I mean, in American political fights you are.
After the Republicans are dead and dusted and the fascists defeated I'll happily become the new "right-wing" in America. Until then we have to Ally ourselves.
Fascism is the enemy.
-
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.
After the Republicans are dead and dusted and the fascists defeated I'll happily become the new "right-wing" in America. Until then we have to Ally ourselves.
Fascism is the enemy.
If liberals could stop passing the fascist's war budgets that'd be great.
Edit:
No. I won't bicker. You can think I crossed a line by engaging with the community if you wish. I genuinely don't think you understand how much you turn-off people by calling them names, and calling the places they hang out "cesspool" (it's not like it's Gaf). But that's your problem. I apologise.
I'm going to guess the "piece of complete garbage" is Bloomberg, to which I would say a vast majority of Center Left, Moderate, and Liberal Democrats would agree with you--as evidenced by the fact that he spent $600 million on ads and won almost nothing on Super Tuesday. Yes, any result more than 0% is disappointing, but there will always be some support for any candidate. That being said, Warren is largely the most preferred candidate in PoliERA, the downside is that she clearly doesn't stand a chance now, and I think her and Bernie occupying the Left Wing of the party probably hurt them both quite a bit.
So the problem with this is that we haven't really had a choice. The way budgets work prevents Democrats from realistically passing a budget that doesn't include compromises, and throwing a few billion at defense spending is a good way to get Republicans to give on things like paid family leave and pay increases for Federal Employees. You cannot pick and choose pieces to omit from voting, as convenient as that would be (and also terrifying with Republicans in charge). The budget is voted on in its entirety, and then the funds are released when with the NDAA when convenient. The downside is that if you don't have a budget, the government shuts down, and people start missing their unemployment checks, their social security checks, their medicare/medicaid payments, etc. That's not good for working class people--for some of them, it could literally ruin their lives.
There has been exactly one person who advocated for increased defense spending throughout this primary season--Micheal Bloomberg--and he was booed when he talked about it. Under Obama, defense spending--and spending as a whole--dropped from a high $784 billion in 2010 to $606 billion in 2017. You may correctly point out Obama took office in 2009, well he leveraged increased defense spending to get the stimulus package rolling to stop the economic free fall we were in. It was basically trading a slight increase in defense spending for Payroll Tax Deductions, Unemployment Insurance, Job Placement Programs, and bail outs. This is in contrast to what Republicans wanted, which was basically massive tax cuts, gutting unemployment insurance, and cutting money from Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid. The hitch for most of the modern era, has been the Senate. Now that we're basically in an era where we're just going to abolish the filibuster, Democrats can stop these compromises. If they hold the House and take the Senate, they can pass the budget they want, which will certainly include cuts to Defense spending.
I haven't visited this thread before, but I like the way the wind is blowing round these parts.
Let me start by saying that I'm running a high fever for 3 days now so forgive me if my points might not appear very clear or coherent
What I'm trying to say is that if we're disagree on the fundamental origins of the problems we may have common fights and common enemies but we can't be allies. We want radically different solutions to problems. You might think we need to ally to defeat fascism, but some might say that you can't really defeat fascism in a liberal framework. You might vote out Donald Trump but that's not nearly enough because this is a wound that is festering.
Even then the american left is mostly trying to work within the broken system, as evidenced by the fact that Sanders is proposing a socdem platform, only with leftist rethoric.
I'm just saying that trying to claim we're on the same side because you prefer a leftwing (rhetorically, because his policies are socdem) isn't a very strong point. If you came to me and told me "we both dislike hitler, we have something in common" I don't find that very interesting.
I think a fundamental part of the problem is that many liberals refuse to analyze the role of media in shaping their views, you might think a vote is some absolutely personal decision but america has been manufacturing consent for a long time. A lot of people will say that they've seen fox news brainwash some of their relatives but they can't or won't consider the fact that many of their own views are not really theirs.
I don't watch that much media...so no.
And perhaps your views are shaped by something else as well? Perhaps your views aren't your own?
The silliest thing you could do is claim that you're immune to propaganda. I'm not and you're not.
I know.
How do you know you're not also captured?
How are you certain we can't be allies? How are you certain of anything then?
Because saying I am part of the problem and need to be treated as an enemy is exactly why leftism isn't as popular as it should be.
I literally just said that I'm also not immune to propaganda.
I'm not calling you an enemy, but as I said if we fundamentally disagree on the causes of the problems we can't work together on a real solution
It's not just the media, you need to go deeper. It's the idealist/materialist divide on the conception of history that makes it difficult to bring progressive/liberal capitalists over to this side. Feels like we talk past each other half the time.
