|
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 October 29 2024 06:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out? The part of the post you edited out addresses this sort of engagement. This is another example of something I pointed out Democrats/Republicans do almost a year ago: This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what the socialists bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy. First Democrats shout down everyone telling them Biden shouldn't be the nominee, then they shout down everyone saying he should stop supporting genocide, then shout down everyone saying he's going to lose, then shout down everyone saying Harris needs to stop supporting genocide, on and on, until finally they're completely fucked and then they turn and say "well what's your bright idea!?!?" as if they aren't just going to rationalize their complicity in abandoning democracy for personal security regardless. If you have any sincerity you should join a revolutionary socialist org in your area or online and discuss this stuff with your comrades. The short answer is for Democrats to just STFU and fall in line behind the people that didn't wait until election day to join socialist orgs. Or they could do their "socialists being mean made me a Nazi" thing they constantly threaten implicitly by talking about the stuff they would accept Trump doing to oppressed peoples. I understood that extra part to be more of a scolding of what Democrats repeatedly do wrong, rather than how a socialist revolution would actually overthrow a hypothetically illegitimate president-elect or president. I just don't understand the steps between "we now have a sufficiently large group of revolutionary socialists to start completing our objectives" and "we have officially stopped Trump (or whoever) and now everything is in place for a socialist America". That and it describes what you're doing.
I'm saying if you have any sincerity in understanding how revolutionary socialists would complete our objectives you would read, join an org, and engage in praxis. Your failure to do so over the last ~7+ years I've been advocating folks do so is why you don't understand and why I know your inquiries aren't in good faith.
It's also demonstrative of the years of sticking your dick in the bear trap and getting it reattached and realizing you can't get reattached again. Now you're looking at me like "well what exactly are the steps you would take to make my dick work again genius?!?"
EDIT: I guess that's the "eli13" version. I don't know how literal the "5" is supposed to be.
|
On October 29 2024 06:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out? Are you expecting a different answer than the other 200 times this has been asked? 
::shrug:: Maybe I'm not asking clearly enough, or maybe I'm just not understanding things. I think there's an acronym called "eli5", standing for "explain like I'm 5 [years old]", which might be applicable to my plea here, because I don't know what the execution of the socialist plan looks like. Like, is the idea to have another January 6th riot, but this time in the name of socialism? Is it to assassinate Trump and everyone in Congress who wants to keep the illegitimate president and/or capitalism? Is it to bring lawsuits into state and federal courthouses and somehow outlaw the status quo? I recognize when GH critiques Democrats for being wusses who often care more about the moral high ground than actually winning - and I don't necessarily disagree with him in certain instances - but I don't know what the socialist revolution would do to win.
|
What percentage of Americans identify as socialist revolutionaries?
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
If we’re to flip it around to a certain degree, what do liberals do in a hypothetical where Trump just wins the election fair and square and starts to implement pseudo-Fascism?
Interrogation of GH and what he’d propose is of course reasonable, but ultimately he’s on the fringe, his ideology doesn’t have much traction (despite my personal sympathetic leanings) etc.
It feels only fair to ask the same question back for those who believe in liberal democracy, electoralism etc given that it is the actual system most of us operate under, and folks advocate for
|
I feel like we need to ask comrade Kwark what the socialist revolution will look like. He's earned the most praxis bucks and is thus the greatest revolutionary socialist in this thread. He may have the answers whereas GH's answers always seem extremely vague and non-committal. I'd hazard a guess that he doesn't seem to have any actual answers.
It's like when a politician says he's going to be "better". What's your plan for healthcare? A better system. What is it? Everything will be better. How about immigration, what will you do about that? It'll be better under me.
Just replace "better" with "socialism" and you get GH.
