|
Eric Cantonese posted:I'm starting to dream about a left-leaning investment fund that engages in some kind of passive or socially responsible investing and then uses the funds to support candidates who want good things and not just capitalist donor pet projects. You seem to be describing an ideologically driven charity, and I agree 100% with it. The left has always gained popular support by providing necessities to those without. Mao was famous for preventing evictions by liberating property from landlords and giving it to tenants. Morality aside, if you are talking about investing in the stock market, the problem with that is it takes a tremendous amount of untouchable capital that just has to sit around garnering slivers of a % in profit. This is fine if you have billions sitting around, but the left necessarily has far fewer resources than it's opponents. Any leftist movement is going to have to work with the only resource that workers have to spend: labor. Both in the forms of unions and the ability to build their own resources.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I'm starting to dream about a left-leaning investment fund that engages in some kind of passive or socially responsible investing and then uses the funds to support candidates who want good things and not just capitalist donor pet projects. The problem with trying to do election funding for progressive candidates with investment dividends (which is basically what you're describing) is that a) you need a huge pile of investment capital relative to the good you do with the dividend, which means you're reinforcing the capitalist mode and then using a little bit of the squeezings to "support candidates" which is itself not really a goal that helps people; and b) managing that pile of investment resources under our legal system is going to require a philanthropic foundation or similar organization and Full Yikes to the idea that won't be riddled with PMC types looking to enrich themselves off of the dividend just like every single other organization of this type. Cpt_Obvious posted:You seem to be describing an ideologically driven charity, and I agree 100% with it. It's not that if the purpose of the money is to get people elected. It's just another rube goldberg machine whose wheels and pistons whir and clank but the ultimate outcome is just the same "vote blue" advertising money as we already have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:It's not that if the purpose of the money is to get people elected. It's just another rube goldberg machine whose wheels and pistons whir and clank but the ultimate outcome is just the same "vote blue" advertising money as we already have. See, I was more imagining a charity-style political party that also ran political candidates under BOTH party primaries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:See, I was more imagining a charity-style political party that also ran political candidates under BOTH party primaries. I think if the goal is to build a political party whose primary means of action is direct mutual aid and secondary means of action is electoralism, that's a very different animal than an investment fund that helps elect progressives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:At a certain point, we are going to need to define what "progressive" means in such a way as it qualifies some things and disqualifies other. As it stands, "progressive" implies progress towards a goal, but that goal has never been identified. I think the desire to create strict definitions and then exclude people who fall ever so just out of them is an issue on the left. I'm very content that progressivism is more of an amorphous cloud of diverse people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
When that amorphousness primarily functions to allow rich chancers to surf by on the cloud of vague positivity and then turn around and say "oh you idiot I never specified that I was going to anything" it is, perhaps, a bit of a weakness. You can clearly still use it, of course, but it does mean that it isn't really meaningful, it's just a feeling people have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When that amorphousness primarily functions to allow rich chancers to surf by on the cloud of vague positivity and then turn around and say "oh you idiot I never specified that I was going to anything" it is, perhaps, a bit of a weakness. I dont think so. The progressive movement is growing in a way that I find extremely positive and hopeful. We are headed the right direction and I'm not going to quibble as much over the details.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
In order for it to achieve anything, though, at some point it is going to have to coalesce into some, or multiple, thing(s) more concrete. A cloud of good feelings that does not contain a hammer to force through change is the obama campaign, or the biden campaign. It leaves its supporters no better off and they either become disillusioned or look for something harder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In order for it to achieve anything, though, at some point it is going to have to coalesce into some, or multiple, thing(s) more concrete. Medicare for All, UBI, free education k-uni, etc. That's all stuff that Progressives want and are working towards. I'm happy to work out the details when, you know, we have a government that is at the point where those policies are being written up in Congress. No need to work hard to find splits and fractures before then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
