If you are on the Left, you are anti-imperialist. Period.

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
If you are on the Left, you are anti-imperialist. Period.

This is what, as I see it, as the people of the Left I participate in on a daily basis agree to on a daily basis, as the common values of the Left of today and of the Left we need for the future.

Those who are on the Left stand for full human equality, radical redistribution of wealth and decision-making powers, the end of poverty and exploitation in all forms, the end to repression in all forms, an immediate commitment to addressing the climate emergency, the end of repressive governments in all forms, the end of war, the end of nationalism and the lethal division of the world through artificial lines known as borders.  We seek a world in which no nation is a superpower and no nation wishes to BE a superpower.

We seek a world where all share the say over the common decisions which affect us all, where all can count on their basic human, economic, social, and creative needs being met, where all live free of fear, free of pain, free of degradation, disrespect and abuse.

While we understand that some felt that the doctrine of "necessity" justified repressive, even brutal ends in times past, we recognize that those times ARE past, and that neither secret police, nor prisons, nor firing squads or nooses have any legitimate role to play in the future of the Left.  We agree that no Left government or voluntary cooperative arrangement of the people should ever again be an institution which brings fear into the heart of anyone of good will.  And we recognize that revolution can be defended without adopting the methods of the regimes the revolution overthrew.

The Left is about building the new world in the shell of the old, not turning this world into a shell for the sake of turning it into a shell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Without borders there are no social or public services so I can't agree. What you are talking about is a world that might exist someday but is hundreds if not thousands of years away. 

I would love a world with no hunger, no strife, in which everyone could live to their full potential and there would be no such thing as terrorists, mass murderers, serial murderers, no violence and no theft so no need for police. I don't see anyone around with a magic wand. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Without borders there are no social or public services so I can't agree. What you are talking about is a world that might exist someday but is hundreds if not thousands of years away. 

I would love a world with no hunger, no strife, in which everyone could live to their full potential and there would be no such thing as terrorists, mass murderers, serial murderers, no violence and no theft so no need for police. I don't see anyone around with a magic wand. 

It's not about a magic wand.  It's about organizing and base-building and the harnessing of the general will for change.

And I recognize that we are not, at this moment, in a no-borders moment, but at least we could get to a global consensus that all refugees are entitled to a safe harbour and humane, dignified conditions in that harbour.

Pondering

It is still far far away and there are logistical issues. I see the opposite happening. Canada and the US are strengthening fortress North America against climate and economic refugees. I think the powers that be expect a significant percentage of humanity will die especially in Africa and South America as lands become more unlivable. 

lagatta4

Pondering, there is a factual problem with your post. Mexico is every much a part of North America as the USA and the Canadian state. And the majority of the current wave of migrants are not North Americans or South Americans: they are Central Americans, from a region in the Americas beset by repression, dire poverty and gang violence.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

Pondering, there is a factual problem with your post. Mexico is every much a part of North America as the USA and the Canadian state. And the majority of the current wave of migrants are not North Americans or South Americans: they are Central Americans, from a region in the Americas beset by repression, dire poverty and gang violence.

Very true Lagatta but lets not forget our role in deposing democratic governments in favour of coups to install corporate friendly governments. It is Canadian firms that are very nasty in Central America and they add to the problems that cause people to want to migrate.

Pondering

lagatta4 wrote:

Pondering, there is a factual problem with your post. Mexico is every much a part of North America as the USA and the Canadian state. And the majority of the current wave of migrants are not North Americans or South Americans: they are Central Americans, from a region in the Americas beset by repression, dire poverty and gang violence.

When I say what I think is or will happen that doesn't mean I want it to happen. It just means that is what I see. I'm not talking about the current waves I am talking about the 280K climate refugees on the horizon who are, along with economic refugees, are not formally refugees at all under the convention.  The developed world will cause millions of deaths through climate change. 

To speak of no borders is utopian. Humanity is no where near advanced enough to get there. It will certainly happen incrementally over centuries if at all. 

I think the best way the developed world can radically improve the situation of refugees is to stop creating them in the first place. Even that is a utopian dream. The arms industry is going strong. There is no broad concern over it, certainly not strong enough to have the least impact on it. 