Or we can waste another page trying to push an ideology that can't even keep the lights on without handouts from capitalist countries. Something like Cuba: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/26/cuba-power-grid-failure-financial-crisis
|
On October 29 2024 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 06:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out? The part of the post you edited out addresses this sort of engagement. This is another example of something I pointed out Democrats/Republicans do almost a year ago: This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what the socialists bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy. First Democrats shout down everyone telling them Biden shouldn't be the nominee, then they shout down everyone saying he should stop supporting genocide, then shout down everyone saying he's going to lose, then shout down everyone saying Harris needs to stop supporting genocide, on and on, until finally they're completely fucked and then they turn and say "well what's your bright idea!?!?" as if they aren't just going to rationalize their complicity in abandoning democracy for personal security regardless. If you have any sincerity you should join a revolutionary socialist org in your area or online and discuss this stuff with your comrades. The short answer is for Democrats to just STFU and fall in line behind the people that didn't wait until election day to join socialist orgs. Or they could do their "socialists being mean made me a Nazi" thing they constantly threaten implicitly by talking about the stuff they would accept Trump doing to oppressed peoples. I understood that extra part to be more of a scolding of what Democrats repeatedly do wrong, rather than how a socialist revolution would actually overthrow a hypothetically illegitimate president-elect or president. I just don't understand the steps between "we now have a sufficiently large group of revolutionary socialists to start completing our objectives" and "we have officially stopped Trump (or whoever) and now everything is in place for a socialist America". That and it describes what you're doing. I'm saying if you have any sincerity in understanding how revolutionary socialists would complete our objectives you would read, join an org, and engage in praxis. Your failure to do so over the last ~7+ years I've been advocating folks do so is why you don't understand and why I know you're inquiries aren't in good faith. It's also demonstrative of the years of sticking your dick in the bear trap and getting it reattached and realizing you can't get reattached again. Now you're looking at me like "well what exactly are the steps you would take to make my dick work again genius?!?"
That's really not fair. I'm one of the only people left in this thread who still gives you and your socialism the time of day. You're not being very persuasive, because you're not explaining the process by which your socialist revolution takes over, even if I hypothetically grant you enough people interested in making it happen. All they need is the game plan, but it doesn't really sound like you have one. How can someone follow directions if there aren't any to give? You're clearly very passionate about this, but even when I ask for you to hold my hand through the step-by-step process, you tell me to go read a book or have other socialists explain to me the parts that really matter.
|
On October 29 2024 07:48 RenSC2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I feel like we need to ask comrade Kwark what the socialist revolution will look like. He's earned the most praxis bucks and is thus the greatest revolutionary socialist in this thread. He may have the answers whereas GH's answers always seem extremely vague and non-committal. I'd hazard a guess that he doesn't seem to have any actual answers.
It's like when a politician says he's going to be "better". What's your plan for healthcare? A better system. What is it? Everything will be better. How about immigration, what will you do about that? It'll be better under me.
Just replace "better" with "socialism" and you get GH. Or we can waste another page trying to push an ideology that can't even keep the lights on without handouts from capitalist countries. Something like Cuba: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/26/cuba-power-grid-failure-financial-crisis
Pretty ghoulish to mention in Cuba in this context. Especially while the US is about to be exposed yet again as being alone in the world in continuing the multi-decade long embargo that is meant to make Cuban people suffer much like Israel's blockade of Gaza is to Palestinians.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is set to vote for the 32nd time on a draft resolution calling for an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba, referred to by the island country as a blockade, which restricts international business and imposes economic sanctions on anyone trading with Cuba.
Despite 31 consecutive years of overwhelming support from the U.N. General Assembly to lift the blockade, it continues to remain in place.
This blockade, which restricts access to essential resources like healthcare for the Cuban people, is the primary barrier to Cuba's development.
It deprives the country of funds and supplies, contributing to hunger and despair.
The UN General Assembly has consistently supported the resolution to lift the blockade.
