***Official Political Discussion Thread***

18,399
12,971
Joined May 25, 2004
Actually I believe the Nordic left wing countries have been moving right for decades now

The Nordic social democratic parties are not all the left wing parties in Europe. Remember, since other countries have parliamentary systems, he have multiple functioning left wing parties. In the US there is only one.

In the article they map I posted is interactive, each circle represents a political party. So all those blue circles the Dems are left of, are left wing European parties.
yeah I know a bunch of countries have been moving right and going ignorant.

based on that map one thing that’s popular among the right wing is the word “freedom” I can’t think of a bigger threat to my freedom than the far right.
 

whywesteppin

Supporter
15,718
22,692
Joined Mar 27, 2004
only in America is Biden or any democrat left wing.

We have two right wing parties with the far right party hauling *** as fast as they can to fascism. Then we got the Democrats trying to bargain with them.
I'm disappointed in you. Democrats are right wing? What has gotten into you?




Democrats are far left LIBBIE COMMUNIST scum.
 
18,399
12,971
Joined May 25, 2004
I'm disappointed in you. Democrats are right wing? What has gotten into you?




Democrats are far left LIBBIE COMMUNIST scum.
I got a rain day today in the mines, I think I spent too much time with the libtards and cityiots. I can’t wait to get back in the mines and breathe a deep breath of coal dust (mask off).
 
2,230
2,631
Joined Feb 21, 2006
I’ll speak for myself in answering the question. It’s about getting what’s ours. My people are the victim of theft and I want what’s mine.

And it is also about pursuing a massive redistribution of wealth (the essence of reparations) in ways that weaken the wealth of major institutions in ways that can leas to a socialist order.
I'm not arguing against this obviously, fam, though I am admittedly pretty skeptical of the prospect of reparations actually happening.

I'm trying to understand where dacomeup dacomeup is coming from in seemingly opposing socialist-oriented policies that would eradicate joblessness, guarantee living wages, guarantee health care, etc. for millions of black folks that lack those things now because these policies don't... I don't know what, exactly—which is what I've been trying to figure out from his perspective.
 
4,360
8,463
Joined Aug 24, 2017
Sadly, if the government doesn't force him out, no number of allegations or accusations will deter his dedicated followers. It can come out tomorrow that Trump personally taught the 9/11 hijackers how to fly a plane and bought their flights and they'd just say that was a long time ago and people change.
 
2,230
2,631
Joined Feb 21, 2006
I’ve pretty clearly stated that any plans that don’t specifically address the unique history of Black oppression in this country I don’t care for. I don’t know how many more times I have to say it :lol:.

I’m weary of these race neutral leftist plans that will still leave Black people with the short end of the stick. I’m weary of white people arguing that this isa class warfare issue and not advocating specifically for Black people who have suffered far more than their white counterparts. I’m skeptical that Black people still won’t be made whole after this leftist revolution.
So here's what I'm saying. There is literally no policy that I'm aware of that is capable of "specifically address[ing] the unique history of Black oppression in this country" and simultaneously not "simply... diminish[ing] the oppression that Black people face by attacking the class issue" in the here and now and also ensuring that "Black people... will [not] still face racism" (I'm trying to use your words from your posts specifically). If you have such a policy (or set of policies) in mind, I'm open to hearing about it/them and, I imagine, would likely support them.

But if a policy doesn't do all of those things, is it not worth supporting? Even if it would lift millions of black people out of poverty? Even if it would guarantee black people living wage employment? Like, I can understand if you're saying black folks deserve reparations. But is no policy that helps black folks worth pursuing if reparations aren't attached to it? That's how I'm interpreting your posts, but maybe I'm misinterpreting them.
 

whywesteppin

Supporter
15,718
22,692
Joined Mar 27, 2004
I got a rain day today in the mines, I think I spent too much time with the libtards and cityiots. I can’t wait to get back in the mines and breathe a deep breath of coal dust (mask off).
I understand completely, comrade.

You had to wear a mask in the city because of the libbiots. They can beam 5g into your brain when you're wearing a mask. You're susceptible. You can't blow off the toxins because your mask is locking them in.

That's how you become indoctrinated. You become hypoxic, develop a headache, and start parroting libbie propaganda like, "Democrats are right sometimes. A Prius is fun to drive. Kale juice is delicious."

Don't worry. Once you get a maskless whiff of that coal dust you'll be back to normal in no time.
 
