|
Ferrinus posted:lol, see? it's exactly as i said. you came in here looking for an excuse not to do anything... and lucky for you, you found it! in fact the nation's biggest socialist organization is just a bunch of collaborators, every politician associated with them is secretly on nancy pelosi's side, there is no forward motion and no hope. just stay inside and post more i dont really have a dog in this fight, but one socialist to another - do you use these same sorts of tactics and behaviors when you're trying to persuade people in your organization, or people on the street when tabling and such? what kind of result do you normally get with that, if so? e: bad snipe 
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
croup coughfield posted:i dont really have a dog in this fight, but one socialist to another - do you use these same sorts of tactics and behaviors when you're trying to persuade people in your organization, or people on the street when tabling and such? what kind of result do you normally get with that, if so? like i've been saying, the appropriate tactic for achieving an objective is something you have to discern by first examining the context. there is no one-size-fits-all response which always constitutes the right move
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
nobody has the power to create m4a but everybody has the power to push for m4a. if you are a marxist, you recognize that there is a dialectical relationship between what happens at the level of the base and the superstructure. members of the superstructure can reorient the conversation in such a way that it effects what happens at the base. ergo, simply waiting for a movement to create m4a at the base level is counterproductive and stupid when there's an overton window that needs shifting Saying that something "can't happen without a movement" is true, but where do movements come from? What is the impetus for them? It's really not a chicken and egg question so much as a cyclical process of change Yossarian-22 has issued a correction as of 01:19 on Jan 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
it's a good thing then that socialist public figures have been and are continuing to advocate for m4a among other social democratic policies
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:it's a good thing then that socialist public figures have been and are continuing to advocate for m4a among other social democratic policies What have members of Congress done lately on behalf of M4A?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:lol, see? it's exactly as i said. you came in here looking for an excuse not to do anything... and lucky for you, you found it! in fact the nation's biggest socialist organization is just a bunch of collaborators, every politician associated with them is secretly on nancy pelosi's side, there is no forward motion and no hope. just stay inside and post more yeah you've got it figured out, 100%. I for sure haven't had multiple interactions where I asked basic questions to DSA members, only to get nebulous answers which turned hostile when I pressed for a more in-depth answer. You got me pegged for sure it's almost like your reading my every thought. I can't wait to join my local DSA chapter so I can get harangued by presumptuous lefter-than-thou socialists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:What have members of Congress done lately on behalf of M4A? supported striking workers at hunts point, of course. on the national level it looks like aoc and others have fallen in behind bernie sanders's attempt to fold medicare for all into corona relief spacemang_spliff posted:yeah you've got it figured out, 100%. I for sure haven't had multiple interactions where I asked basic questions to DSA members, only to get nebulous answers which turned hostile when I pressed for a more in-depth answer. You got me pegged for sure it's almost like your reading my every thought. I can't wait to join my local DSA chapter so I can get harangued by presumptuous lefter-than-thou socialists. that's very dishonest of you. i haven't been nebulous at all and have answered all your questions in much more detail than, frankly, you deserved
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:i dont really have a dog in this fight, but one socialist to another - do you use these same sorts of tactics and behaviors when you're trying to persuade people in your organization, or people on the street when tabling and such? what kind of result do you normally get with that, if so? this, basically
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:supported striking workers at hunts point, of course sorry but this thing of abstractly "building the labor movement" by supporting one strike doesn't cut it
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
lot of liberals in the dsa and this thread unfortunately. now i know the name calling is unhelpful. but if you ask me a deep seated need to pick a 'team' and back it above all others is one of the kinds of liberalism. either people are doing good work or they are not. i don't think of any congressperson or senator as doing good work, even if it is sometimes helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 06:20
