|
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/aoc-biden-progressives.htmlquote:Is there a universe in which they’re hostile enough that we’re talking about a Senate run in a couple years? This broke my heart but it speaks of the problem. What can the Progressive Movement do to advance when there is a 2 party system and the party it belongs to fears it more and works harder to shut it down because it prefers to walk to the right in order to preserve the system and protect it’s wealthy donors? I do not think Progressives splitting into a third party is a viable solution, it would split the vote, ensure conservative victories, and I believe it has already been stated this was considered and determined the only way forward was to work within the 2 party system. One thought I have is for Progressive Movement to make inroads in the middle swath of America at the local and state level. Challenging Dems in Primaries on one flank, challenging the conservatives in North and Middle States in the other. The bible belt and Kentucky type states may be too much an investment at this point. The messaging is a pro labor and working class agenda but there has to be a sharp forced split to the population to let go of the racism to succeed. While I am pessimist in general as this election has shown people were driven out to support fascism and racism and do think there is risk the people would chose that over helping themselves, I think the shot has to be taken. Victories there may help build influence in the Dem party until it can be reformed and as a Progressive Agenda is shut down at the state level by the likes of California and NY. But the Dem party leadership and consultancy group has to go. I think ultimately the Dem party as it is would rather become a Republican Party than lean left versus the thought “Where is the left going to go? They have no choice but to be part of us or they get the GOP” Can Progressives and the Left build any sort of proper coalition within the Dem Party to gain more influence? Can they bend and sacrifice some principles or develop a plan that allows some of the centrists to “eat” and stay safe while pushing their agenda? How is it possible to break the Dems consultancy group that may be ineffective leading to losses in 2010 and in 2020 and reform the DNC? What can be done to reach out and build with communities of color as Jim Clyburn has shown in SC during the primaries of how critical it is to having a power base? What of the Native American communities, etc? The other item is the word “Socialism.” It doesn’t matter in the sense the Right will always smear anyone with that word. American propaganda against such policies has been in effect for over 100 years. But I think the branding and messaging needs to be adjusted. I am not confident that unless you have a very brave and secure and trusted Public Official that you can easily reform America’s mindset. M4A and Progressive policies always poll well, even Fox News polling. But there are enough Americans who have a fear of the implication of the word and it has baggage. Perhaps not as much in the youth but enough older generation voters. What can be done on the media front? AOC points out the DNC is weak on their online presence. This may also be in part why the youth is more open to leftist policies as they see what harm conservatives are doing because the Progressives have a better presence online. Longer term this can be used to a good advantage to build a generational message and base. But how to tackle news agencies like CNN or NBC which clearly tried to shut down Sanders in the Primaries and continue to bash the Progressive movement? CNN as example has analysts and people clearly from the Obama-Clinton administrations and outside the primaries doesn’t always lean on the Progressive contacts and POVs as much. Can there be enough leverage to get Progressives in? The campaigns for Progressive movements took small dollar donations and built some good capital. But who can they work with on a bigger front? Especially since there is a rejection of billionaires and large corporate donations. So what does that leave for support? Does there need to be give there? Finally one thing I feel about the left is that they feel constantly beaten on, and they are used as a scapegoat but that has also resulted in a harsher return by way of my way or highway and rejection of people who may have once been supported. The right has no scruples, they care about winning, and in the last 20 years they have won a whole bunch. This needs to be met. How do you stop that without bending yourself and stop the purity tests where there are people who are ready to abandon people like AOC on a whim as if they are just waiting for the opportunity to declare her not good enough? This is very real. And I don’t see how a candidate would feel secure if this is how fickle their base is. Joe Biden is President, and I expect a bone or two to be thrown to Progressives but business as usual. What can be done in the next 4 years or more to advance the Progressive movement?
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Placeholder post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
One bump before letting it die
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
There's already a leftism thread, but I think a key question you need to answer in this one is: what is "progressivism" as you have defined it? Leftists as I define them are generally in favor of a total reordering of our economic political landscape along socialist lines (ie, abolition of capitalism). "Progressive" can mean almost anything, but basically never socialism as an academic would understand it. One of the most common errors I see well-intentioned liberals making is that they there's some kind of ideological basis for political cohesion between people who want to end the immiseration of humans inflicted by capitalism and people who are fundamentally OK with the capitalist system but would like some foam edges put on the pointy bits (ie, we should have labor laws to prevent "abuse" but the concept of wage labor is not inherently abusive to them.) In reality, "left liberals" are just helping prop up a fundamentally exploitative system by trying to do enough to take the sting out of it to keep people from rising up against it, but no more. The most extreme version of the dichotomy is UBI. Left liberals/progressives look at UBI as a sort of holy grail by which everyone can gain enough benefit from capitalism that no one has to suffer utter deprivation. From the perspective of a leftist, UBI is a rat trap because it leaves the owning class in political control and forever holds the workers in bondage to them; UBI can be reduced at the whim of the political class, it can be cancelled, it can be means tested or otherwise sabotaged, revoked from enemies of the state, and otherwise continue to be used as a method by which the owning class holds the material survival of everyone else hostage for their own ends. It would be better than current state, but not good. So I think that "progressives" who don't want socialism, that is, the expropriation of capital from the owning class and its transfer to everyone either directly or by common trust, need to answer the question of what exactly are they for in an ideologically coherent way such that any rear end in a top hat can't cloak any form of liberal charlatanism in progressive language. Otherwise progressives will continue to suffer smackdown after smackdown where they are told that nothing is possible for years, and when enough pent up anger is released and demand for change is unleashed, yet another conservative liberal will easily seize control of the narrative and use "progressivism" to push through yet another handout to the owning class and call it a win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
At this point, as far as I can tell "progressivism" is just a shifting of goalposts that's happened now that "liberalism" has gradually lost its former cachet in the anglosphere. People have finally started to realize that "liberalism" is too broad an umbrella to just cover everything left of "conservative," but even this new category completely obscures the serious rifts between people who are ultimately reformists that accept or even embrace capitalism on the one hand, and staunch anti-capitalists of various stripes on the other. This is a huge distinction that a lot of commentators and activists try to paper over by sticking with the word "progressive," but you can't ignore the serious differences between the two camps, and as long as people try to use "progressive" the way people used to use "liberal" there's going to be a lot of ideological confusion, and a lot of instances of infighting and arguments that won't make sense if everyone involved is just painted as being "progressive." "Progressivism" seriously needs yo be defined clearly, and there has to be an acknowledgement of the fundamental ideological conflict that exists within the most common uses of the term right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Pussy Cartel posted:At this point, as far as I can tell "progressivism" is just a shifting of goalposts that's happened now that "liberalism" has gradually lost its former cachet in the anglosphere. People have finally started to realize that "liberalism" is too broad an umbrella to just cover everything left of "conservative," but even this new category completely obscures the serious rifts between people who are ultimately reformists that accept or even embrace capitalism on the one hand, and staunch anti-capitalists of various stripes on the other. This is a huge distinction that a lot of commentators and activists try to paper over by sticking with the word "progressive," but you can't ignore the serious differences between the two camps, and as long as people try to use "progressive" the way people used to use "liberal" there's going to be a lot of ideological confusion, and a lot of instances of infighting and arguments that won't make sense if everyone involved is just painted as being "progressive." One of the traps of progressivism and its ideological incoherence is that its proponents are very, very easily co-opted, bought off, and otherwise neutralized by the liberal consensus. Progressives have no ideological foundation on which to fall back to test a proposed policy or compromise, no sniff test to give a consistent yes or no to the questions, "is this good enough? is this really aligned with my values? will accepting this compromise move the polity closer to my goals, or will it expend whatever leverage I have for nothing and take me off the board?" So "progressivism," meaning "trying to improve peoples' lot in our society without fundamentally changing it" is a position without ideological grounding and thus literally anything can be spun as an acceptable compromise for the sake of harm reduction or incrementalist advancement of the agenda. When this type of floppy thinking encounters entrenched resistance, it generally falls over itself to give up the fight instantly since getting anything is at least better than getting nothing, right? So progressives will take what amounts to a pat on the head and go home at the first opportunity. This applies all the way from Elizabeth Warren stabbing Bernie in the back for what turned out to be nothing but some kind words down to the progressive Ferguson organizers getting quiet party and NGO apparatchik jobs where they may take meaningless corporate speaking gigs in peace and never bother the establishment again. The leftist Ferguson organizers ended up dead, of course, but
