Can you be critical of both? This whole conference just shit
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Can you be critical of both? This whole conference just shit
I got criticized by PoliERA because I wanted America to Denuclerize as well as Russia and everyone else
and am like "Why are you still hanging onto nuclear proliferation when it's the worst?"
and am like "Why are you still hanging onto nuclear proliferation when it's the worst?"
I had one dude give me a take that MAD was preventing a world war and I just sighed
Man militarism is helluva thing to still hold on to after all these years
Man militarism is helluva thing to still hold on to after all these years
so are borders yet people are so goddamned keen on hanging on to those.
better things aren't possible. things have always been the way they are. clearly.
Really close to just declaring all American politicians terrorists and the only thing that keeping from saying that is Bernie Sanders
OP
OP
Of course you can be critical of both. The world doesn't actually exist in a constant state of dualisms where you must support everything about one side or else.
As for Bernie, there's plenty to be critical about there as well. He's got good intentions but hes not some socialist savior. He's just a social democrat. Don't put your faith in him.
Honestly I'd actually be a little skeptical if this is really extensively covered in high school textbooks in the future, especially since it's implausible that Trump will really get radical change out of this summit.
Yeah these people are so dumb, American presidents pose with murderous dictators all the time, it's just suddenly different when Trump does it with someone we don't give financial support to.
SPAM
SPAM
SPAM
SPAM
SPAM
SPAM
SPAM
Yeah i find that shit infuriating. Fucking tankies.
I kicked the Tankie Twitter beehive a while back. It's the exact same bullshit you get from fascists. Point out the holes in their logic, they retweet a red herring to the Tankie Sphere, and instead of discussing the actual point it's just death threats/cyber stalking/suicide baiting/harassment/etc.
I lost a long time internet friend recently as well. Known them since the BBS days. They dropped that "Tankie is a slur" garbage so I noped right out of there.
If I was faced with a Tankie and a TERF and only had one bullet. I'd ask them to put their heads real close together.
I endured a lot of condescension regarding Manchin. They wanted to give me a dose of political reality in defense of a man who thinks men shouldn't get married to each other.
My views:
- he's the best and, for now, pretty much the only thing the American left has going for it on the national stage, and he has unquestionably been very good for the left and socialism
- he is also a very flawed figure whose flaws from a left perspective should be critiqued
- having a nuanced conversation about those flaws is all but impossible in certain online spaces (i.e. PoliERA) due to the amount of blatant and transparent bad faith towards him, his supporters, and leftists more generally, from people who are still nursing grievances over 2016
- those people do not represent any numerically significant constituency in the real world, as only a small minority of Democrats view Sanders unfavorably
- leftists should generally avoid engaging those people and recognize the bad-faith grievance politics of a small but vocal minority for what it is, even as they continue to be appropriately critical of Sanders where warranted
If you're compelled to participate then I guess you could do worse.
It always amazes me how people criticize the left for wanting the perfect candidate yet they don't realize that we are willing to vote for Bernie who is full of flaws, but still much better than any other Democrat.
So I got a question for you guys: what would a socialist society look like? Or, rather, what would be the major differences from what we have now aside from workers owning the means of production?
He's a democratic politician who doesn't actively make me wanna projectile vomit acid blood all over the place, so he's got that going for him
This is what I don't understand. He's a faux democratic politician. He doesn't even want to accept the nomination but runs as D because of the red tape.
Don't get me wrong though, he is still more left than any politician that we have for 2020, but he still has flaws. HARRIS is such a CJ hawk who is disguised with talk or reform, decriminalization, etc. BUT one thing she won't do is condemn ICE for what it is and that's an American Gestapo. She believes they are an asset to our country, even though we've only had them since 2003.
Harris was head cop of San Francisco and basically a gigantic symptom of the Democratic Party.
IIRC, arrests for POC while she was a DA was on the rise
He wouldn't be. I think he was able to get the attention of the younger crowd with his radical views but he'd have to cuddle up to all of the others in order to get anything leftesque to pass and GOP's Turtle Man would rather watch the US burn before doing that
OP
OP
I think if Bernie got the presidency and a DDD trifecta he'd still run into problems because he's not always one for fine print. He loves big-picture ideas but when you ask for details you get a lot of "We're working on it". He gets there eventually but he would need to be way more precise from the onset or else run the risk of the rest of the party getting to control the narrative.
That and while his heart is in the right place he'd keep putting his foot in his mouth on racial issues.
Interestingly, I read a short article the other day that said he had requested (and received) a meeting with Obama, who has been quietly meeting with some 2020 hopefuls (Biden, Warren, and Patrick IIRC) to discuss "the future of the Democratic Party". I wonder if he's going to try to embrace Obama more closely this time around since Hillary locked up a bunch of the party by running as Obama's third term. I don't know how successful that would be though with so many other and more loyal Dems running.
That and while his heart is in the right place he'd keep putting his foot in his mouth on racial issues.
Interestingly, I read a short article the other day that said he had requested (and received) a meeting with Obama, who has been quietly meeting with some 2020 hopefuls (Biden, Warren, and Patrick IIRC) to discuss "the future of the Democratic Party". I wonder if he's going to try to embrace Obama more closely this time around since Hillary locked up a bunch of the party by running as Obama's third term. I don't know how successful that would be though with so many other and more loyal Dems running.
Last edited:
I think pinning this as being on Sanders is shortsighted and buys into the narrative of the neolibs that they're the only smart folks in the room who understand how things work and that anything left of DLC means-tested programs and market reforms are unrealistic and unfeasible. The center-right of the Democrats have supported a wide variety of terrible ideas like the attempts to balance the budget in 2010 that I think undercuts the idea that they're the only serious folks at the table.
The real issue is that there isn't much of a center-left policy sphere in the US which hinders its ability to propose real left reforms. That's not really Bernie's fault, it's the result of decades of neoliberal hegemony.
That said, even if Bernie couldn't pass a serious legislative accomplishment (plausible), he would still staff his executive branch with actual social democrats (no Tim Geithners or Arne Duncans) and would be vastly better on foreign policy than any plausible alternative within the Democrats which I think makes his presidency worth supporting.
I agree. When CAP and ideologically like-minded liberals have defined the leftmost boundary of "serious" policy within our political institutions for the past few decades, the left's ability to produce detailed policy white papers is going to be severely limited.
This is a structural weakness that can't and won't be fixed overnight, but Sanders is laying a lot of the groundwork for it just by shifting the Overton window significantly to the left.
OP
OP
I don't mean that the "I support sweatshops because it's good policy" folks are somehow better because they get wonky over tiny details, just that he often seems to get caught off guard. Even when his answers aren't necessarily wrong (I'm reminded of that NY Daily News interview from the campaign). He's going to get out flanked if he doesn't beat them to it first.
Luckily the things Bernie supports are easily provable as things that work.
I don't really mind if he's big-picture so long as he has a good cabinet that can hash out details. Throw Richard Wolff in there just to scare people, that would be hilarious (though I'm sure he'd go with Reich).
I don't need a president who's a complete policy wonk, but I do want a leader who, when the complexities of implementation are explained to them, understands what challenges that creates in turning policy into legal reality, and I just think Sanders just seems aggressively disinterested in that. Its the thing that drives me nuts about him.