Miss America always wants world peace and to end hunger. Admirable goals to be sure but not something even remotely achievable within even our children's lifetime. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norad-canada-us-military-1.5240855

Military leaders from the U.S. and Canada have come to an agreement on the nuts and bolts retooling of Norad, CBC News has learned. 

It is a milestone that could end up pitting the next government in Ottawa against both the Trump administration and perhaps even northern Indigenous communities at home.

Now over six decades old, the bi-national air and maritime defence command — and its associated airfields, radar stations and satellite network — has been in need of a major overhaul in the face of emerging threats, such as North Korean ballistic missiles and rapidly advancing cruise missile technology.

Word of the understanding comes as two Canadian CF-18s and two American F-22 Raptors intercepted two Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers, which pressed close to North American airspace, on Thursday.

The agreement of "what's in and what's out" of the new North American Aerospace Defence Command was struck a few months ago, said a defence source in Ottawa, who was granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Separately, the Canadian general who is the deputy commander of Norad confirmed the two countries are on the same page when it comes to the new framework needed to defend the continent, but cautioned there is still a lot of work and negotiation ahead over capabilities and what is affordable.

Pondering

The opening of this thread defines who is and isn't on the left. By that definition you exclude many people who are allies on various issues.

Paladin1

Ken Burch wrote:

This is what, as I see it, as the people of the Left I participate in on a daily basis agree to on a daily basis, as the common values of the Left of today and of the Left we need for the future.

Those who are on the Left stand for full human equality, radical redistribution of wealth and decision-making powers, the end of poverty and exploitation in all forms, the end to repression in all forms, an immediate commitment to addressing the climate emergency, the end of repressive governments in all forms, the end of war, the end of nationalism and the lethal division of the world through artificial lines known as borders.  We seek a world in which no nation is a superpower and no nation wishes to BE a superpower.

We seek a world where all share the say over the common decisions which affect us all, where all can count on their basic human, economic, social, and creative needs being met, where all live free of fear, free of pain, free of degradation, disrespect and abuse.

While we understand that some felt that the doctrine of "necessity" justified repressive, even brutal ends in times past, we recognize that those times ARE past, and that neither secret police, nor prisons, nor firing squads or nooses have any legitimate role to play in the future of the Left.  We agree that no Left government or voluntary cooperative arrangement of the people should ever again be an institution which brings fear into the heart of anyone of good will.  And we recognize that revolution can be defended without adopting the methods of the regimes the revolution overthrew.

The Left is about building the new world in the shell of the old, not turning this world into a shell for the sake of turning it into a shell.

 

Really interesting post Ken, mind if I ask some questions?

You say the left is about building a new world. What happens to the people who don't share the lefts view of how the world should be? Does the left acknoledge the center and rights Right to choose what world they want to live in? Or do they need to just accept it?

What is radical redistribution of wealth ? Does that mean I take money I earned from my hard work and just give it to other people?

How litteral is without borders? Can someone travel across Asia, Europe and hope on a plane and fly to Toronto without any form of ID?  Can 5 million people show up in Toronto and apply for social assistance?

Does the wothout borders extend to private property? No locks on buildings?

 

It's an interesting idea but seems rather radical and undoable.

iyraste1313

The opening of this thread defines who is and isn't on the left. By that definition you exclude many people who are allies on various issues....

The problem being, especilly now with the controlled MSM, so much of the allies politics is being played on by the agents of control...witness Brazil and the Amazon, Assad, Iran ad nauseum....identity politics is being used to threaten nations sovereignty....not to mention the cases of the First Nations, who´s sovereignty is being threatened by the social democrats and their need for jobs and sustain their capitalist economies

Pondering

By allies I mean individuals. By defining "the left" in such limiting terms people are excluded rather than invited to converse on issues they may agree with. 

I am 100% feminist but feminists don't all agree with each other on all issues. I am strongly pro-choice but I can accept that there are some feminists who strongly believe in the sanctity of all life and support legal protection for the unborn.  

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I am 100% feminist but feminists don't all agree with each other on all issues. I am strongly pro-choice but I can accept that there are some feminists who strongly believe in the sanctity of all life and support legal protection for the unborn.

That's such an awesome way to see issues Pondering.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

It is still far far away and there are logistical issues. I see the opposite happening. Canada and the US are strengthening fortress North America against climate and economic refugees. I think the powers that be expect a significant percentage of humanity will die especially in Africa and South America as lands become more unlivable. 

