United States Politics Thread 47

[Travis B.]

it greatly varies. universities are and have always been hotbeds of marxism, anarchism and other genuinely transformative ideas, but they're also hotbeds of rich sons-of-money who, to say it metaphorically, demand the concentration camps be run by a female ceo

Not to mention people who spend their student days cosplaying as the former, and slowly or quickly turn into the latter once they've graduated and started professional careers.

Of course, you could say similar things about blue-collar people who get attracted to right-wing populism.

As you probably guessed, I disagree with dismissing left-wing educated people's positions as merely 'fashionable' myself, while simultaneously looking for friends amongst non-left-wing blue-collar people. This is essentially blue-collar chauvinism, the idea that left-wing blue-collar people are more authentic, more real in their beliefs and positions while left-wing educated people's positions are mere 'champagne socialism', while right-wing blue-collar people are would-be left-wing people were it not for those dastardly left-liberal educated people who have betrayed the traditional blue-collar working class.

I think in any case, it's not too much too ask that politicians and parties which claim to want to appeal to left-of-center voters should do something for blue-collar and service sector workers, and not just in the sense of giving them more opportunities to become white-collar workers - independently of whether this will convert any blue-collar or service sector workers to the cause.

One thing to remember is that actual socialists are far more likely to be sympathetic to blue-collar workers than mere left-liberal people, including people who claim to be socialists (read: a lot of American 'socialists') but are really just social democrats, are. However, the matter is that the former are far less visible than the latter, making it easy for people, particularly populists, to point at everything left-of-center as being secretly anti-blue-collar.

[Torco]

heh. yeah, the venn diagram is probably more of a berry than an hourglass.

It's not too much to ask, but the problem is money. how do you become a successful political party without money, huh? cause it all takes money, having local chapters and running events and ads and coordinate blablabla. politics is a lot of work, and work runs on currency. you can do stuff with voluntaries and whatever but that'll make you, at most, even in countries without a two party system, at most an irrelevant small party. and the money is in the hands of the bougies. whatever, maybe we don't like marxist terminology, the sorts of people who live off owning stuff, who work cause they choose to, not cause it's either that or homelessness. the point is, those people fund the parties that they perceive to be in their interest, giving them vast powers of persuasion: the party, in turn, can support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers... it's a lot better strategy, from the perspective of game theory, to pretend to be for the working class, but actually acting as the one-way bearing in a ratchet.

[zompist]

the party, in turn, can support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers...

Probably the weirdest conspiracy theory I've heard all week.

Usually it's the fash who complain that The Media are a socialist conspiracy... did the fundraising letters get switched in the mail?

[rotting bones]

the party, in turn, can support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers...

Probably the weirdest conspiracy theory I've heard all week.

Usually it's the fash who complain that The Media are a socialist conspiracy... did the fundraising letters get switched in the mail?

I'm not an expert in contemporary events. Do you think that either:

1. Party shills don't exist? E.g. https://youtu.be/DUr4Tb8uy-Q

Or

2. Financiers don't bankroll the opponents of politicians who challenge them? I heard Wall Street threatened to bankroll the Republicans if Democrats nominated socialist-leaning politicians. IIRC this happened to Elizabeth Warren. I could be wrong about this.

[zompist]

the party, in turn, can support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers...

Probably the weirdest conspiracy theory I've heard all week.

Usually it's the fash who complain that The Media are a socialist conspiracy... did the fundraising letters get switched in the mail?

I'm not an expert in contemporary events. Do you think that either:

1. Party shills don't exist? E.g. https://youtu.be/DUr4Tb8uy-Q

There are 100 million Youtube channels, as of 2024. What is one channel supposed to prove?

Hell, here are the top 100 Youtube channels. Which ones are owned by political parties? Which are funded by political parties? (And just to avoid a red herring, I don't care if some of these talk about politics once in awhile; I'm contesting the conspiracy theory that Youtubers are controlled by political parties, not the idea that people talk about politics.)

