haziq

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,776
Usually, I'm not super big on articles tut-tutting the left, but this article is actually pretty solid & covers the differences between leftist coalitions in various countries & compares them to what exists of the same in America.

In the first half of the 20th century, the United States actually had a powerful leftist force in the form of the Socialist Party of America. Its members won municipal races in places such as Berkeley, California, and Schenectady, New York. The party's proud centerpiece was Milwaukee, which had three socialist mayors for a total of 38 years from 1910 to 1960. Those further to the left often made fun of them as "sewer socialists" who cared more about the city's excellent public-sanitation system than about the socialist revolution (like all good leftist insults, this one had originated as an internal jab within the party).

But Milwaukee's sewer socialists could boast something that purists simply can't: They made a difference in the lives of millions of working people. Those are the politics—result-oriented and pragmatic—that convince people to give the socialist left and its ideas a chance. If American socialists truly want to emerge as a serious political force in the world's most powerful country, they need to stop cosplaying radicalism and learn how to defend democracy, build broad coalitions, and run successful governments.

www.theatlantic.com

Too Much Purity Is Bad for the Left

If socialists want to be a political force in America, they need to form coalitions, defend democracy, and change real people’s lives.

Purify my account, if old.
 

Tagyhag

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,982
Ooooh I'm interested in reading this.

Like the article says, what confuses me is that the left had a TON of coalitions all over the world, and they worked together well, especially during the 1910's - 1930's. Hell, you had anarchists organizing.

But now, if you don't agree with 100% of a group, they might not even bother to team up, not every group will allow compromises. Even if those groups need each other to achieve seats.
 

El Bombastico

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
36,351
Ooooh I'm interested in reading this.

Like the article says, what confuses me is that the left had a TON of coalitions all over the world, and they worked together well, especially during the 1910's - 1930's. Hell, you had anarchists organizing.

But now, if you don't agree with 100% of a group, they might not even bother to team up, not every group will allow compromises. Even if those groups need each other to achieve seats.

Like so many problems right now, I blame social media creating echo chambers that now means everyone thinks their political views are popular with everyone, not just the few agreeing with you.
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,661
Gentrified Brooklyn
It's a deeper conversation than I have in me a few beers in on a birthday week but ultimately it boils down to

1)How late stage hyper capitalism has tainted lots of the way people would get exposed to socialist and leftist thought. Streamers, online culture etc, are unfortunately tribal and capitalist by nature (click them links!) and while people make the argument it's good for exposing people I think it also lets people cosplay their beliefs in terrible surface level only ways

2)Circling back to one you have people claiming to be involved that really don't have skin in the game for actual change; the 60's hippies into 80's Reaganites are in full effect. You see it in any serious discussion about crime, etc.

3)Circling back to one again there's a huge HUGE education deficiency across the board including with leftists & socialists who have a serious lack of history of various important movements and writers like Frantz Fanon

That said, I do see visceral movements happening offline in ways that do give me hope than I have had in a minute
 
Last edited:

RUFF BEEST

Member
Jun 10, 2022
2,220
Toronto, ON
I like this article. The Atlantic truly has amazing writing in it and I think it painted the picture of some of the infighting we get into well without being corrosive or non-constructive.

It's stuff worth thinking about. I hate fighting with anyone left of center, really. Sure, the liberals can be a little irritating if you're a leftist; I get that some people just think they're good for life because they voted for Obama and they never want to deal with dismantling the worst parts of capitalism or even do the hard work of reigning it in and regulate it to better protect us from environmental disaster, worker exploitation, and monopolies. And don't even get me started when they start dragging their feet about pronouns or whatever.

But, they're like our cousins. We're part of an extended family and we have a good chance at connecting with them and being a good force in their lives. And we need the numbers, especially in the US where the political system is both winner-takes-all AND first-past-the-post, which coarsens all political dialogue into two vitriolically opposed sides.

I think that boomers, who probably internalized "socialism" as being a boogie man, while everyone younger than them learned living examples of it like the Scandanavian countries and Bernie Sanders or whatever, continue to be a pretty big problem, though. There are just so many of them, and they have a bad mix of being vulnerable to disinformation and deep exposure to outdated ideas.

But as frustrating as they are, the leftists who look at their vote as a total endorsement of someone instead of a tool to have the maximum possible effect, and thus are refusing to vote for Biden (some of whom I've argued with on this very forum), annoy me about 400 times more than any boomer ever will. After Trump got to appoint THREE Supreme Court justices. After the fall of Roe v. Wade. And you're still on that shit? Nah.

*Takes a deep breath* Er, I should read the article again and calm down haha
 
Last edited:

Scottoest

Member
Feb 4, 2020
11,648
The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
40,378
This is the shortest Atlantic article I think I've ever seen.