Things are bad at the moment, as they generally have been, but the vision of something else has to be enunciated and its urgency proclaimed.  We are past the time when borders can play any positive role in the world and there is nothing in the status quo that can be defended on "pragmatic" grounds by the Left. War can never serve progressive or humane roles in the world again; borders can only instruments of death and misery; the Left has to challenge the idea that the majority of the human race which does not have white skin and does not live in Europe, the UK or North America is simply of no value.  And this means that the Left does have to do what you keep saying it needs to never do, and that is to talk about foreign policy and the role of North America, the UK and Europe in the world.  There needs to be a commitment to a massive transfer of wealth and political power from those three regions to the rest of the world, and the left needs to reject any notion that "the West" is the gold standard of anything.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

By allies I mean individuals. By defining "the left" in such limiting terms people are excluded rather than invited to converse on issues they may agree with. 

I am 100% feminist but feminists don't all agree with each other on all issues. I am strongly pro-choice but I can accept that there are some feminists who strongly believe in the sanctity of all life and support legal protection for the unborn.  

There is no way, however, that left values can possibly be consistent with fear of immigration and hostility towards immigrants.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

iyraste1313 wrote:

The opening of this thread defines who is and isn't on the left. By that definition you exclude many people who are allies on various issues....

The problem being, especilly now with the controlled MSM, so much of the allies politics is being played on by the agents of control...witness Brazil and the Amazon, Assad, Iran ad nauseum....identity politics is being used to threaten nations sovereignty....not to mention the cases of the First Nations, who´s sovereignty is being threatened by the social democrats and their need for jobs and sustain their capitalist economies

Not sure who you think I'm leaving out.  It's totally inconsistent with left values to be an apologist for the Chinese or Russian regimes, or with continued advocacy of any authoritarian models of social organization.  Not sure how what I said in the OP that is inconsistent with standing up to "agents of control"-and I really really hope you aren't arguing that the left should stand with Bolsonaro on "national sovereignty" grounds.

Please elaborate. 

iyraste1313

I read your statement on open borders......I am a bioregional (socialist) autonomist...the people must determine what is in the interests of its communities, its watershed ecosystems, what makes a healthy working productive Territory...yes immigration must be controlled and of course not racist based!

Re Bolsonaro, of course I do not see alliance with his politics of ravaging the rainforests in support of the cattle ranchers...this is what must be challenged, but not by threatening to sanction Brazil? Its sovereignty!

What about BC`s burning forests, why double standards?

My main point is that humanitarianism, environmentalism is being used to threaten a people`s sovereignty. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Thank you for clarifying your points there.  And I agree-as I think everybody who has referenced the fires Bolsonaro's supporters deliberately started in the Amazon-that there need to be no double standards on humanitarianism or environmentalism and that neither of those issues should be weaponized by imperialists.

And to clarify again, since my intent seems not to have been totally clear...I wasn't saying that an absence of borders should be an IMMEDIATE thing-though it does need to be a clear objective and there needs to be progress towards that as quickly as possible.

As to immigration, again, I think a major way to reduce it is for "the West" to allow all countries in the world to establish systems that meet the human and economic needs of their own populations.

I don't know of anybody on the left who is saying that Brazil's fires matter but B.C.'s don't.  

 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

And to clarify again, since my intent seems not to have been totally clear...I wasn't saying that an absence of borders should be an IMMEDIATE thing-though it does need to be a clear objective and there needs to be progress towards that as quickly as possible.

How do you see this working logistically? If 20 million people come here tomorrow all our systems collapse from firefighting to schools and hospitals. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

And to clarify again, since my intent seems not to have been totally clear...I wasn't saying that an absence of borders should be an IMMEDIATE thing-though it does need to be a clear objective and there needs to be progress towards that as quickly as possible.

How do you see this working logistically? If 20 million people come here tomorrow all our systems collapse from firefighting to schools and hospitals. 

I have repeatedly stated that I do not support the IMMEDIATE abolition of borders.  There is no reason for you to be raising paranoid, right-wing scenarios like "if 20 million people come here tomorrow".  And I also called for a redistribution of wealth and decision-making power to the places where people have been emigrating FROM.