2. Financiers don't bankroll the opponents of politicians who challenge them? I heard Wall Street threatened to bankroll the Republicans if Democrats nominated socialist-leaning politicians. IIRC this happened to Elizabeth Warren. I could be wrong about this.

If you want to erect a conspiracy around "financiers", you have a lot of company, at least. Of course rich people spend money on politics. It gets them what they want in a broad sense (a society where rich people stay rich). They often don't get the specific things they want.

Here's a list of how much US political parties raised in 2024. Whoo-hoo, about $6 billion. If the two parties pooled their money and tried to take over Hollywood, they could buy precisely 2.3% of Disney.

Here's a list of the 25 richest Americans. Total wealth held: $3.2 trillion. Which number is larger? Use both hands if necessary.

Money is important. Money can buy political parties. Political parties can barely buy themselves steak dinners.

[rotting bones]

There are 100 million Youtube channels, as of 2024. What is one channel supposed to prove?

Hell, here are the top 100 Youtube channels. Which ones are owned by political parties? Which are funded by political parties? (And just to avoid a red herring, I don't care if some of these talk about politics once in awhile; I'm contesting the conspiracy theory that Youtubers are controlled by political parties, not the idea that people talk about politics.)

I'm saying some of the largest independent media channels like Joe Rogan take money to shill for certain politicians. A large podcaster in the genre I consume is Curt Jaimungal, who promotes anti-academic conspiracy theories. Sabine Hossenfelder has been accused of being aligned with Thiel. I haven't seen direct evidence of that, but the support comes through diverse channels. If conspiracy channels get a lot of viewers, opportunists will be incentivized to grab a piece of the pie. The money is ultimately being funneled by financiers because they think it would increase their profit margins. I suppose this is a conspiracy theory in the sense that I'm theorizing certain parties are involved in a conspiracy. The issue is that I didn't realize this theory is controversial. Don't we know Thiel funds anti-democratic endeavors?

Democrats also have the humongous MeidasTouch network, but they spread fewer conspiracy theories in my experience. I have only seen them sensationalizing the news.

Are you arguing that political lobbying in the media is a marginal phenomenon?

If you want to erect a conspiracy around "financiers", you have a lot of company, at least. Of course rich people spend money on politics. It gets them what they want in a broad sense (a society where rich people stay rich). They often don't get the specific things they want.

Here's a list of how much US political parties raised in 2024. Whoo-hoo, about $6 billion. If the two parties pooled their money and tried to take over Hollywood, they could buy precisely 2.3% of Disney.

Here's a list of the 25 richest Americans. Total wealth held: $3.2 trillion. Which number is larger? Use both hands if necessary.

Money is important. Money can buy political parties. Political parties can barely buy themselves steak dinners.

But I'm precisely saying that financiers bankroll politicians. Financiers having more money than politicians is consistent with that proposition. The way I see it, it would be surprising if it were the other way around.

Edit: I don't really pay attention to the online influencer scene. I heard Jake Paul and Logan Paul were huge Trump supporters.

[zompist]

Are you arguing that political lobbying in the media is a marginal phenomenon?

No, I'm arguing that political parties do not "support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers..." Political parties are bit players.

Though I think you overestimate how much people in general are interested in "politics". You're fascinated by it, and anyone reading this thread is more invested in it than the average American. Do you watch a single one of the channels in that top 100 list? They'd probably bore you, but that's what people want to watch. If Peter Thiel is bankrolling Sabine Hossenfelder (who's been getting awfully crankish lately), he's probably wasting his money. He could reach more people bankrolling Minecrafters. (Hossenfelder: 1.7m subscribers. Dream, 32.8m.)

But I'm precisely saying that financiers bankroll politicians. Financiers having more money than politicians is consistent with that proposition. The way I see it, it would be surprising if it were the other way around.

If by "financiers" you mean rich people, then of course. If you think we're disagreeing on that you're not following. (To be clear, I think you were moving the goalpost. That political parties dominate the media is ludicrous. That rich people do so isn't.)

Middle-class and working class people bankroll politicians too, though. When a lot of people give a small amount, the sums are comparable to what the rich people give. People document this. Some pretty big names, left and right, get half their money or more from donations under $200.

