Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Defining the Left in the USA

1356789

Posts

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.

    There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.

    *vibrates marxistly*

    There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*

    *People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"

    That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.

    "No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.

    Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.

    If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.

    A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.

    A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.

    That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.

    Do rightist economic policies exist?

    Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.

    I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.

    this is what right vs left is

    I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.

    Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.

    Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.

    I assume this is the USSR and China?

    I mean we already have a more accurate term for them: State Capitalist.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    CptKemzikMegaMek
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.

    There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.

    *vibrates marxistly*

    There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*

    *People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"

    That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.

    "No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.

    Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.

    If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.

    A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.

    A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.

    That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.

    Do rightist economic policies exist?

    Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.

    I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.

    this is what right vs left is

    I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.

    Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.

    Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.

    Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.

    This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    Julius
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited August 14
    Though on the immigration side, NZ was surprisingly easy to get citizenship once you get residency, and the difference between the two is minor.

    I was allowed to vote and use social services on my restricted residency visa.

    ~6 years from lying to the nice customs lady about the purpose of my visit to a black passport.

    Mortious on
    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
    lonelyahavaDark Raven XNyysjanKristmas KthulhuAntoshka
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.

    There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.

    *vibrates marxistly*

    There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*

    *People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"

    That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.

    "No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.

    Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.

    If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.

    A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.

    A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.

    That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.

    Do rightist economic policies exist?

    Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.

    I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.

    this is what right vs left is

    I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.

    Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.

    Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.

    Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism

    China definitely goes hard into the "betrayal of leftist ideology" part


    You aren't a leftist state if you are going after folks because they tried to unionize laborers.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Julius
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.

    There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.

    *vibrates marxistly*

    There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*

    *People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"

    That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.

    "No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.

    Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.

    If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.

    A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.

    A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.

    That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.

    Do rightist economic policies exist?

    Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.

    I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.

    this is what right vs left is

    I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.

    Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.

    Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.

    Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.

    This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.

    You can't ignore the half century of Western leftist philosophers supporting USSR policy. Unless you want to go the "no true leftist" route.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    shrykespool32Harry DresdenTryCatcherLanlaornjmcdonald
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.

    There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.

    *vibrates marxistly*

    There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*

    *People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"

    That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.

    "No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.

    Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.

    If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.

    A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.

    A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.

    That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.

    Do rightist economic policies exist?

    Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.

    I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.

    this is what right vs left is

    I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.

    Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.

    Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.

    Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.

    This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.

    You can't ignore the half century of Western leftist philosophers supporting USSR policy. Unless you want to go the "no true leftist" route.

    We don't ignore them, we argue about it all the time among ourselves. Seriously, go to a DSA meeting some time.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    DouglasDangerBloodsheed
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    I hope everyone appreciated me undefining leftism as a whole instead of defining it for the US; I'll stop now.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    I hope everyone appreciated me undefining leftism as a whole instead of defining it for the US; I'll stop now.

    You can keep going, but if you refuse to consider who or what holds the authority in a society, you can only go so far.

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    I honestly have no idea what Jephery is doing, outside of what feels like a bizarre way of attempting to establish the idea that Leftism doesn't exist.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    FANTOMASBloodsheedJulius
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.

    There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.

    *vibrates marxistly*

    There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*

    *People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"

    That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.

    "No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.

    Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.

    If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.

    A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.

    A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.

    That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.

    Do rightist economic policies exist?

    Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.

    I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.

    this is what right vs left is

    I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.

    Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.

    Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.

    Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.

    This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.

    You can't ignore the half century of Western leftist philosophers supporting USSR policy. Unless you want to go the "no true leftist" route.

    This statement is rather broad. Who are the leftist philosophers and what policy are they supporting?

    On the more broad topic at hand, I am not well versed in the politics of socialism, communism, or leftism. I do however find myself curious about it because I look at the manner in which we operate now in America and the whole system looks flawed and unable to sustain itself. I am interested to see how people push on some of the ideas surrounding leftism in the US. Hopefully it will track better than the last time this topic was presented.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    Lanz wrote: »
    I honestly have no idea what Jephery is doing, outside of what feels like a bizarre way of attempting to establish the idea that Leftism doesn't exist.