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:well, your problem here is that you have been tricked by a confidence game, and now are confusing a particular parliamentary stunt with the actual objective of establishing universal health care. suddenly, everything besides the specific stunt (whose only actual purpose is MPP brand-building) looks like a dismissal or even outright betrayal of your priorities. like, did you know that the hunts point people are striking for healthcare as well as a one dollar raise? yes, that's right, employer-provided healthcare, which will only serve to make m4a look less necessary. downright counterrevolutionary! Ferrinus posted:i know to an extent. it's certainly not happening in six months or something like that, and it's certainly not going to happen or not happen on the basis of who votes for pelosi for speaker. the important point is that it does not turn on how politicians treat each other on the news it's about whether or not nominal allies in the parliament should use the basic parliamentary tactic of caucusing for leverage and whether or not they should demand votes which they can do at any time aoc's current public stance is that congress should not hold a vote for m4a during this congressional term because it will hurt m4a. her stance is not limited to just the speakership election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 07:07
|
|
|
spacemang_spliff posted:so I can get harangued by presumptuous lefter-than-thou socialists. oh word?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:lol, see? it's exactly as i said. you came in here looking for an excuse not to do anything... and lucky for you, you found it! in fact the nation's biggest socialist organization is just a bunch of collaborators, every politician associated with them is secretly on nancy pelosi's side, there is no forward motion and no hope. just stay inside and post more nice meltdown you know this thread might be better if you didn't suck up all of its oxygen with essay length posts defending the integrity of dsa, like you're actually doing more harm than good
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:sorry but this thing of abstractly "building the labor movement" by supporting one strike doesn't cut it i notice that you deliberately cut the second half of that sentence out of your quote, so that you wouldn't have to answer it and could pretend that aoc flashed into existence on wednesday and vanished again on friday. if you actually held a strong position that you could defend with integrity you wouldn't have to resort to trickery comedyblissoption posted:the discussion isn't about one instance of time for the pelosi speakership vote first off, this discussion has extremely been about one instance of time for the pelosi speakership vote - that's what "FTV" revolves around, that's been the Final Nail that convinced you and sundry that the DSA is secretly counterrevolutionary, etc. no one is against "caucusing for leverage". in fact, the progressives caucused for leverage around that very vote, by withholding their vote until they were promised a favor in exchange. i've noticed several of you doing this sneaky substitution now, subtly migrating from the complaint that aoc and co didn't carry out one particular parliamentary stunt to the complaint that aoc and co haven't been pushing for m4a in general. the latter, of course, is a ridiculous claim and has been discussed at length in the last few pages. unfortunately, you have been rooked by a confidence game designed to demobilize you, such that all of history becomes a series of excuses to disengage from organizing work
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i notice that you deliberately cut the second half of that sentence out of your quote, so that you wouldn't have to answer it and could pretend that aoc flashed into existence on wednesday and vanished again on friday. if you actually held a strong position that you could defend with integrity you wouldn't have to resort to trickery alright, time to turn the page on your word of the day "confidence game"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If you actually held a strong position that you could defend with integrity you wouldn't have to resort to trickery "resort to trickery?" oh my god lmao you're such a smarmy little nerd the plan to ally with bernie on including m4a in covid relief that I didn't quote was beside the point. that's a separate discussion, but i think people here are correct in saying that it would be perceived as ideological opportunism and be subsumed by the larger debate about covid relief as a general issue. my point is that if the squad's single contribution which you can ascribe to them is simply "aoc marched with striking workers in new york," i'm sorry but figures as feckless as pete loving buttigieg have marched with striking workers. that has zero relation to m4a
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
if i recall correctly pete butt got asked uncomfortable questions and booed out of the event by the union workers he tried to glom onto as a campaign stunt so saying he "marched with strikers" may be a bit of a stretch
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:"resort to trickery?" oh my god lmao you're such a smarmy little nerd if the squad's single contribution which i can ascribe to them... besides the other contribution which i ascribed to them... in the very same post... which you left out of your quote... so that you could pretend there was a single contribution i ascribed to them... god, it's incredible how much of your output in this thread is premised on the notion that this isn't a thread. like, that we aren't in a text-based medium in which there exists a by-now copious record of answers i've given to things which you keep bringing up over and over again but pretend are novel mysteries. right here and now, with a straight face, you are telling me that aoc's (and ilhan omar and rashida tlaib and the rest of the FTV rogues' gallery) past political work has zero relation to m4a, when you know as well as i do that, among other things, and as i have repeatedly pointed out without any sort of refutation or even acknowledgment, that all these people were members of the sanders campaign in the democratic primary for which m4a was a central issue, and to this end they made copious public statements, stump speeches, campaign appearances, etc. none of this happened or counts, of course, because you can simply leave out any mention of it in your future posts