[Travis B.]

heh. yeah, the venn diagram is probably more of a berry than an hourglass.

It's not too much to ask, but the problem is money. how do you become a successful political party without money, huh? cause it all takes money, having local chapters and running events and ads and coordinate blablabla. politics is a lot of work, and work runs on currency. you can do stuff with voluntaries and whatever but that'll make you, at most, even in countries without a two party system, at most an irrelevant small party. and the money is in the hands of the bougies. whatever, maybe we don't like marxist terminology, the sorts of people who live off owning stuff, who work cause they choose to, not cause it's either that or homelessness. the point is, those people fund the parties that they perceive to be in their interest, giving them vast powers of persuasion: the party, in turn, can support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers... it's a lot better strategy, from the perspective of game theory, to pretend to be for the working class, but actually acting as the one-way bearing in a ratchet.

What you do is take the more left-of-center of the two parties and act from within it to pull it to the left rather than attempting to start your own party. This way you can take advantage of its existing funding and infrastructure rather than starting from scratch.

Note that I am not of the opinion that socialism can be achieved through party politics in the first place, though, as actual socialism simply cannot be voted into place. Rather, it is to be achieved through organically building dual power from the bottom up that will eventually simply replace the existing system. This is because for socialism to function as such the workers must be directly involved in it at all levels ─ simply trying to vote in socialism with nationalization and like will simply result in state capitalism rather than socialism. Also, if socialism is voted into place, it can be also voted away as well.

At the same time, I am of the view that the existing political processes cannot be simply ignored, as that will allow the right to have their way, which to me is a form of accelerationism. Accelerationism would only result in substantial harm all around, as is more likely to backfire than anything.

[rotting bones]

No, I'm arguing that political parties do not "support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers..." Political parties are bit players.

Do you think the rabid pro-Trump pastors are not financially involved with the Republican party? Would you say the anecdotes in, say, One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This by Omar El Akkad, which talks about the institutions of civil society being swayed by political lobbing, is a conspiracy theory? I think these examples are consistent with "party shills exist" and "financiers bankroll politicians". It goes even further into "financiers bankroll institutions of civil society", if you think that's the difference between my original post and Torco's.

Though I think you overestimate how much people in general are interested in "politics". You're fascinated by it, and anyone reading this thread is more invested in it than the average American. Do you watch a single one of the channels in that top 100 list? They'd probably bore you, but that's what people want to watch.

I'm giving examples I'm familiar with. I know for a fact that the undergrads canceled all events and stayed home to watch Jake Paul fight Mike Tyson. I never watched the fight, but both Jake Paul and Mike Tyson explicitly support Trump. The Paul brothers are very loud about their support. They made a lot of money by rugpulling memecoins.

If Peter Thiel is bankrolling Sabine Hossenfelder (who's been getting awfully crankish lately), he's probably wasting his money. He could reach more people bankrolling Minecrafters. (Hossenfelder: 1.7m subscribers. Dream, 32.8m.)

But most of those are not talk shows like: https://www.youtube.com/@Timcast or just https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... zYH2SgcQba ...

It's common for talk shows to be politically tinged, even the ones that are putatively about other topics. Do you realize how many of these there are? A million here, a million there: https://www.youtube.com/@dannyjones (interview with the spy dude) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe9Pes ... mIzsE4zkxA (debate with pakman) A lot of the esoteric, drug and financial shows are right-leaning. These are huge communities online. (I spent all this time tracking down these channels from memory. It's probably not worth it to keep going.)

I've read sober Democratic analysts arguing that influencers like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson had a measurable impact on the election. (Edit: I also know a lot of the fighting communities are right-leaning. Joe Rogan is a part of them.)

Also, the influence Musk's money has had on the election is, to my understanding, regarded as incontrovertible by all sides. Didn't he bankroll any friendly media?

If by "financiers" you mean rich people, then of course. If you think we're disagreeing on that you're not following. (To be clear, I think you were moving the goalpost. That political parties dominate the media is ludicrous. That rich people do so isn't.)