Last year, the draft resolution received support from 187 countries, with only the United States and Israel voting against it, while Ukraine abstained.
nbcnews.na
On October 29 2024 08:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 06:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out? The part of the post you edited out addresses this sort of engagement. This is another example of something I pointed out Democrats/Republicans do almost a year ago: This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what the socialists bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy. First Democrats shout down everyone telling them Biden shouldn't be the nominee, then they shout down everyone saying he should stop supporting genocide, then shout down everyone saying he's going to lose, then shout down everyone saying Harris needs to stop supporting genocide, on and on, until finally they're completely fucked and then they turn and say "well what's your bright idea!?!?" as if they aren't just going to rationalize their complicity in abandoning democracy for personal security regardless. If you have any sincerity you should join a revolutionary socialist org in your area or online and discuss this stuff with your comrades. The short answer is for Democrats to just STFU and fall in line behind the people that didn't wait until election day to join socialist orgs. Or they could do their "socialists being mean made me a Nazi" thing they constantly threaten implicitly by talking about the stuff they would accept Trump doing to oppressed peoples. I understood that extra part to be more of a scolding of what Democrats repeatedly do wrong, rather than how a socialist revolution would actually overthrow a hypothetically illegitimate president-elect or president. I just don't understand the steps between "we now have a sufficiently large group of revolutionary socialists to start completing our objectives" and "we have officially stopped Trump (or whoever) and now everything is in place for a socialist America". That and it describes what you're doing. I'm saying if you have any sincerity in understanding how revolutionary socialists would complete our objectives you would read, join an org, and engage in praxis. Your failure to do so over the last ~7+ years I've been advocating folks do so is why you don't understand and why I know you're inquiries aren't in good faith. It's also demonstrative of the years of sticking your dick in the bear trap and getting it reattached and realizing you can't get reattached again. Now you're looking at me like "well what exactly are the steps you would take to make my dick work again genius?!?" That's really not fair. I'm one of the only people left in this thread who still gives you and your socialism the time of day. You're not being very persuasive, because you're not explaining the process by which your socialist revolution takes over, even if I hypothetically grant you enough people interested in making it happen. All they need is the game plan, but it doesn't really sound like you have one. How can someone follow directions if there aren't any to give? You're clearly very passionate about this, but even when I ask for you to hold my hand through the step-by-step process, you tell me to go read a book or have other socialists explain to me the parts that really matter.
Seems fair to me. You're sealioning.
As Wombat recognizes, you don't have this sort of plan for the liberal electoralism you already support. Which is a major reason why you responded with the whataboutism on how revolutionary socialism would solve the problems Democrats have created by ignoring revolutionary socialists suggestions for decades.
You personally have failed to follow the most straightforward and simple steps for 7+ years, I know you're not sincerely looking to "follow directions" because you still won't do them. If you did, we'd be able to discuss the merits of various socialist perspectives on what you would describe as "game plans".
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On October 29 2024 08:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 06:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out? The part of the post you edited out addresses this sort of engagement. This is another example of something I pointed out Democrats/Republicans do almost a year ago: This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what the socialists bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy. First Democrats shout down everyone telling them Biden shouldn't be the nominee, then they shout down everyone saying he should stop supporting genocide, then shout down everyone saying he's going to lose, then shout down everyone saying Harris needs to stop supporting genocide, on and on, until finally they're completely fucked and then they turn and say "well what's your bright idea!?!?" as if they aren't just going to rationalize their complicity in abandoning democracy for personal security regardless. If you have any sincerity you should join a revolutionary socialist org in your area or online and discuss this stuff with your comrades. The short answer is for Democrats to just STFU and fall in line behind the people that didn't wait until election day to join socialist orgs. Or they could do their "socialists being mean made me a Nazi" thing they constantly threaten implicitly by talking about the stuff they would accept Trump doing to oppressed peoples. I understood that extra part to be more of a scolding of what Democrats repeatedly do wrong, rather than how a socialist revolution would actually overthrow a hypothetically illegitimate president-elect or president. I just don't understand the steps between "we now have a sufficiently large group of revolutionary socialists to start completing our objectives" and "we have officially stopped Trump (or whoever) and now everything is in place for a socialist America". That and it describes what you're doing. I'm saying if you have any sincerity in understanding how revolutionary socialists would complete our objectives you would read, join an org, and engage in praxis. Your failure to do so over the last ~7+ years I've been advocating folks do so is why you don't understand and why I know you're inquiries aren't in good faith. It's also demonstrative of the years of sticking your dick in the bear trap and getting it reattached and realizing you can't get reattached again. Now you're looking at me like "well what exactly are the steps you would take to make my dick work again genius?!?" That's really not fair. I'm one of the only people left in this thread who still gives you and your socialism the time of day. You're not being very persuasive, because you're not explaining the process by which your socialist revolution takes over, even if I hypothetically grant you enough people interested in making it happen. All they need is the game plan, but it doesn't really sound like you have one. How can someone follow directions if there aren't any to give? You're clearly very passionate about this, but even when I ask for you to hold my hand through the step-by-step process, you tell me to go read a book or have other socialists explain to me the parts that really matter.