Right. People acting like they don't go to school or interact with anyone
I would say the ways in which we share views are way more vast than just disapproving of Hitler. I think Liberals and Socialists have the same general goals, just the how to achieve them possibly being very different. Concepts like increased wages, increased worker rights, lower income inequality, universal healthcare, stronger safety nets, etc--are not foreign to the Left/Center Left of the Democratic Party. I will concede that the Democratic Party has done a poor job adjusting to the politics of the times, and hasn't been doing well accomplishing those goals since LBJ. I think the key difference is that Liberal voters have advocated for these concepts the whole time--it's just the political system was in flux, and Dem's let themselves get fooled into negotiating with bad faith actors for 2-3 decades.
Liberals very much acknowledge the role of Media in the political process, I just think the issue is we don't think it's nearly as dominant as some of the people around here may think. If anything, the Super Tuesday results kind of reject this notion of mass media being able to control voters--Micheal Bloomberg spent $600 million on ads in all the ST states, and got pretty much nothing for it. His polling numbers saw a spike for some time, but that support clearly wasn't strong, because when it came election day he underperformed in every state pretty badly.
We live in a time where that concept is a bit... odd to me. The problem as I see with society right now, is that the Internet has allowed us to nurture whatever views we want, and the algorithms of YT/Google/FB/etc. push people towards the extremes. But this is occurring to everyone across the political spectrum, and I don't think it erases the concept of voters having agency. It may have just accelerated partisanship in the American political system--a lot of the early Tea Party organizing was done via Facebook for example. I think Social Media can be a phenomenal tool, but people use and misuse it pretty badly. I do make it a point to engage with dissenting views (I'm sure you could see I'm not what would pass for a Socialist here, just reaching out and trying to understand some things) specifically to challenge my own views and determine if I believe them or if I've just accepted certain things. I'm aware not everyone does that, but if your entire worldview is that American voters are manipulated by the media and cannot be influenced otherwise, that's a pretty bleak proposition.
this is actually the most important part but watch the libs in the thread skate right past it
when you actually dig into what an idealist historiography can actually produce you begin to find out what an intellectually barren framework liberalism is.
like half my combative attitude is that my impression most people who post in poliera have no formal training in history/sociology/political economy but condescend to people who do and are trying to share perspectives
at that point i go fuck it time to shitpost
I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you using that as an allegory to imply that the division between Progressive/Liberal Capitalists and Socialists is that they are inherently opposed, and for one to be "right" the other by necessity must be "wrong"? Or saying that Capitalists are Idealists and Socialists are Materialists? It's hard to proceed without knowing which one you're presenting.
I would also say it shouldn't be about converting people if that's what you mean by "bring ... over to this side". What I've been saying is that you can have mutually achievable goals despite not sharing every fiber ideologically. I stated several such examples, and we have several examples to draw from that indicate it's possible for the two to co-exist and work together towards mutual goals.
I mean, there's a third option. Which is to present a compelling argument with the possibility of changing peoples minds. You don't need to be combative, and in fact almost all research on the subject indicates being combative makes people exponentially less likely to respect or acknowledge your argument.
Fascism is the enemy you say, while not realizing liberal capitalism is a pipeline to fascism.
Remember when Bernie was leading and the DNC basically said they wouldn't mind destroying the party just to stop him? It was a beautiful mask-off moment, they would give the fascist four more years to stop incremental social democracy. Not even socialism! But the potential of the most basic social democratic policies that already exist in every first-world (and even some third world) countries.
"Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds."
You can even see it right now with how so many people on this very forums are supporting Biden and his neoliberal agenda. Biden isn't going to solve the problems that led to Trump (nor does he want to), he will only continue to perpetuate the systems that allowed someone like Trump to ascend in the first place.
So because I have nothing better to do on my lunch break, TheHunter, I want to make an appeal to you, as a leftist to a liberal.
Let's set aside everything that goes on between us and this forum and the silly political arguments.
Let's talk about what communism is.
A year ago, I was pretty on board with socialist rhetoric. I wanted to seize the means of production. I wanted to make the ruling class pay for the havoc they've wrecked on people and the planet. I wanted to liberate the marginalized. I still do. But I was hung up on communism. Communism, like socialism, is a broad banner with many ideologies under it. But in America you're raised to believe that communism was evil at best, failed at worst, and Karl Marx was an insane Ayn Rand-like figure but for the left. That Marxism is responsible for the death of millions around the world. That compromise is the way. Incremental change.
To this, I say, and what I eventually came to terms with: communism is socialism. In Marx's day, they effectively meant the same thing. It wasn't until the rise of the USSR that communism as something distinct really materialized. But communists were part of the American labor movement for much of the early 20th century. They are the reason we "only" work 40 hours a week. They have been there for strikes, for civil rights, for all the big movements. Civil Rights especially.
The strain of communism that most people are aware of is Marxism-Leninism. This is USSR, Cuba, China, etc. Typically authoritarian in nature and what people think of when they think of communism. There are many disagreements in leftist communities about the validity of ML doctrine. I have complicated feelings on it myself. I certainly view the human rights violations that went on under the USSR as worth condemning. The gulags, the secret police. But it's wrong to view these in a vacuum. The United States was subjecting half of the country to an apartheid state with its black citizens. They were interning Japanese citizens. They were crushing labor movements. Funding Nazis. Destabilizing communist regimes around the world.