I give AOC and some other dem socs a lot of credit for realizing right from the jump just how much they could actually get done by working within the party rather than sitting on the outside and screaming for action.
 

Ramsiege

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,343
The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.
I agree with this post 100%.
 

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,260
I can't read the whole article, but it seems that it's suggesting gradual reformism rather than revolution. That position has a long history, with broader context than this year's election. Maybe the article does discuss it later on, of course

Socialism has taken a lot of different forms across the United States over the last couple centuries, and there are a lot of forces that suppress it now. But just about any justice-related organization or non-profit will have socialists working for them. That's not cosplaying radicalism, it's doing what is possible until more people bring more possibility
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,850
Ooooh I'm interested in reading this.

Like the article says, what confuses me is that the left had a TON of coalitions all over the world, and they worked together well, especially during the 1910's - 1930's. Hell, you had anarchists organizing.

But now, if you don't agree with 100% of a group, they might not even bother to team up, not every group will allow compromises. Even if those groups need each other to achieve seats.

Both Red Scares and programs like COINTELPRO happened.

It's weird that folks are saying the reason is that folks have splintered due to social media but the Left has always splintered and fought. Many of these fights and divisions were caused by the government.
 

fragamemnon

Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,080
I'm a dirtbag centrist and can't read the full article, but I don't know if there's good comparison with the way that socialist/left parties work in parliamentary coalitions and the way that left organizations work in America's two-party system. Very different dynamics-you can have left coalitions over the moon to get 10 out of 250 seats in parliament because it means they can get representation in a coalition government. Here in the US, votes are agglomerated together and the votes in the (D) column range from unrepentant neoconservatives to loud and proud communists. So, I don't know if comparisons are all the good here, because in parliamentary systems there's no way the range in a party or even a block of parties together would be that wide.
 

BrucCLea13k87

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,052
Yep. I'm 36 years old. Grew up and lived most of my life in the South. Never voted republican in my life.

The left has become lackadaisical and self-interested. The lack of understanding of the greater threat to democracy on the world stage truly baffles me.

We're there now. But it was fucking DONALD TRUMP and Dobbs that woke us the fuck up.

The future isn't so obvious and that's what scares me.
 

J2C

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,421
The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.

Doesn't. help that most of the "PIECE OF SHIT" comments come from people safely and anonymously online, easiest play to throw stones from. Some of that judgement is likely helpful in the right cases, but don't think we've struck the right balance.
 

nDesh

The Three Eyed Raven
Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,196
The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.
Great post, and one that also encapsulates this forum perfectly.
 

makonero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,873
Gift link for those without a sub:
www.theatlantic.com

Too Much Purity Is Bad for the Left

If socialists want to be a political force in America, they need to form coalitions, defend democracy, and change real people’s lives.

I definitely would love to see the left team up and gain credibility. The fact that the DSA went from 6000 members to 80,000 is a good testament to just having some prominent socialists out there working with the system, like Bernie and AOC. We need more advocates from the left and that means giving up on constantly fighting those who could be allies.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,850
Gift link for those without a sub:
www.theatlantic.com

Too Much Purity Is Bad for the Left

If socialists want to be a political force in America, they need to form coalitions, defend democracy, and change real people’s lives.

I definitely would love to see the left team up and gain credibility. The fact that the DSA went from 6000 members to 80,000 is a good testament to just having some prominent socialists out there working with the system, like Bernie and AOC. We need more advocates from the left and that means giving up on constantly fighting those who could be allies.

You'll never get many socialists to agree that reformation is better than revolution. You just can't.
 

StreetsAhead

Member
Sep 16, 2020
5,282
Thanks for sharing this, OP. I look forward to reading it.

I like this article. The Atlantic truly has amazing writing in it and I think it painted the picture of some of the infighting we get into well without being corrosive or non-constructive.

It's stuff worth thinking about. I hate fighting with anyone left of center, really. Sure, the liberals can be a little irritating if you're a leftist; I get that some people just think they're good for life because they voted for Obama and they never want to deal with dismantling the worst parts of capitalism or even do the hard work of reigning it in and regulate it to better protect us from environmental disaster, worker exploitation, and monopolies. And don't even get me started when they start dragging their feet about pronouns or whatever.

But, they're like our cousins. We're part of an extended family and we have a good chance at connecting with them and being a good force in their lives. And we need the numbers, especially in the US where the political system is both winner-takes-all AND first-past-the-post, which coarsens all political dialogue into two vitriolically opposed sides.

I think that boomers, who probably internalized "socialism" as being a boogie man, while everyone younger than them learned living examples of it like the Scandanavian countries and Bernie Sanders or whatever, continue to be a pretty big problem, though. There are just so many of them, and they have a bad mix of being vulnerable to disinformation and deep exposure to outdated ideas.