    Demonstrating the extent to which this ends up as a kind of no-true-scotsman argument where I have my definition of "left" and all the other examples of people who also called themselves "left" don't count because they don't agree with my definition.

    Basically the entire argument becomes difficult as pinning down what actually counts as "left" is not exactly agreed upon.

    shryke on
    JepheryCptKemzikJusticeforPlutoLabelLanlaornA Kobold's Koboldjmcdonald
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    I'm hoping we can at least agree on what the left means

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I'd just say there's socially left (feminism, gay rights, minority rights) and economically left (welfare, universal healthcare, high taxes for the rich.) These tend to intersect, but not necessarily. The economically left tend to sneer at the social left as "identity politics". The socially left tend to get annoyed at the economically left because of the "don't worry about racist police violence, it will all be solved after capitalism is abolished" thing they do.

    BigJoeMNobeardAngelHedgiejmcdonald
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    I guess we need to definite the middle too

    Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    I'd just say there's socially left (feminism, gay rights, minority rights) and economically left (welfare, universal healthcare, high taxes for the rich.) These tend to intersect, but not necessarily. The economically left tend to sneer at the social left as "identity politics". The socially left tend to get annoyed at the economically left because of the "don't worry about racist police violence, it will all be solved after capitalism is abolished" thing they do.

    Is there a prominent leftist in the US that fits this description? It hasn't been my experience, not that they don't exist and a little bit of it may be my biggest exposure to leftist ideas are from poc.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    There are a lot of authoritarian centrists who dabble in courting votes from the left, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
    kime
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    I'd just say there's socially left (feminism, gay rights, minority rights) and economically left (welfare, universal healthcare, high taxes for the rich.) These tend to intersect, but not necessarily. The economically left tend to sneer at the social left as "identity politics". The socially left tend to get annoyed at the economically left because of the "don't worry about racist police violence, it will all be solved after capitalism is abolished" thing they do.

    Is there a prominent leftist in the US that fits this description? It hasn't been my experience, not that they don't exist and a little bit of it may be my biggest exposure to leftist ideas are from poc.

    I'm basing this on people I've interacted with online, not "prominent people."

    It's quite possible and common to be both economically and socially left.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    the whole libertarian-authoritarian axis was invented by libertarians to make socialism sound bad and has absolutely nothing to do with real politics. nobody has ever actually believed in "authoritarianism" except maybe the actual joseph stalin

    spool32-TalCelestialBadgertynicSolarLabelAngelHedgieZonugalA Kobold's KoboldJuliusHappy Little MachineHacksaw
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    I might say it's ideologically incoherent to not be both economically and socially left, which is a distinction I don't really like to begin with because those are deeply interconnected spheres of society not so easily distinguished

    2vue7ao.png
    Crimson KingDouglasDangerMegaMekA Kobold's Kobold
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    There are a lot of authoritarian centrists who dabble in courting votes from the left, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris

    Nah, many of them shifted right because whenever they went left they got blocked.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    I might say it's ideologically incoherent to not be both economically and socially left, which is a distinction I don't really like to begin with because those are deeply interconnected spheres of society not so easily distinguished

    It might be incoherent but it's also extremely common.

    DouglasDangershrykeCptKemzikCelestialBadgerNobeardA Kobold's Koboldjmcdonald
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid

    2vue7ao.png
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    your understanding of political divisions is deeply informed by whatever your actual politics are

    if you're a libertarian you think the available political positions are "i believe in freedom" vs "i believe in small government"

    if you're a socialist you think they're "i believe in labour and equality" vs "i believe in capital and elitism"

    if you're a catholic reactionary you think it's "i believe in personal virtue" vs "i believe in post-modern moral degeneracy"

    so any argument about what the division actually entails is basically just an argument about which political position is correct. which is socialism, obviously

    -TaltynicSolarLabelMrMisterEvil MultifariousJuliusHacksaw
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid

    The racist 30's Democrats never had to worry about Fox News, or Mitch McConnell. They wouldn't have an improved performance with those circumstances.

  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    if you want to understand your own ideology consider not what you believe, but the boundaries of what you find it reasonable or acceptable for anyone to believe

    2vue7ao.png
    CptKemzikCrimson KingzepherinMegaMek
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid

    If you think the 30s were slightly less racist you might want to do a little more research. Also uh so much for being coherant about social issues

    Alt post: Hi everyone who claimed that the left would totally never abandon civil rights issues for economics!

    Harry DresdenzepherinAngelHedgieBigJoeMKristmas Kthulhu
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    -Tal wrote: »
    if you want to understand your own ideology consider not what you believe, but the boundaries of what you find it reasonable or acceptable for anyone to believe

    If you want to put those beliefs into action, consider settling for something rather than ending up with nothing. Ideology isn't a sport we view from the sidelines, it's to make a world a better place.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    it's also worth keeping in mind how many people vote solely based on local issues, i.e. jobs, and don't really give a shit about the underlying political philosophy except as a convenient crutch for whatever their personal axe to grind is. i'm pretty sure that's actually just most people

    -TalPhoenix-DNobeardshrykeDouglasDangerKristmas Kthulhujmcdonald
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    the whole libertarian-authoritarian axis was invented by libertarians to make socialism sound bad and has absolutely nothing to do with real politics. nobody has ever actually believed in "authoritarianism" except maybe the actual joseph stalin

    I can agree that the use of "authoritarianism" is obviously loaded but its worth understanding ideologies in terms of how they value central control.

    Kaputa
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    -Tal wrote: »
    though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid

    The racist 30's Democrats never had to worry about Fox News, or Mitch McConnell. They wouldn't have an improved performance with those circumstances.

    So the Democratic Party of the 1930s was not an organized political party in the sense we would understand it. It was at least two different political parties:

    1) The traditional Democratic Party, with its foundation in the South and built mostly on white supremacy this was a conservative party open to some economic progressivism, but none on racial justice.
    2) Northern labor and midwestern farmers, who were desperate for help. This group had a lot of black people in it. Wanted a lot of economic progressivism and obviously was pushing for racial justice.

    The second was the dominant faction, but it needed the first to actually pass anything, thus our conception of "racist 30s Democrats." But that was a median vote thing.

    Anyway, this setup created a natural tension, black people started demanding civil rights, the Dixiecrats walked out. Truman and JFK/LBJ managed to keep the whole mess together for a couple elections, but when the Democrats passed CRA and VRA and the Fair Housing Act at LBJ's urging (with the help of some northern Republicans), that was the last straw and the Dixiecrats finally bailed for the actually conservative party and that rat bastard Nixon. He thought he could control white supremacy, they took over the party, and now we have a reactionary mess on the right and everyone from like, Bill fucking Kristol to DSA in opposition.

    Which in some ways is recreating the whole situation.

    It's not that there's not an American left, but there are structural problems with the setup of the American government that prevents the American left from ever attaining a majority on its own. And at the moment it seems like a good sized portion of the American left isn't interested in coalition building. You can obviously interpret the other way that no one's really interested in forming a coalition with the left, but I think that's not really true and would point to Warren as someone who is not a leftist (in that she's a capitalist) but is interested in building a coalition with the left to achieve some mutually shared goals.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Harry DresdenCptKemzikCelestialBadgershrykeLabelKristmas KthulhuA Kobold's KoboldjmcdonaldVeagleHacksaw
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    Like, I think the closest we ever got to an actual left wing majority in the Congress was the radical Republicans.

    Who became pro-business conservatives in pretty short order in addition to abandoning their radical stance on civil rights as soon as they started to lose vote share, which was almost immediate. Like US Grant only won by 5% and might have lost the white vote in 1868.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    the whole libertarian-authoritarian axis was invented by libertarians to make socialism sound bad and has absolutely nothing to do with real politics. nobody has ever actually believed in "authoritarianism" except maybe the actual joseph stalin

    I can agree that the use of "authoritarianism" is obviously loaded but its worth understanding ideologies in terms of how they value central control.

    fair enough. i haven't thought about the question super deeply

  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    I guess we need to definite the middle too

    Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless

    what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Brainleech wrote: »
    I guess we need to definite the middle too

    Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless

    what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?

