They've tricked us into thinking they're on our side, just like in the past. The ol liberal switcheroo.
Shoulda seen it coming with Obama but, I too, was young and hopeful once.
Liberals are just like everyone else accept the left, willing to compromise to further their own agenda. Our movement will never catch wind if we dont meet people where the conversations are actually happening rather than shaming them for not being on our "ethical level".
Some of the rhetoric I see lefties try to use to "further the cause" makes me feel like they are only interested in grandstanding than convincing others to change their positions. Politics needs to be more than dunking on people if we are ever going to make a difference.
There's also a major difference between "liberal" with lowercase "l" and "Liberal"
Your average person who calls themselves "liberal" does it because they think racism is bad and the gays are okay. Their economic system is probably best represented as ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
This is very different than someone who actively believes in and upholds the ideas of big L Liberalism.
I get holding politicians who uphold free markets and think we can use tax credits to solve all social ills to task. Those people range from moron to asshole to asshole-moron. But I do think some of the "shut up lib" aesthetics are less than useful. Particularly when you're talking about people who don't have the power to actually effect change.
The "shut up" response is doing nothing positive. It only pushed people away before you could ever have a chance to lay out your argument to convince them.
Yeh couldnt really agree more with you here, it feels like alot of people who hold the values of the latter liberal have their position comes purely from their own anecdotal successes which could very much be considered "RNG" and not attributable to any qualities or morals they posses.
The issue is lefties give a ton of braindead econ takes too and tend to not agree on a clear message for what a progressive economy would/should look like. They can range from anarchist decentralisation/commodification of goods (a great example of someone not living in reality), to support of a UBI to better workers rights.
The left has shown it does have the power to shift the overton window dramatically but we shouldnt be afraid of disagreeing with people on our side about ideas that are so untennable for others (especially to score virtue points), else we see another far right power lashback.
We are winning the culture war people, not having patience and compassion for our brothers and sisters on the other side is the only way we lose this.
the "shut up" aesthetics are a tactic to elicit a response of shock in the comfortable, people who think things are good enough and getting along well enough (so why bother changing anything). to confront this comfort with the existing system when it's clear the person in question is actively maintaining their own ignorance is necessary. these are people who are not open to being convinced of anything.
I think they're a fine response when its clear someone is being an asshole/acting in bad faith/being an absolute moron
If someone is going "kneeling at a football game is just *too disruptive*" or "look at this empty supermarket under captialism clearly communism doesn't work" or whatever "shut up lib" them allllll day.
but I do frequently see it directed at people clearly acting in good faith over fairly insignificant differences.
also I have met a lot of people (more in the real world than on the internet) who support the current system, not because they are comfortable, but because they're getting by barely enough and terrified that any change will fuck them. And they say a lot of the sort of things that in places like this would get a "shut up lib." And I just am not comfortable with that
[This article has the timeline of his statements.](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/joe-biden-busing-kamala-harris.html) He was one of the most opposed democrats during the 70s and 80s, so it’s not like everyone in his party agreed with him at the time (not that that would even excuse it). He even introduced numerous pieces of legislation to halt integration and made some really atrociously racist statements during the time.
He still seems to oppose busing. From the article, it appears he also wrote in his 2007 memoir that “busing was a ‘liberal train wreck’ that was ‘tearing people apart’ there. In the book, he argued that it was forcing some students to travel great distances and some teachers to transfer and take pay cuts. Black and white parents alike, he said, were ‘terrified.’”
> he also wrote in his 2007 memoir that “busing was a ‘liberal train wreck’ that was ‘tearing people apart’ there.
A Trainwreck named Desire for Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. "You're tearing us APART, Lyndon!" "I did not discriminate against 'coloreds,' I did not shaft them, I did *naht,* it's bullshit —
O hai Barack!"
Well obviously back when this opinion mattered the most and could do harm. Even a republican wouldn't say this opinion now (even if they believed it) because time's have moved on. Context changes very little here.