As let’s say a socialist sympathiser, actually nay socialist full stop this frustrates me no end.
Ultimately you can’t even lay the bedrock for (IMO) a way it can work without some personal and by extension, collective effort.
I don’t think it’s possible to implement in a highly abstracted, detached environment. Indeed I think current states of affairs are only tolerated by virtue of this abstraction and disconnection.
You see this pretty clearly in past attempts at socialism, they were very much top-down efforts for the most part. I don’t think that can work without an associated cultural shift, that has to happen prior.
GH isn’t even that bad by the standards I’ve observed, which if you avoid outright hostility based on one misstep, you’re lucky to even get a reading list.
Which is completely and utterly fucking useless. You’re not talking convincing me to vote for x person, you’re talking about something radically transformative, and something that to work requires buying and investment beyond merely just sticking an x beside a candidate’s name.
|
On October 29 2024 07:31 WombaT wrote:
If we’re to flip it around to a certain degree, what do liberals do in a hypothetical where Trump just wins the election fair and square and starts to implement pseudo-Fascism?
Interrogation of GH and what he’d propose is of course reasonable, but ultimately he’s on the fringe, his ideology doesn’t have much traction (despite my personal sympathetic leanings) etc.
It feels only fair to ask the same question back for those who believe in liberal democracy, electoralism etc given that it is the actual system most of us operate under, and folks advocate for
I think at this point we pretty much know what liberals do in that hypothetical, they become fascists like liberals did in Nazi Germany.
|
United States24556 Posts
On October 29 2024 08:17 WombaT wrote:
You see this pretty clearly in past attempts at socialism, they were very much top-down efforts for the most part. I don’t think that can work without an associated cultural shift, that has to happen prior.
What should advocates do to effect a cultural shift in those who aren't on board yet beyond just insulting them for not already abandoning the existing system?
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On October 29 2024 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 07:31 WombaT wrote:
If we’re to flip it around to a certain degree, what do liberals do in a hypothetical where Trump just wins the election fair and square and starts to implement pseudo-Fascism?
Interrogation of GH and what he’d propose is of course reasonable, but ultimately he’s on the fringe, his ideology doesn’t have much traction (despite my personal sympathetic leanings) etc.
It feels only fair to ask the same question back for those who believe in liberal democracy, electoralism etc given that it is the actual system most of us operate under, and folks advocate for
I think at this point we pretty much know what liberals do in that hypothetical, they become fascists like liberals did in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps, I wouldn’t write off my fellow human
I think you’d probably see a lot of people individually willing to take some steps, but in the absence of genuine political activism, lacking the ability to actually organise to do anything of note. So they’d end up either unsure of what to do, or left isolated to do pointless performative professional suicide or whatever.
It’s one of the key strengths/weaknesses of liberal electoralism, folks are either happy/unhappy that they get a say every so often at the ballot box, and don’t really build beyond that. It’s the beginning and end of political responsibility for many folks.
Revolution is oft associated with violence, but it really doesn’t have to be. A big enough general strike cripples a system with perpetual productivity at its core
But I fear in my hypothetical there just isn’t the organisation, the culture or the precedent for such an option to be really on the table.
|
On October 29 2024 08:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 07:31 WombaT wrote:
If we’re to flip it around to a certain degree, what do liberals do in a hypothetical where Trump just wins the election fair and square and starts to implement pseudo-Fascism?
Interrogation of GH and what he’d propose is of course reasonable, but ultimately he’s on the fringe, his ideology doesn’t have much traction (despite my personal sympathetic leanings) etc.