I don't understand which part of my post implied that politicians have more money than financiers. I'm not sure that position is compatible with leftist theory.

Middle-class and working class people bankroll politicians too, though. When a lot of people give a small amount, the sums are comparable to what the rich people give. People document this. Some pretty big names, left and right, get half their money or more from donations under $200.

I agree. The issue there is that small amounts are a lot more important to poor people. It's hard to convince them that their donations will buy anything tangible at a time when the Democratic Socialist movement was in retreat and the media is strategically spreading an atmosphere of suspicion and despair.

[Raphael]

No, I'm arguing that political parties do not "support churches, local youth groups, youtubers, moviemakers..." Political parties are bit players.

Do you think the rabid pro-Trump pastors are not financially involved with the Republican party?

More like, those pastors and the party are financially involved with the same donors. Torco's claim seems to be that parties buy people. zompist's retort seems to be that parties are more among the bought than the buyers.

[rotting bones]

More like, those pastors and the party are financially involved with the same donors. Torco's claim seems to be that parties buy people. zompist's retort seems to be that parties are more among the bought than the buyers.

If Torco is explicitly claiming that causal chain, then I don't agree with his post.

[zompist]

Torco's claim seems to be that parties buy people. zompist's retort seems to be that parties are more among the bought than the buyers.

Yes, well put. If you look at the churches and influencers and talk shows rotting bones mentions, the money flow is almost certainly toward the parties, not from them.

It may seem like a minor point, but to understand politics and predict what politicians will do, you have to look at the facts, not at reassuring fantasies. That the parties dictate to the churches is absurd. That the churches dictate to the Republican Party is sadly obvious.

All the details change over time, too. White churches were not strongly right-wing in the liberal period. The 2010 Citizens United decision allowed the rich to pour much more money into politics. And for that matter, right-wing media was marginal, and right-wingers spent their time complaining about "biased media", until the creation of Fox News. All this, and more, adds up.

I'd also note that "financiers" almost certainly don't finance Youtube videos. There's no need. Google is the biggest ad company in the world. They insert (a dismaying number of) ads in the videos, and if a channel is popular enough, the creator gets a share in the ad revenue. For the top channels this can mean millions of dollars. But it's the same process whether you're promoting fascism, socialism, music, or videos of people falling down.

[zompist]

Note that I am not of the opinion that socialism can be achieved through party politics in the first place, though, as actual socialism simply cannot be voted into place. Rather, it is to be achieved through organically building dual power from the bottom up that will eventually simply replace the existing system. This is because for socialism to function as such the workers must be directly involved in it at all levels ─ simply trying to vote in socialism with nationalization and like will simply result in state capitalism rather than socialism.

Kind of charming to see Moscow 1917 revived. But it's not going to happen that way again, nor does it have to.

Germany right now has mandatory labor representation on boards. My understanding is that it stops short of 50%, but that could be changed by law. Raphael could tell us how well, or if, it works in practice.

Governments have a lot of other tools; in fact, we used to use them: breaking up monopolies, enforcing negotiations with labor, taxing the rich. A wealth tax would be an easy next step. Socialism is a process, not a once-and-done change.

If you mean that there needs to be a non-governmental change toward worker democracy, I agree, but I don't see a lot of activists trying for this. It probably needs some governmental pushing as well, as well as large-scale testing and refining.

Also, if socialism is voted into place, it can be also voted away as well.

There needs to be a way to remove bad regimes even if they call themselves socialist. The history of one-party states is not encouraging.

It's hard to imagine in the current climate, but there are times and places where a progressive movement has supermajority support. The New Deal, for instance.

[Raphael]

Also, if socialism is voted into place, it can be also voted away as well.

Of course that's true, but then again, socialism introduced through some other method than voting can be taken away through some other method than voting, too.

A socialist anarchy, a socialist state with free elections, and a socialist dictatorship might all be turned be turned into something else in one way or another. It doesn't make sense to criticize a system on the grounds that it doesn't have fail-safe guarantees against being replaced by something else, because no system has that. There's simply no reliable good-things-forever system.

