments by capitalists have made them blind to science which actually supports the notion that socialism needs more guards against this factor.

Basically agreed with everyone in this thread critiquing this from the left. This is how you get people to shake their head at leftists.

As an aside, I hate this type of writing, and I'm firmly in the Hunter Thompson camp of "if you want to have the common person listen, you have to speak to them like a common person."
posted by deadaluspark at 9:28 AM on March 20, 2020 [17 favorites]


Is this one of those things a computer wrote?
posted by Pembquist at 9:31 AM on March 20, 2020 [5 favorites]


if we're not able to think past "North Korea" (or centrist slogans or Pelosi's approach the coronavirus bailout) it just feels like we aren't trying very hard

I call that the Wile E. Coyote argument. "Just because on numerous occasions in the past XYZ failed [catastrophically], that does not mean that XYZ is impossible" is logically sound, but nevertheless & I think for compelling reasons not widely endorsed outside of cartoons, religious cults, and ruthlessly ambitious regimes.

I also wonder what prevents that sort of argument from working both ways. Shouldn't we also think "past" American capitalism? Perhaps capitalism should be "tried harder"? (i.e. "the problem with capitalism isn't the free market; it's that the market is not free enough"). The argument that past failures do not preclude future successes does not by itself provide direction; the fact that the pot of gold hasn't been found yet doesn't necessarily mean that we should therefore keep following the rainbow.
posted by dmh at 9:41 AM on March 20, 2020 [2 favorites]


[T]he fact that the pot of gold hasn't been found yet doesn't necessarily mean that we should therefore keep following the rainbow.

But what if there was a devious leprechaun who was willing to go to any extent necessary to foil anyone's attempt to find the pot of gold and convince everyone that the gold didn't exist?
posted by zixyer at 10:03 AM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]


I also wonder what prevents that sort of argument from working both ways. Shouldn't we also think "past" American capitalism? Perhaps capitalism should be "tried harder"? (i.e. "the problem with capitalism isn't the free market; it's that the market is not free enough").

Uh, don't people make this argument all the time?
posted by atoxyl at 10:14 AM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]


Well. It’s exciting punchy ideas like that that’ll turn the kids out to vote!
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 10:51 AM on March 20, 2020 [6 favorites]


"I call that the Wile E. Coyote argument."

I feel that Arrested Development captured the argument nicely.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:31 AM on March 20, 2020 [5 favorites]


Uh, don't people make this argument all the time?

Yes, and I think it's an obviously poor argument. Given that unbridled capitalism is barbaric, it is reckless to suggest that the many problems with capitalism can be solved by trying capitalism harder. The point is that I think the argument is equally poor when applied to socialism. To me that's less obvious, because the ideals of socialism are more appealing to me than the ideals of capitalism. But just because the ideals are more appealing, I don't think history has shown them to guarantee "better things". I feel that's just a tragic reality.

I think over the past hundred or so years many, many people have tried really, really hard to realize socialist ideals. That left millions upon millions of people to suffer some of the most exploitative, unfree regimes in recorded history. By which I don't mean to say socialism is "wrong" or that it's "just as bad" as capitalism. I just don't think that ideals as such necessarily lead to "better things", in large part because of the realities of power, as deadaluspark outlined above. Or, quoting the linked piece: "the way in which the ideals are realised tells you what the ideals really are".
posted by dmh at 4:35 PM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]


I just don't think that ideals as such necessarily lead to "better things", in large part because of the realities of power, as deadaluspark outlined above. Or, quoting the linked piece: "the way in which the ideals are realised tells you what the ideals really are".

This. This right here.

I can’t count the number of times when we try to really drill down to how the socialist revolution is supposed make these great changes without chaos we almost immediately hear pretty inflammatory rhetoric disregarding potential chaos. Usually half joking comments about “guillotines” for this group or “purges” for this billionaire and what not.

It’s just that when sensible people can casually throw that talk around when there isn’t a crisis then guess what the real zealots are thinking during one?

Chaos, as they say, is a ladder. And it’s not a ladder for more reasonable studious minds. This is why average people don’t dig the revolution rhetoric so much.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 4:50 PM on March 20, 2020 [9 favorites]


Chaos, as they say, is a ladder. And it’s not a ladder for more reasonable studious minds. This is why average people don’t dig the revolution rhetoric so much.

If average people think they have a choice between fascism or a dictatorship of the proletariat run by Occupy veterans and Critical Studies graduate students.......well, I hope it doesn't come to that.
posted by thelonius at 5:34 PM on March 20, 2020


Same thing I heard during the '60s: bring it down faster, destroy from within, ends justify ... blah de blah blah, etc. It's why we got Nixon. Up until recently, I would have said he was about as bad as you can get. Nothing unrighteous was destroyed, the bad got more powerful. They got better, a LOT better, at being bad, is all.
posted by Chitownfats at 5:39 PM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]


Seems to me that getting better at being bad is largely a matter of amassing control over the necessary resources, and that the reason we're seeing so much egregious badness in 2020 is that never in human history have so many resources been controlled by such a small percentage of the populace.