This isn't a play at whataboutism. The USSR owns its failures. So does China, Cuba, and other similar states. But I guarantee if the communists won the Cold War, in 2020 we would talk about the United States in barbaric terms in the same way we often do with the USSR. They'd condemn the homelessness, the poverty, the lynchings and racial oppression. Here's the thing with revolutionaries like Lenin and Che; they were revolutionaries, not superheroes. They were real human beings and made choices and decisions in their revolutions that not everyone is gonna like. War is messy. In today's world, these type of revolutionaries and figureheads are not allowed a "complicated" narrative. Obama, Clinton, even Henry Kissinger, have done more material damage to the world than people like Fidel Castro ever have. But they're our messy heroes, so they're allowed a "complicated" narrative. To say nothing of people like Bush and Reagan. The death toll of capitalism and neoliberalism is never given the same weight as the death toll of communism. If we wait for the romantic revolutionary who does everything morally sound (in a way that adheres to liberalism) we will wait until the world is underwater.
That said, I have no love for the USSR myself or similar regimes. I'm an anarchist. To which I would like to pivot to my own brand of communism, anarcho-communism. The belief that the state exists primarily to defend private property and protect the ruling class. I want to imagine a society where we work together as people and communities, not as nation states at war. I came to this conclusion when I realized a communist United States would mean the global south still suffers, and I reject that. I want to liberate all of the world and its people. This is an essential core of much of Marx's work.
Which brings me to climate change. Everyone's afraid of climate change. I have no reason to believe capitalism, even "controlled" capitalism will be able to stop climate change in any meaningful way. Capitalism by its nature requires excess production so the ruling class can maintain their profit margin. For the future of humanity, corporations and their hierarchies have to be abolished. Simply too much is at stake. These are scary times.
Yet, I have hope. I'm sure many view internet leftists as weirdos obsessed with guillotines and Stalin. Yet I have personally witnessed leftists of all stripes - socialists, communists, anarchists, democratic socialists, Marxists, and yes, even Marxist-Leninists - all get behind Bernie Sanders and cheer him on. He is limited by having to operate as a candidate within a capitalist country, but his campaign is dripping in Marxist and revolutionary ideology. That is a huge reason socialists have backed him. He is the one advocating for class war, condemning America's role in regime change, saying workers should have democratic ownerships of their workplaces. He is planting these seeds in the American conscious. All of those people of different stripes want to help the poor and the marginalized. They are scary because they're angry. Bernie is fanning those flames of anger and hopefully the fire burns even brighter going forward.
But it's a long, hard fight ahead of us, and I said earlier in this thread I want to reach out and do more activism and education. That's why I'm writing this post to you, so you can honestly understand what communism is, what it's been before, and what it could be. A lot of this might seem radical and scary to you. That's okay. You don't have to agree to all of it, or any of it. But I want you to read this, and really sit and think on it. Think about where we're coming from. If you're a liberal that frequently posts in the Socialism OT, I want you to make an honest attempt to think about what socialism means in all of its forms, even the scary Soviet commies.
If nothing I've written here convinced you, I'm going to link a post sphagnum wrote a little over a year ago that more or less convinced me to stop being afraid of communism. I read this post and thought "why am I afraid of communism if someone who I agree with almost entirely considers himself a communist?"
xenocide, if you want to understand too, please read both this post and the post I linked. I want everyone reading this thread who is on the fence, who doesn't like the scary leftists, or is convinced liberalism and capitalism can be redeemed, to read what I've written and the linked post. You don't have to immediately respond. Think hard about what's at stake, and what can be accomplished going forward. This is my plea. Don't give in to the idea that humans are inherently selfish or we're all doomed so we just have to constantly mitigate the damage done by the wheels of the machine.
Destroy the machine.
Let's set aside everything that goes on between us and this forum and the silly political arguments.
Let's talk about what communism is.
A year ago, I was pretty on board with socialist rhetoric. I wanted to seize the means of production. I wanted to make the ruling class pay for the havoc they've wrecked on people and the planet. I wanted to liberate the marginalized. I still do. But I was hung up on communism. Communism, like socialism, is a broad banner with many ideologies under it. But in America you're raised to believe that communism was evil at best, failed at worst, and Karl Marx was an insane Ayn Rand-like figure but for the left. That Marxism is responsible for the death of millions around the world. That compromise is the way. Incremental change.
To this, I say, and what I eventually came to terms with: communism is socialism. In Marx's day, they effectively meant the same thing. It wasn't until the rise of the USSR that communism as something distinct really materialized. But communists were part of the American labor movement for much of the early 20th century. They are the reason we "only" work 40 hours a week. They have been there for strikes, for civil rights, for all the big movements. Civil Rights especially.