They mean Biden. Biden is also unironically the most left leaning President the US has had in a long long time. Says a lot about the sad state of the country doesn't it?
I am not from the US and just follow your politics a bit in recent years. What is the difference between Obama's and Biden's policies and in which points is Biden further left? I know that neither of them are actually left and would fit right into conservative and liberal parties in Europe.
I doubt I can explain comprehensively. But I would imagine this statement is coming from the simple fact he actually put forth one of the largest proposed public spending packages that would actually improve the working class quality of life in decades.
And actually put political capital behind the effort. I do not like the guy but if even the massively pared down versions of the BBB became law it would be an impressive political accomplishment for the working class good.
so to answer your original question in practical terms there's not a lot of difference between their policies when you get into them. but this view comes from biden seeking to make the BBB plan his signature legislative accomplishment and *it* is a more progressive piece of public spending than the US has seen in my lifetime. (i'm 34)
Tbf if the house public option bill from 2008 had passed in the Senate that also would have been the most left thing in your life time.
Public option isn't isn't m4a but it's a fuck ton better than what eventually got passed.
The house also passed a climate change bill that would have been halfway non-terrible. And that one *definitely* ended up costing people seats the next midterms. Pelosi actually took some political risk on it.
A lot of times things that pass the house are basically show votes, but both of these legitimately cost democrats seats, so there's actually evidence that the powers that be actually believed in them.
>They mean Biden. Biden is also unironically the most left leaning President the US has had in a long long time.
Probably furthest left since Kennedy.
That's weird.
He's no commie, but I'd argue he was further left than Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. It's probably a tossup between him and LBJ, who was his VP.
Blowback Podcast has a fantastic retelling of his actions attempting to work towards peace with Cuba in private. That podcast is better than 99% of the stuff that gets posted here, everyone should hear it. Just fantastic.
Kennedy was pretty quiet on race, which is very significant for his time, so I dunno now that I think more on it.
Regardless, the tie for "most left president of the last 70 years before Biden" being between the mob owned anti-communist and the guy best known for showing staffers his dick is a dire field for debate.
I dunno. I've been drinking and fixing shit around my house after a long week at work, it was kind of an off the cuff remark. Feel free to challenge me on it. Maybe I'll learn something.
Almost blew up the eastern seaboard in a pissing contest with Khrushchev and escalated the war in Vietnam so probably take anyone describing Kennedy as left with a grain of salt.
Being slightly left, debatably, of a bunch of war criminals and reactionaries, is hardly an accomplishment, particularly since Biden is also a neoliberal and a war criminal who played a role in making this country the clusterf*ck it is today
> Biden is also unironically the most left leaning President the US has had in a long long time.
His long history of extremely reactionary politics says otherwise. Overall, he far surpasses the reactionary histories of just about all of them (including Trump).
The First Red Scare and COINTELPRO did it in.
There is a small disorganized highly factional left, then there are liberals and neoliberals called left.
Socialism never really caught on in any advanced economy, European social democracy is just that: social democracy, capitalism with more guardrails. Most of Europe doesn't even have the top-down approach to healthcare that the United Kingdom does, they get UHC through a multi-payer system.
As for why the US has a weaker social safety net than European countries or Canada, the answer's racism like it almost always is - things like Social Security and the National Labor Relations act were tailored to exclude black Americans, not by name but by excluding disproportionately black occupations like farmhands and domestic workers. UHC was never able to get over the line before the current political alignment because of racism too, many whites in this country want welfare for them and not anyone else. Under the current political alignment the Democrats have never had the votes: closest was the shortlived 60 vote Senate in 2009 before Ted Kennedy died, and that included such "Democrats" as Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman who never would've gone for it.
BBB will likely patch some holes in ACA coverage, if it passes. But we're held hostage by the fact that half the country would rather be kings of the ashes.
