I am, as you know, always sympathetic to your arguments in this vein. But I'd emphasize that, hell yes, 2014 matters. This three year period is crucial -- as all of you know -- for curtailing the death throes of this planet, brought on by climate change, which will be locked into inevitability unless they are ameliorated really fucking soon. So yes, every year counts, and for a broader reason than that you outline in your post. If the planet was just fine, I'd agree with you. But we don't have the kind of time where we can implode the system and build a radical leftist movement. If it hasn't happened in the last 50 years it'll take at least the next 50, and by then the oceans will be barren. To start with. So.
I mostly agree with you here, actually. But at the same time I really don't have faith that a Senate controlled by Democrats would have done anything seriously curtail issues related to climate change. The only way to really solve those issues is to distribute concentrated power so that we can build control systems that make better decisions and solve problems more efficiently, as I suggested at the end. IMO, switching between Democrats and Republicans doesn't mean anything. It is because the planet is not fine that I feel we need a radical leftist movement. But this movement should be built on a radical decentralisation of government power, as I suggested at the end of the post. I feel that if we could design a medium that would allow a free and fair idea competition, free from financial and political corruption, the people would be able to make more effective decisions related to every major issue. The only question is, how do we best design and implement that medium? I think that is the most important question for the radical left. So maybe in the future I can convince you that the two positions are compatible. The pace of change related to the evolution of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the 21st century is exponential - and I think that if we use this technology in the right way it is our greatest ally - because it potentially allows for the distribution of concentrated power in a way never before possible. So I don't think that just because a revolution hasn't happened in the past 50 years, that we should be skeptical of one happening in the near future. Our system is incredibly unstable economically, and if concentrated power gets its way, you'll be living in Koch America in 2016. So time to rise up and create a different system is now. At least, that is my perspective.But I'd emphasize that, hell yes, 2014 matters. This three year period is crucial -- as all of you know -- for curtailing the death throes of this planet, brought on by climate change, which will be locked into inevitability unless they are ameliorated really fucking soon.
If the planet was just fine, I'd agree with you. But we don't have the kind of time where we can implode the system and build a radical leftist movement.
If it hasn't happened in the last 50 years it'll take at least the next 50, and by then the oceans will be barren.
It doesn't mean anything, because Democrats haven't. It's interesting that you mention Koch by name, because what you describe in the first paragraph is left-libertarianism, which has seductive but ultimately futile arguments (that I think kleinbl00 has been arguing against elsewhere in this thread). As I said above, I don't see in radical leftism what you see. Not anymore. The most extreme (non-libertarian) leftists these days are on the side of centralized government most of the time.I mostly agree with you here, actually. But at the same time I really don't have faith that a Senate controlled by Democrats would have done anything seriously curtail issues related to climate change. The only way to really solve those issues is to distribute concentrated power so that we can build control systems that make better decisions and solve problems more efficiently, as I suggested at the end. IMO, switching between Democrats and Republicans doesn't mean anything.