• 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.

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
So why isn't she leftist? Because her voting record isn't completely in sync with your views? I don't think anyone on the Left is going to satisfy you in that case.
Usually, capitalists aren't considered leftists at least in my definition
Spying on you and making you quake in your boots - only a legend!
a true leftist!

The fact you can only name 3 things in her 30+ years of being in the house shows how hilariously sad the attempt to claim she isn't liberal is. She has one of the most progressive voting records of ANYONE in the country.
Supporting a fascist state should definitely preclude you from being progressive as that's what we're trying to oppose. Also, her main concern with the Syria strikes is that trump didn't go to congress for permission. She also supported Obama's Libya strikes despite him not going to congress for permission.

So there are reasons progressives might oppose her from the left, to answer your question.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
... An excellent job at confirming the quote your responding to. If "capitalist" is the end all of being considered "left" then there is in fact nobody to satisfy you.

Then why are you even posting in this thread? That isn't the Democratic Party. Not even AOC fits this definition. The Democrats are left leaning and liberal. It is not a party of communists and anarchists.
You're right that the Democratic Party isn't communist or anarchist, but that doesn't mean that we won't try to influence the party to move further to the left. So yes, AOC isn't a capital S socialist, but that doesn't mean we don't or won't support her efforts.

No that's completely ridiculous. We're never going to make any progress with that kind of thinking.

On the flip side, I could say that you won't make any progress without that kind of thinking. A lot of the progress made in this country have been made by anti-capitalists such as us having the 8 hour and five day work week.
 

Ensorcell

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,445
On the flip side, I could say that you won't make any progress without that kind of thinking. A lot of the progress made in this country have been made by anti-capitalists such as us having the 8 hour and five day work week.
Just because capitalists take advantage of people doesn't mean those who oppose them are all anti-captialist. Your definitions are really off-base.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,141
Leftists tend to be anti-capitalist. Socialists, communists, anarchists, etc.
Regulated economy does not equal anti-capitalist.

It has been proven countless times that you can both regulate and grow an economy. It doesn't have to be one or the other, as conservatives have tried to communicate with their demonizing of any and all regulations. It's baby logic.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
In your neoliberal world it isnt
No, in reality. You are placing an impossible absurd standard of liberalism on the Democratic Party that is impossible and downright absurd to meet.

Thats like a hardcore christian right person saying they won't be satisfied unless the GOP pushes for legislation to arrest anyone who doesn't go to church every Sunday.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
No, in reality. You are placing an impossible absurd standard of liberalism on the Democratic Party that is impossible and downright absurd to meet.

Thats like a hardcore christian right person saying they won't be satisfied unless the GOP pushes for legislation to arrest anyone who doesn't go to church every Sunday.
Lol socialism isn't liberalism so I'm not putting an absurd level of liberalism on the Democratic Party. But people are trying to push the Democratic Party further left, yes. That's basically one of DSA's missions.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Yeah, you'll need to be a little more specific than "they". Like who?
Most of the labor unions back then were headed by socialists
Regulated economy does not equal anti-capitalist.

It has been proven countless times that you can both regulate and grow an economy. It doesn't have to be one or the other, as conservatives have tried to communicate with their demonizing of any and all regulations. It's baby logic.

You're not really arguing against me. I didn't say anything about not regulating the economy. It's just that capitalism and socialism cannot be mixed. One is the private ownership of the means of production and the other one is where the workers own the means of production.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
The DSA it not pushing to get rid of capitalism and bring in communism.

Lol

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly democratic socialist presence in American communities and politics.

At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people. For example, we support reforms that:

  • decrease the influence of money in politics
  • empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy
  • restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable.
We are activists committed to democracy as not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism — a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

DSA has a youth section, Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA). Made up of students from colleges and high schools, the YDSA works on economic justice and democracy and prison justice projects. It is a member of the International Union of Socialist Youth, an affiliate of the Socialist International. YDSA meets several times during the year.