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:So I think that "progressives" who don't want socialism, that is, the expropriation of capital from the owning class and its transfer to everyone either directly or by common trust, need to answer the question of what exactly are they for in an ideologically coherent way such that any rear end in a top hat can't cloak any form of liberal charlatanism in progressive language. To me it’s pretty simple. The expropriation of capital from the owning class isn’t going to happen. Running on that as a platform is foolish because it will be laughed off and brushed away. It’s equivalent to running on a platform of “world peace,” which may be the ultimate goal but what is even the point of talking about something that will just get you dismissed as an unserious political actor And yes we have seen some charlatans run with progressive labels but that has only spread the labels further and all of the keystone progressive tenets are monumentally more mainstream and acceptable now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
nah posted:To me it’s pretty simple. The expropriation of capital from the owning class isn’t going to happen. Running on that as a platform is foolish because it will be laughed off and brushed away. It’s equivalent to running on a platform of “world peace,” which may be the ultimate goal but what is even the point of talking about something that will just get you dismissed as an unserious political actor I'm not in this thread to debate you about whether seizing the means of production is or isn't ever going to happen, I was using it as a contrasting example of how you can pretty clearly identify who is and is not a socialist using some simple yes or no questions and no such clear lines exist around progressivism. If your goal is to spread the brand names and get any shambling corpse who can say the holy words elected, sure, I suppose that's a definition of success. If your goal is to actually get policy done, having content-free "labels" that mean literally anything and nothing is less than ideal. That said though, I'm really curious how you would even know what who is and isn't a charlatan? That's the point of what I posted above, that an ungrounded movement or political affiliation without any ideological basis is just going to float with the breeze and be appropriated by anyone who thinks they can profit by it to support any program that suits them. The progressive label can be applied to a giant insurance industry handjob as easily as M4A. Similarly with prosecuting killer cops for murder and defunding police vs paying killer cops extra to wear bodycams and go to bias training that does nothing. You can market anything as progressive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
nah posted:The expropriation of capital from the owning class isn’t going to happen. Running on that as a platform is foolish because it will be laughed off and brushed away. It’s equivalent to running on a platform of “world peace,” which keystone progressive tenets are monumentally more mainstream and acceptable now. What are these keystone progressive tenets if not the direct or indirect expropriation of capital from the owning class, in whole or in part? Honestly asking here, what do you include in this list? Civil rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:One of the traps of progressivism and its ideological incoherence is that its proponents are very, very easily co-opted, bought off, and otherwise neutralized by the liberal consensus. Progressives have no ideological foundation on which to fall back to test a proposed policy or compromise, no sniff test to give a consistent yes or no to the questions, "is this good enough? is this really aligned with my values? will accepting this compromise move the polity closer to my goals, or will it expend whatever leverage I have for nothing and take me off the board?" I think the thing you're missing is anyone I know who identifies as a progressive usually uses real-world results as a barometer for whether they support a position vs. ideology. The most common thing you'll hear from progressives isn't about how things fit into an ideological framework, it's finding actual successes and trying to emulate them, like adopting programs from Scandinavian countries to reduce income inequality. I don't think this is any less valid than approaching everything from a 100% ideological lens. It's perfectly coherent to say what you are for is reducing income inequality, ensuring a decent standard of living for everyone, etc. and utilizing whatever mechanisms help you achieve the actual results you want, regardless of what ideological framework they fit into. enki42 fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