But as frustrating as they are, the leftists who look at their vote as a total endorsement of someone instead of a tool to have the maximum possible effect, and thus are refusing to vote for Biden (some of whom I've argued with on this very forum), annoy me about 400 times more than any boomer ever will. After Trump got to appoint THREE Supreme Court justices. After the fall of Roe v. Wade. And you're still on that shit? Nah.

*Takes a deep breath* Er, I should read the article again and calm down haha

The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.

Excellent posts.
 

Sunster

The Fallen
Oct 5, 2018
10,226
You'll never get many socialists to agree that reformation is better than revolution. You just can't.
Reading a book right now about revolutionaries in the Philippines in the 1970s and 80s and this tracks. Their whole thing was that reform doesn't work. The wealthy and the politicians will always bend the system to their will. Which is exactly what happened there at that time when a constitutional convention was called. A shining example that the system and the highest level of reform of that system, failed the people and with disastrous consequences. Granted, the situations are very different but you get what I'm saying.
 

Trey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,770
I find the online left and the offline left to move very differently, but yeah that's anecdotal.

Populism is the real downfall.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,850
Reading a book right now about revolutionaries in the Philippines in the 1970s and 80s and this tracks. Their whole thing was that reform doesn't work. The wealthy and the politicians will always bend the system to their will. Which is exactly what happened there at that time when a constitutional convention was called. A shining example that the system and the highest level of reform of that system, failed the people and with disastrous consequences. Granted, the situations are very different but you get what I'm saying.

Absolutely. I don't think you can reform a current government into a socialist one. I just don't see how this would work. That doesn't mean positive change within the framework of current governments can't be made.

It's been a running theme throughout the history of socialism.

While we call both Liberals and Socialists left, it doesn't mean they have the same goals.
 

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,260
Gift link for those without a sub:
www.theatlantic.com

Too Much Purity Is Bad for the Left

If socialists want to be a political force in America, they need to form coalitions, defend democracy, and change real people’s lives.

I definitely would love to see the left team up and gain credibility. The fact that the DSA went from 6000 members to 80,000 is a good testament to just having some prominent socialists out there working with the system, like Bernie and AOC. We need more advocates from the left and that means giving up on constantly fighting those who could be allies.

Thank you <3
 

Malverde

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
I like this article. The Atlantic truly has amazing writing in it and I think it painted the picture of some of the infighting we get into well without being corrosive or non-constructive.

It's stuff worth thinking about. I hate fighting with anyone left of center, really. Sure, the liberals can be a little irritating if you're a leftist; I get that some people just think they're good for life because they voted for Obama and they never want to deal with dismantling the worst parts of capitalism or even do the hard work of reigning it in and regulate it to better protect us from environmental disaster, worker exploitation, and monopolies. And don't even get me started when they start dragging their feet about pronouns or whatever.

But, they're like our cousins. We're part of an extended family and we have a good chance at connecting with them and being a good force in their lives. And we need the numbers, especially in the US where the political system is both winner-takes-all AND first-past-the-post, which coarsens all political dialogue into two vitriolically opposed sides.

I think that boomers, who probably internalized "socialism" as being a boogie man, while everyone younger than them learned living examples of it like the Scandanavian countries and Bernie Sanders or whatever, continue to be a pretty big problem, though. There are just so many of them, and they have a bad mix of being vulnerable to disinformation and deep exposure to outdated ideas.

But as frustrating as they are, the leftists who look at their vote as a total endorsement of someone instead of a tool to have the maximum possible effect, and thus are refusing to vote for Biden (some of whom I've argued with on this very forum), annoy me about 400 times more than any boomer ever will. After Trump got to appoint THREE Supreme Court justices. After the fall of Roe v. Wade. And you're still on that shit? Nah.

*Takes a deep breath* Er, I should read the article again and calm down haha

This article was originally written in 1996 and still is just as applicable today. Might help clear things up for you. Saying "liberals can be a little irritating" is such a huge fucking understatement.

 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,850
Socialists aren't get socialist change from socialists in this country either.

They want revolution and don't even do that.

As was said, there are two camps of socialists broadly. Ones that believe in reforming the government to a socialist one and another that thinks the only way to do that is through a revolution.