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:if the squad's single contribution which i can ascribe to them... besides the other contribution which i ascribed to them... in the very same post... which you left out of your quote... so that you could pretend there was a single contribution i ascribed to them... talk is cheap. which is why you never use 1 word where 10 will do, i assume
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
WorkerThread posted:talk is cheap. which is why you never use 1 word where 10 will do, i assume see?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
that all these people were members of the sanders campaign in the democratic primary for which m4a was a central issue, and to this end they made copious public statements, stump speeches, campaign appearances, etc AOC's contribution to Sanders' campaign was brilliant. Making speeches without using his name while he was in D.C. for impeachment, letting her grievances about the Joe Rogan endorsement get leaked to the press, constantly praising Elizabeth Warren on twitter, agreeing with The View's critique of Bernie Bros. and not attacking the idea forcefully and decisively, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:in fact, the progressives caucused for leverage around that very vote, by withholding their vote until they were promised a favor in exchange. Ferrinus posted:i've noticed several of you doing this sneaky substitution now, subtly migrating from the complaint that aoc and co didn't carry out one particular parliamentary stunt to the complaint that aoc and co haven't been pushing for m4a in general. the latter, of course, is a ridiculous claim and has been discussed at length in the last few pages. unfortunately, you have been rooked by a confidence game designed to demobilize you, such that all of history becomes a series of excuses to disengage from organizing work
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:that all these people were members of the sanders campaign in the democratic primary for which m4a was a central issue, and to this end they made copious public statements, stump speeches, campaign appearances, etc lol, okay, what's your takeaway here? was she secretly a saboteur? she didn't mean it? aoc has a long history of being unequivocally for medicare for all, the green new deal, and various other social democratic policies. have you like developed an exhaustive list in your head showing that each and every time she brought them up or advocated them she wasn't "really" advocating for them because, after all, we don't have them yet? comedyblissoption posted:the paygo stuff is worse than nothing since it convinced people they got something lol well, no, the paygo stuff is better than nothing since it's... not... nothing. it also involved precisely what you're asking for: a publicity stunt signaling the squad's disagreement with pelosi. has aoc taken the position that there should not be a vote on m4a? or has she taken the position that trying to make pelosi call for a vote by by various stratagems is a bad idea? do you think that if pelosi hit her head, woke up as a jimmy dore fan, and started using every available trick to pry m4a out of committee and onto the floor that aoc would oppose her?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
aoc's position is we should not have a vote on m4a aoc's statement on how a vote for m4a hurts m4a: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1339282755474042882 aoc's statements that asking for a vote on m4a is a waste of time: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1337619814744006659
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:lol, okay, what's your takeaway here? was she secretly a saboteur? she didn't mean it? Regarding her role as a "saboteur," well I'm not that cynical, but I believe she's clearly playing both sides of the Democratic Party because she has ambitions to become president. This was also evident when she threw Ilhan Omar under the bus for her "all about the Benjamins" quote and said that poo poo about "calling in rather than calling out," when she removed statements about her foreign policy from her website, etc. As for the second part, I'd say her GND advocacy was probably the most productive thing she did, but even then she took out language from the og Green Party proposal which included a ban on fracking and decrease in military spending, and all signs indicate that she has no desire to push Biden to go further than the $1 trillion proposal over ten years that he's advocating. I don't see any clear bona fides on M4A beyond her halfhearted endorsement of Bernie