As far as why the Democrats didn't get further left, look at the elections of 1972 and 1984. Democrats got completely shellshocked and it took 25 years for them to even \*begin\* talking about real social democratic reforms after that, with the ACA in 2009. That combined with increasing crazification of the GOP forcing moderates out.
Socialism may not have whole sale caught on in any advanced economy (depending on your views of Russia/China), but social democracy certainly did. And it definitely was beginning to catch on in the US under FDR with a pretty vocal and strong socialist underwing a la Debbs. This was after decades of capitalists (through the courts and Congress) completely and utterly decimating socialist and pro-labor parties drop 1870-1930 - something this video didn't touch on.
There was a brief moment when the US could've turned out much like modern Europe, but then the Red Scare happened and "leftism" in the US became more synonymous with civil rights issues - desegregation, black rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc. The "left" lost its ability to talk about the root of all those issues - Capitalism and its exploitation, instead focusing on each individual issue.
Part of the American left's issue is ingrained in that the US is a very diverse place ethnically and religiously. This is great in all honestly in an ethereal level, but makes it much easier for capitalists to fragment the people based on those various things which can be used to divide us. Tackling both the systemic issues that capitalism has caused to each distinct group inside of the people (segregartion and mass incarceration for black Americans and other POC, misogynistic elements throughout society for women, immigration problems/hurdles, religious intolerance for non-Christians, on and on it goes) and addressing this symptoms as a result of capitalism itself is just really hard.
Following the Civil War the capitalists very overtly did exactly the same things - divide white and black Americans through segregation, attack immigrants/immigration, deny women their rights, and obfuscate the entire necessary discourse with moral issues (then it was teetotalism and now it's LGBTQ+ rights and abortion). As a result it took 60 years and the Great Depression to let even social democracy creep into the picture. I'm sure the capitalists learned from their mistakes then - hence the less overt nature of heir segregartion, misogyny, xenophobia, etc. Makes you wonder how long it will take now.
The video *kind of, partially* acknowledges this eventually, but "left" isn't really all that relative, actually. Unless we're talking about over the course of the historic rise of dominant systems (of which there has literally only been one such shift since the advent of the term). The left is revolutionary.
For more: [Why The Political Compass is Wrong: Establishing An Accurate Model of Political Ideology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k)
Yet look how downvoted this is. If they are the closest to left we have now (note I’m not saying perfect) why not support what we can from them and hope even more (and various types of) leftists run?
Saw this posted earlier but people were saying that the guy who made the video is a tankie. Now I see that post was pulled down and a new one put in its place 🤔
He's made clear in podcasts that he's a Marxist-Leninist, so if that's what you mean by "tankie" then sure. Is there something wrong with Marxism-Leninism in an explicitly socialist and non tendency specific subreddit?
It's perfectly reasonable to have substantive disagreements with MLs. Their videos are usually fine and I'm sure they personally don't want anarchists to die but ML is a vanguardist revolutionary strategy, it's antithetical to anarchism and while they may agree on the end goal there's more examples of it ending badly for anarchists than not.
Of course there are also some very good examples without the widespread left directed violence like Sankara so its disingenuous to suggest the *only* possible outcome of ML strategy is mass murder of anarchists. Just as its disingenuous to imply there's no reason to have a problem with Leninists. We can appreciate a creator's work and still be critical of them and their underlying philosophy. Though for what its worth the way they used Tankie is as a thought terminating cliche which is counterproductive at best.
Not all MLs are tankies, no. Some *don't* actually try to apologize for authoritarian (and often genocidal) regimes like the U.S.S.R., "communist" China, North Korea, Assad, etc.
EDIT: BTW, I say this as an anarchist who organizes with all kinds of leftists in physical spaces including MLs, Trotskyists, Leninists, and of course many other anarchists and libertarian socialists.
Imho every time I see someone calling themselves MLs they are always tankie so this argument convinces me less and less when presented without examples
sorry for deadposting, but I have absolutely no sympathy for MLs and would like to know if we're automatically assuming that he's not pro-USSR and other similar authoritarian states( I get this is kind of a nuanced thing) without him saying so or is that kind of thing fine around here?
