United States Politics Thread 47

[Ares Land]

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.

I do think you need legislation that helps or encourages socialism, at the very least. Laws that organize healthcare, for instance, or encourage co-ops or non-profits. Existing laws favor corporations and the wealthy. I agree that a bottom-up action is necessary as well... but it won't get far without top-down help.

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

As Torco pointed out, this is the case of many necessary reforms.
There are several ways socialism can be protected. One is the constitution: here in France the (communist-inspired) preamble to the 1946 is held to be constitutional; among other things, it states that 'the Nation guarantees [...]healthcare, material security, rest and leisure.' That means that there are a number of things you can't easily vote away. Right-wing governments could do their best to do away with socialized healthcare -- in fact, they did restrict it to a certain extent -- but it would take significant effort.

A second one is that socialist institutions are often popular, and getting the political momentum to get rid of them is difficult. As Elon Musk noticed, Social Security in the US is socialism -- and Musk couldn't get rid of him; in fact he didn't even get to try. As I understand, doing so would be political suicide.

Conversely, when socialist measures are voted away, well, often of course it's corporations and right-wingers and the rich doing their things. But democracy works and sometimes things are voted away because they don't work. Getting back to France again, yes, most of the nationalized companies were sold away, which is a pity. But then again, forcibly nationalizing every large company wasn't the right approach; ultimately it didn't help much so of course that approach lost the election.

[Raphael]

Torco: Of course billionaires buy all kinds of things. Point is, parties are among the things they buy. Parties usually aren't buyers themselves.

One is the constitution: here in France the (communist-inspired) preamble to the 1946 is held to be constitutional;

You have constitutional provisos of the Fourth Republic still in force?

As Elon Musk noticed, Social Security in the US is socialism -- and Musk couldn't get rid of him; in fact he didn't even get to try. As I understand, doing so would be political suicide.

Perhaps by the standards of libertarians. I wouldn't call a system that is basically the US variant of something introduced by Otto von Bismarck "socialist". Bismarck himself had, after all, intended it to convince workers that they wouldn't have to turn socialist to improve their lot.

[Travis B.]

If one is taking a democratic (as opposed to libertarian) socialist route, to me socialism still cannot be achieved without worker self-organization -- while changes at a governmental level are likely to be needed (e.g. to deliberately put a hand on the scale to favor worker cooperatives), but you cannot simply tell workers 'now you have democratic control over your workplaces' because workers won't know what to do with worker democracy if it is merely handed to them. Workers need to organize themselves from the bottom up for it to work, and a solid bottom-up movement is necessary to keep the clock from being turned back next time elections come around, so as to make socialism permanent.

And yes, I myself likewise doubt that workers will just spontaneously self-organize and bring about socialism. Rather, a workers' movement must be built incrementally and deliberately. It will be very hard work, to be sure. But that does not mean that it cannot be done.

[Travis B.]

As Elon Musk noticed, Social Security in the US is socialism -- and Musk couldn't get rid of him; in fact he didn't even get to try. As I understand, doing so would be political suicide.

Perhaps by the standards of libertarians. I wouldn't call a system that is basically the US variant of something introduced by Otto von Bismarck "socialist". Bismarck himself had, after all, intended it to convince workers that they wouldn't have to turn socialist to improve their lot.

Social Security is not socialism. Socialism is about social ownership and workers' self-management of capital, not about merely 'giving people things'. Of course, a socialist society would most likely have social supports like socialized healthcare and education, but that is not what socialism is fundamentally about.

[zompist]

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?

In other words, you recognize that your statement was bullshit, but instead of just saying so, you pile on more bullshit. I explained what I objected to, explained why it was important, but you don't bother with reading or clarifying; no, you just evacuate your bowels in the input box.

I guess the charitable interpretation is that you not only don't read what other people say, you don't read what you say.

[malloc]

We all concur with you that the techbros' love affair with AI is worrying, and something has to be done about it. But as for now, it is the techbros we should be worried about rather than the AIs themselves. AI may be a powerful tool, but it is a tool, not a superpowered entity, and can be used for harm - but it is the people who use it for harm who are to blame.

Sure but my point is that we really ought to address this issue now when it's still manageable rather than waiting until AI becomes too powerful.

and yet you don\t want to do this with Trump&friends.

Quite the opposite. It's just that the logistics of resisting Trump and the broader reactionary movement behind him are incredibly daunting. Over the past decade, right wing populism has developed into a massive worldwide movement with each national scene providing inspiration and practical examples for others. An entire media ecosystem of podcasters and Youtubers and so forth has emerged promulgating right wing propaganda to millions. Young people have swung far to the right with no clear way of leftists reaching them anymore.