The strain of communism that most people are aware of is Marxism-Leninism. This is USSR, Cuba, China, etc. Typically authoritarian in nature and what people think of when they think of communism. There are many disagreements in leftist communities about the validity of ML doctrine. I have complicated feelings on it myself. I certainly view the human rights violations that went on under the USSR as worth condemning. The gulags, the secret police. But it's wrong to view these in a vacuum. The United States was subjecting half of the country to an apartheid state with its black citizens. They were interning Japanese citizens. They were crushing labor movements. Funding Nazis. Destabilizing communist regimes around the world.
This isn't a play at whataboutism. The USSR owns its failures. So does China, Cuba, and other similar states. But I guarantee if the communists won the Cold War, in 2020 we would talk about the United States in barbaric terms in the same way we often do with the USSR. They'd condemn the homelessness, the poverty, the lynchings and racial oppression. Here's the thing with revolutionaries like Lenin and Che; they were revolutionaries, not superheroes. They were real human beings and made choices and decisions in their revolutions that not everyone is gonna like. War is messy. In today's world, these type of revolutionaries and figureheads are not allowed a "complicated" narrative. Obama, Clinton, even Henry Kissinger, have done more material damage to the world than people like Fidel Castro ever have. But they're our messy heroes, so they're allowed a "complicated" narrative. To say nothing of people like Bush and Reagan. The death toll of capitalism and neoliberalism is never given the same weight as the death toll of communism. If we wait for the romantic revolutionary who does everything morally sound (in a way that adheres to liberalism) we will wait until the world is underwater.
That said, I have no love for the USSR myself or similar regimes. I'm an anarchist. To which I would like to pivot to my own brand of communism, anarcho-communism. The belief that the state exists primarily to defend private property and protect the ruling class. I want to imagine a society where we work together as people and communities, not as nation states at war. I came to this conclusion when I realized a communist United States would mean the global south still suffers, and I reject that. I want to liberate all of the world and its people. This is an essential core of much of Marx's work.
Which brings me to climate change. Everyone's afraid of climate change. I have no reason to believe capitalism, even "controlled" capitalism will be able to stop climate change in any meaningful way. Capitalism by its nature requires excess production so the ruling class can maintain their profit margin. For the future of humanity, corporations and their hierarchies have to be abolished. Simply too much is at stake. These are scary times.
Yet, I have hope. I'm sure many view internet leftists as weirdos obsessed with guillotines and Stalin. Yet I have personally witnessed leftists of all stripes - socialists, communists, anarchists, democratic socialists, Marxists, and yes, even Marxist-Leninists - all get behind Bernie Sanders and cheer him on. He is limited by having to operate as a candidate within a capitalist country, but his campaign is dripping in Marxist and revolutionary ideology. That is a huge reason socialists have backed him. He is the one advocating for class war, condemning America's role in regime change, saying workers should have democratic ownerships of their workplaces. He is planting these seeds in the American conscious. All of those people of different stripes want to help the poor and the marginalized. They are scary because they're angry. Bernie is fanning those flames of anger and hopefully the fire burns even brighter going forward.
But it's a long, hard fight ahead of us, and I said earlier in this thread I want to reach out and do more activism and education. That's why I'm writing this post to you, so you can honestly understand what communism is, what it's been before, and what it could be. A lot of this might seem radical and scary to you. That's okay. You don't have to agree to all of it, or any of it. But I want you to read this, and really sit and think on it. Think about where we're coming from. If you're a liberal that frequently posts in the Socialism OT, I want you to make an honest attempt to think about what socialism means in all of its forms, even the scary Soviet commies.
If nothing I've written here convinced you, I'm going to link a post sphagnum wrote a little over a year ago that more or less convinced me to stop being afraid of communism. I read this post and thought "why am I afraid of communism if someone who I agree with almost entirely considers himself a communist?"
xenocide, if you want to understand too, please read both this post and the post I linked. I want everyone reading this thread who is on the fence, who doesn't like the scary leftists, or is convinced liberalism and capitalism can be redeemed, to read what I've written and the linked post. You don't have to immediately respond. Think hard about what's at stake, and what can be accomplished going forward. This is my plea. Don't give in to the idea that humans are inherently selfish or we're all doomed so we just have to constantly mitigate the damage done by the wheels of the machine.
Destroy the machine.
Last edited:
My response as someone who likes the ideas of leftism (and was briefly a dues-paying member of Democratic Socialists of DC but they put their meetings at the most wack times and places), I think that electoral incrementalism is the only way. Bolshevism and its followings weren't born from nothing, they were born from what they felt as a necessity, that the people could not be trusted to go to socialism on their own and needed a vanguard party to guide them through the destruction of capitalism and the state.
The core problem is that many people are trapped in false consciousnesses, whether race or religion, nationalism, or being more sympathetic with capitalists than with fellow workers. Democracy fails in achieving socialist aims because the people don't want it, at least, not all at once and not in the way it's been offered.