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:aoc's position is we should not have a vote on m4a oh, that. i mentioned this problem myself on prior pages. personally i don't think it's a reason not to hold a vote at all but it does make spending resources to force a vote less attractive. i think the real problem with a floor vote isn't that it would allow politicians to obfuscate the issue further (though it might) but that even if everyone votes their conscience it won't actually give us any new information - we've already had much longer and more heavily publicized battles over m4a in which basically every politician involved unambiguously picked a side (and the most unambiguous anti-m4a politician became president!) Yossarian-22 posted:Regarding her role as a "saboteur," well I'm not that cynical, but I believe she's clearly playing both sides of the Democratic Party because she has ambitions to become president. This was also evident when she threw Ilhan Omar under the bus for her "all about the Benjamins" quote and said that poo poo about "calling in rather than calling out," when she removed statements about her foreign policy from her website, etc. on the first point i agree with you - aoc is clearly very concerned with image management and this has led her to take right wing positions in the past and will surely continue to do so. she's extremely weak when it comes to anti-imperialism, for instance, and i don't expect this to change meaningfully unless there's some sort of really dramatic ground-level transformation of both the DSA's discipline and organizing priorities however, when it comes to boilerplate social democracy which is in no way in conflict with imperial superprofits (this describes both m4a and most of the gnd) i don't think there's any reason to believe that aoc and the rest of the squad aren't fully on board such that any pivots or retreats they make represent tactical maneuvers rather than creeping cooptation or some sort of dropping of the mask. for instance, i'm not surprised at all that aoc would give on a decrease of military spending - this both makes the GND more palatable to the MIC and doesn't particularly conflict with aoc's easily-observed political priorities. however she has marched pretty much in lockstep with sanders and for that matter the dsa when it comes to affirming her support for both policies in the public sphere (and for bernie's campaign - i don't know where you're getting "half-hearted". i followed the primary same as everybody else and i'm sure i was cringing alongside you at all the moments that aoc and other surrogates hosed up some public statement or other, but that's not actually an indication of false or faltering loyalties)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Well all the same I think all that speaks to AOC's opportunism and the squad's fear of Pelosi, which is why people are healthily skeptical (and yeah admittedly some outright cynical, although I'd argue for good reason) that the squad will be able to either affect momentum towards real social democratic movement within the party especially without any inside-outside strategy that puts pressure on them. It feels like a moment of extreme retreat after Sanders lost, and the way people spoke of Biden's victory over Sanders as though it represented the "defeat of M4A," despite the fact that Biden supporters were majority in favor of it, is a cynicism much more profound than that of the squad's detractors imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
i agree with you again that what we're seeing is a moment of retreat after sanders's loss. like, obviously advocating for temporary m4a as part of pandemic aid is a step back from advocating for flat-out, indefinite m4a however, i think this is a logical move from people who are committed to m4a but also committed and restricted to working within the system. like i pointed out in some earlier post, sanders's current tactic (which aoc seems to be wholeheartedly backing, as i assume is the rest of the squad though i haven't looked it up) actually has rhetorical benefits that "regular" m4a advocacy doesn't - if he were just pushing m4a, he'd look like he was hidebound and unadaptable and the people who were opposing him might look like they were opposing him on the grounds of thinking permanent m4a infeasible. if he and aoc and the others are restricting their ask to temporary free healthcare, and they're STILL getting shut down by mainstream democrats, then that makes the mainstream democrats look even more ghoulish - wow, they won't even let me go to the doctor for the 6-odd months that it'll take for the vaccine rollouts to complete! they're not just worried about long-term solvency, they won't even help me out if it's an emergency! ...but this is still a less radical demand than m4a (which is itself less radical than an NHS, etc), one which we wouldn't be seeing if sanders had won the primary or whatever. unfortunately, he didn't, so progressive politicians have to adapt. they can't meaningfully ask for more because there isn't a strong enough on-the-ground movement to both back them up as they ask for more and punish them when they don't. and the thing is, even socialists - even socialists who have won a revolution and established a worker's state, sometimes - need to advance or retreat as the balance of forces demands. i DO think that m4a suffered a meaningful defeat in the democratic primary. sure, everyone likes it, but i'm sure that everyone would like getting 1,000/month for free or bringing our troops home. there's a difference between wanting or favoring something and actually, really believing that it's on the table and feasible to achieve, and i don't think that the electorate was fooled into believing that they would get m4a under biden. rather, i think they understood (correctly! though it's a self-fulfilling prophecy) that they would simply not be getting m4a, but had at least a shot of getting rid of trump
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