I don't know if this is helpful, but I tend to think of progressivism in relation to other descriptors like conservative and reactionary. These labels probably tend to align along the left-right spectrum in consistent ways, but I think that's a correlation by circumstance, not by definition. Reactionary - thinks society was better before, wants to return to the glory days (MAGA!) Conservative - thinks society is pretty good as is, wants to basically maintain status quo (reclaim the soul of America!) Progressive - thinks the best form of society will always exist in the future I don't think that any of these labels require a specific economic ideology to be legitimate/coherent; i.e. I don't think the fact that you could lump together believers in the Nordic mixed-market model of capitalism along with believers in socialism as "progressive" means that it's an incoherent label, though I do agree that the breadth of the label means that using more specific terms is probably necessary in the context of an online debate thread (as opposed to talking about progressivism in a colloquial way with your boomer parents or whatever). As to the question of the OP -- the most compelling path forward that I've heard is basically the DSA model of grassroots organizing within the Democratic party at the state & local level to try to pull the party left from within, in addition to commitment to non-electoral forms of civic engagement (activism, mutual aid, etc). It's maddeningly slow, but pragmatically I don't see an alternative that doesn't result in more suffering of vulnerable peoples at the expense of the oligarchs further consolidating their power. But I know a lot of other posters here probably disagree and I'm all for hearing why 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:I don't know if this is helpful, but I tend to think of progressivism in relation to other descriptors like conservative and reactionary. These labels probably tend to align along the left-right spectrum in consistent ways, but I think that's a correlation by circumstance, not by definition. Well you can't lump them together because there is a pretty fundamental divide between liberalism and most forms of anti-capitalist if not capitalist-critical leftist/socialism. They would say that reactionary/conservative/progressive/social democrat are really 4 variations of the same "team" and that all 4 are firmly capitalist which some modest functional differences between them. For example, even a Nordic "mixed-market" model would probably be open to progressive privatization if not tax avoidance. Also, I think leftists if not even many progressive liberals have given up on reforming the Democratic party because, in all honesty, it is an institution that resists all serious change and that it is very unlikely to ever pass anything which would seriously restrict business. It is why it is an endless discussion because it is a fundamental different philosophical point of view. It also leads to serious other issues more than equality/moralism since the US is having an increasingly difficult time competing in terms of trade if not outright economic growth but institutional factors (resistance against taxation, lobbying, infrastructure spending) is putting it in a more precarious fiscal position. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I don't think this is any less valid than approaching everything from a 100% ideological lens. It's perfectly coherent to say what you are for is reducing income inequality, ensuring a decent standard of living for everyone, etc. and utilizing whatever mechanisms help you achieve the actual results you want, regardless of what ideological framework they fit into. Yeah I'm not arguing that "I think we should improve society somewhat" is incoherent as a belief or, like, bad. I'm arguing that it's not sufficient to effect any change because it says nothing about the mechanism and scope of that change and almost anything that isn't obviously regressive psycho poo poo can be marketed as "improve society somewhat" and have some claim to truth, which makes the label useless as a tool for effecting change. OK, let's try a practical example. Is eliminating the SALT cap a progressive policy position?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:
This is it though. It’s boring, it’s lovely, it’s alienating, it’s unglamorous and it often doesn’t work. It’s also pretty much the only way forward. There’s not really any alternative. Third parties are jokes. The idea that the left can “abandon electoralism” and seize power by force or whatever is a cosplay fantasy. There weren’t enough ideological leftists to win the dem primary (and that’s assuming every sanders voter would self-ID as a leftist, which is laughably untrue). They aren’t gonna be seizing power by force anytime soon. Short of massive electoral reform to make third parties more viable (ranked choice, prop. representation, etc.), it’s the only way. The good news is that party leadership in the US is, compared to other countries, pretty weak, while polarization is strong. So it’s insanely difficult but not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Third parties are mathematically non-viable in the US, so the only answer I can think of that makes any sense is to do exactly what AOC is doing, and the tea party did before to great success. It's pretty simple: 1-Get a crap load of leftist candidates elected. 2-Take control of the narrative within the party by challenging the status quo. 3-Infiltrate and wear the democratic party like a skinsuit until your ideas are mainstream. I've seen it work in multiple countries on both sides of the political spectrum. For example; the far right Reform party in Canada did this to the more moderate "Progressive Conservative" party with great success. As a result they had a lock on power for over a decade. They just had to muzzle their more extreme elements while implementing horrible regressive policies & burning decades of environmental research.