Now, I can't speak for what should be done globally to advance a socialist agenda, but my read on US politics is that the main barrier to socialism has always been poor white racists, many of whom would rather die than see black people live with dignity. While some of them can be reformed, perhaps, a mass awakening of class consciousness among these people is simply off the table.
Therefore, in the U.S. context the only approach is to build an electoral coalition that isolates those white racists and makes them electorally irrelevant. No progress is to be made while they have a shot at national power. This is especially relevant because of the nature of the US government with the undemocratic Senate. A hypothetical President Bernie looks a lot like any other hypothetical president in terms of legislation. If we don't get the Senate, then the whole term is wasted aside from cleaning up a bit of Trump's mess. If we get the Senate, then we get legislation precisely as liberal as Manchin and Sinema will allow. This is why the work of building a broad national coalition is crucial, without a tent big enough to include the Senate then you might as well sit around and play Fire Emblem for 90 hours because you'll get just as much accomplished.
The Democratic party has been moving left in response to its base moving left. I don't have faith that this will continue indefinitely, but any Democrat in this day and age is a trustworthy fellow traveler until the threat of white nationalism has been permanently marginalized.
And because we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can work on achieving socialist aims where possible, on a smaller scale. Folks like AOC and Ilhan Omar, or Jessica Cisneros (alas) are the perfect vanguard for this. There are many places in this country that *are* ready for democratic socialism, and the more it gets embedded, the easier it is to spread.
The solution to the Bolshevik paradox is to *acclimate* the people to socialism. This has been happening in a painfully slow way for the past 100 years, and you have things like Medicare and Social Security that have become a third rail. Other things can become like that, if we work at it, and working from the bottom up makes them more resilient to change than working from the top down.
Yeah, there is the problem of climate change, but that almost is what it is at this point. Either the world gets its act together or it doesn't. That's too many spinning plates for activists in one country to be daunted by.
The core problem is that many people are trapped in false consciousnesses, whether race or religion, nationalism, or being more sympathetic with capitalists than with fellow workers. Democracy fails in achieving socialist aims because the people don't want it, at least, not all at once and not in the way it's been offered.
Now, I can't speak for what should be done globally to advance a socialist agenda, but my read on US politics is that the main barrier to socialism has always been poor white racists, many of whom would rather die than see black people live with dignity. While some of them can be reformed, perhaps, a mass awakening of class consciousness among these people is simply off the table.
Therefore, in the U.S. context the only approach is to build an electoral coalition that isolates those white racists and makes them electorally irrelevant. No progress is to be made while they have a shot at national power. This is especially relevant because of the nature of the US government with the undemocratic Senate. A hypothetical President Bernie looks a lot like any other hypothetical president in terms of legislation. If we don't get the Senate, then the whole term is wasted aside from cleaning up a bit of Trump's mess. If we get the Senate, then we get legislation precisely as liberal as Manchin and Sinema will allow. This is why the work of building a broad national coalition is crucial, without a tent big enough to include the Senate then you might as well sit around and play Fire Emblem for 90 hours because you'll get just as much accomplished.
The Democratic party has been moving left in response to its base moving left. I don't have faith that this will continue indefinitely, but any Democrat in this day and age is a trustworthy fellow traveler until the threat of white nationalism has been permanently marginalized.
And because we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can work on achieving socialist aims where possible, on a smaller scale. Folks like AOC and Ilhan Omar, or Jessica Cisneros (alas) are the perfect vanguard for this. There are many places in this country that *are* ready for democratic socialism, and the more it gets embedded, the easier it is to spread.
The solution to the Bolshevik paradox is to *acclimate* the people to socialism. This has been happening in a painfully slow way for the past 100 years, and you have things like Medicare and Social Security that have become a third rail. Other things can become like that, if we work at it, and working from the bottom up makes them more resilient to change than working from the top down.
Yeah, there is the problem of climate change, but that almost is what it is at this point. Either the world gets its act together or it doesn't. That's too many spinning plates for activists in one country to be daunted by.
In line with typical online pop liberal commentary, you present a very narrow and relatively inconsequential reason for why leftism has struggled to make strides. There's an entire hegemony that selects against collectivist paradigms of socialism and promotes a way of acting and thinking in terms that are conducive to capitalism on a societal level.
Media and propaganda, as important as they are, actually just play within that boundry
Last edited:
Also, let me preface this next part by saying...
I have long since hated guns. Hated the idea of these tools that are designed to kill en masse, hated mass shootings, hated the concept of holding one, hated how the NRA has a chokehold on this country. I went to a shooting range with my family once and at the last second refused to hold a gun. So I don't say what I'm about to say lightly.
I think the left should seriously consider arming themselves as a defensive measure.