M4A now, because if we don't get it now we aren't going to get it ever. Everybody who tells you there is room enough to put it back a decade or more is telling you that they think you're okay with a million+ dead people as a result. Do you agree with their assessment? I don't know why people think this is complicated. You either get what you want or you do not. If you work overtime to elect people who are absolutely and outright opposed to M4A you should stop expecting M4A to happen, especially when you are working double overtime to run PR for former allies who have declared themselves to no longer be such as a result of the opposition gaining power that you helped along. M4A was defeated utterly, it will never be spoken of by the policy makers in the party for the rest of our lives. Either acknowledge this and react accordingly or disengage and accept it will never happen. Nobody taking the establishment route has even been able to pitch a sensible timeline for whatever insane plan they have, it's total nonsense garbage, West Wing decorum insanity for smoothbrains, the notion that we will achieve what is a focused economic revolution by being polite and nice and letting our enemies dictate timelines. Pathetic
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 06:45
|
|
|
I'm not even married to FTV, Dore, taints being run, etc. I just want Medicare for All by any means necessary. I want to see our supposed allies in Congress do loving anything that remotely suggests to me that they are actively pushing it and I want DSA to push it every loving day rather than see constant refrains and defensiveness from its corner towards members of Congress who are literally just Democrats under the thumb of Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden. No half measures or pleas to have a temporary M4A in the Covid bill. No roundabout paygo poo poo that will make M4A possible years from now. An actual loving crisis response. Period. I never 100% bought into the idea that FTV would produce the outcome that its advocates set out to do but god loving dammit, it was at least something, and the bad faith response that it got from ostensible leftists was such a tell that I'm just profoundly disgusted
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 09:50
|
|
|
it is very difficult to interpret the tweets earlier as anything but backing off from m4a as a policy plank imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 10:54
|
|
|
anyone who lives in the best city in the world (Saint Paul) or the other, significantly worse town, across the river, there's a teamsters march on the 30th
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 13:45
|
|
|
I think discussions about the squad are kind of a waste of energy if you're not in their districts. Fact is, even if they're not libs and not fully co-opted by now, even if they were solid comrades (I really don't think so tbh, but i'd be happy to be wrong), they need way more votes and people in that sphere to be useful. I think the limits of electoralism and the "take over the democratic party" strategy has revealed itself to be fundamentally flawed in 2020. Bernie was literally buried the second they realized he might win; any gains will probably be a trickle more of representatives up to a certain point where the lib machine cracks down hard and abandons any pretense of democracy. the ugly path is probably the only path lol Riot Bimbo has issued a correction as of 16:00 on Jan 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:I'm not even married to FTV, Dore, taints being run, etc. I just want Medicare for All by any means necessary. I want to see our supposed allies in Congress do loving anything that remotely suggests to me that they are actively pushing it and I want DSA to push it every loving day rather than see constant refrains and defensiveness from its corner towards members of Congress who are literally just Democrats under the thumb of Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden. No half measures or pleas to have a temporary M4A in the Covid bill. No roundabout paygo poo poo that will make M4A possible years from now. An actual loving crisis response. Period. what you're saying here doesn't make sense in the context of what we've just discussed. you want "loving anything" that "remotely suggests" they are actively pushing for it? well we've got that in spades, most recently in the form of packing free healthcare into corona relief. it turns out, though, that you DON'T want "loving anything". rather you want the specific parliamentary stunt that a small group of media figures has deliberately confused with your actual objective, which is a material policy change. i understand that watching sanders push for temporary m4a is disheartening and that even it was passed it would be worse than permanent m4a. the mistake you are making is to think that permanent m4a is achievable simply through sanders and co asking for it, such that, through his timidity and/or treacherousness, sanders is actually denying you real m4a. the problem is that it is not achievable through anything else than mass organizing. in this sense sanders has failed us because his campaign failed to leave a robust, member-controlled organizing structure behind itself such that the DSA leaves the race barely stronger than it was entering it (although it's hard to disentangle this from the effects of COVID). however, in terms of deciding to push establishment democrats on their refusal to even grant a temporary reprieve, rather than to just call them all pieces of poo poo on live TV, sanders is making a tactical choice based on his estimation of what's going to get you healthcare as fast as possible. the reason the choice is unsatisfying is