It feels only fair to ask the same question back for those who believe in liberal democracy, electoralism etc given that it is the actual system most of us operate under, and folks advocate for
I think at this point we pretty much know what liberals do in that hypothetical, they become fascists like liberals did in Nazi Germany. Perhaps, I wouldn’t write off my fellow human I think you’d probably see a lot of people individually willing to take some steps, but in the absence of genuine political activism, lacking the ability to actually organise to do anything of note. So they’d end up either unsure of what to do, or left isolated to do pointless performative professional suicide or whatever. It’s one of the key strengths/weaknesses of liberal electoralism, folks are either happy/unhappy that they get a say every so often at the ballot box, and don’t really build beyond that. It’s the beginning and end of political responsibility for many folks. Revolution is oft associated with violence, but it really doesn’t have to be. A big enough general strike cripples a system with perpetual productivity at its core But I fear in my hypothetical there just isn’t the organisation, the culture or the precedent for such an option to be really on the table.
The Russian Revolution of February 1917 was very peaceful overall, mostly just the army standing down facing the woman and workers of Russia on strike. The German revolution post WW1 was also surprisingly quick and painless (for the most part).
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On October 29 2024 10:32 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 08:29 WombaT wrote:On October 29 2024 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 07:31 WombaT wrote:
If we’re to flip it around to a certain degree, what do liberals do in a hypothetical where Trump just wins the election fair and square and starts to implement pseudo-Fascism?
Interrogation of GH and what he’d propose is of course reasonable, but ultimately he’s on the fringe, his ideology doesn’t have much traction (despite my personal sympathetic leanings) etc.
It feels only fair to ask the same question back for those who believe in liberal democracy, electoralism etc given that it is the actual system most of us operate under, and folks advocate for
I think at this point we pretty much know what liberals do in that hypothetical, they become fascists like liberals did in Nazi Germany. Perhaps, I wouldn’t write off my fellow human I think you’d probably see a lot of people individually willing to take some steps, but in the absence of genuine political activism, lacking the ability to actually organise to do anything of note. So they’d end up either unsure of what to do, or left isolated to do pointless performative professional suicide or whatever. It’s one of the key strengths/weaknesses of liberal electoralism, folks are either happy/unhappy that they get a say every so often at the ballot box, and don’t really build beyond that. It’s the beginning and end of political responsibility for many folks. Revolution is oft associated with violence, but it really doesn’t have to be. A big enough general strike cripples a system with perpetual productivity at its core But I fear in my hypothetical there just isn’t the organisation, the culture or the precedent for such an option to be really on the table. The Russian Revolution of February 1917 was very peaceful overall, mostly just the army standing down facing the woman and workers of Russia on strike. The German revolution post WW1 was also surprisingly quick and painless (for the most part).
To a point, but it was also like ‘oh these guys took over, they’re in charge now’ for a lot of folks
I think in the modern age we somewhat underestimate logistics when we look backwards, things are so immediate and interconnected these days.
A Leninist revolution today I mean, it just doesn’t happen. Unless it had genuine overwhelming popular support
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On October 29 2024 08:23 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 08:17 WombaT wrote:
You see this pretty clearly in past attempts at socialism, they were very much top-down efforts for the most part. I don’t think that can work without an associated cultural shift, that has to happen prior.
What should advocates do to effect a cultural shift in those who aren't on board yet beyond just insulting them for not already abandoning the existing system?
You talk to most folks, ask what their values are and invariably answers tend not to go in the ‘making money for the capitalist machine’. It’s not really something most people value all that much, but yet huge societal import is placed on it.
I’m a big fan of Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance thought experiment, use that.
That’s your gateway to get people in, and beyond that gateway I think you need welcoming community groups etc etc.
Hey it’s hard, you’re fighting against established orthodoxy that’s culturally instilled from an early age, even if indirectly.
I think a kind of default retrenchment to liberal capitalism is just super ingrained in most people. In the same sense gender relations are still asymmetric.