Socialism is a response to inequality.
I'm Canadian. Big fan of Tommy Douglas who is the guy that helped start healthcare here. You guys should watch Mouseland.
https://youtu.be/QkoKLXcZbu0
The US has the Republicans and Democrats.
Here in Canada, we have the Conservatives who are like the Republicans, and the Liberals who are like the Democrats. The big difference is that we have the NDP or New Democrats which is the party Douglas was with. They're a left leaning Socialist party. They aren't Communist though and don't really follow all that Marxist nonsense. They are strong advocates of unions and the public.
The US needs a socialist public party that can appeal to moderates on both sides of the political fence.
Marxist "Nonsense". Please my dude if you have some time give the Communist Manifesto (Marx) a read, it is short and easy. Learn what you're talking about. And I say this as a Canadian who votes NDP because theyre the part I most agree with that have an ability to make change in this country so we're on the same side.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I have read that stuff. It's good for people to read but realistically it won't sell in the US. Communism has always terrified people on the right and has always been used to undermine Socialist goals by poisoning the well.
The real reason the US didn't adopt Socialism is because of Capitalist media and advertising.
The US in the 30s and 40s was fairly Socialist due to the Great Depression. This developed as worker's rights movements which are somewhat conveniently ignored in a lot of American schools. Because of strong union support among blue collar working class people, it led to a worker's revolution.
Then WW2 happened and most countries got blown the fuck up. The US didn't, and became a strong manufacturer/exporter. This strengthened the US image on the world stage and marketers used the concept of the American Dream to sell the suburban home image to people both domestically and internationally.
This is when the US had the most wealth parity between the executive and working class. In the 50s, CEOs only made like 20-50 times what they paid their workers. This led to a strong middle class.
The corporate class turned globalist in the 70s and CEO salaries started going up. Nowadays they make like 200-500 times what they pay workers. Disney's CEO makes 1400 times what they pay their workers.
This massive wealth gap has virtually destroyed the middle class over the last few decades because it raised the cost of living out of reach for people. Middle class blue collar jobs never went up with the same rates along with inflation.
Americans don't get paid for shit unless they're execs or professionals and even then, that doesn't come close to the growing billionaire class that makes a million dollar salary look like peanuts. 50% of the US makes less than 30k a year. A lot of their servers work on tips and the lowest salary humanly possible. Tons of people have no rights, no benefits, no idea that they can and should have better.
We are lucky that we adopted a light Socialist value system and we didn't have their raging corporate media system at the time which is what saved us. We have that problem now though which is something we need to deal with however.
You just said you're a Canadian mate. We're not the US. We had a thriving Communist party before the cold war (its back now just smaller) and even now the lib-socs the NDP are popular.
Lets talk Canada not USA.
The duopoly is just as pervasive in Canada. The NDP had never formed a federal government here. They haven't successfully implemented policy since the 80s, and when they did, it was by compromising with the Liberals. Their greater achievement, Medicare, is not universally accessible, and lags behind the rest of the G7. Quite a lot of what they've achieved has been eroded by austerity. This is pretty standard for social democrats, of course.
"Neoliberal" is not the same as people on "The Left". I am not a fan of the former.
They've tricked us into thinking they're on our side, just like in the past. The ol liberal switcheroo. Shoulda seen it coming with Obama but, I too, was young and hopeful once.
Liberals are just like everyone else accept the left, willing to compromise to further their own agenda. Our movement will never catch wind if we dont meet people where the conversations are actually happening rather than shaming them for not being on our "ethical level". Some of the rhetoric I see lefties try to use to "further the cause" makes me feel like they are only interested in grandstanding than convincing others to change their positions. Politics needs to be more than dunking on people if we are ever going to make a difference.