that he, and we, are currently in a weak strategic position to start with. it's unsatisfying to have to move your king to escape a check rather than develop your board, but sometimes you have to do it! to weave in a response to someone else: V. Illych L. posted:it is very difficult to interpret the tweets earlier as anything but backing off from m4a as a policy plank imo uh, why? the reasoning there is very simple: a) forcing the vote is supposed to reveal which politicians are against m4a b) but, if held right now, a vote would allow some anti-m4a to claim to be pro-m4a c) therefore, the opportunity cost of forcing the vote outweighs the slim-to-negative benefits of m4a personally, i would phrase it (and have phrased it) slightly differently: no matter how someone votes, even if they're an anti-m4a democrat claiming to support m4a, that information is certainly actionable. but here is how to action it: organizers canvass, phone bank, or mass text people in that candidate's district stuff like "politician X says they support m4a! please push them to advance it in way Y!" if they voted no, those phone scripts would begin "politician X says they oppose m4a! please..." it's the door knocks and phone calls, not the vote, that actually make the difference. and we already have the information we need to knock on those doors or call those phones - we already know who sponsors or doesn't sponsor, who's said yes or no in interviews, who was on whose side in the primary. there is actually no reason to vote for a floor vote to do that stuff, which is why on one hand DSA's m4a campaign isn't waiting and is just already doing that, and on the other hand there is no reason for the squad to spend their leverage on a floor vote rather than something that could actually give DSA canvassers fresh material or actual benefits like i keep telling people, you are confusing a particular tactic with the actual objective Yossarian-22 posted:I never 100% bought into the idea that FTV would produce the outcome that its advocates set out to do but god loving dammit, it was at least something, and the bad faith response that it got from ostensible leftists was such a tell that I'm just profoundly disgusted here's how a friend of mine writes about FTV: "frankly as far as i can tell the only people who are operating in good faith on the FTV side are the people who are exhausted and scared and furious and are lashing out for Someone to just do Something so they can feel like there's some hope of change or prospect of a better future somewhere down the line. the people who are rationally and carefully considering FTV as a tactic seem to be, to a person, wreckers and opportunists with a profit motive" has FTV received a "bad faith response"? i think i, for instance, have been really straightforward about why i think it's a bad tactic in and of itself, and why you're misreading a retreat as a betrayal
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:
you repeat this every single time you write one of your ten thousand word posts, but it still isn't true. FTV advocates, who shockingly don't all have their own podcasts or large media platforms, want our so called allies to use all of their bargaining power to focus on m4a during this pandemic. it's strange that they didn't and raises questions about their prior statements and beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
WorkerThread posted:you repeat this every single time you write one of your ten thousand word posts, but it still isn't true. FTV advocates, who shockingly don't all have their own podcasts or large media platforms, want our so called allies to use all of their bargaining power to focus on m4a during this pandemic. it's strange that they didn't and raises questions about their prior statements and beliefs. if that's what you want, good news: they actually are doing that. they just have less bargaining power than you or i would like owing to a staggering defeat that happened mid last year oh, wait, it turns out "use all their bargaining power" ACTUALLY means "perform this one particular stunt that only a small slice of the center left media sphere even thinks is effective"? hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Riot Bimbo posted:I think discussions about the squad are kind of a waste of energy if you're not in their districts. Fact is, even if they're not libs and not fully co-opted by now, even if they were solid comrades (I really don't think so tbh, but i'd be happy to be wrong), they need way more votes and people in that sphere to be useful. I think what youre speaking to is the flawed strategy of the "dirty break" that some parts of DSA and the editorial line at jacobin have been putting forward as their plan for the last 5-10 years. I've never believed in it for the reasons that 1. theres no time table for or kind of checklist for what this looks like. obviously you cant predict the future or be proscriptive but like how many members/elected reps/etc are enough to say OK you have sufficient political power to do what you say you want to do. 2. is a lot of what youre getting to which is that none of the DSA elected officials have really given any indication that they believe in the strategy and even most rank and file DSA people aren't like working to implement it, some are but some DSA chapters want to reform or takeover their local DECs, some want to break right now, some are ambivalent. for a strategy like that to actually work you would need some kind of cohesion and unified approach to making it work, especially with your most powerful and influential members like those in elected positions. Think thats also a big reason why a lot of the people pushing the dirty break have really backed off it over the last year or two. I dont think they were disingenuously putting it forward before, but now that there is increasingly a question of what does that timeframe or next steps look like they dont really seem to have answers for it imo and its increasingly becoming a question as socialist ideas are becoming more popular and socialist candidates have shown they can win elections both as democrats but also importantly as independents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