    What would you define as a centrist position the Dems are leaving behind?

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    Brainleech wrote: »
    I guess we need to definite the middle too

    Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless

    what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?

    just a thought: is the GOP going through change or are they just molting

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    CelestialBadger
  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Brainleech wrote: »
    I guess we need to definite the middle too

    Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless

    what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?

    What would you define as a centrist position the Dems are leaving behind?

    The Nancy Pelosi thread answered this


    A good question Lanz as I said eras of political change are never smooth nor clear

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    The USA skews considerably more conservative, both economically and socially, than most of the world.

    Most of the world population lives under authoritarian regimes, so no.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Harry DresdenBrainleechzepherinSleepStabbity StyleLanlaornA Kobold's KoboldjmcdonaldHacksaw
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 14
    -Tal wrote: »
    though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid

    The racist 30's Democrats never had to worry about Fox News, or Mitch McConnell. They wouldn't have an improved performance with those circumstances.

    So the Democratic Party of the 1930s was not an organized political party in the sense we would understand it. It was at least two different political parties:

    1) The traditional Democratic Party, with its foundation in the South and built mostly on white supremacy this was a conservative party open to some economic progressivism, but none on racial justice.
    2) Northern labor and midwestern farmers, who were desperate for help. This group had a lot of black people in it. Wanted a lot of economic progressivism and obviously was pushing for racial justice.

    The second was the dominant faction, but it needed the first to actually pass anything, thus our conception of "racist 30s Democrats." But that was a median vote thing.

    Anyway, this setup created a natural tension, black people started demanding civil rights, the Dixiecrats walked out. Truman and JFK/LBJ managed to keep the whole mess together for a couple elections, but when the Democrats passed CRA and VRA and the Fair Housing Act at LBJ's urging (with the help of some northern Republicans), that was the last straw and the Dixiecrats finally bailed for the actually conservative party and that rat bastard Nixon. He thought he could control white supremacy, they took over the party, and now we have a reactionary mess on the right and everyone from like, Bill fucking Kristol to DSA in opposition.

    Which in some ways is recreating the whole situation.

    It's not that there's not an American left, but there are structural problems with the setup of the American government that prevents the American left from ever attaining a majority on its own. And at the moment it seems like a good sized portion of the American left isn't interested in coalition building. You can obviously interpret the other way that no one's really interested in forming a coalition with the left, but I think that's not really true and would point to Warren as someone who is not a leftist (in that she's a capitalist) but is interested in building a coalition with the left to achieve some mutually shared goals.

    Another way to put this is that, firstly, all political parties are coalitions of various different groups working together. This is true, really, of every political organization. Two people organizing together is two people compromising, In that sense a definition of ideology does not map cleanly onto party. "Is this party left?" should be answered with "Well, what part of it?".

    And secondly, any conception of american parties (and thus american political coalitions) has to deal with the fact that a huge chunk of the US electorate (a good ~30% these days) are white supremacists and vote accordingly. And those people are voting for someone and organizing under some banner. And these days, conversely another big block of voters (when they are allowed to vote anyway) are people who are opposed to that ideal by virtue of being the targets of it. And these kind of divisions also map only loosely onto other political ideologies. Ethnic-based progressive policies are pretty fucking popular with the white supremacists and a lot of minority voters can be quite conservative on many fronts.

    The intersection of various political issues means divisions are never clean. And that's not even touching on regional issues and divisions, which can also make for strange alliances.

    shryke on
    NobeardIncenjucarCelestialBadgerKristmas KthulhuA Kobold's Kobold
  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    edited August 14

    Brainleech on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    The USA skews considerably more conservative, both economically and socially, than most of the world.

    Most of the world population lives under authoritarian regimes, so no.

    Is this type of comment helpful at all on defining the Left in the USA?

    Which countries are you considering authoritarian?

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
    FANTOMASJulius
Sign In or Register to comment.