Germany right now has mandatory labor representation on boards. My understanding is that it stops short of 50%, but that could be changed by law. Raphael could tell us how well, or if, it works in practice.

Not sure about that. Because of the way my life has gone so far, I know very little about the inner workings of workplaces or major businesses.

[Travis B.]

Note that I am not of the opinion that socialism can be achieved through party politics in the first place, though, as actual socialism simply cannot be voted into place. Rather, it is to be achieved through organically building dual power from the bottom up that will eventually simply replace the existing system. This is because for socialism to function as such the workers must be directly involved in it at all levels ─ simply trying to vote in socialism with nationalization and like will simply result in state capitalism rather than socialism.

Kind of charming to see Moscow 1917 revived. But it's not going to happen that way again, nor does it have to.

Germany right now has mandatory labor representation on boards. My understanding is that it stops short of 50%, but that could be changed by law. Raphael could tell us how well, or if, it works in practice.

Governments have a lot of other tools; in fact, we used to use them: breaking up monopolies, enforcing negotiations with labor, taxing the rich. A wealth tax would be an easy next step. Socialism is a process, not a once-and-done change.

If you mean that there needs to be a non-governmental change toward worker democracy, I agree, but I don't see a lot of activists trying for this. It probably needs some governmental pushing as well, as well as large-scale testing and refining.

What I mean is that worker democracy must fundamentally come from below from the workers themselves. Workers cannot simply be handed socialism on a platter by a state, because the fundamental worker organization to enable true worker democracy simply will not exist, and rather you will just have the private capitalists replaced by the state.

Also, if socialism is voted into place, it can be also voted away as well.

There needs to be a way to remove bad regimes even if they call themselves socialist. The history of one-party states is not encouraging.

It's hard to imagine in the current climate, but there are times and places where a progressive movement has supermajority support. The New Deal, for instance.

I don't mean that socialism ought to be brought in from above by a one-party state. Much to the contrary, I think that socialism can't be brought in from above by any state, whether democratic or authoritarian. Attempting to bring about socialism from above will inevitably result in state capitalism, the replacement of one set of masters for another.

[Raphael]

and rather you will just have the private capitalists replaced by the state.

[...]

state capitalism, the replacement of one set of masters for another.

If a certain amount of responsiveness is built into the state, then it might well end up being less bad than the self-serving sociopaths who run the business world today.

Besides, I don't see how building worker-run socialism up from below can work while the basic ground rules of the game stay what they are now. You might built a lot of great worker-run economic entities, and as soon as one runs into serious financial difficulties, it will have to be sold to capitalists. So I'd say that building any kind of socialism requires at least some amount of assistance from the state, in the form of changing the ground rules of the game.

[WeepingElf]

What I mean is that worker democracy must fundamentally come from below from the workers themselves. Workers cannot simply be handed socialism on a platter by a state, because the fundamental worker organization to enable true worker democracy simply will not exist, and rather you will just have the private capitalists replaced by the state.

[...]

I don't mean that socialism ought to be brought in from above by a one-party state. Much to the contrary, I think that socialism can't be brought in from above by any state, whether democratic or authoritarian. Attempting to bring about socialism from above will inevitably result in state capitalism, the replacement of one set of masters for another.

Concurred. The workers must achieve this by their own means. All the government can do are measures that assist the workers in staff buy-outs and the like.

[Travis B.]

and rather you will just have the private capitalists replaced by the state.

[...]

state capitalism, the replacement of one set of masters for another.

If a certain amount of responsiveness is built into the state, then it might well end up being less bad than the self-serving sociopaths who run the business world today.

Besides, I don't see how building worker-run socialism up from below can work while the basic ground rules of the game stay what they are now. You might built a lot of great worker-run economic entities, and as soon as one runs into serious financial difficulties, it will have to be sold to capitalists. So I'd say that building any kind of socialism requires at least some amount of assistance from the state, in the form of changing the ground rules of the game.