i understand that watching sanders push for temporary m4a is disheartening and that even it was passed it would be worse than permanent m4a lol, it's not going to be passed
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:I think what youre speaking to is the flawed strategy of the "dirty break" that some parts of DSA and the editorial line at jacobin have been putting forward as their plan for the last 5-10 years. I've never believed in it for the reasons that 1. theres no time table for or kind of checklist for what this looks like. obviously you cant predict the future or be proscriptive but like how many members/elected reps/etc are enough to say OK you have sufficient political power to do what you say you want to do. 2. is a lot of what youre getting to which is that none of the DSA elected officials have really given any indication that they believe in the strategy and even most rank and file DSA people aren't like working to implement it, some are but some DSA chapters want to reform or takeover their local DECs, some want to break right now, some are ambivalent. for a strategy like that to actually work you would need some kind of cohesion and unified approach to making it work, especially with your most powerful and influential members like those in elected positions. i've never really bought the "dirty break" but that's also because i don't agree with your emphasis in your last sentence - that is, with "but also importantly as independents." in the first place i don't think we have seen significant independent wins at scale, but more importantly i think the us left has a bad habit of confusing the idea of a party, as in an articulator for working class power, with the idea of a "party" as it exists in the USA which is basically a ballot line with a particular media brand. way too much attention is paid to whether someone has a D next to their name or not as opposed to their linkage with with the proletarian movement, which may or may not use the ballot lines of existing bourgeois parties as becomes necessary. some sort of dramatic mask-off moment where all our socialist electeds press the buttons on their desks and have the little "Democrat" nameplate spin around to reveal the name of a new, exciting people's party like in that one simpsons gif is not going to happen, but also would not signify or accomplish much if it did. this is another problem with the MPP - there's nothing special about being a third party or shucking the democrat name, and if the MPP ever could amount to anything on its own terms it'd only be by becoming another puppet for moneyed interests Yossarian-22 posted:i understand that watching sanders push for temporary m4a is disheartening and that even it was passed it would be worse than permanent m4a i notice you haven't quoted or responded to anything else in my post. i trust this is because you understand and agree with the rest of what i wrote and won't force me to recapitulate it for the seventh time in a page or two anyway, you're right, it's not going to be passed. but it might be watered down into some nonzero addition to what otherwise would have been even more paltry corona relief, and, better yet (by FTV standards) it will put various electeds On The Record as to their willingness to give their constituents survival resources in an emergency, which can then be parlayed into such rhetorical lines of attack as "we're still in a broader health emergency - if you were willing to support it during the pandemic, why can't you guarantee us health care during the broader economic crisis?" or "X politician wasn't even willing to give you health care in the middle of a plague! we need to replace them with Y, who will fight to make sure you have the medical care you need regardless of profit motive!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i've never really bought the "dirty break" but no, i didn't include it because engaging with essay long posts is tedious and the fact that this temporary m4a is a dead letter which will probably die in committee without much debate is the main point anyway, you're right, it's not going to be passed. but it might be watered down into some nonzero addition to what otherwise would have been even more paltry corona relief, and, better yet (by FTV standards) it will put various electeds On The Record as to their willingness to give their constituents survival resources in an emergency, which can then be parlayed into such rhetorical lines of attack as "we're still in a broader health emergency - if you were willing to support it during the pandemic, why can't you guarantee us health care during the broader economic crisis?" or "X politician wasn't even willing to give you health care in the middle of a plague! we need to replace them with Y, who will fight to make sure you have the medical care you need regardless of profit motive!" Again, why wouldn't it just die in committee for being an "obstruction" against a COVID-19 bill that can get broad congressional support?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 21:09
|
|