Not to fight the police (who will outgun us). Not to fight the military (who will definitely outgun us). Not to go attack anybody or wage war. But if we build massive leftist coalitions across the country, the fascists will come for us. And they won't come with tiki torches. They'll come with guns. Ideally, leftists will never have to pull the trigger. Armed leftists could be enough of a deterrent from chucklefuck Nazis. Otherwise if all we have are megaphones and clipboards, we are incredibly vulnerable even if we build a lot of cultural power. This must be done safely and smartly, though. I personally would never wield a gun by choice.
Also, here's the good news: if you want stricter gun laws, I can't think of anything that would get the government on board with that quicker than a massive group of angry leftists with guns that hate capital.
I have long since hated guns. Hated the idea of these tools that are designed to kill en masse, hated mass shootings, hated the concept of holding one, hated how the NRA has a chokehold on this country. I went to a shooting range with my family once and at the last second refused to hold a gun. So I don't say what I'm about to say lightly.
I think the left should seriously consider arming themselves as a defensive measure.
Not to fight the police (who will outgun us). Not to fight the military (who will definitely outgun us). Not to go attack anybody or wage war. But if we build massive leftist coalitions across the country, the fascists will come for us. And they won't come with tiki torches. They'll come with guns. Ideally, leftists will never have to pull the trigger. Armed leftists could be enough of a deterrent from chucklefuck Nazis. Otherwise if all we have are megaphones and clipboards, we are incredibly vulnerable even if we build a lot of cultural power. This must be done safely and smartly, though. I personally would never wield a gun by choice.
Also, here's the good news: if you want stricter gun laws, I can't think of anything that would get the government on board with that quicker than a massive group of angry leftists with guns that hate capital.
This is a paradox I've debated, especially since a few folks in my facebook feed are pro-2A lefties.
The idea I keep coming back to is that if it comes to that point, of needing weapons, then we're already screwed. It's not just from a moralistic standpoint of Violence Is Bad (though of course it is), but that where violence enters into the political equation, it takes a long, long time for it to leave it, and leaves deep and lasting scars. Look at Irish politics, for example. Though the country has been peaceful since the civil war their politics are still defined by it.
I do wonder if anyone, including the militia wannabes out there (outside of cases who are fringe even among their ranks) really have the appetite for a sustained terrorist campaign. People love the incendiary rhetoric, but blessedly there seems to be relatively little stomach to act on it, compared to the tone of the online hate and how widespread it is.
It's definitely a precarious situation and one where the pros and cons need to heavily be weighed. The idea isn't "let's shoot some Nazis," it's "let's call their bluff and make them blink." Stuff like Heather Heyer's death and the gun freaks storming capitol buildings recently weighs on me. I just wanted to put the talking point out there.
I mean the reasons are many(both fair and bullshit), but this online asshole, chapo styled leftism is not going to win you anything but scorn and mockery.
It's overblown. No matter how minuscule a percentage of "chapos" there are. That is propaganda at work.
So this will likely get a bit long winded, I apologize if it gets incomprehensible or confusing in any way.
For starters; I read that post from Sphagnum. It was informative in a lot of ways, but I think there are several glaring flaws that are not addressed, and they seem to consistently come up when I consider the prospect of a transition from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism.
- Firstly, the argument for "Human Nature". I will agree that what we perceive to be human nature is largely dependent on the societal structure within a given time frame. That being said, I think disregarding the entire body of science which indicates evolution has lead to certain physiological traits that inform human behavior, is somewhere between naive and dangerous. The idea that "greed" is inherently a part of human nature being rebuked by the hunter-gatherer societies functioning fine without it, ignores the most basic bits of context--there was no time for greed when every day was a struggle to survive. This is later hinted at with the topic of scarcity, but it's also impossible for us to really know if greed was present in those days because it was before the common era, and before we had historical records. The entire concept mentioned as "primitive communism" is basically the middle ground between animal packs and what we would consider modern sociological systems. It was unity for the sake of survival, during a time frame when humans were basically tool-using animals. If we're going to reduce down to the most basic of elements, I think there's an additional step that can be added. He states the following;
I would say there's an additional step that is missing. I would argue, humans are naturally self-serving. In that point in history it benefited the individual to follow the pack/tribe. It allowed greater access to resources, and an increased chance of survival by allowing more access to food and safety in numbers. Given that humans are naturally self-serving, it makes the appeal of capitalism a lot more apparent, and explains why in a post-scarcity society, capitalism is the prevailing socio-economic system. I would say the challenge of the last ~120 years has been harnessing that in a way that is beneficial to everyone. This is where I would imagine Socialism is intended to step in, but we've had mixed results with that.
- Secondly, the Cucuteni-Trypillia (hereby referred to as "CT" since it's easier to type) and early egalitarian Communist societies. So I've heard this referenced often, and I always have a hard time squaring it with certain details. For starters, if the only effective communist society is one that existed 10,000 - 5,200 years ago, it doesn't bode well for the entire concept. I can't remember specifically which people, but there were several groups in the Caribbean and South/Central America in the 1500-1600's that had similar models according to Howard Zinn's A People's History Of The United States, and that may be appealing example. They functioned similarly as an egalitarian society that didn't have many of the social constructs we saw in Europe at the time.
But getting back to the CT. I think it's hard to compare the world as it existed in 5,000-2,000 BCE to how it exists in the 1900's and onward. There are several benefits to the CT Culture mentioned there, and while they sound great on paper, they fail to address some major concerns.
Firstly, I think it's important to note why the CT Culture eventually vanished. Their system described by Spag stopped working. They had settled into this agriculture-oriented system, and when the environment around them changed, they were forced to adapt the system their neighboring tribes used of nomadism when the soil around them became barren. This could be a compelling analogy for the pending effects of Climate Change to be honest, but it speaks to issues with the long term resiliency of their system. Obviously I understand saying that about a culture that survived for almost 5,000 years seems a bit contradictory, but they survived for ~4,900 years during the best of circumstances, and after a generation of two suffering completely abandoned their way of life that had worked for them for thousands of years.
Next, they had no labor roles, because there weren't a lot of things for human's to really do. Back then it was basically farmers, hunters, fishermen, and I imagine builders--a variety of fairly basic tasks when your only focus is gathering resources. In modern society, the difference between a Doctor and an Engineer is massive. In the pre-Common Era world, Engineer's didn't really exist, and Doctor's were basically people that knew some plants would kill you and you probably shouldn't let all your blood out of you body. What I'm getting at, is that labor specialization allowed technological advancement. When people stopped being the hunter-gatherers out of necessity, we saw any explosion of human development--we developed language, and literature, and art, and mathematics, and eventually modern technology. If people are required to do everything because there's no specified labor roles, I see no way we don't either stagnate or decline technologically. I think Capitalism--when controlled--can provide an incentive for these kinds endeavors into new fields. A lot of advancements were made when people stood to personally benefit from them.
Overall, when we square this with what I previously said, we see that while the system of what is essentially communism worked for them for thousands of years, when it came to ensuring their survival they seemingly abandoned it and moved on to merge with other tribes--most of whom had more structured societies.
- Thirdly, the logistics behind large scale Communism or even Socialism are not great. What I mean by this, is that when your world is only 15,000 ethnically-homogeneous people (the largest size cited for a CT-era settlement), it can absolutely work having a Communist system in place. But what about when you're talking about an 8 million person multi-cultural city? Having no State in place to effectively organize and control resources leads to pure chaos, and a devolution into warring tribalism. You cannot in the modern era have a massive city with a system like that. Additionally, the only success stories we have are from technologically stunted civilizations hundreds or thousands of years ago. The role of technology is a big if when it comes to a Communist society, and as I pointed out, without some concept of labor specialization, how do we really get to that point or maintain or standing technologically once the specialists who designed it have died out? These are the types of concerns I've never been able to get solid answers to, outside of "everyone will learn everything", which I don't think is practical. The world is infinitely more complex than it was several thousand years ago, and as much as I would love to believe any person can learn any amount of information, I have a hard time believing it.
These were the first three things I noticed, there was more, but I don't want this to be too long of a post, and I don't want to be stuck here all night.
Hunter, I would love it if you gave your attention to people who do actual leftist work, maybe even those in your own city. You would find them to be joyful people and good friends. They are not the Chapo types that you rail against. I didn't even know what that was until recently, and don't consider myself akin to them whatsoever.
Related edit: I have read the types of ResetEra posters that you refer to, and they don't really post in this thread. They're just doing their own thing.
Related edit: I have read the types of ResetEra posters that you refer to, and they don't really post in this thread. They're just doing their own thing.
You think those are all "chapos"? Wait a minute, aren't we overlapping a bit where another poster just came in here to tone police about "shitting on other threads and liberals"?
Also, Hunter this fear of "the chapo" you fixate on seems paradoxical with you just encouraging revolution like a page ago. Revolution doesn't happen by people always being nice and cordial.
Last edited:
The difference is I'm not calling all of OT or socialists a cesspool.
I merely said those type of posters are common and a problem. I have constently stood up for socialism era. Ya'll aint the problem, though that comment was un-needed.
No you haven't. Judge people by their actions (and whom they save their focus and criticisms for). You spend more time pushing against leftists for having the temerity to 'teach to far' than you've ever spent rallying against institutional oppression and the systemic issues that are rotting the country from within.
People don't have to post here to be comrades. Many lefty posters outside this thread either associate with this group or probably share our ethos. So no, you being vague and general about leftists outside of here isn't going to be well received off hand unless you want to be more specific.
edit: posting update didn't show up as I was adding this to my last post;
Also, Hunter this fear of "the chapo" you fixate on seems paradoxical with you just encouraging revolution like a page ago. Revolution doesn't happen by people always being nice and cordial.
I would say he's advocating for revolution without belittling and harassing your closest ideological allies. It's the conundrum of letting good or okay be the enemy of perfect. The more people you isolate, the harder it is to get a movement going, unless that movement is in favor of a plurality or majority.
I think Chapo are a bunch of liberal grifters who LARP as revolutionaries, and I think they're not nearly as important as their fans or haters think they are.
I... actually agree with you here. I think they are very big with heavily online "Trollcialists", and the edgelords on the left, and those are the people that seem to be drawing hatred from everyone. I definitely agree they aren't as important as they or their fans think. They've had minimal impact beyond feeding talking points to harassment campaigns from these online trolls. They do have a lot of fans, and their fans are very active.
disingenuous concern trolling about the relevance of 'chapo' leftists or 'toxic' bernie supporters on twitter is nonsense
there are legitimate qualms to be had about such things but acting like it fucking matters at all in the face of rising fascism, impending ecological disaster, and people dying from lack of healthcare (and lack of other basic human rights) or income inequality is wild. like if that and this facade of decorum is your dealbreaker/reason to not support, or ESPECIALLY derive joy from the losses suffered by an ideology & movement based on people fighting for each other's rights to live a decent life regardless of whether you won the birth lottery into wealth & success, and represents the only true way forward following the utter failures of neoliberalism/centrism that have opened the door for rising fascism then idk what to say other than yikes.
also this. i mean the pod is enjoyable but i don't base my ideology or worldview entirely on it lmao
there are legitimate qualms to be had about such things but acting like it fucking matters at all in the face of rising fascism, impending ecological disaster, and people dying from lack of healthcare (and lack of other basic human rights) or income inequality is wild. like if that and this facade of decorum is your dealbreaker/reason to not support, or ESPECIALLY derive joy from the losses suffered by an ideology & movement based on people fighting for each other's rights to live a decent life regardless of whether you won the birth lottery into wealth & success, and represents the only true way forward following the utter failures of neoliberalism/centrism that have opened the door for rising fascism then idk what to say other than yikes.
also this. i mean the pod is enjoyable but i don't base my ideology or worldview entirely on it lmao
Chapo types seem more interested in attacking Dems than the GOP.
We all know the reason for this, yet when it's talked about it's either laughed off or ignored.
it's because dems think they are on the right side of history and Republicans are a write off
or did you have different reason
or did you have different reason
Who are these chapo types that exist in such a large quantity as to derail entire political ideologies to the left of liberalism. The first type I encountered Chapo at all was in Disco Elysium because some of the members do voicework in it.
I mean, I don't derive joy.
I came in here and told you guys to have hope! My point was you have to isolate the "brocialists" so that you scare off less moderates/more socially focused liberals.
When people see Bernie supports (not all of them) defend Joe Rogan as an ally and in the same breathe constantly rail against Liberals, the Dems and "identity politics" you run into problems. Failing to acknowledge that yes that actually does cause messaging problems is a fault.
Racism.
There are a not insignificant chunk of "bernie supporters" who are socially conservative but like economic leftism. This is reflected in the data; people who voted in rural areas for Bernie in the primary voted Trump in the general. They didn't come back this time.
Racism was the reason. Tying that to the above, when we see and hear people wanting to court Joe Rogan types and than turn around and rail against "Neoliberals" you're gonna catch so,me side eye from us. There aren't massive amounts of secret leftists waiting to be activated. If you're going to get your revolution you need to win over their hearts and minds. You don't do that by constantly cutting down any and all leftward movement that falls short of "seize the means of production".
Warren and the vitriol around here is proof of that.
Things people have said, and/or implied about leftists on this site:
It's not lost on me that there's people on this forum (who are very well-off, and often white) tone policing minorities and the not-so well-off. It's also not lost on me that there's very clear power dynamics at play, and that respectability is often asked for, without taking into regard those dynamics.
People have valid reasons to be angry. If you can't meet them at that level, then you're not exactly being progressive.
- That they're a cult
- That they think Sanders is a king, god, can do no wrong.
- That they're a bubble
- That they're racist
- That they're sexist
- That they don't care about trans issues
- That they're class reductionists
- That they're white dudes
It's not lost on me that there's people on this forum (who are very well-off, and often white) tone policing minorities and the not-so well-off. It's also not lost on me that there's very clear power dynamics at play, and that respectability is often asked for, without taking into regard those dynamics.
People have valid reasons to be angry. If you can't meet them at that level, then you're not exactly being progressive.
That's all well and good but all too often "allies", turn out to advocate for atrocious ideas and policy. I suspect the slightest bit of push back and lack of deference for things like coups, warmongering, a punitive authoritarian state, etc... then earns someone "chapo" status.
That's probably because Democrats themselves are often the first roadblock encountered when seeking avenues to justice through party politics. Republicans, in so far as the party and their consultants, are a foregone conclusion.