***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[mplsdunk]

This again

What? It’s already happening.

You see all these strikes? The government didn’t do that. Workers did.

 

[mplsdunk]

It’s a tricky thing, both in terms of framing and in terms of translating it into the realm of electoral politics.

In my view, labor militancy has to be the primary means of affecting change in this particular moment. The ultimate ends must, of course, be more intersectional. My belief is that when we have broken the back of this particularly virulent form of white supremacy and capitalism, that has a stranglehold on our politics, we will actually be able to recitify injustices that exist due to patriarchy, white supremacy, empire, etc.

I think the best messaging for those, who are currently disengaged and whose participation we need, is that the working class is darker, queerer, more feminine and more likely to be undocumented, than the bourgeoisie. I know that I am tired of those who act like it’s trans rights or racial justice or women’s rights versus the working class’ interests. The NazBols, who say that, are playing into the hands of the capitalists. If you only want to fight for socialism and just socialism, you won’t win.

As far as a third party goes, I think that labor militancy renders third parties unnecessary. Most Democratic politicians are opportunists and if labor militancy is the most powerful force in this country, they’ll go along with labor’s demands. Heck, if labor becomes powerful enough, they could make Republicans vote how labor wants.

That’s how you got coal miners in Alabama banging with Bernie. he’s pro labor and he’s actually out here on picket lines putting his time in showing he cares.

We’re workers before anything. Most of of have that in common, people are already coming together and organizing. We can change labor on our own. The government is a lost cause.

If we fix labor the government can still stay trash but more people will get a livable wage, pension and healthcare.

 

[RustyShackleford]

What? It’s already happening.

You see all these strikes? The government didn’t do that. Workers did.

-Because white identity politics are powerful at making white people abandon worker solidarity. You tell white people this is just pro-union stuff and leave the civil rights stuff alone, then what happens when you try to pass the civil rights stuff, how do you control the blowback?

The Dems should lead with economic policy but people are fooling themselves if they think a pro-union strategy is a magic bullet.

-Biden is pro-union. A lot of union leaders sure seem to think that. Bernie sure seems to think that. Biden endorsed the Pro-Act and let unions help write the original BBB. The EV credit was supposed to be only for cars made in union factories.

-A pro-union third party isn't gonna do ****.

The Dems of the 80s and 90s moves undermining union power were absolutely asinine politically. I 100% agree. But to me, the power of unions is with people already in them, not a political campaign organized around it. And that is a unique and unfortunate political problem for the Dems

 

[RustyShackleford]

Can we please keep it a buck though

This "lead with labor" "pro-union" stuff is mainly about convincing a subgroup of white people not to take the country over the cliff.

The political benefit of unions is giving those white people a reason not to indulge in white grievance politics

 

[RustyShackleford]

Both Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham won their elections to Congress by being pro-union moderates.

Let that sink in for a second

 

[mplsdunk]

-Because white identity politics are powerful at making white people abandon worker solidarity. You tell white people this is just pro-union stuff and leave the civil rights stuff alone, then what happens when you try to pass the civil rights stuff, how do you control the blowback?

The Dems should lead with economic policy but people are fooling themselves if they think a pro-union strategy is a magic bullet.

-Biden is pro-union. A lot of union leaders sure seem to think that. Bernie sure seems to think that. Biden endorsed the Pro-Act and let unions help write the original BBB. The EV credit was supposed to be only for cars made in union factories.

-A pro-union third party isn't gonna do ****.

The Dems of the 80s and 90s moves undermining union power were absolutely asinine politically. I 100% agree. But to me, the power of unions is with people already in them, not a political campaign organized around it.

I shouldn’t have brought up politics into this. That was my bad.

Let me start over.

I believe workers are capable of making quicker change in the work place than the government and we should do that and not wait.

We already see it happening and I don’t think it will stop.

If all else fails which it looks like it will, at least workers can band together and incite change their way with strikes, organizing and just not working horrible jobs.

One job taking care of their employees lifts everyone up you don’t even have to be union. If target pays 20 an hour and has benefits and Walmart pays 10 with no benefits everyone will go to target.

 

[mplsdunk]

Both Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham won their elections to Congress by being pro-union moderates.

Let that sink in for a second

Oh for sure I agree on that, basically get racist people to vote for a “socialist” because it will increase their pay and pension.

 

[mplsdunk]

Joining a labor union changed my life, no joke. That’s why I’d put my faith in unions/labor over government.

Not to say you can’t fight for both but I was instantly lifted out of poverty with a union and all it took was getting a job.