(among other things) The only real flaw in this plan, is that it usually takes a lot of time to come to fruition. With environmental disaster on the horizon leftists are going to have to work extra hard. The right in the US already has a huge head start. It's a simple plan, but implementing it is a nightmare. I admire AOC, but i don't envy her. Svaha fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Yeah I'm not arguing that "I think we should improve society somewhat" is incoherent as a belief or, like, bad. I'm arguing that it's not sufficient to effect any change because it says nothing about the mechanism and scope of that change and almost anything that isn't obviously regressive psycho poo poo can be marketed as "improve society somewhat" and have some claim to truth, which makes the label useless as a tool for effecting change. I'm not up on the details of this, but it's probably a good opportunity to loudly expose who is on this side of Capital and who is not. From a populist standpoint, wouldn't this moment in American politics be the perfect time to push for electoral reform? It's frustrating how terrible Democrats are at messaging as well as taking advantage of political opportunities that are handed to them on a silver platter. Perhaps it's because the leadership is entirely composed of pant making GBS threads nosferatus?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
I think a key component of Progressivism is defined as Democratization of multiple spheres of society without dismantling hierarchal structures. Empowering unions to form and negotiate with bosses is a Progressive idea. Abolishing bosses altogether and have the workers control the means of production is a Leftist idea. But I think that's also incomplete because there are other things like Secular Humanism that isn't mutually exclusive to wanting to get rid of forced arbitration, but regardless tends to be associated with modern Progressivism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well you can't lump them together because there is a pretty fundamental divide between liberalism and most forms of anti-capitalist if not capitalist-critical leftist/socialism. They would say that reactionary/conservative/progressive/social democrat are really 4 variations of the same "team" and that all 4 are firmly capitalist which some modest functional differences between them. For example, even a Nordic "mixed-market" model would probably be open to progressive privatization if not tax avoidance. Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but I think if you can’t recognize shared near-term goals despite long-term ideological differences, then it’s going to be really hard to translate theory into practice? I don’t see how there’s more to gain by putting yourself on an island and putting progressives and reactionaries on the same team, that just feels like it’s rigging the game against yourself under the pretense of ideological superiority. I think the reality in the US is that the overwhelming majority of people don’t give a poo poo about ideology. Or if you think the better route for the American left is to let the dominant forces of conservative and reactionary capitalism continue towards the precipice of its own collapse, then I can understand the aversion to lumping in e.g. Nordic model capitalists with state socialists under a bigger umbrella of progressivism. But that seems like a hell of a gambit to me, given how advanced and entrenched the Military Industrial Complex has become especially in the past 20 years... The Oldest Man posted:Yeah I'm not arguing that "I think we should improve society somewhat" is incoherent as a belief or, like, bad. I'm arguing that it's not sufficient to effect any change because it says nothing about the mechanism and scope of that change and almost anything that isn't obviously regressive psycho poo poo can be marketed as "improve society somewhat" and have some claim to truth, which makes the label useless as a tool for effecting change. I think if you’re expecting a label to be useful for effecting change in itself, then maybe you just need to adjust your expectations of what the purpose of a generalized label can do in the context of 2020 American politics? The label is intended to be broad enough to encompass varied scopes and mechanisms for change, I think? I’m not the OP you’re responding to, and I’m not a tax policy expert by any means, but I don’t see how eliminating the SALT tax cap could be framed as a progressive policy? Unless you’re saying that “Pelosi wants to do it, Pelosi’s a powerful Dem, Dems want to be seen as progressive, therefore it must be defined as a progressive policy” or something to that effect? I don’t think neoliberals trying to appropriate the progressive label when they’re clearly fighting for status quo conservative policies means that the progressive label is worthless. (its late here, I’m kind of sleep deprived, hope my post is at least coherent, and look forward to the replies)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but I think if you can’t recognize shared near-term goals despite long-term ideological differences, then it’s going to be really hard to translate theory into practice? the whole point is that there are no shared near-term goals except the vague "let's be nice to each other" bullshit it's been 40 years since reagan's election, 16 of those under a democratic president - how's it going so far? it's not leftists who are putting progressives and reactionaries on the same team, it's progressives themselves who gleefully jump into reactionaries' arms the moment they get elected
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 09:17