Because starting a revolution when the workers aren't behind you en masse is a bad idea.
 

daschysta

Member
Mar 24, 2019
908
I'm all for unity, and building a coalition where it exists, but let's not pretend the center left doesn't villify leftists when they attempt electoralism as well. More Sanders voters came through for Hillary and Biden than Hillary voters came through for Obama and in many sectors are treated they are treated like lepers. Left wing incumbents are being targeted by aggressive dark money campaigns by outside groups and the DNC barely says a peep in the incumbents defense. I won't relitigate 2016, but the DNC should not be partisan in an open primary, you'll drive away voters you need. Let's also not pretend that the reticence to pursue certain progressive ideas around healthcare, campaign finance, college affordability and taxes which are widely popular (kudos for biden on his tax messaging) are not sometimes blatant favors towards corporate interests. Real reform is unlikely to pass, it would be real easy to throw the left a bone by pushing for a GOOD bill that won't pass rather than a watered down bill that pleases noone that also won't pass. Messaging is how you build coalitions and dems have to get better at it (Again Biden is better at this than previous presidents at least in my lifetime). Simple, understandable programs that benefit all Americans, you can get everyone excited that way, I have a masters in public affairs, I love a good contingent clause, but they don't get less tuned in voters excited.

We should also agree that Universal programs vs means testing is a legitimate debate without insinuating that either side is racist or disingenuous, or a shill for holding their view, most leftists believe truly universal programs would disproportionately benefit the least fortunate, people of color most of all, be more durable electorally, and have a wider constituency to pass. Don't pretend as many liberals that just because Democrats do something a certain way that it is the best or most efficacious way. Just because a program benefits Appalachia as well doesn't make it bad, or mean we are trying to siphon support away from minorities, whom the majority of leftists genuinely care about just as much as liberals. I've literally been called a racist who hates inner city kids because I believe in Free College for all, it doesn't help the disposition towards those slandering us. The left used to have lots of success in the midwest and the plains, the godfather of American Socialism is from my state in Indiana, it isn't anathema to think we should try to chip away at these voters as well, as backwards as some of them can be I can tell you I have seen quite a bit of success in canvassing these area pushing a jobs and Unions agenda, it may not win put over the cultural issues at this moment, but we could expand the map and put several states into more comfortable territory with the right lunchpail socialism agenda.

Finally most left people vote democratic anyhow, the surest way to threaten that is to constantly attack them for expressing dissatisfaction with the Democrats. Calling people nasty names, insinuating they are ignorant, Trump supporters, especially when their criticism is usually correct is the best way to cause people to stay home. It seems that often excuses are made for every class of voter for not voting Democrat except leftists, who perhaps because people believe they are more tuned in politically or because they have nowhere else to go are taken for granted again and again. Voting is a personal choice and dems sabotage themselves by trying to bully people into voting their way, people that believe they have principle won't react well to it. If you really want those people treat them as if they are important rhetorically, it doesn't take much, just don't pull a Hillary and all but say fuck you.

Just a few thoughts from a New Deal lefty who has probably been employed democratic on campaigns and PACs and interest groups than 99 percent people, and who has held my nose dutifully at times for the Blue teams
 
Last edited:

PaulloDEC

Visited by Knack
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,604
Australia
The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.

Couldn't put it better than this.
 

freetacos

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,324
Bay Area, CA
I'm all for unity, and building a coalition where it exists, but let's not pretend the center left doesn't villify leftists when they attempt electoralism as well. More Sanders voters came through for Hillary and Biden than Hillary voters came through for Obama and in many sectors are treated they are treated like lepers. Left wing incumbents are being targeted by aggressive dark money campaigns by outside groups and the DNC barely says a peep in the incumbents defense. I won't relitigate 2016, but the DNC should not be partisan in an open primary, you'll drive away voters you need. Let's also not pretend that the reticence to pursue certain progressive ideas around healthcare, campaign finance, college affordability and taxes which are widely popular (kudos for biden on his tax messaging) are not sometimes blatant favors towards corporate interests. Real reform is unlikely to pass, it would be real easy to throw the left a bone by pushing for a GOOD bill that won't pass rather than a watered down bill that pleases noone that also won't pass. Messaging is how you build coalitions and dems have to get better at it (Again Biden is better at this than previous presidents at least in my lifetime). Simple, understandable programs that benefit all Americans, you can get everyone excited that way, I have a masters in public affairs, I love a good contingent clause, but they don't get less tuned in voters excited.

We should also agree that Universal programs vs means testing is a legitimate debate without insinuating that either side is racist or disingenuous, or a shill for holding their view, most leftists believe truly universal programs would disproportionately benefit the least fortunate, people of color most of all, be more durable electorally, and have a wider constituency to pass. Don't pretend as many liberals that just because Democrats do something a certain way that it is the best or most efficacious way. Just because a program benefits Appalachia as well doesn't make it bad, or mean we are trying to siphon support away from minorities, whom the majority of leftists genuinely care about just as much as liberals. I've literally been called a racist who hates inner city kids because I believe in Free College for all, it doesn't help the disposition towards those slandering us. The left used to have lots of success in the midwest and the plains, the godfather of American Socialism is from my state in Indiana, it isn't anathema to think we should try to chip away at these voters as well, as backwards as some of them can be I can tell you I have seen quite a bit of success in canvassing these area pushing a jobs and Unions agenda, it may not win put over the cultural issues at this moment, but we could expand the map and put several states into more comfortable territory with the right lunchpail socialism agenda.