There will be a need to fundamentally tilt the rules in the favor of worker-owned and self-managed cooperatives, but fundamentally the impetus for this must come from below, and the workers must organize themselves to bring it about. If you just elect a Socialist Party to power and as their first action they decide to nationalize all the industries this worker self-organization simply will not exist, and you will just end up with your boss being replaced with a government bureaucrat with little actual change. Even if said Socialist Party decides 'hey we will now have factory committees and whatnot', if the workers have not prepared themselves for taking power over their lives into their own hands, said committees will not properly function because said workers will not know what to do with the power that they would have just been given.

[Raphael]

There will be a need to fundamentally tilt the rules in the favor of worker-owned and self-managed cooperatives, but fundamentally the impetus for this must come from below, and the workers must organize themselves to bring it about. If you just elect a Socialist Party to power and as their first action they decide to nationalize all the industries this worker self-organization simply will not exist, and you will just end up with your boss being replaced with a government bureaucrat with little actual change. Even if said Socialist Party decides 'hey we will now have factory committees and whatnot', if the workers have not prepared themselves for taking power over their lives into their own hands, said committees will not properly function because said workers will not know what to do with the power that they would have just been given.

I'm generally very sceptical of proposals that go like "my plan can work really well, but only if we first get everyone on board with it". I think any plan that wants to have a chance of succeeding has to account for the existence of people who aren't on board with it.

and you will just end up with your boss being replaced with a government bureaucrat with little actual change

If the bureaucrat in question does not have an obsession with making all the financial lines go up all the time, that in itself might already be quite a change.

[Torco]

Probably the weirdest conspiracy theory I've heard all week.

rich people fund parties and influencers.. is this a conspiracy theory? what else....employers don't actually want you to make as much as possible, is that a conspiracy theory too? the coup in chile was sponsored by the us? irak didn't actually have weapons of mass destruction? come on, man, this isn't even controversial. you think russia can fund influencers but rich gringos cannot?

okay, a lot of funding is direct from rich people to influencers, not going through the parties, but that doesn't really affect the point, does it?

this seems to me on the level of flat earthism: obviously rich people donate money to political parties. obviously parties use that money to fund activities that will further the party's interests. this isn't even corruption, this is the system working as everyone knows it works. what's next, the cia doesn't exist and the DoD is purely defensive? ICE is only deporting members of tren de aragua?

I'm contesting the conspiracy theory that Youtubers are controlled by political parties, not the idea that people talk about politics.)

parties and billionaires do fund and exert influencers tho. if i had said something "every influencer is directly on the republican party's payroll" then your objection would be correct. examples and evidence abounds: for example, rich people, oil megacorpos and conservative groups funding the climate change denialist movement is broadly known. or is that a conspiracy theory as well?

What you do is take the more left-of-center of the two parties and act from within it to pull it to the left rather than attempting to start your own party. This way you can take advantage of its existing funding and infrastructure rather than starting from scratch.

Note that I am not of the opinion that socialism can be achieved through party politics in the first place, though, as actual socialism simply cannot be voted into place. Rather, it is to be achieved through organically building dual power from the bottom up that will eventually simply replace the existing system. This is because for socialism to function as such the workers must be directly involved in it at all levels ─ simply trying to vote in socialism with nationalization and like will simply result in state capitalism rather than socialism.

I don't see why socialism can't simply be voted into place. we did it where i live. though afterwards we had a cia-sponsored coup: then again, history is not deterministic, the coup succeeded but this wasn't a necessary fact like 2+2=4. I do agree that it's very unlikely to happen.

the problem with trying to move the least owner-aligned party to the left is the same as voting in socialism: it's not impossible, but neither is flipping and coin and it landing on its edge. you can't keep the existing donors if you start advocating for policies that will reduce the power and affluence of those donors; they'll just donate to the party that doesn't. or out-donate you.

Also, if socialism is voted into place, it can be also voted away as well.

I mean, sure, but the same is true about the abolition of other evils: female suffrage was voted in, and in theory it could be voted out, but it hasn't. you can -and there have been cases- of slavery being banned as a result of voting, sometimes directly through plebiscite, as was the case I think in colorado? other times as a result of normal lawmaking: elected congressmen voting in a bill or ammendment blabla.