- cross-posted to:
- politics@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- politics@hexbear.net
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m going to generally agree with most of this while picking out one pretty nitpicky point that I want to counterpoint.
A lack of effective relationship and solidarity building across class, color, gender, religious beliefs, sexuality, age, ability, culture and more is part of the problem.
A lack of effective relationship and solidarity building across economic status, and across “goodness” of the belief of the person being solidaritied with, is the lion’s share of the problem.
The modern progressive left defines itself chiefly in terms of equality of color, gender, religious belief, sexuality, ability, and so on. Most people in the United States, I am sad to say, do not feature that as their primary concern if they give a shit about it at all. Most people want to know that their individual life is going to be better, because it is hard right now, because someone is stealing all of the money they worked for. You could say it would be a better world if they also wanted life to be better for people of different colors, genders, sexualities, and so on, but that’s not the world or the people we’ve got, and they’re not wrong to chiefly worry about the “rich people are stealing everything I’m working for” problem. We can help any grouping and gather support from any grouping, without needing to say we need to put the brakes on and help some other more virtuous-to-advocate-for grouping instead.
Building economic success for the average working person, whether they be black, white, straight, gay, whatever, should be in the wheelhouse for the American left. It should be a slam dunk. Every time Bernie Sanders or AOC starts talking about it, people start cheering so loud they shake the fucking building. But, a lot of what the progressive left wants to talk about is all of the progressive left’s favorite issues. Meaning equality of gender et cetera.
Health care.
Jobs for working people. Unions.
Real democracy instead of management consultants and incessant bullshit text messages asking for money.
That is my one point of input to what otherwise I really like and agree with as a post, and maybe it seems nitpicky and bitter. But I just want to throw in that it would be a good idea, when building all these coalitions that the article pretty exhaustively goes over good guidelines for how to build, not to lean too hard on the purity test that someone needs to be able to use pronouns to your satisfaction before you are willing to collaborate with them on both of you not having to skip meals, or get sent to death camps for unionizing or being Hispanic, or what have you.
I don’t think that most progressive groups doing actual organizing are doing these kind of purity tests, I think that’s mostly online spaces or non-political-organizing spaces that are setting out their own boundaries for acceptable behavior.
I’ve never once been asked to make a statement of e.g. trans support before being allowed to attend a protest or DSA meeting. It’s mostly assumed/ trusted that you’re showing up because you support the work.
If, however, someone seeing a Pride flag in a coffee shop window or at a protest is enough to make them leave, then you don’t want them there, not because of the morality of their beliefs, but because they are creating an ultimatum that you must abandon or hide your beliefs in order to gain their support, and that’s not solidarity on their part.
Solidarity is a two-way street.
Bernie Sanders or AOC don’t mention support for e.g. LGBT+ people in every speech, but they will if you ask them. They won’t feign or adopt indifference to the issue to gain a false solidarity.
We can help any grouping and gather support from any grouping, without needing to say we need to put the brakes on and help some other more virtuous-to-advocate-for grouping instead.
I’m interested in what examples you are thinking of, for this.
Hmm. Well one zio is now blocked. =)
As for the article, I think the Nicaraguan revolution is another important one to add to the list. The urban areas quietly communicated and organized with the rural areas and that’s how they managed to topple their dictatorship. But… it was violent. I’m no PhD’d history buff but I do know there isn’t a single non-violent revolution that free’d a people.
Well one zio is now blocked. =)
Yeah, that was crazy. O_o
“Leftists can’t organize! They’re too busy doing massive, country-wide protest movements!”
lmfao
lol, organize.
all democratic youth had to do was cast a ballot in a safe, open, free election, the lowest entry, simplest, easiest action anyone who wanted to prevent the fascist from returning to power where he was promising everyone he was going to burn all their civil rights to the ground. instead leftists marched on every major american city, and took control of university commons across the country, telling everyone they weren’t going to vote for “genocide joe” in protest of jews, in support of islamofacist terrorists, chanting “from the river to the sea” which one would have to image not only freaked out middle america, but all of it
more arab and latino americans voted for donald trump than have ever voted for any republican candidate before in american history
organize, jesus fucking christ, these self destructive antisemitic idiots couldn’t even cast a vote against actual fascism, and now it’s here, and the man who they helped return to power not only doesn’t give a shit about their issues, he’s targeting them and those they sought to help directly with all the might and power of the united states security services squarely behind him
mazel tov
There’s a lot of generalizations going on here. I’m going to leave space for you to vent, but please keep in mind we have one rule on this instance and it is to be(e) nice.
well, I appreciate that
This comment is perfectly balanced on the inflection point between a pretty sensible assessment of a portion of what cost the Democrats the election, and being anti-Palestinian in a way that will get people mad at it.
“Antisemitic” and “islamofascist terrorists” are the key phrases, I think. Without that I actually think it would be fine, although I’m sure some people would disagree with it. With that, and with the general flavor of “explicitly pro-Israel,” it’s bait for all kinds of people yelling that you are wrong, and equal bait for people yelling at those other people that you have a point.
Nah, they aren’t even right about organizing; in fact, they’re literally making contradictory claims.
Were Leftists too lazy to be capable of organized political protest (“lol, organize”), or were they
“march[ing] on every major american city, and [taking] control of university commons across the country”
Because that sounds like organizing to me?
They will just present anyone who isn’t pro-Israel as ineffectual, when the reality is that the DNC not being responsive to their base at any point along the route (and don’t cite Biden dropping out as that: Biden dropped out because DNC insiders were screaming, not because of the actual electorate) cost them the election.
But they probably think that all the polls showing that the majority of Americans (even Republicans) wanted a ceasefire (which is what the protesters were demanding) were wrong, and the average American is actually secretly pro-Israel’s war on Gaza.
They will just present anyone who isn’t pro-Israel as ineffectual
Pretty much all of the community efforts that they highlight as something to emulate are pretty far from specifically “pro-Israel.”
when the reality is that the DNC not being responsive to their base
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about? When did the Democrats enter into this at any point? I went back and searched the article for “DNC” and “Democrat” just to see if I had missed something.
It sure feels like you’re trying to make some point here that has nothing to do with the article, and nothing to do with my comment, for reasons of your own.
the majority of Americans (even Republicans) wanted a ceasefire (which is what the protesters were demanding)
Everyone “wants” a ceasefire. If Netanyahu doesn’t want to do one, what then? Stop weapons? What effect will that have on congress, or on the resulting campaign ads, or on the electorate?
More Americans have sympathies with Israel than with Palestine. According to polling. That’s a fucking travesty, and mostly the fault of our media, but a poll that says most people “support a ceasefire” in the abstract means absolutely nothing in terms of what’s a winning position politically or electorally.
If there was a “make ceasefire” button in the oval office, Biden and Harris would both push it. Trump, I don’t think, would.
I realize you’re going to have all kinds of ways of disagreeing with what I just said. I’m not planning to respond. You can of course do a counterpoint if you want. I’ve had this exact conversation too many times to want to do more than just respond one time with my general take on it.
Bruh, your comment that I responded to, was itself a response to a comment (the one you said was “perfectly balanced”). That is what I am addressing in my comment.
Also, what do you mean “When did the Democrats enter into this at any point?” YOU BROUGHT THEM UP IN YOUR COMMENT THAT I RESPONDED TO!
a pretty sensible assessment of a portion of what cost the Democrats the election
Oh, got it. Somehow it showed up for me and I thought it was a response to my other comment.
“Perfectly balanced” was not a compliment. Read the complete text of what I said in that paragraph again. I’m saying, more or less, that it’s perfectly engineered to create senseless conflict.