Finally most left people vote democratic anyhow, the surest way to threaten that is to constantly attack them for expressing dissatisfaction with the Democrats. Calling people nasty names, insinuating they are ignorant, Trump supporters, especially when their criticism is usually correct is the best way to cause people to stay home. It seems that often excuses are made for every class of voter for not voting Democrat except leftists, who perhaps because people believe they are more tuned in politically or because they have nowhere else to go are taken for granted again and again. Voting is a personal choice and dems sabotage themselves by trying to bully people into voting their way, people that believe they have principle won't react well to it. If you really want those people treat them as if they are important rhetorically, it doesn't take much, just don't pull a Hillary and all but say fuck you.

Just a few thoughts from a New Deal lefty who has probably been employed democratic on campaigns and PACs and interest groups than 99 percent people, and who has held my nose dutifully at times for the Blue teams
Fantastic post
 

GamerJM

Member
Nov 8, 2017
16,007
Sounds like cosplaying as Che Guevara takes priority over achieving actual change for socialists then.

I don't understand why having an actual revolution where we violently ovethrow the current status quo is so completely out of the question for something that could happen some day in America. I know many leftists who are willing to throw down, for whom it's not simply cosplay or LARP.
 

j7vikes

Definitely not shooting blanks
Member
Jan 5, 2020
6,574
The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.

I know others have said it already but this is how I feel as well.
 

jdmc13

Member
Mar 14, 2019
2,990
While I'm down for a broader coalition of the left, I think you should always be wary of aligning with liberal and centrists. They're going to be the ones who cry about breaking up the alliance because you're not willing to let capitalist forces do just a little more racism/sexism/transphobia/exploitation of the workers and generally make material conditions worse in exchange for something aesthetically pleasing to them. Also, as others have noted, these are the same forces that will instantly throw you to the wolves when conservatives come with a "compromise"/payday. My only warning is allies are only useful until they are not.
 

Lozjam

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Nov 1, 2017
1,972
You'll never get many socialists to agree that reformation is better than revolution. You just can't.
Most Socialist policies came from reform rather than revolution. Concepts such as Social Security, minimum wage, public education, large infrastructure projects, federal funding for the arts, ect. Came from reform, not revolution. And it made the American economy such a powerhouse during and after. We only need a good handful of years like FDR's the new deal.
I don't understand why having an actual revolution where we violently ovethrow the current status quo is so completely out of the question for something that could happen some day in America. I know many leftists who are willing to throw down, for whom it's not simply cosplay or LARP.
Because it's kind of silly honestly. You don't need to have a violent revolution to strip these companies of their power. We have literally faced as a nation even greater wealth disparity in the 1920's and especially the great depression. If you want a "revolution" to actually get things to where you want to go, a large scale strike will do. It's what hurts capitalists the most, not making capital. That tore the British down, razed the South in the Civil War, brought protections and reform in the 30s. Revolution and bloodshed is going to harm so many people, and honestly with how powerful government, and the ruling class is, it's not going to work. If we all stopped working, it would honestly destroy all notions of these assholes, and the government would get in policies that are beneficial.

With that said, I am in complete agreement. I really don't understand why leftists go for the low hanging fruit and getting that done. That being:

20 days mandatory PTO a year
Paid paternity and maternity leave
Nationwide ban on corporate housing, with a federal housing bill(each state needs to build x amount of homes to meet demand)
32 hour work week
Make layoffs effectively illegal.
Heavy regulation on insurance companies, making pre authorization illegal, and essentially make it so insurance cannot obtain health information.
Corporate Tax at pre 80s levels.

Like these are literally common sense, and would get the support of like 80% of Americans. We can worry about things like UBI later, but these very simple ideas would make people's lives far better today. You could even literally brand it as "going back to the good ol' days that conservatives love fantasizing about.
 