 

[rexanglorum]

Can we please keep it a buck though

This "lead with labor" "pro-union" stuff is mainly about convincing a subgroup of white people not to take the country over the cliff.

The political benefit of unions is giving those white people a reason not to indulge in white grievance politics

A lot of existing Union leadership believes that a disproportionately white and male subset of the working class, those deemed “skilled,” deserve decent family-sustaining wages and the disproportionately non white and femme parts of the working class, that do care based labor, do not deserve a decent wage.

There’s a reason why, in this recent wave of labor militancy, rank-and-file members are challenging their conservative union bosses just as much as their employers.

No doubt, unions have been used as a means to delineate the “worthy” members of the working class from the “unworthy.” Thankfully, we are seeing newer members and newer unions emphasizing the need for all types of labor and every type of worker to have the power of collective bargaining.

 

[mplsdunk]

A lot of women don’t even think about construction or union trades either. It’s intimidating to anyone new especially people who aren’t traditionally in the field.

I’m going with my company and union to high schools and job fairs. To try to get some new faces in construction. We need some newcomers.

Plus it’s something I actually believe in and care about.

 

[yobyellav]

She must wasn’t earning enough. Paying them more is a solution.

 

[Methodical Management]

You won’t brainwash me with all your big words meth !!!!!!!!! I won’t give in

Given that my message was not to give up, "I won't give in" is the desired takeaway.

If you are putting your sweat and money into stopping fascism at the ballot box, I thank you. If you accuse those, who look to solutions beyond the ballot box, I ask you. Why do you disparage non electoral activism and organizing? We need every viable form of resistance if we are going to win.

You alluded to my post in your opening statement, but I'm going to assume that nothing afterward addressed me as at literally no point have I disparaged "non electoral activism." I explicitly stated that electoral politics alone will not and has not achieved much of anything on its own, so I'm not going to address that.

My post focused on widespread sentiment of defeatism and nihilism emerging from something that I think literally everyone in this thread saw coming from Manchin and Sinema.
If you felt that what I described was not your position, there should have been no reason for you to feel personally attacked. If you feel otherwise, even though your positions, words, and name were not invoked, you can take that up with your conscience.

If I have something to say to anyone in particular I think I've made it clear that I will quote or reference them directly.


I don't think I've said anything particularly controversial.
There's nothing to be gained by sugarcoating the challenges we face right now, but shrinking in the face of it is even less helpful.

The courage of prior generations in facing down injustice has served as a wellspring of inspiration for me throughout my life. It is our turn. 2020 was not our victory march, and it will not be our last stand.


If your very existence serves as testament to the resilience of those who've survived enslavement and/or attempted genocide, the problems we face today do not seem insurmountable.
If, on the other hand, the biggest problems you've faced in life have been the cancellation of Firefly, "lady Ghostbusters," and the ever-present danger of being considered "racist," then I suppose government inaction to the mounting student debt crisis probably does feel like too much to bear.

If that statement doesn't apply to you, and you're not withdrawing into a tortoise shell of privilege while cheering on the accelerationist fantasy of a violent conflict in which you will not take part, then you have little reason to feel personally attacked by anything I've said.

 

[rexanglorum]

Given that my message was not to give up, "I won't give in" is the desired takeaway.


You alluded to my post in your opening statement, but I'm going to assume that nothing afterward addressed me as at literally no point have I disparaged "non electoral activism." I explicitly stated that electoral politics alone will not and has not achieved much of anything on its own, so I'm not going to address that.

My post focused on widespread sentiment of defeatism and nihilism emerging from something that I think literally everyone in this thread saw coming from Manchin and Sinema.
If you felt that what I described was not your position, there should have been no reason for you to feel personally attacked. If you feel otherwise, even though your positions, words, and name were not invoked, you can take that up with your conscience.

If I have something to say to anyone in particular I think I've made it clear that I will quote or reference them directly.


I don't think I've said anything particularly controversial.
There's nothing to be gained by sugarcoating the challenges we face right now, but shrinking in the face of it is even less helpful.

The courage of prior generations in facing down injustice has served as a wellspring of inspiration for me throughout my life. It is our turn. 2020 was not our victory march, and it will not be our last stand.


If your very existence serves as testament to the resilience of those who've survived enslavement and/or attempted genocide, the problems we face today do not seem insurmountable.
If, on the other hand, the biggest problems you've faced in life have been the cancellation of Firefly, "lady Ghostbusters," and the ever-present danger of being considered "racist," then I suppose government inaction to the mounting student debt crisis probably does feel like too much to bear.