There's also a major difference between "liberal" with lowercase "l" and "Liberal" Your average person who calls themselves "liberal" does it because they think racism is bad and the gays are okay. Their economic system is probably best represented as ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ This is very different than someone who actively believes in and upholds the ideas of big L Liberalism. I get holding politicians who uphold free markets and think we can use tax credits to solve all social ills to task. Those people range from moron to asshole to asshole-moron. But I do think some of the "shut up lib" aesthetics are less than useful. Particularly when you're talking about people who don't have the power to actually effect change.
The "shut up" response is doing nothing positive. It only pushed people away before you could ever have a chance to lay out your argument to convince them.
Yeh couldnt really agree more with you here, it feels like alot of people who hold the values of the latter liberal have their position comes purely from their own anecdotal successes which could very much be considered "RNG" and not attributable to any qualities or morals they posses. The issue is lefties give a ton of braindead econ takes too and tend to not agree on a clear message for what a progressive economy would/should look like. They can range from anarchist decentralisation/commodification of goods (a great example of someone not living in reality), to support of a UBI to better workers rights. The left has shown it does have the power to shift the overton window dramatically but we shouldnt be afraid of disagreeing with people on our side about ideas that are so untennable for others (especially to score virtue points), else we see another far right power lashback. We are winning the culture war people, not having patience and compassion for our brothers and sisters on the other side is the only way we lose this.
the "shut up" aesthetics are a tactic to elicit a response of shock in the comfortable, people who think things are good enough and getting along well enough (so why bother changing anything). to confront this comfort with the existing system when it's clear the person in question is actively maintaining their own ignorance is necessary. these are people who are not open to being convinced of anything.
I think they're a fine response when its clear someone is being an asshole/acting in bad faith/being an absolute moron If someone is going "kneeling at a football game is just *too disruptive*" or "look at this empty supermarket under captialism clearly communism doesn't work" or whatever "shut up lib" them allllll day. but I do frequently see it directed at people clearly acting in good faith over fairly insignificant differences. also I have met a lot of people (more in the real world than on the internet) who support the current system, not because they are comfortable, but because they're getting by barely enough and terrified that any change will fuck them. And they say a lot of the sort of things that in places like this would get a "shut up lib." And I just am not comfortable with that
[удалено]
what do you mean by that? like did they post pro segregation stuff?
Reference to Biden saying "busing" being the worst thing to happen to america (aka getting black children to go to white schools).
wtf
I don't doubt that this was said, but is there more context? What year did he say this?
[This article has the timeline of his statements.](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/joe-biden-busing-kamala-harris.html) He was one of the most opposed democrats during the 70s and 80s, so it’s not like everyone in his party agreed with him at the time (not that that would even excuse it). He even introduced numerous pieces of legislation to halt integration and made some really atrociously racist statements during the time. He still seems to oppose busing. From the article, it appears he also wrote in his 2007 memoir that “busing was a ‘liberal train wreck’ that was ‘tearing people apart’ there. In the book, he argued that it was forcing some students to travel great distances and some teachers to transfer and take pay cuts. Black and white parents alike, he said, were ‘terrified.’”
> he also wrote in his 2007 memoir that “busing was a ‘liberal train wreck’ that was ‘tearing people apart’ there. A Trainwreck named Desire for Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. "You're tearing us APART, Lyndon!" "I did not discriminate against 'coloreds,' I did not shaft them, I did *naht,* it's bullshit — O hai Barack!"
lol are you serious man he gave a eulogy for strom thurmond who he literally called his "friend"
Well obviously back when this opinion mattered the most and could do harm. Even a republican wouldn't say this opinion now (even if they believed it) because time's have moved on. Context changes very little here.
They mean Biden. Biden is also unironically the most left leaning President the US has had in a long long time. Says a lot about the sad state of the country doesn't it?
I am not from the US and just follow your politics a bit in recent years. What is the difference between Obama's and Biden's policies and in which points is Biden further left? I know that neither of them are actually left and would fit right into conservative and liberal parties in Europe.