[jcb]

Currently at least, educated people are the ones trending left so it makes sense that left wing movements and organizations would lean on them.

This risks painting yourself into a corner, as you exclude people for not being pure enough.

I don't like jcb's apologetics for working class bigoted fascists, either, but I can kind of understand their anger at graduates. Graduates might see themselves as left-wing or left-liberal, but all too often, they're just left-wing in the sense of supporting whatever causes are fashionable in academic subcultures at any given moment, as long as those causes don't inconvenience the rich too much. And among the more centrist members of the graduate class, there's often been universal agreement on things that ended up hurting the working class a lot, and even eventually hurting large parts of the graduate class itself.

And I don't like apologetics for classist neoliberals, but I understand their dislike of bigots.

Indeed, let's not forget that the professional class loved the idea of offshoring all of America's industry, promising that it would improve everybody's lives in America, and well, it didn't.

At a previous job, I knew many blue-collar conservative Trump supporters. Yes, they had some awful social views, but they were also in the union, and truly thought that Trump was better for blue-collar workers, especially because of how he talked about trade.

According to Wikipedia 35% of the adult population of the US had a bachelor's degree as of 2018. My own highest level of education is a bachelor's degree. If I am one of jcb's enemies of the people as an educated person, so are roughly 35% of the US population. Okay, if he means educated professionals, as I am a decently-paid professional programmer (or software engineer if one wants to emphasize highfalutin job titles), that might exclude part of that 35% from consideration. But still, that's an awfully large percentage of the population to denounce as class enemies. Of course, the Khmer Rouge had similar thoughts.

65% is larger than 35%, and is an awfully large percentage of the population to denounce as unredeemable deplorable bigots.

The simplified version of this that jcb seems to believe in is that the Democrats betrayed the working class during the Clinton years

It's not that I think that the betrayal started with Clinton, but that the Democratic party's new neoliberal form fully emerged with Clinton.

They can be very left-wing in the sense that they want to do a lot to give every child a fair chance to grow up to be a member of their class – that’s where their pro-education and anti-discrimination stances come from – but they don’t care much about the well-being of those who don’t eventually join their class.

Yes, this is what I've been referencing when I've said that the white-collar class thinks that blue-collar class isn't worthy of a good life.

Their worldview also assumes that the market is a just and fair arbiter of worthiness, which is a strange thing for a "leftist" to believe.

[zompist]

It's just that the logistics of resisting Trump and the broader reactionary movement behind him are incredibly daunting. \

No they're not. Did you attend the No Kings protests? If not, attend the next one. Have you written to your Congresscreatures? If not, go do it. These are not "daunting" to do.

And don't bother arguing about such actions. They are beginner's actions, but important. Don't insult actual activists to defend your defeatism.

[Raphael]

And I don't like apologetics for classist neoliberals, but I understand their dislike of bigots.

Do you always react like that when people are basically agreeing with you? When and where did I do "apologetics for classist neoliberals"?

[zompist]

At a previous job, I knew many blue-collar conservative Trump supporters. Yes, they had some awful social views, but they were also in the union, and truly thought that Trump was better for blue-collar workers, especially because of how he talked about trade.

Do they still think that, now that Trump is sinking the economy? Is it going to create manufacturing jobs when the Republicans are creating economic uncertainty, cratering our exports, undermining the safety net and government support for science, alienating our allies, getting into wars, undermining democracy, and undermining unions? (And that's all assuming Trump continues backing off on his absurd tariffs. If he doesn't he's likely to cause an actual depression.)

I don't think anyone here is anti-worker— you're barking up the wrong tree. But just as you object to the Democrats playing Republicans Lite in the 1990s, a lot of us object to Democrats playing Trump Lite today. The GOP's version of populism is not pro-working-class.

[malloc]

No they're not. Did you attend the No Kings protests? If not, attend the next one. Have you written to your Congresscreatures? If not, go do it. These are not "daunting" to do.

All my representatives and senators are fanatical Trump supporters who wouldn't dream of listening to me. Perhaps you've heard of Josh Hawley, among the most conservative people in the senate.

[zompist]

No they're not. Did you attend the No Kings protests? If not, attend the next one. Have you written to your Congresscreatures? If not, go do it. These are not "daunting" to do.

All my representatives and senators are fanatical Trump supporters who wouldn't dream of listening to me. Perhaps you've heard of Josh Hawley, among the most conservative people in the senate.

They can't listen to voices that are silent.

Jeez, for once in your life listen to actual activists. They say write to your red state representatives. They do look at what pushback they're getting, they need to know that their policies are opposed, and blue state people cannot do this for you.

