#benjamin studebaker

[driftglazz]

Recently, Matt Taibbi wrote a piece blaming Herbert Marcuse for the condition of the American left. Separately, Nathan Robinson was pushed o

“Who are the people who are making the relevant decisions here? Twitter users–and Guardian readers–are disproportionately college-educated professionals. The people with the pull to really damage the reputation of The Guardian are the wealthy people who run competing media outlets and the wealthy people who donate large sums to the paper. It is not at all clear that the people who do the cancelling are oppressed people, standing up against capitalism. To a large degree, cancelling only works because the capitalists who still own and control platforms and institutions want it to work. Cancelling isn’t the left alternative to blacklisting–it’s just woke blacklisting. By cancelling Robinson for ostensibly being antisemitic–and therefore right-wing–The Guardian eliminates one of its prominent young left-wing voices…

The result is a left-wing discourse that is increasingly anti-intellectual. It has to be anti-intellectual, because its members live in mutual fear. The set of views which might be the basis for cancellation are ever-evolving, in part because of the wide discretion this gives wealthy elites in their deployment of cancellation to eliminate voices they don’t like. In such a climate, the voices that can survive are the obsequious types with no real positions of their own. These people can adapt to ever-shifting discursive rules because they are more interested in having a career than in saying anything substantive. People with principled positions–even people who go to great lengths to avoid cancellation–are likely to run afoul of nebulous rules sooner or later. We end up with a “left” discourse populated mainly by people who are comfortable appeasing oligarchs while trafficking in left-wing aesthetics and tropes.”

[dewey-defeats-truman]

Yet Another Attempt to Make the World a Better Place by Writing Things

You should read what this guy is saying. He writes incredibly cogent and well-backed arguments. This is some of the best political and social critique I’ve ever read

[enkblogs]

So Bernie Sanders is not merely running to attempt to implement a set of idealistic policies that a republican-controlled congress is likely to block. He is running to take the Democratic Party back from an establishment that ignores the fundamental systemic economic problems that lead to wage stagnation and economic crisis. Those who say that the Democratic Party cannot be reclaimed by the FDR/LBJ types or that if it is reclaimed it will flounder in elections against the GOP are thinking too small. In the 1968 and 1976 republican primaries, this guy called Ronald Reagan was running to take the Republican Party back from the Richard Nixon types who went along with the democrats on welfare and regulation in a bid to return the republicans to their 1920’s Calvin Coolidge roots. At the time, Reagan’s plan was considered madcap–everyone in the 60’s and 70’s knew that hard right Coolidge style economics leads to depression and crisis. But the stagflation in the 70’s created an opportunity for Reagan to convince republicans and eventually the country as a whole to fully embrace a totally different ideology that was much closer to Coolidge’s politics than it was Eisenhower’s or Nixon’s. In the years since 2008, many Americans, in particular young people, are willing to consider the possibility that neoliberalism–the economic ideology espoused by both the post-Reagan republicans and the post-Carter Clinton-era democrats–is fundamentally flawed and must be revised or potentially replaced entirely. This can only happen if democrats recognize that Bernie Sanders is not just a slightly more left-wing fellow traveler of Clinton’s. This is not a contest to see who will lead the democrats, it’s a contest to see what kind of party the democrats are going to be in the coming decades, what ideology and what interests, causes, and issues the Democratic Party will prioritize. This makes it far more important than any other recent primary election. The last time a democratic primary was this important, it was 1976. Only this time, instead of Anybody But Carter or Anybody But Clinton, the left has Bernie Sanders–one representative candidate that it is really excited about. The chance may not come again for quite some time.

Benjamin Studebaker, "Why Bernie versus Hillary Matters More Than People Think"

[thoughtportrait]

Over the past week, I've been hearing the rumors. They're saying that Jeremy Corbyn is crazy--that he's released an economic plan so radical, so incendiary, so madcap that no reasonable person coul...

Over the past week, I’ve been hearing the rumors. They’re saying that Jeremy Corbyn is crazy–that he’s released an economic plan so radical, so incendiary, so madcap that no reasonable person could possibly support him for Labour leader. I thought to myself “Oh no Jeremy, what could you possibly have done to get these folks so riled up?” So I read the plan. It’s not crazy–indeed, there is significant support in the literature and in recent experience for what Corbyn is proposing.

[sneakypolitics]

Misinformation - Benjamin Studebaker

Benjamin Studebaker has written a follow-up post following the Conservatives winning the election after his initial post pleading with people to stop David Cameron from getting into power. 

If you have the time, it is worth a read: http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/08/misinformation-how-the-tories-won/

[sneakypolitics]

Britain: For the Love of God, Please Stop David Cameron

On May 7 (this Thursday), Britain has a general election. I care deeply about British politics--I did my BA over there and will return to do my PhD there this fall. But more importantly, David Came...

Even though the election is over and fearmongering tactics seem to have worked, the facts and figures still remain firmly on Labour’s side. They need to use them and call the Conservatives on their illogical arguments. This article is still worth a read.