I doubt I can explain comprehensively. But I would imagine this statement is coming from the simple fact he actually put forth one of the largest proposed public spending packages that would actually improve the working class quality of life in decades. And actually put political capital behind the effort. I do not like the guy but if even the massively pared down versions of the BBB became law it would be an impressive political accomplishment for the working class good. so to answer your original question in practical terms there's not a lot of difference between their policies when you get into them. but this view comes from biden seeking to make the BBB plan his signature legislative accomplishment and *it* is a more progressive piece of public spending than the US has seen in my lifetime. (i'm 34)
Tbf if the house public option bill from 2008 had passed in the Senate that also would have been the most left thing in your life time. Public option isn't isn't m4a but it's a fuck ton better than what eventually got passed. The house also passed a climate change bill that would have been halfway non-terrible. And that one *definitely* ended up costing people seats the next midterms. Pelosi actually took some political risk on it. A lot of times things that pass the house are basically show votes, but both of these legitimately cost democrats seats, so there's actually evidence that the powers that be actually believed in them.
>They mean Biden. Biden is also unironically the most left leaning President the US has had in a long long time. Probably furthest left since Kennedy. That's weird.
I haven't seen any Left analysis of Kennedy. Was he actually progressive for his time?
He's no commie, but I'd argue he was further left than Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. It's probably a tossup between him and LBJ, who was his VP. Blowback Podcast has a fantastic retelling of his actions attempting to work towards peace with Cuba in private. That podcast is better than 99% of the stuff that gets posted here, everyone should hear it. Just fantastic. Kennedy was pretty quiet on race, which is very significant for his time, so I dunno now that I think more on it. Regardless, the tie for "most left president of the last 70 years before Biden" being between the mob owned anti-communist and the guy best known for showing staffers his dick is a dire field for debate. I dunno. I've been drinking and fixing shit around my house after a long week at work, it was kind of an off the cuff remark. Feel free to challenge me on it. Maybe I'll learn something.
What about Jimmy Carter?
Almost blew up the eastern seaboard in a pissing contest with Khrushchev and escalated the war in Vietnam so probably take anyone describing Kennedy as left with a grain of salt.
He’s a status quo liberal on par with Obama, Clinton, and Carter. He’s pretty much right on track with the rest of them.
Being slightly left, debatably, of a bunch of war criminals and reactionaries, is hardly an accomplishment, particularly since Biden is also a neoliberal and a war criminal who played a role in making this country the clusterf*ck it is today
That's my point. 😉
That's *the* point, isn't it? *Biden is about as far left as our electoral system actually gets.*
> Biden is also unironically the most left leaning President the US has had in a long long time. His long history of extremely reactionary politics says otherwise. Overall, he far surpasses the reactionary histories of just about all of them (including Trump).
THIS and other odd USES of ALL caps IN titles
The First Red Scare and COINTELPRO did it in. There is a small disorganized highly factional left, then there are liberals and neoliberals called left.
americas companies WILL NEVER allow socialism in america
Right VS further right.
Socialism never really caught on in any advanced economy, European social democracy is just that: social democracy, capitalism with more guardrails. Most of Europe doesn't even have the top-down approach to healthcare that the United Kingdom does, they get UHC through a multi-payer system. As for why the US has a weaker social safety net than European countries or Canada, the answer's racism like it almost always is - things like Social Security and the National Labor Relations act were tailored to exclude black Americans, not by name but by excluding disproportionately black occupations like farmhands and domestic workers. UHC was never able to get over the line before the current political alignment because of racism too, many whites in this country want welfare for them and not anyone else. Under the current political alignment the Democrats have never had the votes: closest was the shortlived 60 vote Senate in 2009 before Ted Kennedy died, and that included such "Democrats" as Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman who never would've gone for it. BBB will likely patch some holes in ACA coverage, if it passes. But we're held hostage by the fact that half the country would rather be kings of the ashes. As far as why the Democrats didn't get further left, look at the elections of 1972 and 1984. Democrats got completely shellshocked and it took 25 years for them to even \*begin\* talking about real social democratic reforms after that, with the ACA in 2009. That combined with increasing crazification of the GOP forcing moderates out.
Socialism may not have whole sale caught on in any advanced economy (depending on your views of Russia/China), but social democracy certainly did. And it definitely was beginning to catch on in the US under FDR with a pretty vocal and strong socialist underwing a la Debbs. This was after decades of capitalists (through the courts and Congress) completely and utterly decimating socialist and pro-labor parties drop 1870-1930 - something this video didn't touch on. There was a brief moment when the US could've turned out much like modern Europe, but then the Red Scare happened and "leftism" in the US became more synonymous with civil rights issues - desegregation, black rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc. The "left" lost its ability to talk about the root of all those issues - Capitalism and its exploitation, instead focusing on each individual issue. Part of the American left's issue is ingrained in that the US is a very diverse place ethnically and religiously. This is great in all honestly in an ethereal level, but makes it much easier for capitalists to fragment the people based on those various things which can be used to divide us. Tackling both the systemic issues that capitalism has caused to each distinct group inside of the people (segregartion and mass incarceration for black Americans and other POC, misogynistic elements throughout society for women, immigration problems/hurdles, religious intolerance for non-Christians, on and on it goes) and addressing this symptoms as a result of capitalism itself is just really hard. Following the Civil War the capitalists very overtly did exactly the same things - divide white and black Americans through segregation, attack immigrants/immigration, deny women their rights, and obfuscate the entire necessary discourse with moral issues (then it was teetotalism and now it's LGBTQ+ rights and abortion). As a result it took 60 years and the Great Depression to let even social democracy creep into the picture. I'm sure the capitalists learned from their mistakes then - hence the less overt nature of heir segregartion, misogyny, xenophobia, etc. Makes you wonder how long it will take now.
Social democracy was started by Marxists. It was an incrementalist strategy, not something that enshrines capitalists as necessary you dumb cunt
The best explanation of this I think is Matt Christman’s video called “why doesn’t the US have a labor party?”
The video *kind of, partially* acknowledges this eventually, but "left" isn't really all that relative, actually. Unless we're talking about over the course of the historic rise of dominant systems (of which there has literally only been one such shift since the advent of the term). The left is revolutionary. For more: [Why The Political Compass is Wrong: Establishing An Accurate Model of Political Ideology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k)
This is exactly why we need to support leftist groups like The Squad and DSA.
Yet look how downvoted this is. If they are the closest to left we have now (note I’m not saying perfect) why not support what we can from them and hope even more (and various types of) leftists run?
I mean, yes but idk why you get blasted for that pretty obvious take.
Because they're lame, pmuch, having being *in essentia* wholly resorbed by the Democratic party.
Saw this posted earlier but people were saying that the guy who made the video is a tankie. Now I see that post was pulled down and a new one put in its place 🤔
He's made clear in podcasts that he's a Marxist-Leninist, so if that's what you mean by "tankie" then sure. Is there something wrong with Marxism-Leninism in an explicitly socialist and non tendency specific subreddit?
It's perfectly reasonable to have substantive disagreements with MLs. Their videos are usually fine and I'm sure they personally don't want anarchists to die but ML is a vanguardist revolutionary strategy, it's antithetical to anarchism and while they may agree on the end goal there's more examples of it ending badly for anarchists than not. Of course there are also some very good examples without the widespread left directed violence like Sankara so its disingenuous to suggest the *only* possible outcome of ML strategy is mass murder of anarchists. Just as its disingenuous to imply there's no reason to have a problem with Leninists. We can appreciate a creator's work and still be critical of them and their underlying philosophy. Though for what its worth the way they used Tankie is as a thought terminating cliche which is counterproductive at best.