If that statement doesn't apply to you, and you're not withdrawing into a tortoise shell of privilege while cheering on the accelerationist fantasy of a violent conflict in which you will not take part, then you have little reason to feel personally attacked by anything I've said.

I don’t know what has happened in the last few years that has caused you to move to the right but it is disappointing.

 

[Methodical Management]

I don’t know what has happened in the last few years that has caused you to move to the right but it is disappointing.

Do you have any examples of leftist positions I took in the past that I’ve since turned my back on?

If you think that criticizing neckbeard Bernie bros./White socialists for condemning “identity politics” while simultaneously promoting “me first” class primacy constitutes a “rightward shift”, then we’re not operating on the same axis.

If it’s that I occasionally ridicule those spouting empty slogans about armed revolution while ensconced in a suburban cocoon, I hate to break it to you: but non-violence is a longstanding conviction for me and I’ve no use for performative activism.

I’ve been very deliberate and consistent in isolating those critiques from intersectional democratic socialism.


If you have any concrete examples rather than vague feelings, I’d be interested in reading them.

 

[mplsdunk]

I don’t get the constant Bernie bashing. He’s never switched up and practices what he preaches.

 

[elpablo21]

I don’t get the constant Bernie bashing. He’s never switched up and practices what he preaches.

Don't think that's a Bernie bash but there's a sub group of Bernie supporters to tend to be right wing apologist for whatever underlying intent they have

Bernie is cool with me but sometimes you have some grifters gravitate to a platform and utilize it to their own chaotic cause

I could be wrong though

 

[rexanglorum]

Do you have any examples of leftist positions I took in the past that I’ve since turned my back on?

If you think that criticizing neckbeard Bernie bros./White socialists for condemning “identity politics” while simultaneously promoting “me first” class primacy constitutes a “rightward shift”, then we’re not operating on the same axis.

If it’s that I occasionally ridicule those spouting empty slogans about armed revolution while ensconced in a suburban cocoon, I hate to break it to you: but non-violence is a longstanding conviction for me and I’ve no use for performative activism.

I’ve been very deliberate and consistent in isolating those critiques from intersectional democratic socialism.


If you have any concrete examples rather than vague feelings, I’d be interested in reading them.

I appreciate the level headed and thoughtful reply to a terse reply on my part.

Most of the time when you talk about socialism, it’s negative. When you talk about those, who simply point out how bad the Democrats have been at implementing their own agenda, it’s overwhelmingly negative. When you talk about progressive policies, you view them and their advocates with suspicion. Your position on student loan debt relief and labor unions being two big examples that come to mind.

I hope it’s just you being very willing to criticize and demand improvement from others, who occupy the general left side of the political spectrum. But at the same time, it’s hard to think that’s the case when you are constantly so negative about anyone to the left of the median Democratic House member.

I also cannot help but notice a much greater embrace of the Democratic Party over the last few years. The party, despite some leftward movement, is still a fairly Conservative party compared to most center-left parties in the world. It’s one thing to vote for Democrats and still criticize them from the left, as you used to do. Now, I don’t see such criticism. All your invective now seems to flow towards those who do criticize the Democratic Party from the left.

Lastly, there is a personal aspect here. I am the only person who regularly posts here, is white, and is a leftist/socialist. And I feel that you have acted in bad faith in a few discussions. You implied that I was anti reparations in a discussion about student loan relief. And you broke out the Andrew Gillum line about a hit dog. It feels like you’re building me up as the red Ron DeSantis in order to justify a rejection of socialism. Make me the face of socialism, liken me to one of the most reactionary politicians in this country, then use that to justify an economic rightward shift because hey, all or most socialists are racists like Rex DeSantis over there.

At some point, it’s hard to separate a relentless desire for a better and more inclusive left from a discrete reconciliation with capital, gradualism, and compromise with the ruling class.

I hope it’s the former. It probably is the former, but please keep in mind that I’m A.) pretty paranoid due to having a brain that under produces serotonin and B.) I’m seen and experienced far more unlikely political conversions and they tend to play out slowly and discretely rather than suddenly and clearly, at least at first.


Edit: the other thing I forgot to mention is that I feel like you ignore the distinction between methods and goals when I comes to class and race based forms of resistance.

I feel like I go out of my way to indicate that I agree with you in your opposition to a hierarchy of hierarchies. I don’t see class as the only or the “top” form of oppression.