Last edited:

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,637
Sydney
i don't really think the analysis in this article is all that good tbh.

it basically says the online left and left wing organizations like DSA are too obsessed with purity and annoying (I mean, fair enough the online left can be very annoying) and concluding that's why they don't have any power or a seat at the table in US electoral politics, and that's why they can't get it.

to prove this point, it compares the weakness of the American left to the left in other countries; Spain, Greece, Portugal, India etc. but all these countries have parliamentary systems, and apart from India all of them don't use FPTP (first past the post) and have weaker executives.

it's simply easier for left wing grassroots movements to gain traction in those places because of their electoral systems, not because the left wing people in those countries are more serious or less annoying or purist.

for example, it points out how the left wing bloc in Portugal gets 13% of the vote. but from what I understand, Portugal uses proportional representation and has a parliament. so 13% is actually a useful amount of the vote to get in Portugal, and can get you into a coalition.

in America, if a left wing party got 13% of the vote, it would mean nothing. actually, it would mean worse than noting, it would probably make them pariahs because they'd be taking away a potential 13% from the Democrats.

it was AOC herself who said a couple of years ago she and Biden wouldn't be in the same party if it was any other country. this is because the United States uses FPTP. FPTP creates the spoiler effect; the tendency of voters to vote for the biggest of the two parties that's closest to them in ideology, so as not to waste their vote. this is why AOC can't form the DSA party or whatever like she might be able to in Portugal, because in America it wouldn't do anything.


View: https://x.com/AOC/status/1214309421121261568?s=20

on top of that, the US has a strong executive instead of a parliament. You cant form a Presidency with a coalition of parties in FPTP like you can in a Parliamentary system where a Prime Minister can form government with several parties.

so this means you only get two big parties who try and appeal to as broad a coalition of voters as possible (the big tent). that's why the left can't get anywhere in electoral politics in America except for a few upset House seats, at least from where I'm standing.

Edit: TLDR summary


View: https://youtu.be/w7NeRiNefO0?si=Vjr-pTd3z2fkNHpo
 
Last edited:

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,855
I don't think this problem can be solved without a real power bloc taking prominence. If something can't weld all these disparate folks together it doesn't matter how pure or impure things get.

Not a fan of strongmen politics but there does need to be some sort of central authority or we're never going to get past the brainstorming stage.

Alternatively, I suppose it could be argued that end all of Left Wing political parties is just the Democratic party. There's nothing else serious out there because nothing else has the resources or ability to try anything. Not comforting because they'll never be able to do or move fast enough and potentially a bad sign for the future but it is what it is
 
Last edited:
Aug 17, 2022
1,259
The simplest expression of this is the legendary quote from The Newsroom.

"You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so goddamn always?"

The right, while terrible, are united in their terribleness. Meanwhile liberals publicly condemning and abstaining voting for Biden because he's not as progressive as Bernie. I get it, but play the game just a little bit and you can beat Republicans every time.
 
Oct 26, 2017
17,822
On point, it's really driven me away from leftist politics as I get older. I feel like certain leftists would rather complain about how nothing is going their way than work with a majority coalition to actually accomplish legislation. Biden is by no means my idea of a perfect president, but whenever something good was accomplished during his first term, there would always be the few voices saying not good enough - meanwhile many Americans are benefiting from what Biden has been able to accomplish. Either folks are young and still have a naive way of thinking about how politics works in this country, or they'd rather argue endlessly than accept what needs to be done.
 

IrishNinja

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,870
Vice City
pieces like these are exhausting, but then so is the notion that socialist change is only truly accomplished at the ballot box. not for nothing, but if we're on about purity tests, this writer's other pieces for the atlantic are a bit telling as well

Hell, you had anarchists organizing.

But now, if you don't agree with 100% of a group, they might not even bother to team up, not every group will allow compromises

many anarchists are....constantly organizing? the IWW (largest labor union) has a deep anarchist history, and many tenant unions, community defense networks and especially mutual aid (food not bombs) are collectively organized by anarchists. i understand that some folks here aren't connected to it, but the work is being done

moreover, many of these complaints speak to folks themselves being terminally online and not taking part - large community efforts require folks from all over, so even post 2020 blm efforts like the current palestinian solidarity ones feature all manner of leftists working with libs, centerists etc. openly fascist folks are by & large the ones not allowed in, because there's gotta be a bar on coalition building

Both Red Scares and programs like COINTELPRO happened.

It's weird that folks are saying the reason is that folks have splintered due to social media but the Left has always splintered and fought. Many of these fights and divisions were caused by the government.

well said, and given how cop city and FL repression are ongoing, its important not to imagine these efforts as simply part of our past

Sounds like cosplaying as Che Guevara takes priority over achieving actual change for socialists then.

that's an interesting caricature, when an answer more rooted in revolutionary liberation is to understand how calls for "common sense reform" historically have led to more harm, while even labor wins in recent years show direct action - not compromising with power at Evert turn - gets the goods

Reading a book right now about revolutionaries in the Philippines in the 1970s and 80s and this tracks. Their whole thing was that reform doesn't work. The wealthy and the politicians will always bend the system to their will. Which is exactly what happened there at that time when a constitutional convention was called. A shining example that the system and the highest level of reform of that system, failed the people and with disastrous consequences. Granted, the situations are very different but you get what I'm saying.

that sounds like an interesting text - what's the book? reminds me that i got just over halfway through jakarta method last year, but damn is that one brutal
just one of those texts where you picture how the US acted being atrocious going in, but it's somehow so much more vile than you imagined

I find the online left and the offline left to move very differently, but yeah that's anecdotal.