Please join DSA as we work to help build a better and more just world for all.
They literally say it in the second paragraph

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
She also voted for the Patriot Act and supports a fascist apartheid state and opposes BDS

take that liberals
Voting for the Patriot Act was dumb but she also voted against extending it in 2011.

Given that the left's hero Bernie Sanders gets to "evolve" on issues all the time (e.g. 94 crime bill) I think that's worthy of being taken into consideration.

As for the rest are you talking about Israel? Because yes I fully agree that the Democratic Party is not good on that issue. Is there someone challenging Pelosi who's meaningfully better?
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
The DSA's entire strategy is to work within the current two party system and gradually accumulate influence and incrementally bring about change. Because they know that's the only viable strategy. They are not going to announce Full Socialism Now.

So are they not neoliberal centrists by some people's definitions?
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Ah, so you are being intentionally vague because you don't have an answer. Gotcha.
I actually don't feel like doing the research to find specific answers to satisfy you, but a lot of the labor unions were headed by socialists. MLK was pretty much socialist especially when he began to ramp up his poor people's campaign. Malcolm X correctly said that you can't have capitalism without racism. The black panther party was straight up Marxist-Leninist.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Voting for the Patriot Act was dumb but she also voted against extending it in 2011.

Given that the left's hero Bernie Sanders gets to "evolve" on issues all the time (e.g. 94 crime bill) I think that's worthy of being taken into consideration.

As for the rest are you talking about Israel? Because yes I fully agree that the Democratic Party is not good on that issue. Is there someone challenging Pelosi who's meaningfully better?
The year ion wasn't whether someone was challenging her from the left but whether or not there are reasons progressives might not want her and there are reasons.
 
OP
OP
Pet

Pet

More helpful than the IRS
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,070
SoCal
Leftists tend to be anti-capitalist. Socialists, communists, anarchists, etc.

If we could restart humanity and purposely suppress capitalism, it might work.

But we'll never, ever become a truly socialist country, even though with the way AI is, we really should.

Human greed will always fuck it up. Human nature, rather. Out of 100 people, 80 may be content to do their share. But the other 20 will want a) to be better relatively, b) more, c) control. What are you going to do about the people who will lean into grabbing for power, who emerge as the leaders, who have ambition?

And I mean in theory I really like socialism/communism. We all do our own part, we all own roughly the same amount of material things, we're all distributed by need not want, we all share our labor. But that kind of world isn't good for people who aren't satisfied by the status quo. Plus, there's way less innovation because there's less motivation to do so (money).

And what I'm really getting at here is that the people who truly believe in those systems should not be in power because it's clear they're not pragmatic nor live in reality. I want ruthless, intelligent leaders that operate from a basis of realism, understanding the limits of what they're given, making the best of a bad situation.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
And what I'm really getting at here is that the people who truly believe in those systems should not be in power because it's clear they're not pragmatic nor live in reality.
Nah, they live in reality and are pragmatic. No leftists think that we'll have socialism within our lifetimes however we will work towards it. Furthermore, like I said, we live in reality and feel the oppression put upon us by capitalism and know that the system must be dismantled. Capitalism hasn't been here since the dawn of time and it won't last until we are all gone... unless it continues to kill us through climate change.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
If we could restart humanity and purposely suppress capitalism, it might work.

But we'll never, ever become a truly socialist country, even though with the way AI is, we really should.

Human greed will always fuck it up. Human nature, rather. Out of 100 people, 80 may be content to do their share. But the other 20 will want a) to be better relatively, b) more, c) control. What are you going to do about the people who will lean into grabbing for power, who emerge as the leaders, who have ambition?

And I mean in theory I really like socialism/communism. We all do our own part, we all own roughly the same amount of material things, we're all distributed by need not want, we all share our labor. But that kind of world isn't good for people who aren't satisfied by the status quo. Plus, there's way less innovation because there's less motivation to do so (money).