What I do see is these webs of injustice best attacked on lines of working class solidarity. I feel like you ignore this distinction and conflate calls for labor militancy with a betrayal or dismissal of anti racism.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[Methodical Management]

Most of the time when you talk about socialism, it’s negative. When you talk about those, who simply point out how bad the Democrats have been at implementing their own agenda, it’s overwhelmingly negative. When you talk about progressive policies, you view them and their advocates with suspicion. Your position on student loan debt relief and labor unions being two big examples that come to mind.

Conspicuously absent from this characterization is an account of why I've criticized them. That is an essential variable, is it not? Did I criticize White socialists for supporting the DSA, or did I criticize them for selfishness and racism?

Does the latter qualify as criticism from the right or criticism from the left?

If you think that an attack on White socialism is an attack on your values system, again, I think that would say more about your allegiances than it does about democratic socialism.


Similarly, I have explicitly stated - and repeated - my support for student loan debt cancellation. What I dislike is its use as a "Bernie or bust" style ultimatum by those who faced no other peril from a Trump reelection.
If I've criticized labor unions, it's been in the historical context of union exclusion as a counterpoint to this simplistic "class consciousness" we've long been promised will occur at the cost of silence on all other social justice issues - not because I've taken a "pro-management" stance.

Given that, your suppositions here come from a place of misrepresentation - and this has become a habit.

I hope it’s just you being very willing to criticize and demand improvement from others, who occupy the general left side of the political spectrum. But at the same time, it’s hard to think that’s the case when you are constantly so negative about anyone to the left of the median Democratic House member.

I also cannot help but notice a much greater embrace of the Democratic Party over the last few years. The party, despite some leftward movement, is still a fairly Conservative party compared to most center-left parties in the world. It’s one thing to vote for Democrats and still criticize them from the left, as you used to do. Now, I don’t see such criticism. All your invective now seems to flow towards those who do criticize the Democratic Party from the left.

That's partly because I mercifully no longer have to deal with you comparing capitalism to a helicopter delivering the Global South from the inferno of material privation. Republican mainstays like TBONE, crcballer, jjshome, rico, and ninjahood are gone. Honestly, is there a Republican poster left in this thread who isn't a meme?

There's little to debate about a party so intellectually bankrupt that it is now formally anti-debate. Even so, I've wasted far more of my recent years than I'd like interacting with those who constantly bellyache over the perceived evils of "identity politics." When I criticize those who find common cause with the likes of Bill Maher, that IS criticizing the center. If you feel attacked, maybe you ought to take time to reorient, lest you find yourself invoking the "oppression Olympics" again. If you were to take an actual count, I think you'd find that most of my posts in this thread - and by no small margin - target the right/center.


If we're honest, we should acknowledge that political ideologies are not reducible to a single linear axis.

Nevertheless, I have made it clear time and time again that I support the leftmost candidate in every election. As such, once the candidates have already been selected, I have little patience for the complaints of those who failed to engage in the process, and act like they're going to teach the Democrats a lesson by staying home or writing in Harambe. That's not how voting works.

I am against privileged people practicing hostage-taking because they have less at risk. It is disingenuous at best to characterize such people as "criticizing the Democratic Party from the left."


We both know that there exists a significant cohort of populists (independent of if occasionally indistinguishable from AstroTurf agitators) sometimes referred to as the "Dirtbag left," who, in a ranked choice scenario, would place Bernie Sanders #1, with Elon Musk following closely behind at #2.

If they want to vote for a democratic socialist because they see it as an express elevator out of their parents' basements, fine, but I cannot stomach the idea that we ought to kowtow to incels and refrain from discussing any issue other than class grievance, lest we scare them off.

It is little different than the longstanding tendency of mainstream democrats to alienate countless core voters in their obsessive pursuit of mythical undecided White working class men.

I am against the colonialist gentrification of the left, full stop, and I have every right to be vocal about it.

Edit: the other thing I forgot to mention is that I feel like you ignore the distinction between methods and goals when I comes to class and race based forms of resistance.

I feel like I go out of my way to indicate that I agree with you in your opposition to a hierarchy of hierarchies. I don’t see class as the only or the “top” form of oppression.

And yet, the last time I challenged the premise of class primacy, rather than agree with me you instead compared me to an anti-CRT protestor and claimed that class discrimination predated patriarchy.

Lastly, there is a personal aspect here. I am the only person who regularly posts here, is white, and is a leftist/socialist. And I feel that you have acted in bad faith in a few discussions. You implied that I was anti reparations in a discussion about student loan relief. And you broke out the Andrew Gillum line about a hit dog. It feels like you’re building me up as the red Ron DeSantis in order to justify a rejection of socialism. Make me the face of socialism, liken me to one of the most reactionary politicians in this country, then use that to justify an economic rightward shift because hey, all or most socialists are racists like Rex DeSantis over there.