You’re not going to turn that ship round overnight, or over years. But if your advocates are like ‘read theory of fuck off’ it’s never going to happen
|
United States24556 Posts
I think that's fair. I also like the idea of applying the Veil of Ignorance to other things, now that I think about it. Union negotiations: let's role play negotiations for a different company, and you don't know whether you are advocating for the union or the company management until the end of the negotiations! It kind of reminds me of the classic method for resolving disagreements about who inherits stuff by having person #1 split the stuff into two piles and person #2 get to choose one of the piles. But I digress.
|
When you think of the basics of socialism it is very much at odds with elitism. That is why it is very hard to believe a socialist would be so focused on people needing to read a advanced level university reading list first makes no sense. It seems much more like scientology where you need to get through all the levels before you can get the true message or something.
As just mentioned any revolution from the people requires overwhelming popular support. Making difficult to get through barriers to join makes no sense. Unless the goal is to be part of a elite few who "get it" to make ones self feel superior or something. I'm pretty sure every true believer of anything is looking for anyone and everyone to spread their message too.
There is something very fishy going on.
Edit: I love the one splits other picks!
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On October 29 2024 11:24 micronesia wrote:
I think that's fair. I also like the idea of applying the Veil of Ignorance to other things, now that I think about it. Union negotiations: let's role play negotiations for a different company, and you don't know whether you are advocating for the union or the company management until the end of the negotiations! It kind of reminds me of the classic method for resolving disagreements about who inherits stuff by having person #1 split the stuff into two piles and person #2 get to choose one of the piles. But I digress.
It’s such an effective thought experiment it makes me a bit lazy as rather than argue I just posit it far too often haha
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On October 29 2024 11:29 Billyboy wrote:
When you think of the basics of socialism it is very much at odds with elitism. That is why it is very hard to believe a socialist would be so focused on people needing to read a advanced level university reading list first makes no sense. It seems much more like scientology where you need to get through all the levels before you can get the true message or something.
As just mentioned any revolution from the people requires overwhelming popular support. Making difficult to get through barriers to join makes no sense. Unless the goal is to be part of a elite few who "get it" to make ones self feel superior or something. I'm pretty sure every true believer of anything is looking for anyone and everyone to spread their message too.
There is something very fishy going on.
Edit: I love the one splits other picks!
Can you just change your name to JimmyC already? Welcome back by the way!
Yeah 100% agreed, for whatever reason I find socialism as an idea punches through much more to folks in my position, middle class, semi-smart (I hope), already engaged (I did a political science degree) than like the rank and file folks
|
On October 28 2024 11:46 Introvert wrote:
Harris had a left wing voting record in the senate and the primary. Just because she's pretending that didn't happen now doesn't make it not true. At *best* you could say she's unprincipled. And it shows in her flailing around. How can you be asked twice how you are different than Biden and not have an answer? She doesn't think she should have to work for it
Not sure if this was intended as a response to me saying Harris is not some far-left radical, but it merits some discussion. Because yeah, if you go by 2020 primary positions or Senate DW-Nominate score or w/e, she looks pretty progressive, and she's Black and a woman, which supposedly progressives are supposed to be crazy about. And yet progressives never seem to claim her as one of their own, what gives?
The 2020 Democratic primary was an interesting contest for a lot of reasons, but a big one is that Democratic political operatives had spent the last 4 years researching and developing every aspect of what they thought an effective presidential campaign to unseat Donald Trump should look like, and in that primary we got to see what they came up with. The answer was, in a word, "Obama." But the really interesting part is which aspects of Obama each campaign chose to replicate. Do you want a well-spoken Harvard alum who's a political outsider? Take a look at Pete Buttigieg, his only political experience is as mayor of a mid-size town in a red state! Do you want a likable Black guy with an extremely round head? Allow me to introduce Cory Booker, he's maybe got as much dad energy as any politician I've seen besides Tim Walz.