Populism is the real downfall.

no, i absolutely agree with you on both fronts, for what that's worth
 

Grug

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,665
The left is very easy to wedge and split with their penchant for moral absolutes and letting the perfect be the enemy of good. Very easy to create a Judean People's Front vs The People's Front of Judea situation.

Conservatives do the Max Weber "slow boring of hard boards" approach to political change much better. Easier to do when your fundamental goal is preventing progress rather than creating it.
 
Nov 23, 2023
746
The problem with "the left" is that they insist in slicing the salami thinner and thinner for who gets to be considered in good standing, and who is a PIECE OF SHIT who needs to go away because they fall a few degrees afoul of the current orthodoxy - an orthodoxy that also only really exists among people who are very online, and confuse that very online echo chamber for broad popularity.

I actually think the complete collapse of conservatism as having anything to offer public debate is a part of this, and has caused liberal/left discourse to kinda atrophy unchallenged into a never-ending ideological purity spiral.

I believe this has created a massive, quiet sub-class of citizens who are probably broadly 'liberal' people, but have been cowed into silence on a lot of issues for fear of saying something deemed wrong and being branded/dismissed in harsh terms by the (mostly) online mob. And the online right seize on these kinds of feelings by running with terms like "cancel culture" or blathering about insufficient "wokeness".

The left needs to be less judgmental, and learn to see people as potential fellow travelers building coalitions for the greater good - even if you don't agree on everything. That's the only way you're actually going to improve society systemically.

I think you just described this forum.
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,995
Seattle
This is the shortest Atlantic article I think I've ever seen.

I give AOC and some other dem socs a lot of credit for realizing right from the jump just how much they could actually get done by working within the party rather than sitting on the outside and screaming for action.

It's kind of strange seeing some on the left turn on AOC, because some of her stances have been pragmatic. Its actually allowed me to really appreciate the work that she puts in
 

AdamE

3D Character Artist
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,052
Japan
pieces like these are exhausting, but then so is the notion that socialist change is only truly accomplished at the ballot box. not for nothing, but if we're on about purity tests, this writer's other pieces for the atlantic are a bit telling as well

The Atlantic is a left punching publication, so i'm wondering who this article is actually for?

Also when we're talking about Purity tests, i think people should define what that actually means?
Like, right now many liberals are complaining that a lot of Leftists not wanting to support Biden because of their opposition to genocide. Is that included?
Anyway, as someone who isn't American, the definition of who is considered a leftist is amusing because of how far right the Overton window is.
 

VolleyR

Banned
Mar 17, 2024
34
It's not like if they're refusing to vote because the dems aren't supporting free healthcare nor education, it's because establishment democrats aren't aggressive against Israel for their crimes against Palestine and neighboring middle eastern countries. Leftists aren't asking for luxuries like a Star Trek-esque utopia, they're asking for innocent civilians to not be genocided with their tax dollars.

Voting for Democrats is still preferable to supporting Republicans however. For all their faults, the dems at least gave aid and a few instances of ceasefire, they've also expressed frustration with Netanyahu. If a republican were in their position nowadays the exact opposite will happen. They would volunteer with Netanyahu to glass Palestine day 1. Remember how Trump dealt with Soleimani? He gave the green light to drone him against the wishes of his advisors.
 

IrishNinja

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,870
Vice City
I think you just described this forum.

how's that?

It's kind of strange seeing some on the left turn on AOC, because some of her stances have been pragmatic. Its actually allowed me to really appreciate the work that she puts in

she, bernie & others have predictably been disappointing with the ongoing genocide of palestinians, not sure where pragmatism factors in there

The Atlantic is a left punching publication, so i'm wondering who this article is actually for?

thank you - to be honest, the media bar in this country is so low, many folks assume NYT leans left, despite its long history of fascist apologia/platforming, so in comparison, atlantic appears more "left", certainly to those who do not read/practice outside of the terribly small us red v blue dichotomy
that said, neither site challenges power/capital. it's especially dire given the speed & effort of media consolidation here

Like, right now many liberals are complaining that a lot of Leftists not wanting to support Biden because of their opposition to genocide. Is that included?
Anyway, as someone who isn't American, the definition of who is considered a leftist is amusing because of how far right the Overton window is.

strongly agreed, and that window is creeping right at such a pace that even fascist talking points (great replacement theory, etc) are normalized in recent years

stranger still that "leftist" is often - at least, online - thrown about vaguely, when historically it's understood as a wide umbrella of anticapitalists, a hard line between said groups and those wishing simply reform the hierarchies of capitalist empire (liberals, progressives)
 

Fallout-NL

Member
Oct 30, 2017
7,047
If socialists want to be a political force in America, they need to form coalitions, defend democracy, and change real people's lives.

Yeah, sure. It's kinda hard though when your hands are nearly completely tied by the inevitabilities of late stage capitalism, you're faced with a multitude of crises that stem from that same system and all your 'adversary' has to do is take a wrecking ball to what remains while blaming you for the resulting sordid state of affairs.

To clarify 'kinda hard' is a bit of an understatement.

Maybe what socialism needs is a rebranding. Because the word is about as dirty as the word 'nazi'. People don't understand it's not authoritarian rule under Stalin. But 100 years of propaganda will do that to a person.

In addition, real solutions are complicated and don't make for great soundbites. Something that also works in favor of populists and would be dictators.
 
Feb 24, 2018
5,645
Ooooh I'm interested in reading this.

Like the article says, what confuses me is that the left had a TON of coalitions all over the world, and they worked together well, especially during the 1910's - 1930's. Hell, you had anarchists organizing.

But now, if you don't agree with 100% of a group, they might not even bother to team up, not every group will allow compromises. Even if those groups need each other to achieve seats.
I'd say the the complete opposite, here in the UK I'd argue leftist parties like Labour willing to compromise on things that should not have been compromised such as human rights, things that would have improved poverty and as we're seeing right now, will to throw Trans people under the Bus and seemingly want us dead to appeal to right wing voters and we're constantly screamed and shamed into voting for these parties for the sake of "compromise" and "the other side is worse". All this has done though has made our left-wing parties more central and right-wing, allowed the right wing to chip more and more of our rights away and now their not even hiding that and voter apathy those same white straight cis leftists who demand.

Hell even on Era, I remember when several ERA users were VERY happy to throw trans people under the bas, happy to allow US Senator Joe Manchin to include anti-trans amendments to the Covid-Relief bill because they deemed it "more/actually important"; Our lives were a-okay to throw away because of "compromise".

Question, why is it always on POC, LGBTQ+ people and other minority groups expected to compromise with White Straight cis people despite those compromises hurting them? Why is it never ever those white straight cis people ever the ones willing to compromise with minorities, will to stand up and say no? It's even to say tut tut and complain about voter apathy when you're not the one constantly expected to compromise to vote in people who likely will betray you.
The Atlantic is a left punching publication, so i'm wondering who this article is actually for?

Also when we're talking about Purity tests, i think people should define what that actually means?
Like, right now many liberals are complaining that a lot of Leftists not wanting to support Biden because of their opposition to genocide. Is that included?
Anyway, as someone who isn't American, the definition of who is considered a leftist is amusing because of how far right the Overton window is.

Yeah that's what I was thinking as well, some of the comments feel really suspicious given what people were saying in the last thread about voting for Biden.
 

Yahsper

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,654
You'll never get many socialists to agree that reformation is better than revolution. You just can't.
Lol, come on. 90% of democratic-socialist states came into existence without a revolution.

I live in a country with the richest population, lowest wage gap between genders, strong worker protection, a strong health care system, higher education priced around 1000 euros a year and my wages automatically raise along with the rate of inflation to protect purchasing power. The most notable socialist revolution we've had was a priest calling to maybe not have children work in factories anymore.

The thing is, most American leftists are so caught up in purity of ideology that they look at that and say they want that, but eat themselves up because they get caught up in self-inflicted purity tests about policy and refuse to acknowledge that this takes decades to built, not one election cycle.
 

Palette Swap

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
11,520
Honestly, this is a bit all over the place because it's so vague and porous at times, it feels like it's voluntarily switching targets along the way.

The thesis of the beginning of the article is pretty solid and factual, acknowledging how uniquely locked America's political system is in particular.

Where it falls apart is that the argument "hey, the DSA leadership has shit political acumen if they want to change anything" isn't the same as "the left is too obsessed with purity" while applying much broader definitions than the example at the beginning of the article.

Typically, what it mentions while not acknowledging is how recent grassroots movements have transformed into political forces. You can't use Sanders as a counterexample of how the DSA should operate while simultaneously saying the American left isn't generally willing to operate in a workable electoral framework.

A lot of the international examples are poorly contextualized and actually counter examples. Most of the coalition building is often done in run offs or even after elections. Which means every political force will lay out their demands and red lines, they're not going to compromise on them early on, because that's how they leverage their votes to move the needle politically.
That's how other countries do it, which is much harder in America, because you need a specific political culture it doesn't have or can't afford, as shown by this article.