|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 04 2023 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 00:10 gobbledydook wrote:
What is the purpose of making such a classification of objections to socialist revolution? It lets GH blame everything except the movement itself for their failure. Progressives have a literal roadmap of how to draw power to themselves and dictate policy as a minority faction by looking at the tea party and its evolution into Trumpism but instead they prefer to sulk about unfair the world is and how its silly that no one is interested in organizing a revolution for them.
Look no further than this thread to see people who are ostensibly progressive (or at least would say they hold views that are pretty in line with America’s progressives generally) and how they’re happy progressive representatives DONT use the power they have to do anything in the way that the Tea Party did.
Progressives relying on electoral politics is just a doomed proposition, progressivism is going to have to rise off the back of labor organization imo, US politics is too slimy and broken to be a truly viable source of dramatic or even timely reform and change.
Biden made it clear he won’t be supporting that though, after the railroad worker strike situation, so it’s labor vs both parties and that’s a tough fucked up battle. Not to mention the history of labor vs. the police and how awful, violent, and militarized the police is. It’s basically the government and it’s enforcers vs labor and it takes a real spine to be willing to stand up to those odds.
|
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
|
|
|
On February 03 2023 22:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2023 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 20:55 Slydie wrote:On February 03 2023 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 19:54 Slydie wrote:On February 03 2023 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 18:44 RvB wrote:On February 03 2023 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
I was going to leave it alone (and still largely am) but the revolution discussion made me wonder what people's actual objections are to socialist revolution in the US?
1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
I feel like those are the major/umbrella points of opposition I've encountered, but I'm curious if I'm missing any (they could easily be slipping my mind in the moment).
Are people familiar with objections to a socialist revolution in the US that don't fit one of those? One that I think you are missing is that in countries where there are relatively free and fair elections a revolution is not democratic. If your ideas are popular enough you can just win at the ballot box. Requiring a revolution to implement your new society is admitting that your policies are not popular enough. Does that not pretty squarely fall under 2? No, it falls under your 1. The objection itself ("revolution is not democratic") seems to me to fall under 2. Basically that US democracy is adequate to implement socialist ideas/policy worth having within US democracy's own parameters. Socialist ideas losing at the ballot box is certainly a reference to 1, but the objection itself is 2 as I read it. On February 03 2023 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
3 and 5 cover it somewhat but with a focus on lives and livelihoods, not comfort and status. Some people losing status / a change in what grants status would be a net positive . Are you comfortable saying I didn't miss any objections you're readily aware of? If your revolutionary ideas don't win elections, then it does not have enough support=1. I don't think is fair to assume that a lot of people "really" support your agenda but don't dare to for whatever reason. I don't see the assumption you're describing. Just so it's clear what I'm saying: Even if we assume that everyone that votes against socialist policy conscientiously falls under 1. What I'm saying is that people whose objection to socialist revolution in the US is based on it circumventing US democracy and "that is not democratic" (which was the objection as I understood it) fall under 2. 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive objections/groups/beliefs fwiw though. Regardless, we can agree the objections are covered under my list. Are there objections that you are readily aware of that aren't covered under my list? Maybe one from first principles? Doubt it's a very often-used one, but you could argue from first principles that any revolution is immoral. For instance, because a revolution requires the use of violence and the use of violence is immoral, even to stop greater violence on behalf of someone else. There may be other religious or ethical grounds on which people might oppose any revolution. But I think you cover almost all objections in your points 1-5.
Ahhh, like Quakers or something? I think we could fit them under 2 since principled nonviolence at least ostensibly operates within the parameters of US democracy and capitalism.
Sound reasonable?
On February 04 2023 00:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 00:10 gobbledydook wrote:
What is the purpose of making such a classification of objections to socialist revolution? It lets GH blame everything except the movement itself for their failure. Progressives have a literal roadmap of how to draw power to themselves and dictate policy as a minority faction by looking at the tea party and its evolution into Trumpism but instead they prefer to sulk about unfair the world is and how its silly that no one is interested in organizing a revolution for them. This seems pointlessly rude, even to me. He knows we’re generally not pro revolution and he’s asking us if his understanding of our reasons is correct.
Yup. I think it's reasonable to say I have accurately described sufficient parameters for people's objections to socialist revolution in the US. If nothing else, people now know that I'm well aware of why people oppose a socialist revolution in the US, even if they don't know/understand why I come to different conclusions than them.
It's also worth reminding people I spent at least ~a decade as some form of Democrat so I'm not coming at this from a position of ignorance of how Democrats (including progressives) function in the US political system. It's, in part, only because I've spent much time and energy at many Democrat events/meetings/etc. that I've arrived at the conclusions I have. Looking at ~60 years of empty Democrat promises and essentially 0 measurable improvement on the racial wealth gap helped a lot too.
|
On February 03 2023 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2023 18:44 RvB wrote:On February 03 2023 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
I was going to leave it alone (and still largely am) but the revolution discussion made me wonder what people's actual objections are to socialist revolution in the US?
1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
I feel like those are the major/umbrella points of opposition I've encountered, but I'm curious if I'm missing any (they could easily be slipping my mind in the moment).
Are people familiar with objections to a socialist revolution in the US that don't fit one of those? One that I think you are missing is that in countries where there are relatively free and fair elections a revolution is not democratic. If your ideas are popular enough you can just win at the ballot box. Requiring a revolution to implement your new society is admitting that your policies are not popular enough. Does that not pretty squarely fall under 2?
I don't think it does, RvB was hinting at a blind spot for 2. You could have the following parameters:
- reject status quo
- reject the notion that socialism can be reached through reformism
- still not want to force the majority or rather overwhelming majority to what you think is best for them
|
On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that were elected and that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield.
That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not.
|
On February 04 2023 07:42 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield. That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not. So the elections are rigged and therefor we should have a revolution. Gee I could have sworn I heard that one before somewhere.
If progressives can actually get elected then you should elect some that are willing to use the influence they wield.
|
On February 04 2023 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 07:42 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield. That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not. So the elections are rigged and therefor we should have a revolution. Gee I could have sworn I heard that one before somewhere.
I wish I could live in a world as wildly perfect as you the one you seem to imagine yourself in.
I can’t fathom someone looking at the US electoral system and just going “yeah this is the pinnacle of fairness.”
If progressives can actually get elected then you should elect some that are willing to use the influence they wield.
Wow, your perfect world even includes the ability to read a persons truest and deepest morality, conviction, and beliefs, I want in on this world! I imagine your world also includes a way to recall Congress people who don’t live up to their rhetoric and supposed beliefs instead of being basically untouchable for the multiple years of their term.
|
On February 04 2023 07:50 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 07:42 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield. That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not. So the elections are rigged and therefor we should have a revolution. Gee I could have sworn I heard that one before somewhere. I wish I could live in a world as wildly perfect as you the one you seem to imagine yourself in. I can’t fathom someone looking at the US electoral system and just going “yeah this is the pinnacle of fairness.” Where did I say that? I've criticised the US electoral system plenty. It is stupid and it is unfair. But that doesn't mean you get to launch a violent insurrection anymore then Trump voters do.
|
On February 04 2023 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 07:50 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 07:42 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield. That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not. So the elections are rigged and therefor we should have a revolution. Gee I could have sworn I heard that one before somewhere. I wish I could live in a world as wildly perfect as you the one you seem to imagine yourself in. I can’t fathom someone looking at the US electoral system and just going “yeah this is the pinnacle of fairness.” Where did I say that? I've criticised the US electoral system plenty. It is stupid and it is unfair. But that doesn't mean you get to launch a violent insurrection anymore then Trump voters do.
Here I was following your lead and jumping to wild conclusions and aggressively misinterpreting things to suit some weird caricature of the other person, I thought we were both doing that on purpose maybe it’s just me?
Seriously though, try some nuance, you’re taking sentences and taking them extremely hyperbolically which makes you look like a huge asshole.