If it's personal, it's because you insist on making it so.


You're not the only White leftist/socialist who regularly posts here. There are several others. Perhaps you remember this recent gem. If you don't think that sort of attitude is worthy of criticism, don't criticize it. But if I criticize a position you claim you don't even hold, and you then repeatedly distort my positions in a vain attempt to claim the moral high ground, I'm not the one acting in bad faith.


Andrew Gillum would never claim to have coined the phrase “a hit dog will holler,” but it nonetheless applies, and you need not be Ron DeSantis for that to be so. If someone was criticizing the Sacramento Kings and you took extreme offense, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that you somehow favored the Sacramento Kings. This wasn't some smear I tarred you with. I was criticizing White socialists and you dove in front of it.

We've had this discussion before, and yet... you keep doing this again and again and again and again and again and again and again – and not just to me. You've subjected others to this as well, though I'm not going to call those out and compound the harm by dragging them into this. You should be able to recall at least some of the incidents to which I'm referring without additional prompt.

Honestly, what more do you want from me? To avoid rendering any honest criticism of White socialists, lest you feel threatened? To take an oath of loyalty?

I am genuinely sorry to hear about your serotonin issue, but I think you can empathize with me for being done with this. Your paranoia, and, thus, your "problem" with me, should not be my problem.

I'm not going to start prefacing every single general comment with "I'm not talking to you, Rex.” If I did, that would be an insult. “I find it ironic that so many Q-Anon adherents wind up catching charges related to pedophilia – don't worry, Rex, I don't mean you.”

Not to be insensitive, but if you're dead set on taking personal umbrage to this no matter what I actually say, then at a certain point that is just going to be your problem. The alternative is that I should self-censor my honest opinions about racism and the pernicious influence of White privilege in society for fear that it might upset you. That is not the side of this issue you want to be on.


Robin DiAngelo understandably generated backlash for being an Elvis of anti-racism, but her core conceptualization of White fragility - particularly the "rules of engagement" - nonetheless provides a serviceable encapsulation of the phenomenon at play here:

1. Do not give me feedback on my racism under any circumstances.

If you insist on breaking the cardinal rule, then you must follow these other rules:

2. Proper tone is crucial - feedback must be given calmly. If any emotion is displayed, the feedback is invalid and can be dismissed.

3. There must be trust between us. You must trust that I am in no way racist before you can give me feedback on my racism.

4. Our relationship must be issue-free - if there are issues between us, you cannot give me feedback on racism until these unrelated issues are resolved.

5. Feedback must be given immediately. If you wait too long, the feedback will be discounted because it was not given sooner.

6. You must give feedback privately, regardless of whether the incident occurred in front of other people. To give feedback in front of any others who were involved in the situation is to commit a serious social transgression. If you cannot protect me from embarrassment, the feedback is invalid, and you are the transgressor.

7. You must be as indirect as possible. Directness is insensitive and will invalidate the feedback and require repair.

8. As a white person, I must feel completely safe during any discussion of race. Suggesting that I have racist assumptions or patterns will cause me to feel unsafe, so you will need to rebuild my trust by never giving me feedback again. Point of clarification: when I say "safe," what I really mean is "comfortable."

9. Highlighting my racial privilege invalidates the form of oppression that I experience (e.g., classism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, transphobia). We will then need to turn our attention to how you oppressed me.

10. You must acknowledge my intentions (always good) and agree that my good intentions cancel out the impact of my behavior.

11. To suggest that my behavior had a racist impact is to have misunderstood me. You will need to allow me to explain myself until you can acknowledge that it was your misunderstanding.



It is exhausting to have to deal with this just for making a general comment about racism. I don't think you adequately appreciate this. This ceased to be a one-time misunderstanding years ago.
Anytime you feel a bit too closely associated with a group accused of racism for your personal comfort, we seem to be treated to one of these meltdowns.

I am really, really tired of it.


I believe that I have been immensely patient with this thus far.

As I told you many years ago, I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. If I'm going to stake my mental health and spend my precious free time dealing with people acting in bad faith, the potential payout had better be more worthwhile than winning an argument on an Internet message board – even if it is one I helped found.