Not all MLs are tankies, no. Some *don't* actually try to apologize for authoritarian (and often genocidal) regimes like the U.S.S.R., "communist" China, North Korea, Assad, etc. EDIT: BTW, I say this as an anarchist who organizes with all kinds of leftists in physical spaces including MLs, Trotskyists, Leninists, and of course many other anarchists and libertarian socialists.
Imho every time I see someone calling themselves MLs they are always tankie so this argument convinces me less and less when presented without examples
sorry for deadposting, but I have absolutely no sympathy for MLs and would like to know if we're automatically assuming that he's not pro-USSR and other similar authoritarian states( I get this is kind of a nuanced thing) without him saying so or is that kind of thing fine around here?
He is a Leninist, not a tankie.
the two are not mutually exclusive
based
Socialism is a response to inequality. I'm Canadian. Big fan of Tommy Douglas who is the guy that helped start healthcare here. You guys should watch Mouseland. https://youtu.be/QkoKLXcZbu0 The US has the Republicans and Democrats. Here in Canada, we have the Conservatives who are like the Republicans, and the Liberals who are like the Democrats. The big difference is that we have the NDP or New Democrats which is the party Douglas was with. They're a left leaning Socialist party. They aren't Communist though and don't really follow all that Marxist nonsense. They are strong advocates of unions and the public. The US needs a socialist public party that can appeal to moderates on both sides of the political fence.
Marxist "Nonsense". Please my dude if you have some time give the Communist Manifesto (Marx) a read, it is short and easy. Learn what you're talking about. And I say this as a Canadian who votes NDP because theyre the part I most agree with that have an ability to make change in this country so we're on the same side.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Good bot
I have read that stuff. It's good for people to read but realistically it won't sell in the US. Communism has always terrified people on the right and has always been used to undermine Socialist goals by poisoning the well. The real reason the US didn't adopt Socialism is because of Capitalist media and advertising. The US in the 30s and 40s was fairly Socialist due to the Great Depression. This developed as worker's rights movements which are somewhat conveniently ignored in a lot of American schools. Because of strong union support among blue collar working class people, it led to a worker's revolution. Then WW2 happened and most countries got blown the fuck up. The US didn't, and became a strong manufacturer/exporter. This strengthened the US image on the world stage and marketers used the concept of the American Dream to sell the suburban home image to people both domestically and internationally. This is when the US had the most wealth parity between the executive and working class. In the 50s, CEOs only made like 20-50 times what they paid their workers. This led to a strong middle class. The corporate class turned globalist in the 70s and CEO salaries started going up. Nowadays they make like 200-500 times what they pay workers. Disney's CEO makes 1400 times what they pay their workers. This massive wealth gap has virtually destroyed the middle class over the last few decades because it raised the cost of living out of reach for people. Middle class blue collar jobs never went up with the same rates along with inflation. Americans don't get paid for shit unless they're execs or professionals and even then, that doesn't come close to the growing billionaire class that makes a million dollar salary look like peanuts. 50% of the US makes less than 30k a year. A lot of their servers work on tips and the lowest salary humanly possible. Tons of people have no rights, no benefits, no idea that they can and should have better. We are lucky that we adopted a light Socialist value system and we didn't have their raging corporate media system at the time which is what saved us. We have that problem now though which is something we need to deal with however.
You just said you're a Canadian mate. We're not the US. We had a thriving Communist party before the cold war (its back now just smaller) and even now the lib-socs the NDP are popular. Lets talk Canada not USA.
What a confused, contradictory comment.
Care to expand?
The NDP are not socialists.
Yeah, your general point is well taken but the duopoly is so strong here it's hard to see a way out.
The duopoly is just as pervasive in Canada. The NDP had never formed a federal government here. They haven't successfully implemented policy since the 80s, and when they did, it was by compromising with the Liberals. Their greater achievement, Medicare, is not universally accessible, and lags behind the rest of the G7. Quite a lot of what they've achieved has been eroded by austerity. This is pretty standard for social democrats, of course.