Here’s some additional nuance for my statement,
Elections in the US are often dominated by publicity and money, it gives entrenched encumbents and politicians belonging to the two major parties outsized influence and power to win elections. Corporations are allowed to use their tremendous money to cause serious selective pressure on candidates by providing them with the money they need to maintain publicity by running ads and such. The parties themselves can be easily bought and control access to their vast campaigning coffers in order to select for the most pro-corporate donor candidates and make it significantly more difficult to run either within the party system or without it.
All of this leads to a shitty electoral system that creates significant hurdles for anyone who isn’t a rich douche (hi My Governor) or a corporate shill beholden to donors.
This is not a truly fair system, and that’s only this slice of US electoral politics there is plenty more to criticize as unfair.
Operating in this system as someone outside of the rich douche or corporate shill archetypes is extremely difficult and rare, even if you make it the aforementioned categories still generally control things like committee assignments and thus wield influence to keep outsiders down within the system. Even the ones we’ve seen break in just wind up ineffective either due to their own moral failings or because at the end of the day fighting that kind of enormous institutional and financial power is extremely difficult.
|
On February 04 2023 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 07:50 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 07:42 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield. That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not. So the elections are rigged and therefor we should have a revolution. Gee I could have sworn I heard that one before somewhere. I wish I could live in a world as wildly perfect as you the one you seem to imagine yourself in. I can’t fathom someone looking at the US electoral system and just going “yeah this is the pinnacle of fairness.” Where did I say that? I've criticised the US electoral system plenty. It is stupid and it is unfair. But that doesn't mean you get to launch a violent insurrection anymore then Trump voters do.
No one here is advocating a socialist "violent insurrection". The closest you'll come is disagreement about whether in a socialist revolution workers should/must maintain an absolute and unilateral adherence to nonviolence as a principle.
@Zambrah that's what it looked like to me.
|
I advocate socialist things that would most likely lead to violence like massive strikes, but the violence there isn’t really the point, just the consequence of living in a militarized hellhole.
|
On February 04 2023 08:06 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 07:50 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 07:42 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield. That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not. So the elections are rigged and therefor we should have a revolution. Gee I could have sworn I heard that one before somewhere. I wish I could live in a world as wildly perfect as you the one you seem to imagine yourself in. I can’t fathom someone looking at the US electoral system and just going “yeah this is the pinnacle of fairness.” Where did I say that? I've criticised the US electoral system plenty. It is stupid and it is unfair. But that doesn't mean you get to launch a violent insurrection anymore then Trump voters do. Here I was following your lead and jumping to wild conclusions and aggressively misinterpreting things to suit some weird caricature of the other person, I thought we were both doing that on purpose maybe it’s just me? Seriously though, try some nuance, you’re taking sentences and taking them extremely hyperbolically which makes you look like a huge asshole. Here’s some additional nuance for my statement, Elections in the US are often dominated by publicity and money, it gives entrenched encumbents and politicians belonging to the two major parties outsized influence and power to win elections. Corporations are allowed to use their tremendous money to cause serious selective pressure on candidates by providing them with the money they need to maintain publicity by running ads and such. The parties themselves can be easily bought and control access to their vast campaigning coffers in order to select for the most pro-corporate donor candidates and make it significantly more difficult to run either within the party system or without it. All of this leads to a shitty electoral system that creates significant hurdles for anyone who isn’t a rich douche (hi My Governor) or a corporate shill beholden to donors. This is not a truly fair system, and that’s only this slice of US electoral politics there is plenty more to criticize as unfair. Operating in this system as someone outside of the rich douche or corporate shill archetypes is extremely difficult and rare, even if you make it the aforementioned categories still generally control things like committee assignments and thus wield influence to keep outsiders down within the system. Even the ones we’ve seen break in just wind up ineffective either due to their own moral failings or because at the end of the day fighting that kind of enormous institutional and financial power is extremely difficult. I agree, and yet the tea party/Trumpists managed to get their foot in the door. Sure some of them are just another slightly set of corporate shills but I don't think corporate America is looking forward to the economic turmoil of another looming government shutdown.
|
The progressive politicians got their foot in the door but the difference is they decided having their foot in there was good enough job done, the Tea Party started kicking everyone to get their legs through, and then an arm, etc. The Democrat side of politics is just too weak willed to meaningfully fight or they’re too ideologically attached to Respectability Politics to meaningfully fight and in the end it makes progressivisms effectiveness within the Democrats (and thus US electoral politics) really bad. Or I guess Democrats are just really good at quashing opposition (from the left anyways.)