You think people should engage in non-violent direct action? Great, I wholeheartedly agree. In the post you for some reason objected to, I referenced the necessity of such actions and made multiple allusions to regressive policies rolled back even in deep red states, or during a time when the very possibility of voting was restricted to White men. Urging those who have the luxury of safely walking away to stay in the work is hardly a paean to incrementalism. If you want to cast aspersions on some fictitious version of me to whom you can feel morally superior, then go see if he wants to spar with you, too.

I don't.

 

[IATT]

 

[gry60]

The insurrection is only the tip of the iceberg | Sidney Blumenthal

Behind the insurrection of 6 January was a coup plot that was months in the making, and which involved a dastardly cast of characters

www.theguardian.com

After thousands of posts appeared for weeks on a website called TheDonald.win detailing plans for the 6 January attack on the Capitol, including how to form a “wall of death” to force police to abandon defensive positions; after Gen Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, warned his senior aides of “a Reichstag moment” like the 1933 burning of the German parliament that Hitler used to seize dictatorial power; after insurrectionists smashed several ground floor windows of the Capitol, the only ones out of 658 they somehow knew were not reinforced, that allowed rioters to pour inside; after marching to the chamber of the House chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”; after pounding on the locked doors; and as the Capitol police led members in a run through the tunnels under the Capitol for safe passage to the Longworth Building, Congressman Jody Hice, a Republican of Georgia, raced by a Democratic colleague, who told me Hice was screaming into his phone: “You screwed it up, y’all screwed it all up!” (Hice has denied the incident occurred, but the Democratic congressman stands by his account.)

Hice, an evangelical minister, professor of preaching at a Southern Baptist seminary, and radio talkshow host before his election in 2014, has notably declared that freedom of religion should not apply to Muslims and that the Sandy Hook massacre of 26 people at an elementary school by a deranged shooter occurred because liberals were “kicking God out of the public square”.

To whom was Hice shouting that “y’all” had screwed it all up? It seems likely it was Meadows. And what had they screwed up? They had screwed up the coup that led to the insurrection.

The insurrection was not the coup itself. It was staged as the coup was failing. The insurrection and the coup were distinct, but the insurrection emerged from the coup. It has been a common conceptual error to consider the insurrection alone to be the coup. The coup, however, was an elaborate plot developed over months to claim that the votes in the key swing states were fraudulent, for Mike Pence as the presiding officer of the joint session of the Congress to declare on that basis that the certification of the presidential election on the constitutionally mandated date could not be done, to force that day to pass into a twilight zone of irresolution, for House Republicans to hold the floor brandishing the endless claims of fraud, to move the decision to the safe harbor of the House of Representatives, voting by states, with a majority of 26 controlled by the Republican party, to deny both the popular vote and the electoral college vote to retain Trump in office, for protests to breakout at federal buildings, and for the president to invoke the Insurrection Act to impose law and order.

Of the thousands involved in the Capitol riot, 725 so far have been charged with various crimes. But those sentenced, mostly true believer foot soldiers of the Trump mob, were not the originators of the coup, the most dangerous sedition against the constitutional order since secession. Nor were the leaders of the militias, of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters, present at the creation.

The 6 January attack was a spawn of the coup; it was its effect, not its alpha and omega. Only those incited to sacrifice themselves in the Pickett’s Charge of the insurrection have paid the price, but none of those who conceived the coup a year earlier have been brought before a federal grand jury, charged, or apparently are even being investigated by the Department of Justice.

It would be as if only the Watergate burglars were prosecuted and that was the end of the affair. All of the higher-ups involved in the scandal – chief of staff Bob Haldeman, his deputy John Ehrlichman, attorney general John Mitchell, the entire cast of complicit characters and President Richard Nixon – would have remained untouched in power.

There will be more to know about the coup from the House investigation. The committee has gathered more than 30,000 documents and interviewed more than 300 witnesses. Two, three, many John Deans may testify before the cameras. Criminal referrals will probably be made.

The coup of 2020 gestated within the central organizations of the Republican right, and it was a learning experiment for the Republican party as a whole. Hice has announced he will run in the Republican primary against Raffensperger for Georgia secretary of state. He is only one of the Republicans focused on taking over the states’ electoral apparatus to ensure that the next time there will be no obstacles. By December, Republicans had proposed 262 bills “to politicize, criminalize, or interfere with the non-partisan administration of elections”, with 32 becoming law in 17 states, according to the non-profit Protect Democracy group.

The threat of intimidation, coercion and intimidation hangs over American politics. The coup may have failed, but it rolls on.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[IATT]

 

[Methodical Management]

 

[rexanglorum]

Conspicuously absent from this characterization is an account of why I've criticized them. That is an essential variable, is it not? Did I criticize White socialists for supporting the DSA, or did I criticize them for selfishness and racism?

Does the latter qualify as criticism from the right or criticism from the left?

If you think that an attack on White socialism is an attack on your values system, again, I think that would say more about your allegiances than it does about democratic socialism.


Similarly, I have explicitly stated - and repeated - my support for student loan debt cancellation. What I dislike is its use as a "Bernie or bust" style ultimatum by those who faced no other peril from a Trump reelection.
If I've criticized labor unions, it's been in the historical context of union exclusion as a counterpoint to this simplistic "class consciousness" we've long been promised will occur at the cost of silence on all other social justice issues - not because I've taken a "pro-management" stance.

Given that, your suppositions here come from a place of misrepresentation - and this has become a habit.




That's partly because I mercifully no longer have to deal with you comparing capitalism to a helicopter delivering the Global South from the inferno of material privation. Republican mainstays like TBONE, crcballer, jjshome, rico, and ninjahood are gone. Honestly, is there a Republican poster left in this thread who isn't a meme?

There's little to debate about a party so intellectually bankrupt that it is now formally anti-debate. Even so, I've waste far more of my recent years than I'd like interacting with those who constantly bellyache over the perceived evils of "identity politics." When I criticize those who find common cause with the likes of Bill Maher, that IS criticizing the center. If you feel attacked, maybe you ought to take time to reorient, lest you find yourself invoking the "oppression Olympics" again. If you were to take an actual count, I think you'd find that most of my posts in this thread - and by no small margin - target the right/center.


If we're honest, we should acknowledge that political ideologies are not reducible to a single linear axis.

Nevertheless, I have made it clear time and time again that I support the leftmost candidate in every election. As such, once the candidates have already been selected, I have little patience for the complaints of those who failed to engage in the process, and act like they're going to teach the Democrats a lesson by staying home or writing in Harambe. That's not how voting works.

I am against privileged people practicing hostage-taking because they have less at risk. It is disingenuous at best to characterize such people as "criticizing the Democratic Party from the left."


We both know that there exists a significant cohort of populists (independent of if occasionally indistinguishable from AstroTurf agitators) sometimes referred to as the "Dirtbag left," who, in a ranked choice scenario, would place Bernie Sanders #1, with Elon Musk following closely behind at #2.

If they want to vote for a democratic socialist because they see it as an express elevator out of their parents' basements, fine, but I cannot stomach the idea that we ought to kowtow to incels and refrain from discussing any issue other than class grievance, lest we scare them off.

It is little different than the longstanding tendency of mainstream democrats to alienate countless core voters in their obsessive pursuit of mythical undecided White working class men.

I am against the colonialist gentrification of the left, full stop, and I have every right to be vocal about it.




And yet, the last time I challenged the premise of class primacy, rather than agree with me you instead compared me to an anti-CRT protestor and claimed that class discrimination predated patriarchy.



If it's personal, it's because you insist on making it so.


You're not the only White leftist/socialist who regularly posts here. There are several others. Perhaps you remember this recent gem. If you don't think that sort of attitude is worthy of criticism, don't criticize it. But if I criticize a position you claim you don't even hold, and you then repeatedly distort my positions in a vain attempt to claim the moral high ground, I'm not the one acting in bad faith.


Andrew Gillum would never claim to have coined the phrase “a hit dog will holler,” but it nonetheless applies, and you need not be Ron DeSantis for that to be so. If someone was criticizing the Sacramento Kings and you took extreme offense, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that you somehow favored the Sacramento Kings. This wasn't some smear I tarred you with. I was criticizing White socialists and you dove in front of it.

We've had this discussion before, and yet... you keep doing this again and again and again and again and again and again and again – and not just to me. You've subjected others to this as well, though I'm not going to call those out and compound the harm by dragging them into this. You should be able to recall at least some of the incidents to which I'm referring without additional prompt.

Honestly, what more do you want from me? To avoid rendering any honest criticism of White socialists, lest you feel threatened? To take an oath of loyalty?

I am genuinely sorry to hear about your serotonin issue, but I think you can empathize with me for being done with this. Your paranoia, and, thus, your "problem" with me, should not be my problem.

I'm not going to start prefacing every single general comment with "I'm not talking to you, Rex.” If I did, that would be an insult. “I find it ironic that so many Q-Anon adherents wind up catching charges related to pedophilia – don't worry, Rex, I don't mean you.”

Not to be insensitive, but if you're dead set on taking personal umbrage to this no matter what I actually say, then at a certain point that is just going to be your problem. The alternative is that I should self-censor my honest opinions about racism and the pernicious influence of White privilege in society for fear that it might upset you. That is not the side of this issue you want to be on.


Robin DiAngelo understandably generated backlash for being an Elvis of anti-racism, but her core conceptualization of White fragility - particularly the "rules of engagement" - nonetheless provides a serviceable encapsulation of the phenomenon at play here:

1. Do not give me feedback on my racism under any circumstances.

If you insist on breaking the cardinal rule, then you must follow these other rules:

2. Proper tone is crucial - feedback must be given calmly. If any emotion is displayed, the feedback is invalid and can be dismissed.

3. There must be trust between us. You must trust that I am in no way racist before you can give me feedback on my racism.

4. Our relationship must be issue-free - if there are issues between us, you cannot give me feedback on racism until these unrelated issues are resolved.

5. Feedback must be given immediately. If you wait too long, the feedback will be discounted because it was not given sooner.

6. You must give feedback privately, regardless of whether the incident occurred in front of other people. To give feedback in front of any others who were involved in the situation is to commit a serious social transgression. If you cannot protect me from embarrassment, the feedback is invalid, and you are the transgressor.

7. You must be as indirect as possible. Directness is insensitive and will invalidate the feedback and require repair.

8. As a white person, I must feel completely safe during any discussion of race. Suggesting that I have racist assumptions or patterns will cause me to feel unsafe, so you will need to rebuild my trust by never giving me feedback again. Point of clarification: when I say "safe," what I really mean is "comfortable."

9. Highlighting my racial privilege invalidates the form of oppression that I experience (e.g., classism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, transphobia). We will then need to turn our attention to how you oppressed me.

10. You must acknowledge my intentions (always good) and agree that my good intentions cancel out the impact of my behavior.

11. To suggest that my behavior had a racist impact is to have misunderstood me. You will need to allow me to explain myself until you can acknowledge that it was your misunderstanding.



It is exhausting to have to deal with this just for making a general comment about racism. I don't think you adequately appreciate this. This ceased to be a one-time misunderstanding years ago.
Anytime you feel a bit too closely associated with a group accused of racism for your personal comfort, we seem to be treated to one of these meltdowns.

I am really, really tired of it.


I believe that I have been immensely patient with this thus far.

As I told you many years ago, I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. If I'm going to stake my mental health and spend my precious free time dealing with people acting bad faith, the potential payout had better be more worthwhile than winning an argument on an Internet message board – even if it is one I helped found.

You think people should engage in non-violent direct action? Great, I wholeheartedly agree. In the post you for some reason objected to, I referenced the necessity of such actions and made multiple allusions to regressive policies rolled back even in deep red states, or during a time when the very possibility of voting was restricted to White men. Urging those who have the luxury of safely walking away to stay in the work is hardly a paean to incrementalism. If you want to cast aspersions on some fictitious version of me to whom you can feel morally superior, then go see if he wants to spar with you, too.

I don't.

We may disagree about the prevalence and prominence of class primacy on the left but otherwise, I pretty much agree with your views on how society is structured and where power resides. We may disagree on exactly how to attack it but we both want to end up in the same place, abolition.

We are in a moment where capitalism and its failures are becoming more and more apparent. Or at the very least, this particular firm of capitalism’s failures.. In that context, I see the more center leaning liberal defenders of capitalism becoming less and less willing to defend capitalism on its own merits. Instead, I see more and defenses of capitalism consisting of bad faith invocations of all the potential harms socialism might cause to women and POC and other marginalized groups. Those defenders of neoliberal capitalism use unctuous concern for marginalized groups to do what they are willing to do publicly, defend neoliberal capitalism.

You are obviously not that person at all. My ****** up, non trusting brain, conflates you with those people. This despite the fact that you say otherwise and you’re a super upright, trustworthy person. That ought to be enough.

I know that I have caused a lot of exhaustion and difficulty and I still probably don’t appreciate the extent of it.

I really need to take a break from posting on here, at least for a while. I am not:

-trying to guilt you or anyone else.
-mad at you or anyone else in here.
-Abandoning activism. I love you guys but this thread is where we go when we are not doing activism offline. When there are material stakes, I don’t leave a space because of discomfort. But we come here to enjoy ourselves and if I’m uncomfortable and I’m making others uncomfortable, it seems the best course of action to leave.

I didn't want to just go ghost. I want you to know I read your message and take it to heart, plus after so many years, I owe you and other regulars here an explanation.

I’ll come on back when I’m in a better place, but until then, peace.