There is nothing here to belabor.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

And to clarify again, since my intent seems not to have been totally clear...I wasn't saying that an absence of borders should be an IMMEDIATE thing-though it does need to be a clear objective and there needs to be progress towards that as quickly as possible.

How do you see this working logistically? If 20 million people come here tomorrow all our systems collapse from firefighting to schools and hospitals. 

I have repeatedly stated that I do not support the IMMEDIATE abolition of borders.  There is no reason for you to be raising paranoid, right-wing scenarios like "if 20 million people come here tomorrow".  And I also called for a redistribution of wealth and decision-making power to the places where people have been emigrating FROM.

There is nothing here to belabor.

You are still not offering a path from here to there. Left and right are directions not destinations even in politics. Before we get to no borders wouldn't we have to achieve world peace?

I don't even care about left and right. I care about climate change and income inequality. Fix those two things and everything else falls into place regardless of whether or not we have borders. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

This is what, as I see it, as the people of the Left I participate in on a daily basis agree to on a daily basis, as the common values of the Left of today and of the Left we need for the future.

Those who are on the Left stand for full human equality, radical redistribution of wealth and decision-making powers, the end of poverty and exploitation in all forms, the end to repression in all forms, an immediate commitment to addressing the climate emergency, the end of repressive governments in all forms, the end of war, the end of nationalism and the lethal division of the world through artificial lines known as borders.  We seek a world in which no nation is a superpower and no nation wishes to BE a superpower.

We seek a world where all share the say over the common decisions which affect us all, where all can count on their basic human, economic, social, and creative needs being met, where all live free of fear, free of pain, free of degradation, disrespect and abuse.

While we understand that some felt that the doctrine of "necessity" justified repressive, even brutal ends in times past, we recognize that those times ARE past, and that neither secret police, nor prisons, nor firing squads or nooses have any legitimate role to play in the future of the Left.  We agree that no Left government or voluntary cooperative arrangement of the people should ever again be an institution which brings fear into the heart of anyone of good will.  And we recognize that revolution can be defended without adopting the methods of the regimes the revolution overthrew.

The Left is about building the new world in the shell of the old, not turning this world into a shell for the sake of turning it into a shell.

 

Really interesting post Ken, mind if I ask some questions?

You say the left is about building a new world. What happens to the people who don't share the lefts view of how the world should be? Does the left acknoledge the center and rights Right to choose what world they want to live in? Or do they need to just accept it?

What is radical redistribution of wealth ? Does that mean I take money I earned from my hard work and just give it to other people?

How litteral is without borders? Can someone travel across Asia, Europe and hope on a plane and fly to Toronto without any form of ID?  Can 5 million people show up in Toronto and apply for social assistance?

Does the wothout borders extend to private property? No locks on buildings?

 

It's an interesting idea but seems rather radical and undoable.

Thanks for your condescending dismissiveness, to which I'm going to respond to what you see as your devastatingly clever questions with a level of respect they do not deserve:

1) I never said the Right and the Center would be "forced" to accept anything.  They would still have the right to advocate for the status quo-the same right those who have organized against the Right and the Center(actually, the Center-Right, since what we call "The Center" now is just barely to the left of the kind of economic policies R.B. Bennett imposed in the depths of the Great Depression)have had since 1981.  It's enough that they have THAT much of a right to do so-those parts of the spectrum deserve no greater deference or entitlement than any other.  And if they want to have a bit of the world to run on their terms, they should have it-in proportion to their share of the human population, which would come to about 2% to 3%.  The Right and the Center are not entitled to any part of the earth above their share of its inhabitants.   And no, despite what you would like to think, I do not favor coercing or executing those people-nobody is a Stalinist or a Maoist now and the paranoid scenario you raised there simply wouldn't happen.

2) As to the money you "earn"-the truth is that nobody's money is exclusively their own, or was "earned" solely through the efforts of the individual who ends up with it.  We all owe a large part of our paypacket or dividend to the labor which creates it and the decision of the consumer to partake of the goods and services produced by the labor of others as well as ourselves.  I'll grant that you work-but so do the rest of us, unless the system keeps us from working.