The point I and others are making is that you are not likely to get to that point without honing down the label. If politicians can self identify as "progressive" without supporting those things and win elections that way then, functionally, it does not mean that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The point I and others are making is that you are not likely to get to that point without honing down the label. Bernie and the Progressive Congress critters like the squad members are running on those issues and winning elections without narrowing down the definition of their cause with laser-like precision. They're running on broad, broadly understood platforms of social and economic justice. That's Progressivism. It's also the politics of my generation (and yours, assuming you're a millenial like me) and those that follow us. It's up to the voters to decide whether a politician who claims to be progressive is actually so. Voters are people and they have agency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Voters only decide who they are voting for and we know that there are other concerns than who is "progressive", so that is transparently nonsensical
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
And the process of voters deciding what "actually is" progressivism is the process of narrowing the label. If such a thing is to occur at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And the process of voters deciding what "actually is" progressivism is the process of narrowing the label. If such a thing is to occur at all. Ok, great! If voters do it by default then why should we start narrowing the label right here in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
This entire notion that voters determine who is and who is not "progressive" is bunk. Biden is not progressive because he won, anymore than Trump is
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Because I suspect most of us are voters and the process of talking about politics is a signficant component of how people establish their views... Like are you operating under the assumption that this is like the supreme command for politics or something rather than a bunch of people just talking about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
I'd never say that Biden is a Progressive. He's a Democratic Party institutionalist through and through, as far as I can tell. I hope that the fact that the Democratic Party has moved left over the last 20 years will influence his policy making decisions. And activists in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'd never say that Biden is a Progressive. He's a Democratic Party institutionalist through and through, as far as I can tell. I hope that the fact that the Democratic Party has moved left over the last 20 years will influence his policy making decisions. And activists in the streets. Who are you to gate-keep who is progressive? Weren't you just saying that no one has the right to decide what progressive means? Eric Cantonese posted:I apologize for asking this in multiple threads, but who are the big progressive SuperPACs? Are there any? I think that money can be somewhat useful for some low-level races, but that it will never be a solution for actually achieving significant power (since the left will always lose that game). There's also a pretty big problem with large self-defined "progressive" political organizations with significant money involved with them tending to become infested with PMC ladder-climber types (as The Oldest Man mentioned). The Bernie campaign was also victim to this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'd never say that Biden is a Progressive. He's a Democratic Party institutionalist through and through, as far as I can tell. I hope that the fact that the Democratic Party has moved left over the last 20 years will influence his policy making decisions. And activists in the streets. Ok, and what politically disqualifies him from being a "progressive" as opposed to, say, Bernie which I assume we can all agree would be included in your loose definition? is it M4A? Is it the GND? Those are coherent political goal towards which we can "progress". And let's not forget, they are very anti-capitalist stances. M4A is adversarial to the private insurance apparatus, just like GND is adversarial to the fossil fuel industry. Both of these privately owned industries dangerously exploit profit from the public and cause a massive amount of damage to the economy and our environment. Ytlaya posted:Who are you to gate-keep who is progressive? Weren't you just saying that no one has the right to decide what progressive means? This is an excellent point. Without proper definitions, Biden cannot be excluded from the label "progressive", nor can Diane Feinstein and her ilk. Hell, if you really want to push the envelope we could include Donald Trump!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:This is an excellent point. Without proper definitions, Biden cannot be excluded from the label "progressive", nor can Diane Feinstein and her ilk. Hell, if you really want to push the envelope we could include Donald Trump! Josh Hawley is campaigning for stimulus checks with Bernie Sanders. Sounds pretty progressive to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Donald J. Trump single-handedly killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. All hail the most progressive president of the last 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that money can be somewhat useful for some low-level races, but that it will never be a solution for actually achieving significant power (since the left will always lose that game). I know some people who I thought would have been great candidates who just could not get the funds to run and could not get outside support. They didn't come from money and they couldn't just quit their jobs to chase a primary against opponents who already had DCCC or other established party connections. I agree that money does not solve things on its own, but it's a lot easier to pull off an underdog victory if they aren't fighting with nothing. For me, it's helping worthy candidates and campaigns get started and stay in the fight. And as you point out, with state level and city level races, we're talking situations where 4-5 figure amounts could be big game changers. quote:There's also a pretty big problem with large self-defined "progressive" political organizations with significant money involved with them tending to become infested with PMC ladder-climber types (as The Oldest Man mentioned). The Bernie campaign was also victim to this. Are there any articles on this? I'd like to learn more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Ok, and what politically disqualifies him from being a "progressive" as opposed to, say, Bernie which I assume we can all agree would be included in your loose definition? is it M4A? Is it the GND? Those are coherent political goal towards which we can "progress". And let's not forget, they are very anti-capitalist stances. M4A is adversarial to the private insurance apparatus, just like GND is adversarial to the fossil fuel industry. Both of these privately owned industries dangerously exploit profit from the public and cause a massive amount of damage to the economy and our environment. A lot of self-described "progressives" dislike the idea of defining "progressive" in part because definitions require bright lines that they will completely agree with up until the point where they realise their definition excludes them. It's one of the reasons that you find so many folks on this forum complaining vaguely in the direction of someone else having a "specific definition of leftism" that excludes them, but those same folks will never offer up an actual definition and seem much happier with the idea of leftism being a vague badge that you can put on if you've ever disagreed with the Republican Party. This is ignoring the fact that the different strains of leftism have their differences for real, justifiable and explainable reasons. It's much easier to say "I've been told that I'm not a real leftist so I guess I'm just a liberal now" than it is to engage with the folks who probably just said "that's not a particularly leftist stance" about one argument once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Donald J. Trump single-handedly killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. All hail the most progressive president of the last 30 years. Couldn’t you just replace progressive with leftist and this satire would be just as valid?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Couldn’t you just replace progressive with leftist and this satire would be just as valid? No because leftists have an ideology by which you can judge whether a person's positions and actions fit. Like you could call Josh Hawley a communist and go "ha ha same thing" but communism has a pretty specific policy agenda and he's not in favor of any of it. "Progressive," being a factional label without ideological underpinnings, has no such guard rails. Just because there's different flavors of "left" doesn't mean any of them are as content-free as "progressive;" that's more or less what divides leftists from progressives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
As it stands there is no way to not be "progressive." There is no set of circumstances under which someone can meaningfully fail the test of being a "progressive" because the test is "did you ever say you are a progressive?" and passing that test means saying, at any point in time, "I am a progressive" or words to that effect. The policy you support or oppose does not actually matter because being a progressive is not a matter of policy or outcomes, it is a matter of sacred words. Tulsi Gabbard is one of the "progressive" folks and she just sponsored an extremely, explicitly, anti-trans piece of legislation. Does she still get to call herself a "progressive?" Yes. Because the term has no boundaries, no definition, and no requirements of those who use it. She said she was progressive, so she is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
Somfin posted:the test is "did you ever say you are a progressive?" Somfin posted:"I am a progressive" Welcome to the Democratic party 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Welcome to the Democratic party Exactly what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 10:26
|
|
|
Somfin posted:As it stands there is no way to not be "progressive." There is no set of circumstances under which someone can meaningfully fail the test of being a "progressive" because the test is "did you ever say you are a progressive?" and passing that test means saying, at any point in time, "I am a progressive" or words to that effect. The policy you support or oppose does not actually matter because being a progressive is not a matter of policy or outcomes, it is a matter of sacred words. Well, it depends upon what your goal is. If your goal is "to feel good and optimistic about politics," then it suits you pretty well to believe that the Democratic Party is full of progressive politicians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Progressive means you want society to progress towards gay space communism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Progressive means you want society to progress towards gay space communism. Trump started Space Force, so Trump is the most progressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Well, it depends upon what your goal is. If your goal is "to feel good and optimistic about politics," then it suits you pretty well to believe that the Democratic Party is full of progressive politicians. This is actually a timely take for this stupid m4a floor vote drama and all the progressives putting Jimmy Dore on blast because he won't shut up about holding progressive pols accountable via hardline refusal to support the Dems' regular order of business if they don't advance progressive policy positions. If you just want to feel like good things are happening and a warm empty optimism, the exercise of power (that is, holding Nancy Pelosi's speakership hostage to achieve an objective like forcing the Dems on record with an m4a vote) is the opposite of what you want. It's incredibly easy to just sit back, relax, and watch nothing happen for literal decades as society rots out if you don't actually believe in anything other than the nebulous idea that things should be better somehow (but not if that means inconveniencing or annoying the people who are actively working to make them worse).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:This is actually a timely take for this stupid m4a floor vote drama and all the progressives putting Jimmy Dore on blast because he won't shut up about holding progressive pols accountable via hardline refusal to support the Dems' regular order of business if they don't advance progressive policy positions. If you just want to feel like good things are happening and a warm empty optimism, the exercise of power (that is, holding Nancy Pelosi's speakership hostage to achieve an objective like forcing the Dems on record with an m4a vote) is the opposite of what you want. It's incredibly easy to just sit back, relax, and watch nothing happen for literal decades as society rots out if you don't actually believe in anything other than the nebulous idea that things should be better somehow (but not if that means inconveniencing or annoying the people who are actively working to make them worse). There is a certain brilliance to the angry old youtuber's idea: Say it works, you force Nancy to make a vote, and the house doesn't pass it. Now you have forced everyone who opposes M4A into the open and they can get primaried. Say it doesn't, Nancy refuses to make the vote and she doesn't get to be speaker. Congrats! You've just removed a major obstacle to passing M4A! There is literally no downside to this move.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:There is a certain brilliance to the angry old youtuber's idea: Who are the nine other votes that are defecting with her to make this possible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Who are the nine other votes that are defecting with her to make this possible? Time for any of these 94 content free "progressives" to prove that they're worth a drat I guess! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 06:58
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:There is a certain brilliance to the angry old youtuber's idea: I think that the most important thing here is unrelated to the MfA vote itself (which wouldn't happen even if AOC or others threatened to withhold support in exchange for it) but more the "loudly and openly talking about the fact that the Democratic Party is opposed to making these things happen." Basically making the conflict open and obvious instead of letting people have the illusion that it's even remotely possible to somehow finagle passing something like MfA with a Democratic Party that has leadership like Pelosi (and worse!). And there won't really be a better time to raise a fuss over MfA specifically than during this pandemic. The perspective a lot of these progressive politicians and public figures have towards the Democratic Party isn't that unlike the perspective Biden has towards Republicans. They're opposed to "openly" conflicting with them or directly acknowledging that they're enemies. I don't know what the solution is to achieving many of the left's goals, but at the very least I know that it sure as hell won't involve cooperation with most of the Democratic Party, and the sooner people realize that the better. I understand the motive for continuing to beat this dead horse - it's a lot easier to be hopeful if you think that we're on a positive path and that if we just Keep Up The Work that we'll be able to pass legislation like MfA - but that will never happen. There are extremely strong motives for the few left-leaning people who manage to be elected to high office to cooperate with the rest of the Democratic Party in order to make their lives easier (I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of currently elected progressives wouldn't actually support MfA if there were a risk of it passing - see Sherrod Brown), and there will never be any turning point where suddenly all the Democratic politicians are voting for MfA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 09:16
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Time for any of these 94 content free "progressives" to prove that they're worth a drat I guess! I'm just saying the flowchart missed that step in it's projections. Also haven't he already had m4a votes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I'm just saying the flowchart missed that step in it's projections. If by "vote" you mean "pressure explicitly placed on the DNC platform committee to remove language relating to M4A so as to not force a publicly visible vote about it and potentially let people realise how the party faithful will never support it," then yes
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I'm just saying the flowchart missed that step in it's projections. You're mistaking this for a test of Nancy Pelosi or the democrats writ large that requires progressive support as an input, I think. It's not. It's a test of these do-nothing progressives themselves and whether they ought to receive a single finger lifted in their support ever again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
It is a purge. Let's see who is real and who is a poser. The left has a long history with it. Still might be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 10:15
|
|