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:the whole point is that there are no shared near-term goals except the vague "let's be nice to each other" bullshit Are M4A and the GND not shared near term goals? Honest question. My extreme oversimplification would be: Progressives (with socialist ideology): in favor Progressives (with Nordic capitalist ideology): in favor Conservatives (mainstream Dems): opposed Reactionaries (GOP): opposed Isn’t that a case where there’s a shared near term goal within a progressive coalition that cuts across ideology? Does the shittiness of mainstream Dems (ie conservatives) really justify abandoning such an intuitively good label as progressivism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 09:37
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Are M4A and the GND not shared near term goals? Honest question. My extreme oversimplification would be: ah, I thought you were talking about the dems, cause in their case it's not a shared goal at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
look, the social democrats you talk about (nordic capitalists) are a tiny group in politics, and leftists are an even smaller one I mean bernie's a socdem and he got crushed (twice!) even when he had the support of both socdems and lefties so it doesn't seem like the coalition you're talking about can do much
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 10:01
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:look, the social democrats you talk about (nordic capitalists) are a tiny group in politics, and leftists are an even smaller one I think a large part of the progressive labeling in the first place is an effort to distinguish socdems from moderate liberals. You're right that it's not currently a large wing of the U.S. Democratic party, I don't think anyone is arguing that progressives are dominant. I suppose you can include socialists (in the actual sense, not the Bernie socdem sense) under the progressive wing - in my experience they usually prefer to just call themselves socialists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 12:20
|
|
|
The progressives need to start attacking the mainstream Democrats without mercy. Stop with the "please can we exist" poo poo. They will never let you exist, their owners wont allow it. You need people willing to fight, who are willing to tell the DNC to eat poo poo. Maybe that means being forever marginalized, ok, that is still better than surrendering, cooperating, and getting nothing in return.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
doverhog posted:The progressives need to start attacking the mainstream Democrats without mercy. Stop with the "please can we exist" poo poo. They will never let you exist, their owners wont allow it. 'progressives' are just dems anyways they won't ever be willing to fight so long as they identify as progressives and run as dems because the second they do that they have already surrendered and rolled over. DSA(lmao dsa what a poo poo) ran a bunch of "social democrats" who's platform was essentially just the 2016 dem platform but with more concessions to liberals and they all lost in my area, lmao. There is no route to change through electoralism, because the second you participate you have surrendered your ideology to the rules of a corporate managed 'democracy'
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
doverhog posted:The progressives need to start attacking the mainstream Democrats without mercy. Stop with the "please can we exist" poo poo. They will never let you exist, their owners wont allow it. This, but also attacking Republicans without mercy. Politicians and supporters both. Hostile party takeovers have happened in the past. American leftists just need to stop being so drat nice. They have a lovely situation, obvious enemy at high and low, ideas with popular support, demographics, etc. on their side. Stop playing with the old rules. Be as big of a dick as Trump, only to people who actually deserve it and with actual eloquence. Stop making ads where you promise things and start making ads where you attack things. AOC on social media is a pretty good example, although she is still being too nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but I think if you can’t recognize shared near-term goals despite long-term ideological differences, then it’s going to be really hard to translate theory into practice? I think it's important to emphasize that not "[giving] a poo poo about ideology" is not a reason to back away from ideological critique, but even more reason to double down on it - after all, it's those that don't think that ideology ultimately matters that are most in the clutches of it. A materialist approach, what you've dismissed as mere 'labeling', is foundational to leftist thought. To simply say that leftists should keep their 'label' as vague as possible as to be able to cast the widest net is akin to burying one's head in the sand, as the inevitable back-stabbing at a pivotal point will be horrifically more damaging (As what should now be forever known as pulling an E. Warren). Would you say AOC is 'too committed to ideological purity' for her rapid disillusionment with politics after a relatively brief experience? Things like M4A and the GND got political traction because of the commitment of leftists to their ideology, not in some grand bargaining with 'reality-based' actors. Now that Sanders has capitulated to every demand of the Democratic establishment, where has that gotten us? KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:The good news is that party leadership in the US is, compared to other countries, pretty weak, while polarization is strong. So it’s insanely difficult but not impossible. People frequently vaguely phrase this as "we need to gradually elect more leftists," but if you actually think about what would be necessary to exercise high-level political power (which is the kind needed to actually address the most harmful things in our country or caused by it) it's basically like trying to turn New York or California red or something (it's actually significantly worse than this, but it's the best clear analogy I could think of at the moment). There's