But Kamala Harris had what I thought was probably the most plausible attempt to clone the Obama phenomenon. She was a clear rising star in her party, and as a California senator she was free to take progressive positions on votes as often as she liked without much backlash, which is important because I think her campaign clearly thought that to replicate Obama, you had to come from the progressive wing of the party. Surely some well-connected establishment guy is never gonna get people energized and excited about all the wonderful things their candidacy could accomplish – "Hope and Change" – the way a progressive could. She endorsed Medicare for All, etc., which seemed calibrated to make sure she was identified as one of the "progressive lane" candidates (although I'm not sure it really worked, even at the time).
It turns out the political operatives were wrong anyway, people didn't want an Obama clone at all, or at least not a 2008 Obama clone. I mean, Obama was (and is!) still enormously popular with Democrats, but by then they're thinking of Obama after winning the presidency, who frankly was never all that progressive. Biden might actually have been the closest analog to that Obama, or at least used to stand next to him a lot, and that turned out to be good enough for primary voters (general election voters, too).
And Kamala went to work for him as VP, which doesn't make a ton of sense if she was actually some Sanders-like dyed-in-the-wool progressive. Didn't she basically call that guy racist in the first debate? But she was always someone who tried to figure out what voters wanted, and then would try to give them what they want. When all the best minds thought that answer was an Obama clone, that was what she tried to be. Once it was clear they actually just wanted a steady hand establishment guy to calm down all the craziness + Show Spoiler +(a bit like Disney wanted from JJ Abrams around the same time)
You can call that "unprincipled" (and, I mean, I probably would) but a Harris defender might counter, what exactly is it you want politicians to do? I mean, our democratic system is supposedly so wise and just and well-designed because politicians are regularly held accountable to voters, so it incentivizes them to give voters what they want in order to stay in office. If the politicians are working hard to figure out what voters want to see and give it to them, isn't that the system working as intended? (Personally I don't buy that the system is so wise and just and well-designed; I wanted someone who endorsed progressive positions out of a sincere deeply-held belief, so I voted Sanders.)
But I guess the long and short of it is, Kamala Harris was always essentially an establishment Democrat, in the sense that whatever direction the Democratic Party seemed to be moving in, she'd try to be on the leading edge of it. If the Democrats ever got enough of a mandate to implement some big, progressive reforms on the scale of Obamacare, you can bet she'd be there leading the charge. If the party decided that appealing to centrist voters with tax cuts and balanced budgets was their best path forward, she'd be there leading that charge too. She's not an ideologue, she's certainly not a socialist, GH need not worry about running into her at any meetings, and capitalists need not worry about her seizing the means of production.
But in the world of Republican rhetoric, where all Democrats are Marxists until proven innocent (and even then, y'know, better safe than sorry), she's "Comrade Kamala." Which is the same playbook they run against every other Democrat, and like I said before, is almost never rooted in much truth, so changing their policy positions to counter the "Socialist!" attack is of limited value. It wasn't true before, it still won't be true after the change, and they'll keep saying it anyway. And if the attack was working before, it'll probably keep working just about as well, for reasons that apparently don't have much to do with the truth of it.
|
On October 29 2024 11:35 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 11:29 Billyboy wrote:
When you think of the basics of socialism it is very much at odds with elitism. That is why it is very hard to believe a socialist would be so focused on people needing to read a advanced level university reading list first makes no sense. It seems much more like scientology where you need to get through all the levels before you can get the true message or something.
As just mentioned any revolution from the people requires overwhelming popular support. Making difficult to get through barriers to join makes no sense. Unless the goal is to be part of a elite few who "get it" to make ones self feel superior or something. I'm pretty sure every true believer of anything is looking for anyone and everyone to spread their message too.
There is something very fishy going on.
Edit: I love the one splits other picks! Can you just change your name to JimmyC already? Welcome back by the way! Yeah 100% agreed, for whatever reason I find socialism as an idea punches through much more to folks in my position, middle class, semi-smart (I hope), already engaged (I did a political science degree) than like the rank and file folks
It is a very bad sign that those that it would help the most are against it. I believe that is because it has been taught and thought of as a system built on handouts, which are bad. But what the message should be is that it is a system where the people who actually do the hard work are the ones that reap the benefits instead of owners, ceo's and investors. Need to tie socialism to hard work equaling success on some level to have it fly in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
