The imperialism, capitalism, poor people, working class and kindred stories that I hear from the left give me a profound sense of déjà vu. Unlike most of you, I was spoon-fed those stories in my previous life on the other side of the 'iron curtain.' And unlike most of you, I learned to regard these stories as shameless propaganda attempts and scape-goating of the outsiders to divert attention from the domestic problems and the ineptitude and corruption of local political elites.
............
I don't want to dwell on this.
These discussions almost always wind up becoming group therapy sessions with the group struggling to unravel why you believe and write the things you do.
Whatever appeal that might have had was exhausted long ago.
At this point, your thinking is so thoroughly muddled by disappointments and dark preoccupations I doubt you'll ever be able to achieve equilibrium. Of course there are people who mis and over-use "imperialism", "capitalism" and the sufferings of the poor as explanations for whatever ideas they're pushing.
What are we to make of these abuses?
Should we say that Leo Panitch's work on imperialism is as shakily constructed as the long on enthusiasm, short on facts rants an enthusiastic 20-something subjected me to the other day? Should we conclude that, actual content and argument notwithstanding, the very mention of the word "imperialism" means someone is lazily resorting to lefty tropes and not describing an aspect of reality?
This is what you're arguing. It's a bad argument and indicates a lurch from one set of simplicities to their opposite.
It's telling you mentioned Christopher Hitchens, the very model of the modern lefty collapsist. If Hitchens had expressed doubts about, say, socialism, as a viable goal for humanity's future and groped for something different yet still constructed upon the foundation socialist-thought built I doubt he would have generated much heat outside of specialist circles.
But he went further; much further.
He insisted that the sensible thing for people to do is get behind unprovoked military aggression as a means of saving "the West" from destruction. In other words, he didn't merely jettison his old ideas, he took on, with little modification, the ideas of people he once ridiculed, people whose programs and methods did not improve in the time that elapsed between his old criticisms and new found faith in cruise missiles.
Which brings me back to you.
Your thought experiment 'proposal' for heavily taxed fuel, combined with a program of subsidies to firms such as GE to develop new tech, isn't a serious climate remediation idea, it's an indication of your through-the-looking glass trip to the well populated land of elite boosting.
You show this very clearly when you deride any proposals which fail to properly reward elites as "reverse Robin Hoodism". This isn't an analysis, it's a smear, it shows that you aren't so much evaluating your debating opponent's ideas on their merits as pushing them through a concept filter, searching for keywords to fixate on.
You did the same thing following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by London police in 2005. The quality of criticism didn't matter; all that mattered was your belief that anyone finding fault with police methods was knee jerkingly shouting "lefty bromides" about abuse.
In short, you weren't listening and responding to actual arguments but using people's statements as launch pads for your by now all too familiar leitmotif.
Which is why it is hijacking.
And so very tiresome.
.d.