Centrism

[chveik]

Right but when those terms have to include new circumstances not addressed in the original charters, what then? Who gets to decide the socialist position on this issues?

our world hasn't changed in a such a way that it would make those terms meaningless. i wish you'd go straight to the point

[TrenterPercenter]

Fundamentally I don't think you can be a good socialist without supporting the liberty of other humans; this comes with a caveat that as a good socialist you should be primarily concerned with the liberty of other humans in a collective sense (social-ism); those that do not see other humans as their equals in humanity do not come under this collective agreement as they are not acting socially.

As I've said before I'm not really interested in feminists that are not Marxist or socialist feminists because it rapidly becomes contradictory with any application to it (trans women being a clear example); you'll notice most TERFs are nearly always neither.

Socialism beyond it's economic demands isn't about reductive olympics; for all intents and purposes your race, gender, sex or even your financial background (though what believe about it does) doesn't comes into it - but people for some reason seem to be keen to forget this and claim this is purely a mindset that is looking to ignore vulnerable groups.

Glad to see some people in their round about way accepting this.

[Lemming]

Really reluctant to get involved, but is it controversial to state that there specific challenges and oppressions faced by people who are female, or AFAB if you prefer? To give some extra perspective here, I'm thinking about this because a friend I have on Discord is a transgender man who still identifies himself as a feminist and discusses being a transgender man as being a "female experience" (his words). Maybe an uncommon view, I don't know. Seems ideologically consistent to me.

Moving away from that discussion, I do think it's bizarre how feminism is typically portrayed as/expected to be "a movement for everyone". I can't think of any other social movement that has had this happen. Nobody says gay rights activism is a "movement for everyone", even if a world without homophobia would benefit a lot of straight people as a side effect. Nobody says BLM is a movement for everyone, even if a world without racial oppression massively benefits humanity as a whole. It does feel like a lot of modern-day feminism I see online is concerned with comforting and coddling the feelings of (cisgender) men and carefully dancing around the issues of patriarchal violence/oppression. Back during the big cultural moment about street harassment and violence we had earlier this year, it felt like every time you turned around, five people appeared out of nowhere to say "but men face violence too!". I'm in one of the demographics of men more likely to face violence (I'm a MTF crossdresser, or whatever you want to call it), and I have occasionally gotten shit for it out in public, and even to me it just felt like people were trying to deflect from a real feminist issue by making it about men.

As I say though, I'm a man, so my opinion is worth less than shit on this. Not saying that in a dramatic self-flagellating way, I just honestly think men commenting on feminism is weird. Same as when white people eagerly weigh in on what they think BLM ought to be.

[TrenterPercenter]

Moving away from that discussion, I do think it's bizarre how feminism is typically portrayed as/expected to be "a movement for everyone". I can't think of any other social movement that has had this happen.

There has been it's called Marxism, Socialism and Humanism.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

All politics are universal by definition, its always a matter of going beyond personal experience and opinion *pulls crank*

[Buelligan]

But the teaching of Jesus contradict the teaching of God in the bible, so which do they follow?

Is feminism not just egalitarianism then? Why does it need its own separate term?

If you've read the bible then you'll know that Jesus addressed your first question in Matthew 5:17, he makes it clear that the old law (in the Old Testament) is subject to the new law (New Testament).

Feminism may not need a specific name, sexism or racism, ageism, none of them.  We could just work with not being cunts.

[jamiefairlie]

If you've read the bible then you'll know that Jesus addressed your first question in Matthew 5:17, he makes it clear that the old law (in the Old Testament) is subject to the new law (New Testament).

Feminism may not need a specific name, sexism or racism, ageism, none of them.  We could just work with not being cunts.

On that we absolutely agree.

[Kermit the Frog]

Indeed! We should all work on developing the courage not to be dissembling, cowardly cunts. A better world would surely follow.

[jamiefairlie]

There has been it's called Marxism, Socialism and Humanism.

Hmm, does Marx really show concern for the upper class? Surely at heart it's about improving the lives of the workers which must come at the expense of the ruling class?

[chveik]

Indeed! We should all work on developing the courage not to be dissembling, cowardly cunts. A better world would surely follow.

misdirected courage isn't that helpful. you need to have a clear and rational idea of what you're going to do with it

[TrenterPercenter]

Hmm, does Marx really show concern for the upper class? Surely at heart it's about improving the lives of the workers which must come at the expense of the ruling class?

Marx was married to an aristocrat.

[Kermit the Frog]

misdirected courage isn't that helpful. you need to have a clear and rational idea of what you're going to do with it

In these times we seem to be afflicted with a scarcity of either

[Ferris]

Got a leaflet from these lads through the door

https://centristpartycanada.ca/

Thought about considering them but that would probably mean I'd have to take a position on something so I've decided against it.

Edit: they're pro increased oil and gas drilling, limiting immigration, and being "tough on crime".

[Johnny Yesno]

What I think jamiefairlie is saying that there are significant number of people with voices in the media who claim to be feminists but whose only objective is the neoliberal solution of a gender balanced ruling class. Equality will then trickle down but if it doesn't, they'll be alright.

We know that that belief will not deliver equality women or anyone else but it is out there masquerading as feminism and needs to be challenged. It's not sufficient for us to pleased with ourselves for recognising it's a load of bollocks.

[Johnny Yesno]

Occasionally I've got into arguments with people who state a simple falsehood such as "You cannot be a socialist if you are racist or homophobic" as though it's a cast iron common sense truth but I always quickly realise debating with these people is way more trouble than it's worth and duck out.

Given my post above, I am one of those people. Sorry, mate!

[Johnny Yesno]

I doubt that many of the suffragette leaders weren't Tories.

Christabel and Adela Pankhurst had some views that would be extremely unpalatable to modern progressive leftists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christabel_Pankhurst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adela_Pankhurst

Which contradicts my previous post. I'd say 'You can't white feather men while claiming to be a feminist.' Well, you clearly can.

[Buelligan]

Occasionally I've got into arguments with people who state a simple falsehood such as "You cannot be a socialist if you are racist or homophobic" as though it's a cast iron common sense truth but I always quickly realise debating with these people is way more trouble than it's worth and duck out.

Heheh, amusing thought, you can say you're a socialist but I'm afraid I'm a RandHES.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Isn't the last page or so a really convoluted circular argument resting around the following two sentences?
'it's possible on some level for people to believe they are promoting feminist ideals while also gatekeeping who they believe to be women'
'no true feminist...'

seems like these two things can be true at the same time.

[Buelligan]

People can believe anything whilst saying anything.  It doesn't mean they're correct in the sense that facts and logic are relevant to the transference of belief or opinion into reality.

I know I've already said this but I think the bizarre urge to codify, reduce and confine a thing, in this case, feminism, to a bunch of clauses[nb]possibly applicable to "now" but often irrelevant to either the past or future[/nb] is foolish, wrong-headed, perhaps vexatious[nb]intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or unconsiously[/nb]. 

[Johnny Yesno]

I have a half-formed idea that a lot of the contradictions in people's self-declared political labels can be understood better by their willingness to appeal to nature in their political arguments.

So, for example, so-called 'centrists' will not seek to replace neoliberal capitalism - the market is a force of nature and therefore its negative effects can only be mitigated, like when there's a hurricane. So, they feel entitled to believe they are politically on the left for wanting the best for people in bad circumstances but they act to maintain the status quo.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

What I think jamiefairlie is saying that there are significant number of people with voices in the media who claim to be feminists but whose only objective is the neoliberal solution of a gender balanced ruling class. Equality will then trickle down but if it doesn't, they'll be alright.

We know that that belief will not deliver equality women or anyone else but it is out there masquerading as feminism and needs to be challenged. It's not sufficient for us to pleased with ourselves for recognising it's a load of bollocks.

The other side of this that if you use "feminism" to mean everything where someone wants political and social goods for women, you're glossing over a lot of women weren't feminists but still worked towards emanicaption or libertarian - lesbian seperatists who don't consider "women" to be a valid political category, womanists who think feminism was irredeemably corrupted by slavery and colonialism, Marxists who think feminism is purposefully class-blind, anarchists who object to the focus on legal status, psychoanalysts who think feminism can't account for desire... its quite a list, and pretty easy to name someone truly brilliant for each item on it.

I might be corny to say that believing every creed concerned with improving the status of women should be called "feminism" = anglophone liberal hegemony, because feminism is the name liberals give to wimmin issuez in general, but thats kind of the case at a boring cut and dry level. Its only really liberal intersectionality that has the "my way or the high way" attitude to other forms of left/liberal/anarchist thinking.

CaB seems pretty good on these issues on the whole, lefties heading into middle age tend to be, but you don't have to look far for pop culture discussions online where you'll get things like liberal men confidently arguing that even though Simon DeBeauvoir (or whoever) said she wasn't a feminist she actually was, ignoring what the women in question actual said and did so they can dunk on other men for being "dudebros" and go away feeling like they're The Good Guys while having paid zero attention to anything they didn't already believe.

[Johnny Yesno]

I might be corny to say that believing every creed concerned with improving the status of women should be called "feminism" = anglophone liberal hegemony, because feminism is the name liberals give to wimmin issuez in general, but thats kind of the case at a boring cut and dry level. Its only really liberal intersectionality that has the "my way or the high way" attitude to other forms of left/liberal/anarchist thinking.

Yes, a lot of this comes down to functionality and practicality. Tempting though it is to think a tory feminist isn't a feminist, I suppose it's more useful to consider how the political flavours influence each other and how much I ultimately have in common with them as a result.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I think in the UK I think it had a lot to do with making it a central pillar of 3rd way politics, which contained the notion that social issues like sex and gender were somehow 'pre political' which is useful to everyone who wanted to move away from redistributive or economically eglatarian politics. Which in turn solidifies the idea you can identify with a specific political philosophy while sharing 0% of its convictions, because you liked a movie or pop song.

[Kankurette]

Really reluctant to get involved, but is it controversial to state that there specific challenges and oppressions faced by people who are female, or AFAB if you prefer? To give some extra perspective here, I'm thinking about this because a friend I have on Discord is a transgender man who still identifies himself as a feminist and discusses being a transgender man as being a "female experience" (his words). Maybe an uncommon view, I don't know. Seems ideologically consistent to me.

Moving away from that discussion, I do think it's bizarre how feminism is typically portrayed as/expected to be "a movement for everyone". I can't think of any other social movement that has had this happen. Nobody says gay rights activism is a "movement for everyone", even if a world without homophobia would benefit a lot of straight people as a side effect. Nobody says BLM is a movement for everyone, even if a world without racial oppression massively benefits humanity as a whole. It does feel like a lot of modern-day feminism I see online is concerned with comforting and coddling the feelings of (cisgender) men and carefully dancing around the issues of patriarchal violence/oppression. Back during the big cultural moment about street harassment and violence we had earlier this year, it felt like every time you turned around, five people appeared out of nowhere to say "but men face violence too!". I'm in one of the demographics of men more likely to face violence (I'm a MTF crossdresser, or whatever you want to call it), and I have occasionally gotten shit for it out in public, and even to me it just felt like people were trying to deflect from a real feminist issue by making it about men.

As I say though, I'm a man, so my opinion is worth less than shit on this. Not saying that in a dramatic self-flagellating way, I just honestly think men commenting on feminism is weird. Same as when white people eagerly weigh in on what they think BLM ought to be.

Same reason why I don't weigh in on Marxist discussions. I'm middle-class. I'm the bad guy here.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

There's no good guy/bad guy based on class perspective in Marxism.

It's not what class you are, its whose class interests you'll stand for. Comrades are comrades.

[Buelligan]

Yes, a lot of this comes down to functionality and practicality. Tempting though it is to think a tory feminist isn't a feminist, I suppose it's more useful to consider how the political flavours influence each other and how much I ultimately have in common with them as a result.

But isn't that what "Centrism" is?  The creeping acceptance of "wrong" because we're all in a "big tent", all part of the kaleidoscope of cosmic Venn? 

I think these perfectly reasonable-sounding thoughts may be part of what leads us to get into bed with utter shitbags and wake up where we are, guided by rule-minders and makers instead of our moral compasses.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I think you could describe modern centrism as having progressive concerns but sharing the hard right idea that those concerns aren't political, they're cultural/social/community issues so in order to achieve what you want you need to roadblock political change and effect social and cultural changes. The mantra of a centrist is "its not political!"

This is where the moral coward of centrism really comes in. You get something like gay marriage or minimum wage, that was clearly achieved through political means and you re-contextualise it as just something that happen because of the inevitable progress of society, and then emotionally blackmail people who want further positive changes that they'll undo what's already been accomplished if they want Magic Granddad to ban the bomb or whatever.

[Johnny Yesno]

I think in the UK I think it had a lot to do with making it a central pillar of 3rd way politics, which contained the notion that social issues like sex and gender were somehow 'pre political' which is useful to everyone who wanted to move away from redistributive or economically eglatarian politics. Which in turn solidifies the idea you can identify with a specific political philosophy while sharing 0% of its convictions, because you liked a movie or pop song.

There's no good guy/bad guy based on class perspective in Marxism.

It's not what class you are, its whose class interests you'll stand for. Comrades are comrades.

I think you could describe modern centrism as having progressive concerns but sharing the hard right idea that those concerns aren't political, they're cultural/social/community issues so in order to achieve what you want you need to roadblock political change and effect social and cultural changes. The mantra of a centrist is "its not political!"

This is where the moral coward of centrism really comes in. You get something like gay marriage or minimum wage, that was clearly achieved through political means and you re-contextualise it as just something that happen because of the inevitable progress of society, and then emotionally blackmail people who want further positive changes that they'll undo what's already been accomplished if they want Magic Granddad to ban the bomb or whatever.

Abso-fucking-lutely to all of this.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

https://kotaku.com/epic-disables-disrespectful-fortnite-emotes-in-the-mart-1847575018

Centrism

[MikeP]

Biggest problem with humanity is its apparent need to join some kind of ism. That is the cause of most social divisiveness in the world today. People with homosexual tendencies align with the 'gay' label, various racial sub-groups (in the true meaning of the term) align themselves with others of their ilk in their own private tribes. Then there's the ones who aren't sure which label they belong to and form halfway houses. All of these things cause irritation in the big bad world. A sort of wistful gang membership.
Personally I don't register what people's allignment is until it causes problems - like New Labour bombing Iraq, or Johnny foreigner trying to stab me in London while presumably quoting from the Koran (my arabic is seriously rusty), or extinction rebellion making me miss my train.
I'm not sure how to make a better world, but I am sure that poiticians, bigots and minority protests/stabbings are not the answer.
In fairness, the best societies for the great unwashed are probably dictatorships. Yes, I know their downsides. But it seems to be working currently in Scotland.