I think we’d see more effective change in a strong labor movement that utilized the enormous leverage they hold over their employer (the only leverage, basically) to demand the change we need in the US. Tons of issues in making that happen which makes the situation feel pretty hopeless if you’re not a well off white person, but I guess that’s just where the US has been lead (thanks Reagan.)
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate America is looking forward to a mild recession as a way to get their hands back firmly on the reins of the labor movement. Nothing scarier to those ghoulish pricks than workers who know how to demand what they deserve. Dunno what their limits are on taking a hit to stifle labor but I feel pretty strongly they will gladly take hits to stop a return to strong unions.
|
|
|
On February 04 2023 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 07:50 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2023 07:42 Zambrah wrote:On February 04 2023 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
If you cant even get progressive candidates to win in blue states to create a faction wielding influence in Congress then by what right do you get to force your ideals upon others through a revolution?
There is a faction of progressives that could wield influence in Congress, they mostly choose not to do anything with the influence they wield. That’s putting aside the notion that elections in the US are actually free or truly fair at all which they’re really not. So the elections are rigged and therefor we should have a revolution. Gee I could have sworn I heard that one before somewhere. I wish I could live in a world as wildly perfect as you the one you seem to imagine yourself in. I can’t fathom someone looking at the US electoral system and just going “yeah this is the pinnacle of fairness.” Where did I say that? I've criticised the US electoral system plenty. It is stupid and it is unfair. But that doesn't mean you get to launch a violent insurrection anymore then Trump voters do. No one here is advocating a socialist "violent insurrection". The closest you'll come is disagreement about whether in a socialist revolution workers should/must maintain an absolute and unilateral adherence to nonviolence as a principle. @Zambrah that's what it looked like to me.
In that case I misunderstood you as well, I thought this was about the present/foreseeable future. I didn't think there was an implied "after most US workers are on board with socialism" in there, since I consider that cultural battle the much harder and pressing part than changing government with popular support for a specific direction.
|
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate America is looking forward to a mild recession as a way to get their hands back firmly on the reins of the labor movement. Nothing scarier to those ghoulish pricks than workers who know how to demand what they deserve.
The fed's been pretty clear that they are intentionally trying to undermine labor's minimal wage gains (which often net out to losses with the inflation on things they consume/need to survive anyway) and generally weaken labor's bargaining positions. As you mentioned, even Biden got in on it with rail workers of all people.
The US needs more desperate people willing to work in exchange for far less than their labor generates and a "soft landing" is designed to assist US corporations in fulfilling that need while limiting the risk to their bottom line from the slow down.
It's not some wild conspiracy, it's just basic capitalism/capitalist economics.
|
On February 04 2023 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate America is looking forward to a mild recession as a way to get their hands back firmly on the reins of the labor movement. Nothing scarier to those ghoulish pricks than workers who know how to demand what they deserve. The fed's been pretty clear that they are intentionally trying to undermine labor's minimal wage gains (which often net out to losses with the inflation on things they consume/need to survive anyway) and generally weaken labor's bargaining positions. As you mentioned, even Biden got in on it with rail workers of all people. The US needs more desperate people willing to work in exchange for far less than their labor generates and a "soft landing" is designed to assist US corporations in fulfilling that need while limiting the risk to their bottom line from the slow down. It's not some wild conspiracy, it's just basic capitalism/capitalist economics.