3) I'm talking about the freedom of human movement, and also the right of those in the countries where the wealth of "the West" is created through exploitation being able to keep enough of the wealth they create that they can meet the social and economic needs of the people who live there and do the wealth-creating in the first place.   If you want immigration reduced, the way to do that is to reduce fear, poverty, and exploitation in the countries people emigrate FROM.  We can't expect the rest of the human race to just "take one for the team" and stay back in the misery Western capitalism causes in their home countries-either the misery has to be reduced or freedom of human movement has to be accepted out of simple decency.  It has to be one or the other.

4) Open borders have nothing to do with the status of anyone's property.  And there is no way that free movement of humans would ever equate to people having the right to steal "your" stuff.  Nor would it lead to you ceasing the right to have personal belongings-the "private property" Marx referred to was factories, mills, large estates on which workers toiled in the sun and rain-property is the workplace.  Nothing I'm talking about would equate to somebody showing up from Pakistan and stealing your toothbrush or your Care Bear or something.

 

Paladin1

Ken Burch wrote:

Thanks for your condescending dismissiveness, to which I'm going to respond to what you see as your devastatingly clever questions with a level of respect they do not deserve:

That seems like a fairly defensive and strawman type response Ken. Maybe you're right though, in which case I'm sorry if I came across as dismissive, it wasn't my intent. I have my views, you have yours. Doubt we'll change each others mine anytime soon. Some of the things you mentioned made me raise an eye brow and I was genuinely curious about the questions I asked.

Quote:
1) I never said the Right and the Center would be "forced" to accept anything.

You're right, you didn't. Nor did I suggest you did. I asked "what if".

Quote:
And no, despite what you would like to think, I do not favor coercing or executing those people-nobody is a Stalinist or a Maoist now and the paranoid scenario you raised there simply wouldn't happen.

Again a little defensive. I didn't suggest you did think that way so there's no reason to accuse me of thinking that way.

When someone suggests a new world, asking what happens to the people who don't want that world seems to me like a viable question.

Quote:
2) As to the money you "earn"-the truth is that nobody's money is exclusively their own, or was "earned" solely through the efforts of the individual who ends up with it.  We all owe a large part of our paypacket or dividend to the labor which creates it and the decision of the consumer to partake of the goods and services produced by the labor of others as well as ourselves.  I'll grant that you work-but so do the rest of us, unless the system keeps us from working.

That's a bit weird to me. I work pretty hard for my money. I'll presume you work hard for your money. The taxes you pay pay my pay check so I think i sort of understand where you're coming from, however, I don't feel I owe you part of my pay check. What I do owe you, and the rest of Canadians, is to strive to be the best at my job and be a great employee. Also behave within the guidelines expected of me. Maybe I just don't understand the concept of redistribution of wealth though. I think with the amount of taxes we pay we need to have better control over how the government spends the money.

Quote:
3) I'm talking about the freedom of human movement, and also the right of those in the countries where the wealth of "the West" is created through exploitation being able to keep enough of the wealth they create that they can meet the social and economic needs of the people who live there and do the wealth-creating in the first place.   If you want immigration reduced, the way to do that is to reduce fear, poverty, and exploitation in the countries people emigrate FROM.  We can't expect the rest of the human race to just "take one for the team" and stay back in the misery Western capitalism causes in their home countries-either the misery has to be reduced or freedom of human movement has to be accepted out of simple decency.  It has to be one or the other.

I'm begnning to feel that way more and more every day. I've seen first hand what western influence can do to countries.

Quote:
4) Open borders have nothing to do with the status of anyone's property.  And there is no way that free movement of humans would ever equate to people having the right to steal "your" stuff.  Nor would it lead to you ceasing the right to have personal belongings-the "private property" Marx referred to was factories, mills, large estates on which workers toiled in the sun and rain-property is the workplace.  Nothing I'm talking about would equate to somebody showing up from Pakistan and stealing your toothbrush or your Care Bear or something.

Fair enough. And I know you used a common shock statement "right wing paranoia about 20 million people showing up" but there's truth to it. Parts of Europe are out of control because of mass exodus's of refugees and imigrants. Even Angela Merkel admitted to messing up how they handled refugees. Pondering brings up a good point about services being overloaded. Look at our own Syrian refugees being resettled in TO. Crammed in appartments that the government is paying crazy amounts of money for. They can't get doctors or medical services. Lots of them are having a pretty shitty time. Open borders aren't a viable solution IMO.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Part of Europe are facing heavy immigration because of the chaos in Syria.  The people fleeing Syria had nowhere else to go but Europe if they wanted to be out of the line of fire.  It's not as simple as just saying Europe should make them stay where they are.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And as to the Right and the Center, questions like "what would happen to them" implies that possible extermination was on the agenda.  It was a deeply loaded question, with the clear subtext "prove you won't do mass executions right-wing politicians and stockbrokers".  That was what prompted my response.  BTW, the Indian author Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million people have been killed by capitalism, so the Right is not entitled to lecture any part of the Left, even the Stalinists, about unnecessary loss of human life.

As to redistribution of wealth, it should be called "return OF wealth to those who created it", since most of the wealth existant in the world today is held by "the West"-and "the West" holds this wealth largely because, in one way or another, it stole it from the rest of the world-from the majority of countries with non-white majorities and from underneath the feet of the indigenous populations of the Americas and Australia/New Zealand.

As I said, you work hard and I respect that-but nobody's money is theirs solely because of what that individual did.  In terms of what you should "owe":  Ok, you owe it to the rest of the human race to understand that we are all interconnected, that wealth is interconnected, and that we all have some basic oblitagation to each other as fellow humans not to look down on others, not to treat others as less "worthy" of a decent life than we might be, and to do something, in some way, to make it possible for each of us to live in dignity, hope, respect, and freedom in the larger sense-not freedom in the narrow, constricted conservative of idea of the right to get rich, but freedom to live without want, fear, or hopelessness.

You and I probably won't ever agree, but I do respect the fact that, in that second response, you chose dialog and a willingness to consider ideas.  Dialog is always better than "drive-bys" and the repetition of catch phrases.

 

BTW, the line about 20 million people showing up was in response to a scenario Pondering laid out, not you.  

iyraste1313

¨The Left is about building the new world in the shell of the old¨

Thanks for this...which to me is essential! I harp on the coming desecration facing us from the finance capitalist bubble credit financial system...when it bursts and it may already have started, again, most people will be totally unprepared...and its terrifying to consider the consequences.....people f the left must be considering how to put their ideals into action now! How to gradually withdraw from dependency on the system, while building alternatives based on concepts of social justice and eco sustainability, now! Where are people on the left discussing this, putting this into practice in their personal lives, their communities, whatever that may be for people!

Paladin1

Ken, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I wanted to write something then revist it a few days later before posting just to make sure my context and tone were good to go.

Ken Burch wrote:

Part of Europe are facing heavy immigration because of the chaos in Syria.  The people fleeing Syria had nowhere else to go but Europe if they wanted to be out of the line of fire.  It's not as simple as just saying Europe should make them stay where they are.

No disagreements here. Iran and Iraq held each other to a standstill for 8 years. We came in, smashed Iraq and smashed their economy. There's lots of money there but it's US money and a US controled economy. Now Syria is involved and facing the same style of ussues, both because their military and government is getting smashed but also foreign money. It's a horrible example sure but we shoot and kill a bear for becoming dependent on human food- yet we make these economies dependent on us.

It's another story perhaps but just to mention the Syrians that we took weren't in danger in so far as ISIS chasing them, bombs dropping on them, kids drowning crossing rivers. That was our media pushing that image. The refugees we took have been waiting in UN refugee camps for years (not the hotel ritz but people are treated better than we treat our homeless). Only 3000 out of the 30,000 we asked to come to Canada initially said yes.  That says a lot.

 

Ken Burch wrote:

And as to the Right and the Center, questions like "what would happen to them" implies that possible extermination was on the agenda.  It was a deeply loaded question, with the clear subtext "prove you won't do mass executions right-wing politicians and stockbrokers".  That was what prompted my response.  BTW, the Indian author Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million people have been killed by capitalism, so the Right is not entitled to lecture any part of the Left, even the Stalinists, about unnecessary loss of human life.

Loaded for sure. I wasn't asking to prove you won't do mass execustions but lets be honest. When someone talks about creating a new world that behavior is often synomyous. If I told you that I had an idea for a new world I suspect you might ask me the same kind of questions. Think members here would want to hear me out or assume the worst? The left  can be just as single minded in their pursuit of their beliefs as the right.

Ken Burch wrote:

As to redistribution of wealth, it should be called "return OF wealth to those who created it", since most of the wealth existant in the world today is held by "the West"-and "the West" holds this wealth largely because, in one way or another, it stole it from the rest of the world-from the majority of countries with non-white majorities and from underneath the feet of the indigenous populations of the Americas and Australia/New Zealand.

I don't really know or understand much about this Ken.

I know I pay a lot of taxes and I'm none too impressed when I read about tax payers having to pay out RCMP and Military sexual harassment cases. 2 billion dollars wasted in gas plants. countries I never even heard of before getting millions and millions of dollars from us. Government throws money away. Before redistributing wealth I'd like to see us having better control in how it's spent. Unless that's the same thing?

Ken Burch wrote:
As I said, you work hard and I respect that-but nobody's money is theirs solely because of what that individual did.  In terms of what you should "owe":  Ok, you owe it to the rest of the human race to understand that we are all interconnected, that wealth is interconnected, and that we all have some basic oblitagation to each other as fellow humans not to look down on others, not to treat others as less "worthy" of a decent life than we might be, and to do something, in some way, to make it possible for each of us to live in dignity, hope, respect, and freedom in the larger sense-not freedom in the narrow, constricted conservative of idea of the right to get rich, but freedom to live without want, fear, or hopelessness.

This might be a bit over my head too. Love the idea of a basic oblitagation to each other as humans. I like the Star Trek model of humanity coming together to work towards making our planet a better place. Get rid of personal material driven economies and views of success.

Ken Burch wrote:
You and I probably won't ever agree, but I do respect the fact that, in that second response, you chose dialog and a willingness to consider ideas.  Dialog is always better than "drive-bys" and the repetition of catch phrases

Thanks Ken. Rabble has 100% made me a better more respectful internet user (I think) and I'm cognizant that I take from Rabble way way more than I give.

Ken Burch wrote:

BTW, the line about 20 million people showing up was in response to a scenario Pondering laid out, not you.  

Oops you're right. I really like Pondering :)

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

I think everything outlined is simply the moral feel good aspect to 21st century western imperialism, no different than the christianize the heathens of yesteryear. The west is too morally damaged to lead anything in the future, and repetitions to the contrary by mass media only seek to delay the inevitable.

 

 

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I don't want "the West" to lead anything, though.  

I'm open to whatever people might suggest as additions, other than censorship or executions.  Neither of those things are transformational.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

 

Ken Burch wrote:

And as to the Right and the Center, questions like "what would happen to them" implies that possible extermination was on the agenda.  It was a deeply loaded question, with the clear subtext "prove you won't do mass executions of right-wing politicians and stockbrokers".  That was what prompted my response.  BTW, the Indian author Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million people have been killed by capitalism, so the Right is not entitled to lecture any part of the Left, even the Stalinists, about unnecessary loss of human life.

Loaded for sure. I wasn't asking to prove you won't do mass execustions but lets be honest. When someone talks about creating a new world that behavior is often synomyous. If I told you that I had an idea for a new world I suspect you might ask me the same kind of questions. Think members here would want to hear me out or assume the worst? The left  can be just as single minded in their pursuit of their beliefs as the right.

Ken Burch wrote:

Well, ok, that is true...I think those people are in a small and rapidly declining minority of the left, though.  The majority of the left-at least the left in the Americas, the UK, and most of Europe, plus those peoples of the non-Western left who follow the non-repressive example set by Afrin(the group which currently keeps the Rojava region of Syria free from Assad and from the all-but-fascist regime in Turkey), in recognizing that the methods of Stalin and Mao and their disciples should be consigned to the dead past.

And I did post THIS in my OP, which I would have thought would have answered your question before you asked it(I've slightly edited it here for clarity):  "While we understand that some felt that the doctrine of 'necessity' justified repressive, even brutal means in times past, we recognize that those times ARE past, and that neither secret police, nor prisons, nor firing squads or nooses have any legitimate role to play in the future of the Left.  We agree that no Left government or voluntary cooperative arrangement of the people should ever again be an institution which brings fear into the heart of anyone of good will.  And we recognize that revolution can be defended without adopting the methods of the regimes the revolution overthrew."

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I would give the people you mentioned the same rights to free speech and expression the right and center give the left today.  They are entitled to no more than that, and they are entitled neither to special deference from anyone or hegemony at any time.  The current political and economic "consensus" is not the ultimate best answer to anything, nor is it even a consensus any longer.  

 

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

I don't want "the West" to lead anything, though.  

I'm open to whatever people might suggest as additions, other than censorship or executions.  Neither of those things are transformational.

A few crimes will always be punishable by death..

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I don't want "the West" to lead anything, though.  

I'm open to whatever people might suggest as additions, other than censorship or executions.  Neither of those things are transformational.

A few crimes will always be punishable by death..

which crimes would you include for that?

And why do there need to be?

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

A few crimes will always be punishable by death..

From Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

Most countries, including almost all First World nations, have abolished capital punishment either in law or in practice. Notable exceptions are the United States, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and most Islamic states. The United States is the only Western country to still use the death penalty.[61][62][63][64][65][66][67]

Since World War II, there has been a trend toward abolishing the death penalty. 58 countries retain the death penalty in active use, 102 countries have abolished capital punishment altogether, six have done so for all offences except under special circumstances, and 32 more have abolished it in practice because they have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice against carrying out executions.[54]

According to Amnesty International, 23 countries are known to have performed executions in 2016.[68] There are countries which do not publish information on the use of capital punishment, most significantly China and North Korea. As per Amnesty International, around 1000 prisoners were executed in 2017.[69]

CountryTotal executed
(2018)[70] China1,000+ Iran253+ Saudi Arabia149 Vietnam85+ Iraq52+ Egypt43+ United States25 Japan15 Pakistan14+ Singapore13 Somalia13 South Sudan7+ Belarus4+ Yemen4+ Afghanistan3 Botswana2 Sudan2 Taiwan1 Thailand1 North KoreaUnknown

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And let's face...in most of the world, the death penalty is mainly used to murder political dissidents, not to punish people who have actually committed violent crimes.

Pondering

Redistribution of wealth is happening constantly.  The economy is manmade. Physically most people agree that might doesn't make right. The same goes for financial power. It is strange that the wealthy cannot seem to help themselves even though they are hurting themselves over the long run although they are insulated so maybe it really doesn't matter to them. 

Even the World Bank and IMF know that the current redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the uber wealthy is bad for the economy. Money has to circulate for wealth to be created.

The tool we have to prevent might makes right is laws and police forces. The tool we think we have, and could have, to prevent the wealthy from using their form of might makes right is our government. Unfortunately we have allowed the wealthy to undermine our limited democracy and place government at their service instead of the service of the people. 

One of the best forms of wealth redistribution is publically funded quality education for all. Another is medicare. All publically funded services are in some way wealth redistribution. Miley Cyrus doesn't have so much wealth because she is so talented she has it because her dad is Billy Rae Cyrus. Trade deals are written to support business as though it is a given that is the way it has to be. 

When it comes down to brass tacks everyone does better when the middle class is large and strong. When the middle class begins to shrink it is not a "natural outcome" because robotics or off-shoring or some other excuse. It shrinks because the wealthy start governing to their short term benefit forgetting about how that wealth is really created. 

The stock market is gambling not investing. Investing would be when you put money in a business and leave it there longterm not buying and selling in seconds to be fractions of a cent on millons of shares. That money comes out of the pockets of the people who actually create wealth not only through their labour but also as consumers. 

Consumer laws are about a half century behind.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

I moreso have this in mind when talking about the death penalty:

https://twitter.com/JungNihang/status/1142425683672674304?s=20

Another similar account is when a distressed Brahmin father came to Baba Baghel Singh because his daughter had been kidnapped by an affluent Sayyid. The Khalsa decimated his forces, freed other Hindu women he had abducted, and tied him to a roof and burnt him alive for his crimes

The woman then started crying to the Singhs, saying she had been raped by her kidnapper and that her in-laws would not accept her. The Khalsa resolved to marry her off as their daughter, and told the in-laws they could accept the marriage proposal or fight them. They accepted.

swallow swallow's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Part of Europe are facing heavy immigration because of the chaos in Syria. 

I don't think they are actually. There are fewer than 200,000 refugees in Italy, but around 3 million in Jordan. There are more refugees in China than there are in Greece. There are only a few thousand refugees in Hungary, which makes the msot noise about keeping them out. Russia has a higher percentage of foreign-born population than France or Spain.

European countries are facing heavier flows than they did before, but it's more about fear of foreigners rather than the actual pressure of immigration, which is not that big.