The welfare state is a socially accepted arrangement designed to put some kind of floor under the minimum level of resources that will ever be available to any member of a society. Execution is flawed in all kinds of well documented ways but that's the concept and the concept is reasonably well accepted.

Seems to me that we're long past due for widespread acceptance of arrangements designed to put some kind of ceiling on the maximum level of resource control that will ever accrue to any individual, preferably by making it progressively harder to accumulate more as the size of the existing stash increases.

As things stand right now, it's progressively easier to accumulate more as the size of the existing stash increases. That seems wrong to me, purely on engineering grounds; it's a positive feedback and those almost always induce either instability or paralysis.

I would like to see the free market operating within a regulatory environment that treats wealth as akin to pressure and makes all its containers leaky so that the more concentrated it attempts to get, the more it automatically gets flung randomly in all directions. Trickle-down can't work if we keep allowing people to patch their own tanks, and in any case what we could and should be setting up is spray irrigation.
posted by flabdablet at 9:32 PM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]


Yeah. Never really been convinced that "move fast and break things" is any sounder outside the tech bubble than in it. "Move judiciously and fix things" works much better for me.

What do we want? Ongoing improvement! When do we want it? In due course!
posted by flabdablet at 1:56 AM on March 21, 2020 [4 favorites]


Usually half joking comments about “guillotines” for this group or “purges” for this billionaire and what not.

The thing that's wild to me about guillotine jokes is that the French Revolution is the canonical example of a small amount of easily justified left-wing political violence, bit by bit (mostly through purity politics), becoming a tyrannical regime that made people wish for the good old days of monarchical hierarchy.

Like, if a left-wing group in 2020 got hold of some guillotines and started doing public executions, how long would it take to expand their definition of ideological enemies to the point where they're executing other leftists who disagreed with their approach? Given the kind of vicious fights leftists get into in 2020, it'd happen at some point.

About the only political violence I have any truck with is Antifa, because Antifa has demonstrated the art of proportional response.

What do we want? Ongoing improvement! When do we want it? In due course!


This is probably my tech biases showing through, but tech does have lessons to teach about doing root-and-branch replacements of existing systems that are too difficult to improve: don't. Netscape lost the First Browser Wars (we are currently in the Second) because they decided on a ground-up rewrite. We got Mozilla out of it, and Mozilla is great, but the price of that was nearly a decade of Internet Explorer 6. The way you redesign a system while it's running is piece by piece, first carefully simplifying it so you get the same result while leaving room to build it out later.
posted by Merus at 2:06 AM on March 21, 2020 [6 favorites]


The thing about root-and-branch replacement is that finding out what the thing you've replaced actually did is always harder than it looks like it's going to be. There's a better than even chance of overlooking some completely vital function that causes a lot of damage when it goes missing, quite probably because it's there to handle rare edge cases, even for quite small reforms; the bigger the reform, the closer that chance gets to certainty.

It doesn't take a lot of looking to gather examples of things that you only need rarely, but when you do need them you really need them. Politics abounds with these to an even greater extent than tech.

"Repeal and replace" was manifestly idiotic coming from somebody who has no clue about how anything works, but none of us has a clue about how everything works.

So yes, better things are possible, but in general need a lot of testing before we can be confident that they actually are better.

Other people's fuckups are a pure gift in this regard. The world owes the US a debt of gratitude for providing so many transparently clear examples of what not to do.
posted by flabdablet at 6:58 AM on March 21, 2020 [3 favorites]


I would encourage anyone who took from No Robots' take on On The Jewish Question that it was not an attack on Jews to read over it. Particularly the second part, where Marx dispenses with the dense paragraphs and starts making very simple declarations. I will just note this passage, and leave it to the more committed Marxists among us to explain how this is not anti-semitism:
Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
posted by Grimgrin at 7:17 AM on March 21, 2020 [4 favorites]


Marx’s argument is that the practical face of Jewish society is one of egoism. This is in keeping with the scoldings of the prophets. Marx says that Christian society is nothing more than this Jewish society transmitted to the pagans, that Christianity is Judaism for non-Jews. Marx’s whole project is to provide a practical means for emancipating mankind from venality, and thereby opening the way to a fulfilled spiritual life. As Amotz Asa-El puts it (“Was Karl Marx a Jew?” Jerusalem Post, May 13, 2018):
In crying for the poor, the oppressed and the disenfranchised, Marx picked up from where the prophets left off, as thousands of other Jews would later do, disproportionately represented among Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Czech, and Romanian revolutionaries; the Spanish Civil War’s foreign volunteers; South Africa’s anti-apartheid strugglers; and America’s civil rights, antiwar, and feminist crusaders.

Marx would protest this dialecticism, but if the apostate who wrote prophecy, demanded justice, scolded the rich, electrified the masses, lived in poverty, and died in exile was not a Jew – who is?
posted by No Robots at 8:55 AM on March 21, 2020


« Older David Sedaris on Whitney Cummings' podcast   |   Robert Louis Streamin', Son Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments