How much do you know about real politics?

[The Machine]

I consider myself pretty well versed in radical politics, but I've pretty much come to the realization that I don't know dick about current events for the most part. Nerding out on socialist politics has left me with a really good knowledge of history, especially for my education level, but outside of stuff happening recently that moonbats get worked up about (abortion rights, weed, Isreal and Palestine, Hostess, Occupy ect) I don't know a whole lot. I certainly couldn't have an intelligent conversation about the election, Obama or really anything going on for the most part.

[Drosophila]

Politics is politics. It's pretty hard to be well-versed in communism without knowing what is happening in the present. Not like we just bury ourselves in books and tune out everything else.

[Yuppie Grinder]

It's pretty hard to be well-versed in Marxism, for instance, without knowing what is happening in the present. Not like we just bury ourselves in books and tune out everything else.

Actually most do that and just repeat to themselves "Capitalism is in crisis, the revolution will be any day now!".
I'm pretty well versed in current events and stuff.

[Drosophila]

Actually most do that and just repeat to themselves "Capitalism is in crisis, the revolution will be any day now!".
I'm pretty well versed in current events and stuff.

Well, there you have it. You can't tell if capitalism is in crisis without being aware of what's going on.

[The Machine]

nah most communists just have that one size fits all response for everything. shitty ISO trots probably know the most about real politics because they actually care.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Is the ISO really shitty? I've heard they do good activist work.

[The Machine]

idk im not involved in the activist scene so i couldnt tell you. i do know that dave zirin is ISO and while hes a pretty good sportswriter his politics annoy me to no end.

[Drosophila]

nah most communists just have that one size fits all response for everything.

Making "one size fit all" isn't very hard when the "size" is thousands upon thousand of pages and nearly 150 years of theory.


shitty ISO trots probably know the most about real politics because they actually care.Key word being "probably." I get the feeling you've never actually met a Marxist in real life.


Is the ISO really shitty? I've heard they do good activist work.


They're on par with most other U.S. parties: reformist rhetoric and impotent strategies.

[Ostrinski]

I try to know just enough to formulate an effective mockery of them, outside of things that I actually care about.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm amazed that some communists have this attitude of like, 'well, we know shit loads of marxist theory from one, two hundred years ago, so we laugh at all this contemporary stuff.' Who is that going to impress?

Politics is politics, as was said above. If you really care, you'll engage at some level, even if it is hugely critical and dissenting. If you're not at all engaged, then perhaps you are just an ideologue who likes pretty theoretical, absracted ideas more than caring about real outcomes.

[Avanti]

politics

are just

zombie fireworks

the only real

political issue

is

losers vs winners

[Ocean Seal]

I know a lot less since becoming a Marxist.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I consider myself pretty well versed in radical politics, but I've pretty much come to the realization that I don't know dick about current events for the most part. Nerding out on socialist politics has left me with a really good knowledge of history, especially for my education level, but outside of stuff happening recently that moonbats get worked up about (abortion rights, weed, Isreal and Palestine, Hostess, Occupy ect) I don't know a whole lot. I certainly couldn't have an intelligent conversation about the election, Obama or really anything going on for the most part.

The World Socialist Website is sectarian as hell, but it does give a good leftist analysis of current events.

The Economist is good.Its conservative but a type of more laid back British conservative, not quite as rabid as the more viscous US version.It comes out once every 2 weeks, I believe. I think you can get an online subscription for around $9 a month.

Assuming you're in the US, NPR is helpful. They are pretty much strict mainstream liberals (and seems to have shifted to the right in recent years) and their unspoken assumptions are intensely annoying but it will keep you informed.Morning Edition is somewhat better.Listen to this for a week or two and you;; be more informed than many.

[Let's Get Free]

I try to keep up with current events, but I prefer to read blogs or books that analyze and explain why certain events are happening. The news media is only suppose to report facts, but when they do step over the lines and provide analysis, that analysis tends to be simplistic if not overtly biased.

Lately though, I haven't been reading as many political books or paying attention to the news media. I suppose you can only read so much and it starts to get repetitive after awhile.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Economist is pretty terrible imo. Their solution to everything is privatize more stuff. The first issue was released during the Irish potato famine and they suggested that the Irish be allowed to starve to death. The worst sort of sociopathic liberals. Its every bit as reactionary as Fox News except it celebrates over-educated elitism instead of disguising it's anti-worker views in phony populism.
Also, you can't get any news there that you can't get by watching C-Span.

[Drosophila]

BTW, you could read/subscribe to pretty much any left-wing party's website or newspaper and get a great dosage of current events. I often read the publications of the CWI, IMT, and CPGB, all of which give interesting analyses of current events. I find these to be much better than mainstream media crap, which is is pretty much entirely liberal.

[Raúl Duke]

Compared to me peers....I'm rather knowledgeable on "current events" and am an avid reader of the news which I can find online.

I get most of my news via alternet or newser.

[GoddessCleoLover]

One should read widely about politics, both bourgeois and Marxian sources. After all, Marx and Engels had to rely on bourgeois information sources, didn't they?

[smellincoffee]

For practical reasons, when discussing politics with people I ignore issues which have been consigned into Partisan Hell, where each side is passionate about how terribly Right it is, and how EVIL or IMBECILIC the other side is -- like abortion. Instead, I look at issues which are of practical concern to everyone, but defy being partitioned -- like infrastructure, urban planning, and so on. I try to keep informed about the holy trinity of material civilization -- energy, food, and infrastructure -- and let the talking heads on TV yammer about the rest.


Sewage is far more interesting than heated debates on the merits of different tax breaks.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I appreciate your point, but for the female half of the population the abortion issue cannot be ignored, can it?

[smellincoffee]

I appreciate your point, but for the female half of the population the abortion issue cannot be ignored, can it?

That's certainly true. At the same time, emotions on it run so hot that I don't know if arguments about it accomplish anything. For me the resolution is in making abortion a virtual nonissue by aggressively pushing effective birth control. If the only call for abortions came from pregnancies in which the fetus endangered the mother, I think favor would shift decisively to the pro-choice crowd. As long as abortion is seen as a matter of convenience, though, it is easy prey to moralizing.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Comrade, your hypothesis rests upon the premise that the American right is willing to engage the abortion issue in good faith. I believe that they use it as a pretext for political polarization. They activist core of abortion opponents are not amenable to compromise and even would deny abortions to victims of rape/incest. Akin and Murdouck represent the views of that activist core, and defeating them at the polls was a step forward for women.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I appreciate your point, but for the female half of the population the abortion issue cannot be ignored, can it?

Girls aren't the only ones that are affected by abortions. I know a few guys who would at the very least be paying child support if abortions were outlawed.

[GPDP]

Most of my knowledge of current politics and world events comes either from reading posts made about them on this site, glancing at TV news channels if I happen to walk by as my dad watches them, or whatever he watches in them and discusses with me. Sometimes I'll catch a small glimpse from news sites or the paper, but yeah. For someone who graduated with a BA in political science, I don't get into the nitty-gritty as much as I should. I'm not ignorant, but a lot of times I can't find myself giving a shit about many of the politics-related things some of my friends are always posting on Facebook. Mostly really partisan shit having to do with something some Republican asshole said, or a bill or whatever.

Just the other night, I was at a party, and my friend's boyfriend, who at least wanted to come off as very educated and having high culture (swell guy, but he did strike me as a little snobbish), kept going on about bills in Congress, and specific policies the Republicans wanted to enact, etc. I couldn't arse myself to follow the discussion. I dunno, I guess I felt like he was trying to show off or something at the time, but I honestly could never find myself delving too deep into the machinations of everyday policy-making in government unless I was forced to, even during college.

Well, that's actually partially untrue. There was a period of time after I became somewhat politically-conscious around 2004 that I wanted to pass myself off as "very informed," so I would read the newspaper every day, watch the news, followed what the politicians said and the bills they introduced closely, etc. But around 2007, when I became a communist, I found myself caring less and less about that stuff, even as I continued working on my pol sci degree. Once I awakened to the class nature of this government and why things more or less work the way they do from a socialist standpoint, it's like, the details don't matter that much sometimes, yeah? I mean, there are times when they definitely matter (they certainly did when it came to my application for deferred action, for one), but in the grand scheme of things, I just do not give a shit what a particular bill or a provision in that bill says, when it's about the larger context of what agenda is trying to be pushed through.

As a socialist, I no longer believe in opposing just specific reactionary politics, policies, or ideas. I know and oppose the system that gives birth to them, and for better or worse, it has often led me to disregard a lot of the political drama that my friends actively engage in. Maybe it's the wrong approach to take, I don't know. Maybe it's just as sign of laziness, disillusionment, or alienation. But yeah, I can't fathom why someone would immerse themselves in so-called "real politics" to such a degree when the content is often so convoluted, petty, and sometimes downright divorced from the wider reality that it boggles the mind and makes one throw their hands up in the air.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

As a socialist, I no longer believe in opposing just specific reactionary politics, policies, or ideas. I know and oppose the system that gives birth to them, and for better or worse, it has often led me to disregard a lot of the political drama that my friends actively engage in. Maybe it's the wrong approach to take, I don't know. Maybe it's just as sign of laziness, disillusionment, or alienation. But yeah, I can't fathom why someone would immerse themselves in so-called "real politics" to such a degree when the content is often so convoluted, petty, and sometimes downright divorced from the wider reality that it boggles the mind and makes one throw their hands up in the air.

I think that you are my favorite poster.

(Except for my comrades, don't take offense to this in_com :P)

Seriously I think I might touch up a bit of what you said here and make it into my signature (citing you of course)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I used to go on the BBC website every other day or so and kept up to date with what was going on because I figured it was 'unbiased'. Now I can't stand it and most of the shit that's on that site just sends me into a rage. I've tried to go on various leftist websites but I find a lot of rev-leftist news peppered with sectarianism which similarly pisses me off. So most of my 'current affairs' knowledge has come from engaging in discussions with my comrades and participating in anti-austerity actions.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

but outside of stuff happening recently that moonbats get worked up about (abortion rights, weed, Isreal and Palestine, Hostess, Occupy ect)
"Moonbat" is an interesting phrase to use on a leftist website to refer to people who support women's reproductive rights or who are concerned about Zionist ethnic cleansing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's certainly true. At the same time, emotions on it run so hot that I don't know if arguments about it accomplish anything. For me the resolution is in making abortion a virtual nonissue by aggressively pushing effective birth control. If the only call for abortions came from pregnancies in which the fetus endangered the mother, I think favor would shift decisively to the pro-choice crowd. As long as abortion is seen as a matter of convenience, though, it is easy prey to moralizing.

Abortion is seen as a matter of convenience because that is how the moralists frame the issue, and you've (unwittingly?) accepted that framing without question.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think balence is important. So I uesually check out some mainstream news and see what the headlines are and I might read an article or two depending on my interest/the usefulness of the article. I'm not really a "news junkie", but I try to at least have a sense of what people are being told and what issues people might be talking about. Having the best radical ideas and theory and whatnot is meaningless in my opinion, if it can not be related to the general working class who are ultimately the only force currently that can transform society for the better.


idk im not involved in the activist scene so i couldnt tell you. i do know that dave zirin is ISO and while hes a pretty good sportswriter his politics annoy me to no end.We try and do activist work that we think can help build-up a more militant responce out of which people can begin to draw more radical conclusions and learn practical things about self-organization. Because of this it is important to know, on a practical level, what are the messages being pushed from the top, how much are people being influenced by mainstream politics etc.

I try and catch the local news (which is less nausiating now in the Bay Area because in the past few years there's some kind of small action or movement being coverd every couple of weeks now it seems) and then read the NYTimes, sometimes the economist, sometimes liberal sites like Huffington post. Then you get a general sense of what the arguments average workers are being exposed to and get a sense of how strongly people accept them.

Occupy was a good example of this because at various points you could really tell in Oakland when people were supportive of the movement or not based on if they were buying the arguments made in the media or not. At first people accepted the media charaterization that it was "just silly hippies" but as the movement stayed and the city turned more openly against it, then you heard, "I wouldn't camp out there, but I like what they are talking about and why is the city giving them a hard time... they're just hippies!". By the time the crackdown happened, people were outraged despite demonization of the movement by the media. And then as time went on, you could observe the mood change again and the media hype more loudly echoed on the steets.

The "fiscal cliff" is another thing to pay attention to. I think it's total bullshit and an attempt for liberals to find cover for their version of an austerity program. I try and avoid a lot of the media hype on this, but as things move ahead, how sucessfully Obama is able to convince working class people of his "bargin" and how much people internalize media hype, will tell us a lot about consiousness among workers following the election. If people don't give Obama a total pass, then it tells us we have a good combative mood out there and openings for actions by workers to gain support if they are seen as pushing back against the cuts and effects of the recession and austerity. If people give Obama another Honeymoon, it will be a good indication that people are more on the demoralized side and it might take more effort to get support for strikes or protests.

Without independant working class organizations and without a lot of rank and file action in labor, it's hard to tell what the general state of class consiousness is, so we all just have to make our best guesses for now and really that means looking at annecdotal things, trying to see if conbativeness is localized or more general, and seeing how much people are accepting or rejecting the arguements from the top (or from other sources) helps cobble together a better picture of transitory moods and then this can help us make better judgements about if activities we are involved in can reach a broad audience more easily (like if there will be community support for a strike, if people are willing to take to the streets and organize against a killing by a cop, etc) or if we need to kinda start with basics because consiousness isn't really there (basically building up our smaller networks and trying to do outreach and education and build up forces).

[ВАЛТЕР]

I'm pretty well versed in current events. Not so much on the political scene in my country (who's minister of what and that nonsense), but I have a good grasp on what is going on in the world.

[Quail]

I try to keep myself informed on what's going on, but sometimes I just find reading the news is too depressing. It feels like this constant onslaught of bullshit and it makes me feel pretty demoralised. Still though, it's kind of important to make an analysis of what's going on currently so that you can actually talk to and engage with people.

[The Machine]

"Moonbat" is an interesting phrase to use on a leftist website to refer to people who support women's reproductive rights or who are concerned about Zionist ethnic cleansing.

its a term of endearment. luh you guys. but yeah most normal people probably dont care/know much about isreal.

[The Machine]

I think balence is important. So I uesually check out some mainstream news and see what the headlines are and I might read an article or two depending on my interest/the usefulness of the article. I'm not really a "news junkie", but I try to at least have a sense of what people are being told and what issues people might be talking about. Having the best radical ideas and theory and whatnot is meaningless in my opinion, if it can not be related to the general working class who are ultimately the only force currently that can transform society for the better.

We try and do activist work that we think can help build-up a more militant responce out of which people can begin to draw more radical conclusions and learn practical things about self-organization. Because of this it is important to know, on a practical level, what are the messages being pushed from the top, how much are people being influenced by mainstream politics etc.

I try and catch the local news (which is less nausiating now in the Bay Area because in the past few years there's some kind of small action or movement being coverd every couple of weeks now it seems) and then read the NYTimes, sometimes the economist, sometimes liberal sites like Huffington post. Then you get a general sense of what the arguments average workers are being exposed to and get a sense of how strongly people accept them.

Occupy was a good example of this because at various points you could really tell in Oakland when people were supportive of the movement or not based on if they were buying the arguments made in the media or not. At first people accepted the media charaterization that it was "just silly hippies" but as the movement stayed and the city turned more openly against it, then you heard, "I wouldn't camp out there, but I like what they are talking about and why is the city giving them a hard time... they're just hippies!". By the time the crackdown happened, people were outraged despite demonization of the movement by the media. And then as time went on, you could observe the mood change again and the media hype more loudly echoed on the steets.

The "fiscal cliff" is another thing to pay attention to. I think it's total bullshit and an attempt for liberals to find cover for their version of an austerity program. I try and avoid a lot of the media hype on this, but as things move ahead, how sucessfully Obama is able to convince working class people of his "bargin" and how much people internalize media hype, will tell us a lot about consiousness among workers following the election. If people don't give Obama a total pass, then it tells us we have a good combative mood out there and openings for actions by workers to gain support if they are seen as pushing back against the cuts and effects of the recession and austerity. If people give Obama another Honeymoon, it will be a good indication that people are more on the demoralized side and it might take more effort to get support for strikes or protests.

Without independant working class organizations and without a lot of rank and file action in labor, it's hard to tell what the general state of class consiousness is, so we all just have to make our best guesses for now and really that means looking at annecdotal things, trying to see if conbativeness is localized or more general, and seeing how much people are accepting or rejecting the arguements from the top (or from other sources) helps cobble together a better picture of transitory moods and then this can help us make better judgements about if activities we are involved in can reach a broad audience more easily (like if there will be community support for a strike, if people are willing to take to the streets and organize against a killing by a cop, etc) or if we need to kinda start with basics because consiousness isn't really there (basically building up our smaller networks and trying to do outreach and education and build up forces).

whats your position on obama/the democrats? from what ive seen on his collum and radio show zirin goes from moderate criticism to full on democratic dick riding. he wrote articles celebrating the obama victory after both elections though, is this consistent with the iso party line?

[Jimmie Higgins]

whats your position on obama/the democrats? from what ive seen on his collum and radio show zirin goes from moderate criticism to full on democratic dick riding. he wrote articles celebrating the obama victory after both elections though, is this consistent with the iso party line?Only according to the sectarians who write the World Socialist Website.

First, what does likeing dick have to do with liking Obama - there's nothing wrong with people who like sex with men.

Second, no Zirin is against Obama and if he wasn't he'd be asked to leave the group just like the one person I ever told was no longer welcome as a member after they repeatedly argued for lesser-evilism around Kerry in 2004.

The ISO is consitantly against the Democrats, you can check out the book we published in 2008 about the role of the Democrats in the US, you can check out our articles.

As for Zirin, when I googled "Obama, Zirin" the first hit I got was an article in the Huffington Post from 2009:



On November 19th, President Barack Obama wrote a stirring tribute in USA Today to the most famous draft resister in US history, Muhammad Ali. On Tuesday, Obama spoke at West Point, calling for an increase of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, with a speech that recalled the worst shadings of George W. Bush's "war on terror."

On November 19th, Obama wrote about why Ali's photo hangs over his desk, praising "The Greatest" for "his unique ability to summon extraordinary strength and courage in the face of adversity, to navigate the storm and never lose his way." On Tuesday, Obama showed neither courage nor strength but the worst kind of imperial arrogance. He asserted America's right to go into a deeply impoverished country that -- from Alexander the Great to the USSR to today -- has made clear to the world's empires that it wants to be left the hell alone.
...
Replace Vietnam with Afghanistan [in Ali's speech that Zirin quotes] and it's a message Barack Obama and our troops need to hear. But we shouldn't wait for some celebrity or athlete to make that statement for us. Muhammad Ali may have helped shape the 1960s, but those years of resistance also shaped him. We need to rebuild the movement against war. We need to revive the real Muhammad Ali to inspire draft resistors of the future. We need to reclaim Ali from warmongers who would use his image to sell a war that will create more orphans than peace. This is the struggle of our lives and we have the Nobel-minted President of the United States on the other side of the barricades. Barack Obama can have the fawning media, the adoring generals, the RNC, and the liberal apologists on his side. But he can't have the Champ. Remove that poster from your wall Mr. President. Your Ali privileges have been revoked.

Zirin is paid as a political sports commentator and he's not writing deep theorhetical commentary, but trying to connect general left-wing politics to a sports audience. He is able to do this because he found a little niche and has gotten some recognition for it. But he isn't doing this on some official ISO capasity nor does he think that he is able to do little more than provide some criticism from that niche - movements and class struggle, not sports reporters will make a difference. But even with the constraints of his job have you ever read anything more critical of Obama that argues for movements to make change... in the Huffington Post... espcially in 2009?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Economist is pretty terrible imo. Their solution to everything is privatize more stuff. The first issue was released during the Irish potato famine and they suggested that the Irish be allowed to starve to death. The worst sort of sociopathic liberals. Its every bit as reactionary as Fox News except it celebrates over-educated elitism instead of disguising it's anti-worker views in phony populism.
Also, you can't get any news there that you can't get by watching C-Span.

The Economist does have an ideological line (which I suppose could be described as pro-neoliberalism), but as far as the amount of raw information that's included in every issue, I can't think of many other publications that can top it.

It was also supposedly one of Karl Marx's favorite publications, back in the day.

[The Machine]

Only according to the sectarians who write the World Socialist Website.

First, what does likeing dick have to do with liking Obama - there's nothing wrong with people who like sex with men.

Second, no Zirin is against Obama and if he wasn't he'd be asked to leave the group just like the one person I ever told was no longer welcome as a member after they repeatedly argued for lesser-evilism around Kerry in 2004.

The ISO is consitantly against the Democrats, you can check out the book we published in 2008 about the role of the Democrats in the US, you can check out our articles.

As for Zirin, when I googled "Obama, Zirin" the first hit I got was an article in the Huffington Post from 2009:



dick riding is a manner of speaking, like being on someones jock. im not saying hes literally gay for obama.

Zirin just wrote an article about how sergio romo wearing a shirt that says "I only look illegal" relates to Obamas reelection because it shows that america is different from what rush limbaugh says or some shit. in 2008 he wrote an article about how he was hopeful about obama because he read the communist manifesto as a student and portrayed him as someone who will "stand up for wall street". also in the majority of his articles he'll shit all over republicans but only occasionally take democrats and the obama administration to task for stuff liberal democrats already harp on like drone strikes.


Zirin is paid as a political sports commentator and he's not writing deep theorhetical commentary, but trying to connect general left-wing politics to a sports audience. He is able to do this because he found a little niche and has gotten some recognition for it. But he isn't doing this on some official ISO capasity nor does he think that he is able to do little more than provide some criticism from that niche - movements and class struggle, not sports reporters will make a difference. But even with the constraints of his job have you ever read anything more critical of Obama that argues for movements to make change... in the Huffington Post... espcially in 2009?

Zirin is bigger than the ISO though. im not saying he makes a difference, he's just the only persons ive ever heard of from your organization so thats all i have to work with. as far as not being able to be as radical as he wants to because he does the mainstream media i call bullshit, fucking glenn beck had spusa and cpusa people on his show talking about ending capitalism, Zirin could be a little less boring politically on MSNBC or The Nation if he wanted to. But yeah I don't think criticizing Obama in the huffpo in 2009 is anything to write home about, by then Obama had been ordering drone strikes and the anti-war democrats were pretty disillusioned.

[kashkin]

In my (very limited) experience, the ISO is very anti-Obama, then again I buy the ISR on occasion.

Anyway, for all its problems, Sratfor is quite interesting.

[RedAtheist]

This year I did an international politics course at my school and got a free subscription to a news because of it. This resulted in me paying more attention to the news then I used to, but I still wasn't an expert in what was going on. I just tried to have a general picture of certain events (Syrian Civil War, Greece/Spain's economic crisis, US election, France election, Venezuela election, Egypt election, Israel/Palestine conflict, the Iran nuclear issue, South African miners strike, China's conflict with Japan over the South China Sea islands) and quickly forgot about the details.

My exams are now over so I've pretty much given up on paying attention to the news for now. Paying attention to it just made me feel disempowered and confused. I was presented with all these problems that seemed more or less unsolvable and even if there was a solution I was clearly in no position to carry it out.

I don't feel any kind of moral obligation to know what is going on in the world. It's not like knowing something about them makes things any better. Of course if you are a political activist working to change things it helps to be knowledgable and knowledge alone doesn't fix things and I haven't been politically active since I got kicked out of my party.

I'm also of the opinion that nothing will fundamentally change until capitalism is replaced with another system (at least in some states, I mean countries, fuck international politics and all its jargon.) If that fundamental change happens let me know. For everything else, I'd rather wait until the issue's over and I read history books about it. I prefer complete narratives over ongoing narratives that don't look like their leading anywhere.