What exactly is your reasoning behind your “the man is keeping us down” theory? As you pointed out wages are increasing more rapidly than they have in decades but it’s offset by currently high inflation. Which part is being manufactured and why and how?
|
On February 04 2023 14:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate America is looking forward to a mild recession as a way to get their hands back firmly on the reins of the labor movement. Nothing scarier to those ghoulish pricks than workers who know how to demand what they deserve. The fed's been pretty clear that they are intentionally trying to undermine labor's minimal wage gains (which often net out to losses with the inflation on things they consume/need to survive anyway) and generally weaken labor's bargaining positions. As you mentioned, even Biden got in on it with rail workers of all people. The US needs more desperate people willing to work in exchange for far less than their labor generates and a "soft landing" is designed to assist US corporations in fulfilling that need while limiting the risk to their bottom line from the slow down. It's not some wild conspiracy, it's just basic capitalism/capitalist economics. What exactly is your reasoning behind your “the man is keeping us down” theory? As you pointed out wages are increasing more rapidly than they have in decades but it’s offset by currently high inflation. Which part is being manufactured and why and how?
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has been pretty outspoken that he thinks workers have too much buying power and bargaining power and unemployment is too low, and that the goal was to get wages down.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On February 04 2023 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2023 22:34 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2023 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 20:55 Slydie wrote:On February 03 2023 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 19:54 Slydie wrote:On February 03 2023 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 18:44 RvB wrote:On February 03 2023 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
I was going to leave it alone (and still largely am) but the revolution discussion made me wonder what people's actual objections are to socialist revolution in the US?
1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
I feel like those are the major/umbrella points of opposition I've encountered, but I'm curious if I'm missing any (they could easily be slipping my mind in the moment).
Are people familiar with objections to a socialist revolution in the US that don't fit one of those? One that I think you are missing is that in countries where there are relatively free and fair elections a revolution is not democratic. If your ideas are popular enough you can just win at the ballot box. Requiring a revolution to implement your new society is admitting that your policies are not popular enough. Does that not pretty squarely fall under 2? No, it falls under your 1. The objection itself ("revolution is not democratic") seems to me to fall under 2. Basically that US democracy is adequate to implement socialist ideas/policy worth having within US democracy's own parameters. Socialist ideas losing at the ballot box is certainly a reference to 1, but the objection itself is 2 as I read it. On February 03 2023 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
3 and 5 cover it somewhat but with a focus on lives and livelihoods, not comfort and status. Some people losing status / a change in what grants status would be a net positive . Are you comfortable saying I didn't miss any objections you're readily aware of? If your revolutionary ideas don't win elections, then it does not have enough support=1. I don't think is fair to assume that a lot of people "really" support your agenda but don't dare to for whatever reason. I don't see the assumption you're describing. Just so it's clear what I'm saying: Even if we assume that everyone that votes against socialist policy conscientiously falls under 1. What I'm saying is that people whose objection to socialist revolution in the US is based on it circumventing US democracy and "that is not democratic" (which was the objection as I understood it) fall under 2. 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive objections/groups/beliefs fwiw though. Regardless, we can agree the objections are covered under my list. Are there objections that you are readily aware of that aren't covered under my list? Maybe one from first principles? Doubt it's a very often-used one, but you could argue from first principles that any revolution is immoral. For instance, because a revolution requires the use of violence and the use of violence is immoral, even to stop greater violence on behalf of someone else. There may be other religious or ethical grounds on which people might oppose any revolution. But I think you cover almost all objections in your points 1-5. Ahhh, like Quakers or something? I think we could fit them under 2 since principled nonviolence at least ostensibly operates within the parameters of US democracy and capitalism. Sound reasonable?
Principled non-violence doesn't just exist within the parameters of democracy or capitalism. It existed under both Prussian and Russian monarchies and then for a little while during the Soviet Revolution. That's a fairly wide range of freedoms from Catherine the Great to modern US democracy, so I think it says very little about their views on to what degree US society needs modifying. The society only needs to be sufficiently tolerable/ communities left to their own devices for such communities to exist. The solution for such communities if things become too oppressive is to flee the country, cave to the ideology of the day as a survival mechanism, or get rounded up into the gulags. And as they are not currently fleeing the US...
In other words, there's no amount of non-optimalness in the status quo combined with a despair of any true modifications that should move a principled non-violent community into revolution. Such conditions generally leads to flight, not fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