a flawed logic of "because the left can win some Democratic seats, it is possible to win most of them if we try hard enough," when a significant portion of those seats are effectively unwinnable for the exact same reason solid red places often are (and if anything the most wealthy and populous blue states are some of the worst in this regard, due to the power focused in them). It's basically making the flawed assumption that blue areas are universally at least possibly receptive to the left. It's potentially worthwhile as a way of forcing more direct confrontation (since forcing those with power to more visibly exercise it can at least make a left-wing world-view easier to sell - the wealthy would prefer to be less visible to the general public and simply launder their ideology through media/culture), but significant goals can't be achieved through such bottom-up electoral politics itself (at least not before climate change and other factors make conditions so bad that our society is tearing at the seams). enki42 posted:I think the thing you're missing is anyone I know who identifies as a progressive usually uses real-world results as a barometer for whether they support a position vs. ideology. The most common thing you'll hear from progressives isn't about how things fit into an ideological framework, it's finding actual successes and trying to emulate them, like adopting programs from Scandinavian countries to reduce income inequality. The problem is that such people are no less ideological and are just blind to it. They're essentially taking value judgements and falsely claiming that they're based in some sort of empirical pragmatism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
This is why progressives are incapable of effecting change and continuously get Charlie Brown'd by the establishment. Their ideology (liberal capitalism) demands things (wage labor, capital accumulation) that are incompatible and destructive to the ends they believe they are fighting for (reduced income inequality, everyone gets a decent living etc). You can fake it for a while through careful management until a crisis brings the entire house of cards down or simply externalize all the bloodletting as Norway does such that you can pretend for a while that the ends you want are capable of being produced by the means that you are blind to but use anyway, but that will always be a Sisyphean effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
The US is not a democracy. Pretty much all the elected politicians take legal bribes. Only way to get elected. The Democratic leadership is payed to lose, that's why they refuse to support things like universal healthcare. Billionaires and consultants run the whole thing and they do not care how many people die as long as they make a profit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
My extreme hot take is that progressive should stop trying to elect politicians and focus on passing progressive polices via ballot initiative your particular jurisdiction may vary
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:I think it's important to emphasize that not "[giving] a poo poo about ideology" is not a reason to back away from ideological critique, but even more reason to double down on it - after all, it's those that don't think that ideology ultimately matters that are most in the clutches of it. I think i agree with what you’re saying about the non-ideological being the most in the clutches of it — basically if you’re marginalized and oppressed, you don’t have the luxury of examining ideas and this is a massive barrier to developing an ideology, yes? That’s what I mean, I’m not at all suggesting that neoliberalism is neutral and everything else is ideology; I know that sometimes neoliberals imply this, so want to be clear it’s not what I’m suggesting. To me, an implication of this dynamic isn’t to run away from leftist ideology, but I think pragmatically it’s going to be more persuasive to more people to say “I’m in favor of progressive policies like the GND” than “I’m in favor of leftist policies like the GND”. The latter presupposes a level of ideological understanding that just isn’t really widespread enough in the US, whereas the former is more intuitive. I don’t see how this is dismissive or inconsistent with a materialist approach. Policies that appeal to material conditions will always be insufficient if your communication appeals to ideology instead. No, I don’t think AOC is too ideologically pure or whatever, I think she’s a great example of being able to communicate leftist policies in a way that comes across as common sense and not polemically ideological. Ytlaya posted:People frequently vaguely phrase this as "we need to gradually elect more leftists," but if you actually think about what would be necessary to exercise high-level political power (which is the kind needed to actually address the most harmful things in our country or caused by it) it's basically like trying to turn New York or California red or something (it's actually significantly worse than this, but it's the best clear analogy I could think of at the moment). There's a flawed logic of "because the left can win some Democratic seats, it is possible to win most of them if we try hard enough," when a significant portion of those seats are effectively unwinnable for the exact same reason solid red places often are (and if anything the most wealthy and populous blue states are some of the worst in this regard, due to the power focused in them). It's basically making the flawed assumption that blue areas are universally at least possibly receptive to the left. Do you think leftist goals will be more achievable under conservative Dem or Republican control of all branches of government? Or that a collapse of the US empire is imminent enough that there will be enough time to pick up the pieces to address climate change AND that the collapse won’t entail worsening of material conditions for oppressed people at the hands of military-industrialists? Unfortunately, all possible non-dystopian future visions for America require flawed logic (it’s a bad country), so what’s yours?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 08:36
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:My extreme hot take is that progressive should stop trying to elect politicians and focus on passing progressive polices via ballot initiative Por que no los dos?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:I think i agree with what you’re saying about the non-ideological being the most in the clutches of it — basically if you’re marginalized and oppressed, you don’t have the luxury of examining ideas and this is a massive barrier to developing an ideology, yes? Yes, though not just developing, but also recognizing it in the first place. The problem of ideological illiteracy also extends to the managers of capital and beyond. I'm sure you know more than a few people from all walks of life who cannot even conceive of a world outside of the Democrat/Republican dichotomy. Sharks Eat Bear posted:To me, an implication of this dynamic isn’t to run away from leftist ideology, but I think pragmatically it’s going to be more persuasive to more people to say “I’m in favor of progressive policies like the GND” than “I’m in favor of leftist policies like the GND”. The latter presupposes a level of ideological understanding that just isn’t really widespread enough in the US, whereas the former is more intuitive. I don’t see how this is dismissive or inconsistent with a materialist approach. Policies that appeal to material conditions will always be insufficient if your communication appeals to ideology instead. This strategy is not without its own limitations. M4A and GND getting political traction is certainly a good thing, but they both had the advantage of being able to appeal to 'common sense' (Which is of course, still ideology) by purposefully referencing known signifiers. Leftist projects, by their very nature, require people to imagine new possibilities. How do you repackage ideas like Defund the Police or Prison Abolition into 'common sense' branding?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Leftist projects, by their very nature, require people to imagine new possibilities. How do you repackage ideas like Defund the Police or Prison Abolition into 'common sense' branding? You don't, you wage total war on the "common sense" label as being the common sense of the owning class that has shown decisively that it has condemned the rest of us to death. Walling yourself within the norms of a status quo that kills millions without mercy is unsurprisingly just going to result in millions more being killed without mercy. I'm not saying this as an ideologue but as a pragmatist. Is what's possible is defined by what common sense under capitalism is comfortable with, we're truly boned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Or appeal to actual common sense, which is when was the last time the cops did anything for you? When was the last time they gave you hassle? Would you be happier with or without them? Most people who aren't loving loaded aren't gonna have good experiences with the cops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Well sure, no one's saying people shouldn't need convincing. But the point is that, during this dialogue, eventually you'd have to get to the proposed leftist solution which inherently involves leaving 'common sense' behind to take an ideological stand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Well sure, no one's saying people shouldn't need convincing. But the point is that, during this dialogue, eventually you'd have to get to the proposed leftist solution which inherently involves leaving 'common sense' behind to take an ideological stand. You're just convinced by the propaganda against the left that left ideas are not common sense. It is not "common sense" to let the runaway slave patrols rebrand and keep operating, it is not "common sense" to lock someone in jail for years for ingesting the wrong kind of plant, and it is not "common sense" to put someone into permanent debt slavery because they got sick while not working for the right company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You're just convinced by the propaganda against the left that left ideas are not common sense. It is not "common sense" to let the runaway slave patrols rebrand and keep operating, it is not "common sense" to lock someone in jail for years for ingesting the wrong kind of plant, and it is not "common sense" to put someone into permanent debt slavery because they got sick while not working for the right company. I think what they mean is that "common sense" is essentially defined by culture/media; it's a difficult sell to most people that abolishing police/prisons is a good idea, since most people aren't victims of that aspect of the system (or at least aren't victims to an extent where they oppose it) and live in a society where the idea that "police protect us from the bad guys" is a firmly entrenched view. IMO this is irrelevant (since the only way you can ever reach the point of such things being considered "normal" is to openly and explicitly support them), but it's definitely a thing that makes things more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Right - people generally take 'common sense' to be a crystallization of natural reason in the narrative of historical progress. Though I do think it, no matter how unreasonable or detached from reality it may be, remains relevant because it allows us to map out a bit of the terrain that has to be overcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 21:58
|
|