And what I'm really getting at here is that the people who truly believe in those systems should not be in power because it's clear they're not pragmatic nor live in reality. I want ruthless, intelligent leaders that operate from a basis of realism, understanding the limits of what they're given, making the best of a bad situation.

This argument has never made any sense to me.

"I believe that humanity is plagued with grasping sociopaths. Therefore I'd like to ensure we have a system which is designed to have marked power and wealth disparities, rather than a system explicitly designed to reduce power and wealth disparities."

If you think 20% of humans are selfish, you should want a system that heavily restricts the benefits you can get from being selfish, and social norms that heavily discourage being selfish, so that sociopaths learn to mimic those norms!
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,105
This argument has never made any sense to me.

"I believe that humanity is plagued with grasping sociopaths. Therefore I'd like to ensure we have a system which is designed to have marked power and wealth disparities, rather than a system explicitly designed to reduce power and wealth disparities."

If you think 20% of humans are selfish, you should want a system that heavily restricts the benefits you can get from being selfish, and social norms that heavily discourage being selfish, so that sociopaths learn to mimic those norms!
Because one system is shit but encourages those of decent moral character to still be interested in seeking power.

The other leaves a power vacuum and discourages those of decent moral character from seeking to fill it, leaving only that 20% to grab power.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Because one system is shit but encourages those of decent moral character to still be interested in seeking power.

The other leaves a power vacuum and discourages those of decent moral character from seeking to fill it, leaving only that 20% to grab power.

You're going to need to expand on both those points quite a bit, because I don't think any of that is correct.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
The year ion wasn't whether someone was challenging her from the left but whether or not there are reasons progressives might not want her and there are reasons.
The problem is that there's the hypothetical question of "is Pelosi a perfect candidate" and the practical question of "is there someone better than Pelosi who's challenging her and deserves our support." Of course Pelosi can be better, everyone can be better. Bernie Sanders can be better.

The problem is with people who demand anyone but Pelosi and then refuse to offer up any decent alternatives, or at least ones who want to run. If Barbara Lee or John Lewis or someone decided they wanted the job, then sure, that's a worthwhile question and I could see myself supporting them over her. But the Congresspeople pushing against Pelosi are doing so from her right, and they don't even have a candidate. Their only name (Marcia Fudge) just endorsed her. It's useless.

Throwing out a couple issues that Pelosi hasn't been great on to "prove" that she's not a true liberal is similarly operating in that hypothetical. She's one of the most progressive members of Congress. If someone is 90% liberal and 10% conservative I'm going to call that person a liberal.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,105
You're going to need to expand on both those points quite a bit, because I don't think any of that is correct.

1st. Can we accept as true that shitty people are going to grab for power no matter the situation?

2nd. Can we accept as true that it is not only those with wealth and power capable of destructive greed?

3. Can we accept as true there are people who, if given wealth and power, will choose to do right by others?

If you can accept all three of these as being true, my argument is this:
A system designed to encourage the procurement of wealth and power is going to encourage people from category 1 to push back on power grabs from other people in category one (at least until they learn to fleece everyone) and encourage people in category 3 to pursue power and wealth and do something good with it. The system is still shit, but there is at least some mitigation. Moreover, everyone expects oothers to be trying to screw them over and are on guard for it.

A system that discourages the pursuit of wealth and power is just going to end up with the worst people obtaining what little restricted wealth and power there is then turning it towards creating a system worse than the alternative by exploiting the willingness of people in category 2 to do whatever benefits them most. Expanding the value of wealth and power while keeping the same social structures in place in terms of the morality of seeking wealth and power.

Edit: In a system that limits wealth and power the most powerful people are the ones who control the education, the religion, and the police/military. You can't guarantee all of them are decent people.
 
Last edited:

Madison

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,388
Lima, Peru
Human nature, rather.