EDIT: Now that Medicare for All is increasingly (begrudgingly in some cases) becoming the D party line the first candidate who convincingly presents a case for how they'll avoid it becoming effectively a pay cut for the 150 million people currently with employer insurance (because you know no company is going to pass on the savings from their offering becoming obsolete to the employees) will earn a lot of my backing because it will be an indication that they're thinking through the messaging challenges of these proposals
EDIT: Now that Medicare for All is increasingly (begrudgingly in some cases) becoming the D party line the first candidate who convincingly presents a case for how they'll avoid it becoming effectively a pay cut for the 150 million people currently with employer insurance (because you know no company is going to pass on the savings from their offering becoming obsolete to the employees) will earn a lot of my backing because it will be an indication that they're thinking through the messaging challenges of these proposals
Last edited:
Also would like to endorse this post, though not sure how much you'd like my endorsement as reformist socdem trash :P
All I want is a democrat who will openly advocate for impeaching Gorsuch. (Or packing the supreme court in retaliation for Gorsuch's appointment unless he retires and lets a democrat fill his seat).
This is complete lie. Nice job throwing in an ableist insult as well. Reactionary traitor.
User Banned (Permanent): Peddling conspiracy theories + denying genocide
But Holodomor was a myth perpetrated by Nazis and nationalists. 99 percent of the supposed crimes against humanity in DPRK are bullshit
You forgot the '/s'
Thought you were serious for a sec there.
They might be serious.
That's the first thing they've posted in six months.
Since we're talking Venezuela now,, here's a couple book recommendations wrote by the exiled professor from Drexel for condemning nazis.
Building the Commune: Radical Democracy in Venezuela
&&
Decolonizing Dialetcs
Building the Commune: Radical Democracy in Venezuela
&&
Decolonizing Dialetcs
For the first:
What "radical democracy"? Chavez tried to take over the state via military junta and when that failed he did so through vanilla parliamentary means. He was the head of your typical parliamentary political party and they canvass, organize, and vote no different than any other. Venezuela was an active participant in both neoliberalism and globalism with their enthusiastic membership as an OPEC state and with the use of the State in a corporatist form.
I appreciate the author getting the experience of the actual people, but people are resourceful and will fulfill their needs in the absence of a cohesive and working state institution. The sad thing is that there is no organizational force for actually building anything radical and instead we're seeing various adaptations of a people who must live under capitalism but within a society that has collapsed.
The synopsis of the second book is all kinds of meh.
The dude has some funny moments and is certainly confrontational, but let's be honest here. I understand what he meant and agree with his concept and points on "white genocide", but he was fired for doing a bad job of putting across serious topics in an academic matter.
If Drexel didn't want to be associated with a grown ass adult memeing far left buzz words on social media I don't really blame them.
What "radical democracy"? Chavez tried to take over the state via military junta and when that failed he did so through vanilla parliamentary means. He was the head of your typical parliamentary political party and they canvass, organize, and vote no different than any other. Venezuela was an active participant in both neoliberalism and globalism with their enthusiastic membership as an OPEC state and with the use of the State in a corporatist form.
I appreciate the author getting the experience of the actual people, but people are resourceful and will fulfill their needs in the absence of a cohesive and working state institution. The sad thing is that there is no organizational force for actually building anything radical and instead we're seeing various adaptations of a people who must live under capitalism but within a society that has collapsed.
The synopsis of the second book is all kinds of meh.
The dude has some funny moments and is certainly confrontational, but let's be honest here. I understand what he meant and agree with his concept and points on "white genocide", but he was fired for doing a bad job of putting across serious topics in an academic matter.
If Drexel didn't want to be associated with a grown ass adult memeing far left buzz words on social media I don't really blame them.
Last edited:
I know most people in NA and europe left doesn't like him, but here in latin America people in the left still like him.
90 years of Che Guevara today
90 years of Che Guevara today
He's a very popular fashion icon in the US. Or was at one point.
He's the ultimate romantic figure. Jack Kerouac and Easy Rider, bourgeois origin turns social warrior, guerrilla.
He's the ultimate romantic figure. Jack Kerouac and Easy Rider, bourgeois origin turns social warrior, guerrilla.
OP
OP
It's really impossible to know, just as it would have been impossible for a 17th century burgher to know what life in 21st century capitalism would be like. The goal isn't to shape the world down to the specifics but to democratize the world and let it run how it may.
Culturally I would imagine there would be far fewer blockbusters and pop songs, for starters.