Exercise some common sense: you don't send Josh Hawley the Communist Manifesto. But you can certainly complain about the economy shrinking, threats to Medicare, rising budget deficits due to GOP tax cuts, etc. Hell, complain about AI if you want.

(It's also fine, and actually good, to keep to one issue. Or write multiple letters.)

[zompist]

BTW, two seconds of Googling found this story on Politico:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is warning that President Trump’s megabill could run off the tracks this week if Senate Republican leaders fail to address his GOP colleagues’ concerns that deep cuts to Medicaid spending would devastate rural hospitals in their home states.

Oh look at that, fanatical Trump supporter Josh Hawley is objecting to Medicaid cuts.

[keenir]

No they're not. Did you attend the No Kings protests? If not, attend the next one. Have you written to your Congresscreatures? If not, go do it. These are not "daunting" to do.

All my representatives and senators are fanatical Trump supporters who wouldn't dream of listening to me.

its extremely difficult to dream about something you have no awareness of, something that has made no noise, raised no objections, warned nobody of impending extinctions...

also, you didn't answer about attending protests. pretty sure you don't need Hawley's permission to attend...unless you're his kid. then bets are off the table.

Perhaps you've heard of Josh Hawley, among the most conservative people in the senate.

thats one person; what about --

wait...is he the only person representing your state in the entire legislature? pretty sure thats an evil a crime that even Trump hasn't contemplated committing.

[Ares Land]

Perhaps by the standards of libertarians. I wouldn't call a system that is basically the US variant of something introduced by Otto von Bismarck "socialist". Bismarck himself had, after all, intended it to convince workers that they wouldn't have to turn socialist to improve their lot.

Social Security is not socialism. Socialism is about social ownership and workers' self-management of capital, not about merely 'giving people things'. Of course, a socialist society would most likely have social supports like socialized healthcare and education, but that is not what socialism is fundamentally about.

It operates along the lines of '"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" -- with all caveats and limits of course; isn't that what socialism is about?
So yes, it is a little pocket of socialism -- though of course given American politics, it's not that smart to refer to it as such.

I think all society needs at least a little bit of socialism to keep running; you can't run things on pure greed alone. Bismarck was smart enough to recognize that. Of course it feels surprising to us, because we're used to conservatives that actively reject intelligence.

[rotting bones]

So yes, it is a little pocket of socialism -- though of course given American politics, it's not that smart to refer to it as such.

Media reports are rarely representative of public opinion in America. Especially these days, when socialism is a resurgent force in public life. See how corporate Democrats and Republicans speak of Mamdani despite him winning the primary. Corporate oligopolies can only keep circulating propaganda.

[Raphael]

See how corporate Democrats and Republicans speak of Mamdani despite him winning the primary.

It's nice that he won, but keep in mind that he was up against a corrupt, incompetent sexual predator. Socialists in the USA can't count on being the main alternative to someone like that in every primary.

[rotting bones]

It's nice that he won, but keep in mind that he was up against a corrupt, incompetent sexual predator. Socialists in the USA can't count on being the main alternative to someone like that in every primary.

You are minimizing the amount of work his enthusiastic supporters did. They knocked on a lot of doors. If you watch street interviews, you will find that people liked his policy of rent control. They weren't just voting out the other guy.

If you hang around intellectuals a lot, you might come away with the impression that scandals are a big deal in politics. The reality is that ordinary people just don't care. Most people think all politicians are probably involved in scandals, known or unknown. A large fraction of the electorate seems to enjoy voting for scandalous politicians.

[Raphael]

It's nice that he won, but keep in mind that he was up against a corrupt, incompetent sexual predator. Socialists in the USA can't count on being the main alternative to someone like that in every primary.

You are minimizing the amount of work his enthusiastic supporters did. They knocked on a lot of doors. If you watch street interviews, you will find that people liked his policy of rent control. They weren't just voting out the other guy.

If you hang around intellectuals a lot, you might come away with the impression that scandals are a big deal in politics. The reality is that ordinary people just don't care. Most people think all politicians are probably involved in scandals, known or unknown. A large fraction of the electorate seems to enjoy voting for scandalous politicians.

True enough.

[rotting bones]

An entire media ecosystem of podcasters and Youtubers and so forth has emerged promulgating right wing propaganda to millions. Young people have swung far to the right with no clear way of leftists reaching them anymore.

Every one of the undergrads who stayed home to watch Jake Paul supports trans pronouns. Unlike you, they don't see political affiliation as a way of life. Of course, there are other viewers who do fall in line with the opinions of influencers. However, an influencer being popular doesn't necessarily imply that their viewers constitute a voting bloc.