Nah m8

I know why you think that but its just a wellspread myth. Most of this "human nature" shit is usually talked about with little to no academic backing

Where are the receipts for diagnosting all of humanity

I also dont think that socialism is achievable in a short time span but it has more to do with the difficulties of changing the entire economic model, not because of what humans can and cant do.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
The problem is that there's the hypothetical question of "is Pelosi a perfect candidate" and the practical question of "is there someone better than Pelosi who's challenging her and deserves our support." Of course Pelosi can be better, everyone can be better. Bernie Sanders can be better.

The problem is with people who demand anyone but Pelosi and then refuse to offer up any decent alternatives, or at least ones who want to run. If Barbara Lee or John Lewis or someone decided they wanted the job, then sure, that's a worthwhile question and I could see myself supporting them over her. But the Congresspeople pushing against Pelosi are doing so from her right, and they don't even have a candidate. Their only name (Marcia Fudge) just endorsed her. It's useless.

Throwing out a couple issues that Pelosi hasn't been great on to "prove" that she's not a true liberal is similarly operating in that hypothetical. She's one of the most progressive members of Congress. If someone is 90% liberal and 10% conservative I'm going to call that person a liberal.
The question was whether or not progressives could have a problem with Pelosi which has been proven. Obviously, we're stuck with Pelosi because the ones we want to be speaker don't want it and like AOC said, Pelosi is the most progressive candidate, but there's nothing wrong in voicing our opinion on the issue.

Those issues weren't to show she wasn't a true liberal, just not as progressive as people are positing. I never denied that she was a liberal.
 

Novel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,933
well, you're just about the only leftist I've ever encountered either online or IRL with your... unique outlook, and fortunately I see no signs of that changing, so good luck with that

Honestly it's not worth even responding to pigeon.


I haven't read all of this thread, so someone may have mentioned this, but

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...d32e182a3bc_story.html?utm_term=.f6123226ec46

This was happening.

Wait, but, you have to be a sexist white dude if you have any critique of how the party should go in the future. / s
 

Novel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,933

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
The question was whether or not progressives could have a problem with Pelosi which has been proven. Obviously, we're stuck with Pelosi because the ones we want to be speaker don't want it and like AOC said, Pelosi is the most progressive candidate, but there's nothing wrong in voicing our opinion on the issue.

Those issues weren't to show she wasn't a true liberal, just not as progressive as people are positing. I never denied that she was a liberal.
psst progressive and liberal mean the same thing in the American vernacular and trying to distinguish the two is dumb
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
Constant meaningless buzz words because you don't like someone criticizing the Democrats is just complaining.

Constant? This is like my first post in this conversation? If you want to make a word meaningless I guess misusing it like that could do it. As far as why I'm criticizing Helios, it certainly isn't about being critical about Democrats. The lack of pragmaticism while supporting candidates like Ocasio-Cortez is hilarious. Thankfully she doesn't follow the nonsensical attitudes of some of her supporters.
 

Alucrid

Chicken Photographer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,423
i'm glad more neoprogressives are gaining ground in the democratic party
 

Novel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,933
Constant? This is like my first post in this conversation? If you want to make a word meaningless I guess misusing it like that could do it. As far as why I'm criticizing Helios, it certainly isn't about being critical about Democrats. The lack of pragmaticism while supporting candidates like Ocasio-Cortez is hilarious. Thankfully she doesn't follow the nonsensical attitudes of some of her supporters.

I'm referring to the plethora of people, yourself included and not just you, using "purity test" because you don't like criticism of the Democratic party. Which is literally all they're doing. Hell, Helio even acknowledged Pelosi being like the only one running for it to go with. Doesn't mean she and the Democratic party are without a hella lot of criticism. So what is "purity testy" about this. Are you even reading people's posts? This is why it reads to me like you're angry over the criticism. You used a buzzword when it doesn't even make sense to apply. So, sorry not sorry, you didn't "gotcha" me. Your pragmatism argument is just head-scratchy and reeks of dismissal of possibility and progress.
 
Last edited: