Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.
It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Claims with decreasing credibility that they want to make life better for anyone. Never actually fucking tries to do it. Keeps finding just enough no votes to make sure it never happens. Blocks anyone from running in their party who actually wants to make anything better.
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Anarcho-Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
You are correct, you are using different terms because in the US liberal is used to talk about the Democrats. Everyone else in the world, including here on Lemmy, uses liberal as in Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, both defend the status quo and wants capitalism to continue.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
Both Republicans and Democrats wants that. They are both funded by US’s billionairies, they both attend to their interests and want this system to continue. I’m not gonna deny that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but they are both still right wing parties in a two-party system.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.
In what ways do the Republicans respect equality before the law? I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Democrats are neoliberal/conservative. I’m more okay describing them as liberal because the voters tend to be, but the party itself is not.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
Capitalism coopts ideology. Liberal voters vote for a Democrat, then capitalists bribe the Democrat to do something else.
What’s ironic is that the objective fact of the genocide in Palestine is built on liberal thought.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
Your criticisms of the Democrats don’t seem to be that they’re liberal, but that they’re not liberal enough.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
“Rights of the individual”, “liberty”, “consent of the governed”, “political equality” and “equality of the law” are meangless buzzwords that should be ignored is an interesting angle.
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective. Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us. Phrases like “If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps”, “if you get sick that’s your own fault”, “if you become homeless that’s your own fault”, etc. It’s never the system in place that prioritizes profit and private property above you. It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
“Liberty” for who? If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism. Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism. They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual? Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution. You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights. Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine. The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
No, I am a liberal. These are my values.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
Perfectly said. Yes this reveals the inherent conflict between capitalism and liberalism.
Liberalism says “homeless should be housed”, capitalism says “I’m not paying for it”.
Liberalism demands the answer “yes you will” but capitalists have bought up all the media and politicians so we don’t have the power to force them.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective.
Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us.
Please separate liberal ideology from capitalist propaganda.
Conflating them like this isn’t going to convince me. The capitalist propaganda is bad, the honest liberal thinkers are not.
If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps,
That’s not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
The idea of “stimulus checks” was a liberal one.
if you get sick that’s your own fault
Not true, healthcare should be a right. You’re the one talking about getting rid of our “supposed” rights.
It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
Okay! That’s an actual argument.
That’s true. Liberalism says “that guys wrong and bad” but there’s nothing they can do until the man breaks the law.
The idea behind this is that this is a limitation in the state, not individuals.
Go punch a nazi. Go tell them to fuck off.
The state won’t do it for you, but the state also won’t censor you in return when you talk about “controversial” stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
If that’s not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
“Liberty” for who?
According to liberalism, for all.
If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
Liberals aren’t supposed to like capitalism. At most, a liberal can tolerate it in the moment while it’s working but that moment has long since passed and capitalism is the main threat to liberalism right now.
Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism.
There is lot in this short bit I need to correct.
The Republicans conserve capitalism because they’re **conservative((.
The Democrats maintain capitalism (instead of progrssing beyond it) because their party is owned by capitalists…
You need money to run a campaign, it’s impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism.
Look at Bill Clinton who is typically the example of a neoliberal.
It’s not a “new” type of liberalism, it’s just centrism.
They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Opposing capitalism doesn’t mean you know more about it.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual?
What liberal ideology says you should do is not exactly equal to what the democrats do nor exactly equal to what John Locke does.
Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution.
Capitalist liberal ideology is a contradiction.
Liberal ideology says all people are equal. Capitalist ideology says people are worth the value they produce.
These cannot coexist at the same time.
To slot them in together, capitalism would need to slice out the very root of liberalism and then wear its skin like cloth. Exactly what they’ve done.
I deny their botched surgery as the original liberalism I believe in.
You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It’s the democrats who are funding it.
Don’t blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights.
Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You’re so bad faith for no reason!
Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
I don’t even know how to respond.
It sounds like you agree with me that Israel is a settler colonial genocidal state who are violating the Palestinians so these last two comments are confusing.
Liberalism agrees with you that genocide is bad.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine.
Yeah
The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
That’s not accurate. I already cited data which shows liberals support Palestine over Israel.
Besides that’s only half the question.
Let’s say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they’d have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
A liberal would typically default into the 2 state solution.
A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn’t be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn’t have the right to violently oppose that.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with.
“Is Israel legitimate?” seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to “are they committing genocide?” is “yes”.
There is no separating capitalism and liberalism because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. You should read the recommendation from comrade Dessalines. You’re arguing for some idealistic version of Liberalism that never existed in the real world. This is not a materialistic view and goes against history itself.
Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
In the US right now? Probably none. Now if you look at China that can be a problem for example, that’s why a milenar system like the Hukou exists. A good example is about rural exodus to urban areas which is a real problem that needs proper tackling, if at a given time it is needed to be controlled, then individual liberties on that should be restricted until the issue is fixed. If that doesn’t happen, you end up with what happened here in Brasil, the formation of favelas.
Also, I got more specific in that same paragraph when I talked about the right of free speech and racism as an example.
That’s not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
You’re misunderstanding me here, I didn’t meant to use that as actual argument, I was citing that as examples of the propaganda itself. I don’t believe these things, I believe the issue is the system. I should have put those between quotation marks, my bad. I’m not gonna respond to the next ones citing that, because I’m not making that argument.
Also, I don’t believe UBI is the answer, as it doesn’t fix the underlying issue, capitalism itself.
The state won’t do it for you, but the state also won’t censor you in return when you talk about “controversial” stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
If that’s not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
Here in Brasil, LGBTphobia, racism and nazism are against the law. It’s that simple. And that’s the bare-minimum.
According to liberalism, for all.
Only on paper, in practice the ones that brought it are the only ones that are free, like I already argued.
Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
All capitalism is heavily regulated. Capitalism cannot exist without state intervention. And competition is a lie. Competition naturally leads to monopolization, it is a contradiction of capitalism.
Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
Capitalism cannot purge liberals, because liberals are proponents of capitalism. Furthermore you seem to think liberalism is opposed to fascism, when historically that has been the exact opposite, every time leftists gathered enough power to challenge the capitalistic system, liberals have turned on us and helped the fascists.
The Republicans conserve capitalism because they’re conservative. The Democrats maintain capitalism.
So, the exact same thing?
You need money to run a campaign, it’s impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
That’s why we marxists don’t believe in electoralism, you’re literally pointing out how the whole thing is rigged. We believe in revolution. Electoralism is at best a tool to put our ideas out there to the population and further organize the working class.
It’s not a “new” type of liberalism, it’s just centrism.
Bruh. What kind of vibes based analysis is this? Neoliberalism is defined by making the state “smaller” which is done by getting rid of state owned companies, destroying social nets, etc. It is literally capitalism creating new markets for itself by destroying the little the working class might have of rights.
Just look at the proponents of neoliberalism: Reagan, Tatcher and Pinochet.
Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It’s the democrats who are funding it.
These liberals are opposed to the genocide because they have a lick of empathy. Both Democrats and Republicans are pro genocide, because it benefits the US capitalists at home and furthers US’s interests in the middle east. Even a younger Joe Biden admitted that, which I already linked.
Don’t blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
Capitalists are doing the genocide. Liberals are enabling them.
Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You’re so bad faith for no reason!
You said, and I quote: “The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals”. If I’m supposed to interpret that any other way than the way I responded, then you need to rephrase that. My argument is not in bad faith, I’m responding to exactly what you said.
Let’s say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they’d have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
You clearly ignore the historical context that I already provided. Israel was a settler colonial project from the get go. That is inseparable from the concept of Israel as a country, therefore you cannot accept the legitimacy of both Israel and Palestine as countries. And anyone that says that is wrong and uninformed on the issue at best, or a genocide apologist at worst.
You cannot make this claim on a vacuum like it doesn’t have a truckload of implications behind it. This is a completely idealistic view of the situation and of the world.
Again, you’re lacking tangible material analysis.
A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn’t be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
And that is still a wrong argument from the liberals. There shouldn’t have been a music festival on fucking occupied territory to begin with. Israel was literally doing a festival while starving and genociding the palestinians, but the moment the palestinians fight back and attack that festival then it is a problem for the liberal.
There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn’t have the right to violently oppose that.
Just lol. I must have hallucinated the amount of “but do you condemn Hamas” liberals I see on the internet then.
Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with. “Is Israel legitimate?” seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to “are they committing genocide?” is “yes”.
Bullshit. Palestinians have seen their life go to absolute hell in the spam of a single generation. And both questions are valid, because Israel is not a legitimate state and that needs to be acknowledged because the two state solution doesn’t exist. The only solution is giving back the land to Palestine.
You realize you’ve just redefined “liberal” to mean “socialist”. And also given a definition where the Democrats aren’t liberal, nor is anyone who supports the existence of the US or nation states in general
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history.
I’ve been told to read a lot of stuff haha. I’m not unaware of the issues you raise though so I’ll respond.
from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists.
Can you clarify what you mean? When I think “founder of liberalism” my brain goes first to John Locke.
John Locke says.
To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he’s only thinking of the white ones?
Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
That’s true. Saying “all people are created equal” and making all people equal are two different things.
Liberalism set the goal to strive for, and it gave us the tools to notice the contradiction and flaws in our society like lack of rights for women, black people, indigenous or other minorities.
When we raised our kids to be liberal, they grew up, saw the oppression and inequality to these groups and one by one, civil rights, Vietnam War protests, woman’s suffrage, right to abortion, gay rights were secured as they grappled with the contradictions of this injustice done by the state and the ideology that says the state shouldn’t act that way.
All social justice movements today have their roots in this liberal enlightenment philosophy.
For example, you don’t get a Karl Marx without first having liberalism. Take his father Heinrich:
Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. A classical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, which was then an absolute monarchy.
The values liberals teach their kids allow liberalism to evolve towards societies way freer than the parents could have ever imagined or maybe even accepted from their biases at the time.
Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he’s only thinking of the white ones?
John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company), and also helped author the constitution of the carolinas that enshrined slavery. He also justifies it as captives taken in a “just war” . From his two treatises:
captives taken in a just war forfeited their lives and, with it, their liberties. [They were slaves] ‘subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters’.
Locke on indigenous peoples:
When he sought to challenge the march of civilization, violently opposing exploitation through labour of the uncultivated land occupied by him, the Indian, along with any other criminal, could be equated with ‘one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security’, and who ‘therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger’. Locke never tired of insisting on the right possessed by any man to destroy those reduced to the level of ‘beasts of prey’, ‘savage beasts’; to the level of ‘a savage ravenous beast that is dangerous to his being’.
This is all out in the open. I suggest you read the book I linked above.
Wrong again. John Locke (the founder of liberalism), owned shares in slavery-concerns, and openly defended slavery. The 3 liberal countries (US, UK, and Netherlands), all heavily engaged in the slave trade, (britain and the US especially). The US genocided an entire contintent and hundreds of native tribes, under a liberal form of government.
Nazi germany explicitly tried to emulate the US model (Doing to eastern europe what the US did to turtle island), and failed. In fact the only thing you can say with regard to fascism vs liberalism, is that liberalism is far more effective form of government for genocide than fascism was.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the term. ‘Electorialism’ seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a ‘half-way step’ between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, ‘fuck it, we win.’ In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
Incrementalism has always been a lie. Democrats run on tiny improvements then work with republicans to block what they ran on.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US.
Just wanna drill into this; the United States has been an authoritarian state for as long as I’ve been alive. Deporting people without due process is not new. Supporting genocides is not new. The police state we live in is not new. The rule of law has been a joke for so long zoomers have internalized it. There is a reason why most of the governments we have overthrown have been democracies, and there is a reason the US has mostly replaced those democracies with dictatorships. We are the evil empire, and we have been for decades at this point.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you’ve given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
I understand your frustration as the entire thread is strawmanning liberal positions.
Essentially, capitalism coopts movements. Liberalism is an ideology which exists and has values, but since this is the primary vehicle for left leaning politics on a national level, companies spend a lot of lobbying effort stuffing liberalism with stuff that helps them.
Conservative have has gone through similar changes, stuffing a fiscal conservative viewpoint with bullshit culture war stuff as the primary vehicle for right wing politics.
When people critique electoralism, they see liberals as unable to organize because the movement has been cooped by big money and liberals refuse to admit they aren’t in control of their own party.
When you campaign for liberal values, critics see you as providing ethical cover for the promises to lobbyists that had already been made behind your back which secured their campaign donations enabling them to run in the first place.
Things like funding Israel.
You can discuss being anti Israel, you can rally behind someone like John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema who promises to be a progressive, but the thing about electoralism is you can just lie and turn heel.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
This is where I agree with you.
There are steps inside electoralism and steps outside.
If you’re saying “just vote Democrat and wait 4 years for things to get better” I agree that’s naive and there’s action we can take outside of electoralism.
If they’re “stay home and don’t vote” I agree with you that’s nauve and we can take action inside of electoralism too. It’s just gonna be inherently pretty ineffectual.
Currently, when candidates we elect take big money and vote against our interests we can’t do anything for 4 years about it. But because we have our “I voted” sticker it acts as a balm to the consciousness and deluded is into believing our fellow countrymen actually agree with the direction it takes.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Again, this is where I fully agree with you.
Protesting Kamala from my university campus seems like a better alternative to protesting Trump from El Salvador, even if the genocide is happening in both cases.
I haven’t heard a compelling argument staying home and not voting is better.
Capitalism = bad. I’m fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can’t flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I’m a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into ‘both sides are genocide’ and avoid the’how do we move forward’ question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
But do you actually see a path forward that does involve incremental progress?
I’ve watched politics incrementally change from Clinton’s Third Way to Bush’s War on Terror to McCain/Palin and the Tea Party to Trump.
I’ve watched Fox news incrementally change, I’ve watched print media incrementally be bought up.
I’m hearing about abortion getting banned, hate crimes going up, school shootings, people being abducted and sent to death camps in El Salvador.
When does this incremental change move us forward instead of backwards?
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I’m not the assorted folks responding. What I personally want is a reform. I like the idea of democracy. I do not think we have it.
I think the system we currently have is rigged and not capable of producing the incremental change you ask of it.
Where I agree with everyone else, is that if we have to resort to revolution just to get the slightest pedestrian changes to the electoral system to let incremental change takeover (repeal citizens united, disband both parties, disallow “parties” to subvert primaries, remove big money, etc)… why set it back up more or less the same?
When those other leftists accept revolution as inevitable they can dream bigger beyond the current system.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
This leaves actual liberals like you and me disenfranchised and without a party. A further leftist might describe that as defeatist.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly. Liberal ideology calls for the capitalist class to hold all the material power, inevitably leading them to do away with liberal reforms because the ideological liberals don’t have the power to stop them.
When my goal is to describe the flaws of liberalism succinctly and you say “You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly.” I have a hard time taking that as an insult, ngl.
If you have been following politics from the Clinton era, then you wound have seen the progress and incremental change first hand especially regarding social rights.
Gay marriage didn’t exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.
We went from that to adding new letters to the ltgb alliance every few years. To pronouns and kinks like furries being accepted.
A black president was unimaginable. There were still people alive that experienced segregation.
Most of what you are listing are reactions to the progress. The bigots pushed back, and they won partly because they convinced us to be more cynical and divisive. To ignore and forget the progress that was made and spin as negatively as possible all the change we see.
Incremental change is moving forward 3 steps after falling back 2, not giving up because we couldn’t be at step 5 by now.
Once again, socially left and economically right isn’t left! There’s a reason why Republicans blather on about LGBTQIA, while also embracing the likes of Santos, Thiel and Cook. For goodness’ sake, can you not see the mismatch between words and actions of politicians of any affiliation?
Gay marriage didn’t exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.
Democrats spent decades fucking about with half-measures until the courts stepped in. And since democrats are so utterly useless at everything, they didn’t codify Obergefell (after all, they didn’t want to kill the filibuster they haven’t bothered to block any of trump’s agenda with) and the supreme court is likely gonna overturn it. But that’s just an opportunity for more fundraising spam, which was the sum total of democrats’ actions when the courts overturned Roe.
Are we really going to pretend that if LGBT rights were pushed and promoted by the democrats in the 90s, the American populace was just going to accept it? The Republicans would likely have a supermajority and the presidency after Clinton’s 1st term.
Look what happened when we had 8 years with a black president.
I’m not saying the democrats did everything right, but the logic on incremental progress is correct vs tear it all down if it’s not a utopia already
I’m not saying the democrats did everything right, but the logic on incremental progress is correct vs tear it all down if it’s not a utopia already
As opposed to taking credit for the work they didn’t fucking do.
They had a majority under Obama and another under Biden. They had the opportunity to codify Obergefell. They chose not to. I wonder how upset they were that scotus did what they were unwilling to do because it wasn’t iNcReMeNtAl enough.
If scotus hadn’t stepped in, democrats would still be fucking about with half-measures.
You are viewing everything through the lens of now now now.
Inflation was at record lows from the housing crisis through the pandemic. It only spiked in 2021-2022. Before that, we had nearly 3 decades of sub 2% inflation. You are basing all your conclusions on 3 years worth of data instead of 30.
Look things suck financially right now. Everyone is hurting except the rich and it is absolutely stupid. But no it has not always been that way and social progress is not the reason we are where we are.
We are in financial trouble because we elected a far right party that is breaking everything. Because we would rather be cynical about the Democrats and blame them for the economic fallout of a pandemic instead of having realizing the fallout is due to abysmal mismanagement of said pandemic by the very administration we let back in power.
Inflation has largely been controlled during that period, but real wages have stagnated since at least the housing crisis of '08. It doesn’t make a lick of difference how well inflation is managed to the poors when buying power is lost.
Pandemic (and even prior) economic malaise is not the fault nor legacy of the Democrats necessarily, but political cynicism bites both ways, and is a lot harder to overcome when the party tells you economic factors are looking up and asks you to wait it out for an uncertain boom in the future.
Yes, Republican (esp. MAGA) policies and mentalities make that promised economic future dicier, but they deliver a feeling of doing something.
Hey, it’s the self admitted troll who has dedicated themself to stalking every single comment I make because they got big mad I said genocide denial is bad.
In this post: making a case against electoralism without realizing they’re making a case against electoralism…
Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.
It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Claims with decreasing credibility that they want to make life better for anyone. Never actually fucking tries to do it. Keeps finding just enough no votes to make sure it never happens. Blocks anyone from running in their party who actually wants to make anything better.
Heres how I define Liberal:
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Anarcho-Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/crash_course_socialism.html#democracy
Bookmarked
You are correct, you are using different terms because in the US liberal is used to talk about the Democrats. Everyone else in the world, including here on Lemmy, uses liberal as in Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, both defend the status quo and wants capitalism to continue.
Both Republicans and Democrats wants that. They are both funded by US’s billionairies, they both attend to their interests and want this system to continue. I’m not gonna deny that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but they are both still right wing parties in a two-party system.
What?
From your link
In what ways do the Republicans respect equality before the law? I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Democrats are neoliberal/conservative. I’m more okay describing them as liberal because the voters tend to be, but the party itself is not.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
Capitalism coopts ideology. Liberal voters vote for a Democrat, then capitalists bribe the Democrat to do something else.
What’s ironic is that the objective fact of the genocide in Palestine is built on liberal thought.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
Your criticisms of the Democrats don’t seem to be that they’re liberal, but that they’re not liberal enough.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
The first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:
From the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property[1]:
That’s what liberals believe. Liberals are those who support capitalism, which both Democrats and Republicans do.
Not to be confused with personal property. ↩︎
“Rights of the individual”, “liberty”, “consent of the governed”, “political equality” and “equality of the law” are meangless buzzwords that should be ignored is an interesting angle.
Most Republicans also believe in those things, though they quibble with Democrats over the details. Only fascists, monarchists, etc. don’t.
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective. Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us. Phrases like “If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps”, “if you get sick that’s your own fault”, “if you become homeless that’s your own fault”, etc. It’s never the system in place that prioritizes profit and private property above you. It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
“Liberty” for who? If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism. Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism. They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual? Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution. You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights. Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine. The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
No, I am a liberal. These are my values.
Perfectly said. Yes this reveals the inherent conflict between capitalism and liberalism.
Liberalism says “homeless should be housed”, capitalism says “I’m not paying for it”.
Liberalism demands the answer “yes you will” but capitalists have bought up all the media and politicians so we don’t have the power to force them.
Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
Please separate liberal ideology from capitalist propaganda.
Conflating them like this isn’t going to convince me. The capitalist propaganda is bad, the honest liberal thinkers are not.
That’s not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
The idea of “stimulus checks” was a liberal one.
Not true, healthcare should be a right. You’re the one talking about getting rid of our “supposed” rights.
Okay! That’s an actual argument.
That’s true. Liberalism says “that guys wrong and bad” but there’s nothing they can do until the man breaks the law.
The idea behind this is that this is a limitation in the state, not individuals.
Go punch a nazi. Go tell them to fuck off.
The state won’t do it for you, but the state also won’t censor you in return when you talk about “controversial” stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
If that’s not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
According to liberalism, for all.
Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
Liberals aren’t supposed to like capitalism. At most, a liberal can tolerate it in the moment while it’s working but that moment has long since passed and capitalism is the main threat to liberalism right now.
Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
There is lot in this short bit I need to correct.
The Republicans conserve capitalism because they’re **conservative((.
The Democrats maintain capitalism (instead of progrssing beyond it) because their party is owned by capitalists…
You need money to run a campaign, it’s impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism.
Look at Bill Clinton who is typically the example of a neoliberal.
It’s not a “new” type of liberalism, it’s just centrism.
They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Opposing capitalism doesn’t mean you know more about it.
What liberal ideology says you should do is not exactly equal to what the democrats do nor exactly equal to what John Locke does.
Capitalist liberal ideology is a contradiction.
Liberal ideology says all people are equal. Capitalist ideology says people are worth the value they produce.
These cannot coexist at the same time.
To slot them in together, capitalism would need to slice out the very root of liberalism and then wear its skin like cloth. Exactly what they’ve done.
I deny their botched surgery as the original liberalism I believe in.
Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It’s the democrats who are funding it.
https://truthout.org/articles/poll-finds-6-in-10-democratic-voters-now-back-palestinians-over-israelis/
Don’t blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You’re so bad faith for no reason!
I don’t even know how to respond.
It sounds like you agree with me that Israel is a settler colonial genocidal state who are violating the Palestinians so these last two comments are confusing.
Liberalism agrees with you that genocide is bad.
Yeah
That’s not accurate. I already cited data which shows liberals support Palestine over Israel.
Besides that’s only half the question.
Let’s say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they’d have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
A liberal would typically default into the 2 state solution.
A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn’t be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn’t have the right to violently oppose that.
Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with.
“Is Israel legitimate?” seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to “are they committing genocide?” is “yes”.
There is no separating capitalism and liberalism because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. You should read the recommendation from comrade Dessalines. You’re arguing for some idealistic version of Liberalism that never existed in the real world. This is not a materialistic view and goes against history itself.
In the US right now? Probably none. Now if you look at China that can be a problem for example, that’s why a milenar system like the Hukou exists. A good example is about rural exodus to urban areas which is a real problem that needs proper tackling, if at a given time it is needed to be controlled, then individual liberties on that should be restricted until the issue is fixed. If that doesn’t happen, you end up with what happened here in Brasil, the formation of favelas.
Also, I got more specific in that same paragraph when I talked about the right of free speech and racism as an example.
You’re misunderstanding me here, I didn’t meant to use that as actual argument, I was citing that as examples of the propaganda itself. I don’t believe these things, I believe the issue is the system. I should have put those between quotation marks, my bad. I’m not gonna respond to the next ones citing that, because I’m not making that argument.
Also, I don’t believe UBI is the answer, as it doesn’t fix the underlying issue, capitalism itself.
Except when they do.
Here in Brasil, LGBTphobia, racism and nazism are against the law. It’s that simple. And that’s the bare-minimum.
Only on paper, in practice the ones that brought it are the only ones that are free, like I already argued.
All capitalism is heavily regulated. Capitalism cannot exist without state intervention. And competition is a lie. Competition naturally leads to monopolization, it is a contradiction of capitalism.
Capitalism cannot purge liberals, because liberals are proponents of capitalism. Furthermore you seem to think liberalism is opposed to fascism, when historically that has been the exact opposite, every time leftists gathered enough power to challenge the capitalistic system, liberals have turned on us and helped the fascists.
Also related: Malcolm X: White Liberals and Conservatives
So, the exact same thing?
That’s why we marxists don’t believe in electoralism, you’re literally pointing out how the whole thing is rigged. We believe in revolution. Electoralism is at best a tool to put our ideas out there to the population and further organize the working class.
Bruh. What kind of vibes based analysis is this? Neoliberalism is defined by making the state “smaller” which is done by getting rid of state owned companies, destroying social nets, etc. It is literally capitalism creating new markets for itself by destroying the little the working class might have of rights.
Just look at the proponents of neoliberalism: Reagan, Tatcher and Pinochet.
These liberals are opposed to the genocide because they have a lick of empathy. Both Democrats and Republicans are pro genocide, because it benefits the US capitalists at home and furthers US’s interests in the middle east. Even a younger Joe Biden admitted that, which I already linked.
Capitalists are doing the genocide. Liberals are enabling them.
You said, and I quote: “The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals”. If I’m supposed to interpret that any other way than the way I responded, then you need to rephrase that. My argument is not in bad faith, I’m responding to exactly what you said.
You clearly ignore the historical context that I already provided. Israel was a settler colonial project from the get go. That is inseparable from the concept of Israel as a country, therefore you cannot accept the legitimacy of both Israel and Palestine as countries. And anyone that says that is wrong and uninformed on the issue at best, or a genocide apologist at worst.
You cannot make this claim on a vacuum like it doesn’t have a truckload of implications behind it. This is a completely idealistic view of the situation and of the world.
Again, you’re lacking tangible material analysis.
And that is still a wrong argument from the liberals. There shouldn’t have been a music festival on fucking occupied territory to begin with. Israel was literally doing a festival while starving and genociding the palestinians, but the moment the palestinians fight back and attack that festival then it is a problem for the liberal.
Just lol. I must have hallucinated the amount of “but do you condemn Hamas” liberals I see on the internet then.
Bullshit. Palestinians have seen their life go to absolute hell in the spam of a single generation. And both questions are valid, because Israel is not a legitimate state and that needs to be acknowledged because the two state solution doesn’t exist. The only solution is giving back the land to Palestine.
Also, you ignore how the vast majority of Israel’s population is pro-genociding the Palestinians. Hell, there were protests in Israel for the right to rape Palestinians.
You realize you’ve just redefined “liberal” to mean “socialist”. And also given a definition where the Democrats aren’t liberal, nor is anyone who supports the existence of the US or nation states in general
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.
I’ve been told to read a lot of stuff haha. I’m not unaware of the issues you raise though so I’ll respond.
Can you clarify what you mean? When I think “founder of liberalism” my brain goes first to John Locke.
John Locke says.
Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he’s only thinking of the white ones?
That’s true. Saying “all people are created equal” and making all people equal are two different things.
Liberalism set the goal to strive for, and it gave us the tools to notice the contradiction and flaws in our society like lack of rights for women, black people, indigenous or other minorities.
When we raised our kids to be liberal, they grew up, saw the oppression and inequality to these groups and one by one, civil rights, Vietnam War protests, woman’s suffrage, right to abortion, gay rights were secured as they grappled with the contradictions of this injustice done by the state and the ideology that says the state shouldn’t act that way.
All social justice movements today have their roots in this liberal enlightenment philosophy.
For example, you don’t get a Karl Marx without first having liberalism. Take his father Heinrich:
The values liberals teach their kids allow liberalism to evolve towards societies way freer than the parents could have ever imagined or maybe even accepted from their biases at the time.
John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company), and also helped author the constitution of the carolinas that enshrined slavery. He also justifies it as captives taken in a “just war” . From his two treatises:
Locke on indigenous peoples:
This is all out in the open. I suggest you read the book I linked above.
Liberals don’t consider people outside their country as human
Also, liberalism doesn’t consider people who don’t own property as human
That should resolve the contradictions
Those are fascists. Not liberals.
Wrong again. John Locke (the founder of liberalism), owned shares in slavery-concerns, and openly defended slavery. The 3 liberal countries (US, UK, and Netherlands), all heavily engaged in the slave trade, (britain and the US especially). The US genocided an entire contintent and hundreds of native tribes, under a liberal form of government.
Nazi germany explicitly tried to emulate the US model (Doing to eastern europe what the US did to turtle island), and failed. In fact the only thing you can say with regard to fascism vs liberalism, is that liberalism is far more effective form of government for genocide than fascism was.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the term. ‘Electorialism’ seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a ‘half-way step’ between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, ‘fuck it, we win.’ In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
Incrementalism has always been a lie. Democrats run on tiny improvements then work with republicans to block what they ran on.
Just wanna drill into this; the United States has been an authoritarian state for as long as I’ve been alive. Deporting people without due process is not new. Supporting genocides is not new. The police state we live in is not new. The rule of law has been a joke for so long zoomers have internalized it. There is a reason why most of the governments we have overthrown have been democracies, and there is a reason the US has mostly replaced those democracies with dictatorships. We are the evil empire, and we have been for decades at this point.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you’ve given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
I understand your frustration as the entire thread is strawmanning liberal positions.
Essentially, capitalism coopts movements. Liberalism is an ideology which exists and has values, but since this is the primary vehicle for left leaning politics on a national level, companies spend a lot of lobbying effort stuffing liberalism with stuff that helps them.
Conservative have has gone through similar changes, stuffing a fiscal conservative viewpoint with bullshit culture war stuff as the primary vehicle for right wing politics.
When people critique electoralism, they see liberals as unable to organize because the movement has been cooped by big money and liberals refuse to admit they aren’t in control of their own party.
When you campaign for liberal values, critics see you as providing ethical cover for the promises to lobbyists that had already been made behind your back which secured their campaign donations enabling them to run in the first place.
Things like funding Israel.
You can discuss being anti Israel, you can rally behind someone like John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema who promises to be a progressive, but the thing about electoralism is you can just lie and turn heel.
This is where I agree with you.
There are steps inside electoralism and steps outside.
If you’re saying “just vote Democrat and wait 4 years for things to get better” I agree that’s naive and there’s action we can take outside of electoralism.
If they’re “stay home and don’t vote” I agree with you that’s nauve and we can take action inside of electoralism too. It’s just gonna be inherently pretty ineffectual.
Currently, when candidates we elect take big money and vote against our interests we can’t do anything for 4 years about it. But because we have our “I voted” sticker it acts as a balm to the consciousness and deluded is into believing our fellow countrymen actually agree with the direction it takes.
Again, this is where I fully agree with you.
Protesting Kamala from my university campus seems like a better alternative to protesting Trump from El Salvador, even if the genocide is happening in both cases.
I haven’t heard a compelling argument staying home and not voting is better.
I’m now mobile, so my formatting will suffer.
Capitalism = bad. I’m fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can’t flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I’m a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into ‘both sides are genocide’ and avoid the’how do we move forward’ question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
No, you can’t “eliminate palestine”
But do you actually see a path forward that does involve incremental progress?
I’ve watched politics incrementally change from Clinton’s Third Way to Bush’s War on Terror to McCain/Palin and the Tea Party to Trump.
I’ve watched Fox news incrementally change, I’ve watched print media incrementally be bought up.
I’m hearing about abortion getting banned, hate crimes going up, school shootings, people being abducted and sent to death camps in El Salvador.
When does this incremental change move us forward instead of backwards?
I’m not the assorted folks responding. What I personally want is a reform. I like the idea of democracy. I do not think we have it.
I think the system we currently have is rigged and not capable of producing the incremental change you ask of it.
Where I agree with everyone else, is that if we have to resort to revolution just to get the slightest pedestrian changes to the electoral system to let incremental change takeover (repeal citizens united, disband both parties, disallow “parties” to subvert primaries, remove big money, etc)… why set it back up more or less the same?
When those other leftists accept revolution as inevitable they can dream bigger beyond the current system.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
This leaves actual liberals like you and me disenfranchised and without a party. A further leftist might describe that as defeatist.
You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly. Liberal ideology calls for the capitalist class to hold all the material power, inevitably leading them to do away with liberal reforms because the ideological liberals don’t have the power to stop them.
Thank you!
It wasn’t a compliment
When my goal is to describe the flaws of liberalism succinctly and you say “You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly.” I have a hard time taking that as an insult, ngl.
If you have been following politics from the Clinton era, then you wound have seen the progress and incremental change first hand especially regarding social rights.
Gay marriage didn’t exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.
We went from that to adding new letters to the ltgb alliance every few years. To pronouns and kinks like furries being accepted.
A black president was unimaginable. There were still people alive that experienced segregation.
Most of what you are listing are reactions to the progress. The bigots pushed back, and they won partly because they convinced us to be more cynical and divisive. To ignore and forget the progress that was made and spin as negatively as possible all the change we see.
Incremental change is moving forward 3 steps after falling back 2, not giving up because we couldn’t be at step 5 by now.
Once again, socially left and economically right isn’t left! There’s a reason why Republicans blather on about LGBTQIA, while also embracing the likes of Santos, Thiel and Cook. For goodness’ sake, can you not see the mismatch between words and actions of politicians of any affiliation?
Democrats spent decades fucking about with half-measures until the courts stepped in. And since democrats are so utterly useless at everything, they didn’t codify Obergefell (after all, they didn’t want to kill the filibuster they haven’t bothered to block any of trump’s agenda with) and the supreme court is likely gonna overturn it. But that’s just an opportunity for more fundraising spam, which was the sum total of democrats’ actions when the courts overturned Roe.
Are we really going to pretend that if LGBT rights were pushed and promoted by the democrats in the 90s, the American populace was just going to accept it? The Republicans would likely have a supermajority and the presidency after Clinton’s 1st term.
Look what happened when we had 8 years with a black president.
I’m not saying the democrats did everything right, but the logic on incremental progress is correct vs tear it all down if it’s not a utopia already
As opposed to taking credit for the work they didn’t fucking do.
They had a majority under Obama and another under Biden. They had the opportunity to codify Obergefell. They chose not to. I wonder how upset they were that scotus did what they were unwilling to do because it wasn’t iNcReMeNtAl enough.
If scotus hadn’t stepped in, democrats would still be fucking about with half-measures.
Liberalism is when some of the war criminals are PoC
Social rights are great, but you’re ignoring cost of living and material conditions to paint there being more progress than there has been.
Financially, the average worker has seen the cost of food, housing and transportation increase massively with inflation but wages haven’t kept up.
The 2008 banking crisis and COVID 19 have only pushed this even further.
You are viewing everything through the lens of now now now.
Inflation was at record lows from the housing crisis through the pandemic. It only spiked in 2021-2022. Before that, we had nearly 3 decades of sub 2% inflation. You are basing all your conclusions on 3 years worth of data instead of 30.
Look things suck financially right now. Everyone is hurting except the rich and it is absolutely stupid. But no it has not always been that way and social progress is not the reason we are where we are.
We are in financial trouble because we elected a far right party that is breaking everything. Because we would rather be cynical about the Democrats and blame them for the economic fallout of a pandemic instead of having realizing the fallout is due to abysmal mismanagement of said pandemic by the very administration we let back in power.
Inflation has largely been controlled during that period, but real wages have stagnated since at least the housing crisis of '08. It doesn’t make a lick of difference how well inflation is managed to the poors when buying power is lost.
Pandemic (and even prior) economic malaise is not the fault nor legacy of the Democrats necessarily, but political cynicism bites both ways, and is a lot harder to overcome when the party tells you economic factors are looking up and asks you to wait it out for an uncertain boom in the future.
Yes, Republican (esp. MAGA) policies and mentalities make that promised economic future dicier, but they deliver a feeling of doing something.
And because we elected another far right party that is uninterested in fixing anything.
Removed by mod
Hey, it’s the self admitted troll who has dedicated themself to stalking every single comment I make because they got big mad I said genocide denial is bad.