15,853
11,385
Joined Jan 20, 2006
I'm trying to understand where dacomeup dacomeup dacomeup dacomeup is coming from in seemingly opposing socialist-oriented policies that would eradicate joblessness, guarantee living wages, guarantee health care, etc. for millions of black folks that lack those things now because these policies don't... I don't know what, exactly—which is what I've been trying to figure out from his perspective.
It's weird that you're continuing to misrepresent what I'm saying when other people seem to have no problem understanding the point that I'm getting across. If you think that "socialist-oriented policies" are only capable of addressing classism, but not specifically considering and addressing racism --- then there's a problem with "socialist-oriented policies" and not with anything that I'm saying.
 
664
927
Joined Aug 24, 2012
I'm not arguing against this obviously, fam, though I am admittedly pretty skeptical of the prospect of reparations actually happening.

I'm trying to understand where dacomeup dacomeup is coming from in seemingly opposing socialist-oriented policies that would eradicate joblessness, guarantee living wages, guarantee health care, etc. for millions of black folks that lack those things now because these policies don't... I don't know what, exactly—which is what I've been trying to figure out from his perspective.
I hear you. Just wanted to speak to perhaps the obvious: the reasons for wanting reparations is manifold. I was speaking for myself.
 
15,853
11,385
Joined Jan 20, 2006
But if a policy doesn't do all of those things, is it not worth supporting? Even if it would lift millions of black people out of poverty? Even if it would guarantee black people living wage employment? Like, I can understand if you're saying black folks deserve reparations. But is no policy that helps black folks worth pursuing if reparations aren't attached to it? That's how I'm interpreting your posts, but maybe I'm misinterpreting them.
Yea, you're not listening to what I'm saying. Seems like you're set on interpreting them a certain way. Race neutral "socialist-oriented policies" do not account for racism and oppression specifically suffered by Black Americans, thus, I personally do not see them as the same solve that white leftists generally think that they are for the class issues in the United States of America, as even when this class issue will be address, Black Americans will still face the same race based oppression at the hands of white people. Thus, leftists emphasis on these types of policies, attacks against "identity politics", etc., show me that white leftists either don't get it or are complicit in the same white supremacist system that they claim to be so ardently against as they fight against class warfare. You can't be for the liberation of working class/poor people without also specifically considering how these "race neutral" policies still have/will have harmful effects on the liberation of Black folks. It's not sufficient for me.

Why can't the leftist revolution also specifically address this as well? Why is it silent on how even among poor people, Black people are disproportionately affected and that's something that you will consider? Leftists can come up with a million plans under the sun with regards to class warfare, but when it comes to how Black poor people are disparately impacted here because they are also oppressed by racism, it's up to me to come up with "a concrete plan" that I want to see. That's my issue. It's either tone deaf, or willfully ignorant.
 
2,230
2,631
Joined Feb 21, 2006
I expanded on my post before you can respond.

I didn't make any accusations about white leftists as a whole. THIS IS MY ****ING POINT .

On this occasion, I called out people from all over the political spectrum that decries identity politics, because observable reality is pushing back against their concerns and complaints. But you read "leftist," and you were off to the races.

You have admitted that you are not up on every single leftist media outlet and the online discourse of many of them engage in online. But because you don't personally know a leftist that makes ****ty arguments, does that mean they don't exist, and I am just making **** up? You can't possibly be up on the arguments being made in every liberal circle (which includes a ton of very progressive people). Yet, I always have to address some "liberal consensus." I don't ever present a "leftist consensus" for anyone to answer to. I call out people I think are either bad actors, or I feel are wrong. In this case, my target was not even leftist specifically. I just pointed out that problematic rhetoric exists in those circles too.

Finally, may you need to hear it again. The issue/accusation is not that all white leftists want to explicitly tell marginal white voters that you can have economic prosperity and leave out black people. The issue is that if you lead with only the so-called universal colorblind progressive policies, and push the racial justice demands to the background, the people that accept the olive branch may think they are signing up for only the economic progressivism and not a fight against other forms of injustice. That if we get social democracy, if you empower labor over capital, then you tell these white people that took the olive branch (especially the men) of your coalition, '"Ok cool, well this fight was also for racial equality too, in fact, all kinds of equality, so we have to do all these other things too, for these other groups" many of the people you brought in will be like "well we didn't sign up for all this," "the universal programs helped non-white people too, why is more needed," "I think we have done enough." Will these people have the same commitment to fight for changes they will not directly benefit from? Those people might then look for ways to protect their position on the racial hierarchy at the expense of their economic prosperity. Also, there will be politicians there to appeal to these voters and prime their white identity. And why shouldn't we be scared that a white middle class engages in such counterproductive self-destructive behavior? Well, because they did so in the past. Most still do it to this day.

Generally speaking, when it comes to improving their lives: Non-black people have to worry about economic justice and racial justice. White people only have to worry about economic justice. If we build our pitch and policy agenda on mainly addressing economic justice with colorblind universal programs, if we say that that the issue facing black people are primarily class issues, when we put race in the subordinate role to class in every analysis; generally which group do you think is in the driver's seat in the coalition, whites or non-whites? I mean, you not only take issue with people that don't advocate for social democracy, but you also take issue with how some black people advocate for it too, which is weird as **** to me, to be honest.

This is why I had such a ****ing issue with Bernie's nonsensical complaints of identity politics, economic anxiety BS, and asserting that the Democratic Party forgot how to talk to white working-class people. It was self-serving bull**** trying to let white people off the hook for indulging in racist behavior. Then he made economic appeals directly to these people. Don't you think that will come off as a dog whistle if someone says that type of **** alongside pushing for socially democratic politics? Then I see because he was the socialist guy, many back his play and the firmest rebuke you would hear from many on that side was, "I don't agree with Bernie," "Yeah, that is a bad look," "he should not have said that." All that was missing was the Delk SIGH. This is not to rehash the primary, but it was troubling at how people just let that **** just slid when those same people insist such behavior was against their principles.

Tons of socialist argue that the fight against capital is most important, and everything else is secondary. That will do the most good, and will make the other struggles for just easier. Moving toward social democracy is paramount. Institutional reform, technocratic concerns, administrative concerns, concerns racial discrimination, the list goes on, are very important, but we can work those things out once we defeat capital. Then when someone comes and tries to point out that ignoring that other stuff is a mistake that could undermine or even destroy the entire project, it is seemingly an issue because their analysis doesn't put class struggle central to the analysis. Telling socialist to watch your flank is treated as if you are saying put down their weapons. Pointing out the strategy they are using is not working, is treated as you are saying you want them to lose. It is eternally frustrating.

I am not mainly questioning the motives of all those suggesting we offering up the olive branch, I and saying we should be concerned about who is accepting it. Also, if there ever comes a time when those on the margin might want to undermine the project if they don't get their way, are we so sure that every socialist are on board with holding the line? Because I am not sure that is the case. This is a ****ty compromise I am talking about, not socialist fighting for white supremacy. But enough of them put protecting the socialist state above all else. That may be enough (it doesn't have to be most) will accept the not pursuing fight against racism with the same zeal as the fight against capital, in hopes of keeping those on the margin happy in the coalition. So some people may want anti-racism, but not enough where they would put socialism at risk. Sure black people are better off than they once were, but that is still a negative peace.

But anyway, I still maintain the fight for racial justice and the struggle for economic justice are intertwined. Crony capitalism and white supremacy reinforce one another, so really can't put fighting one ahead of the other.

Well, the good news which Klein article points out, is that we might be getting to a place where we don't need to push the demands for racial injustice to the background. Politicians might not always have to address the fears of white Americans. This is excellent news for everyone, especially for leftist that obvious claim the goal is to address both economic and racial injustice. Especially if they next major socialist candidate for president is not a old white guy. Because people of color, especially black people, face the most political blowback from white americans for being race conscious.

So while we are not there yet, we might be moving in the direction there will be less political blowback for speaking more honestly about race in this country. Where, you can offer up the olive branch to white Americans with a more honest appeal, and spell out the full fight, and know they are buying into the entire policy agenda.
I don't disagree with any of this. I guess I just don't understand what racial justice issues you're saying that leftists are trying to minimize or suppress? When I was saying I don't know leftists advocating any of that, it wasn't just a reference to the ones I know, but also the ones I read. Not that it's not out there, but I haven't seen it. I mean, are people saying "Shut up about police violence because it could be divisive?" White leftists have been out full force in recent weeks, as far as I can tell, just like with damn-near every police killing of a black person. I'm honestly just not sure what you're referring to. To be clear, I'm not saying that you're making these things up out of thin air, but I am questioning how widespread they are because I'm just not seeing it. And I'm not saying the "guard your flank" message is not warranted, regardless, but it just seems out of proportion given the nature of what I'm observing to be the current discourse. But I concede that maybe I'm wrong and this is a much bigger issue than I'm aware of.

My skepticism with the Klein article, which was admittedly short so I'll check out his book, was that "racial justice" as far as I can tell is typically conceptualized as "no racial disparities." Now, is it better that white folks feel that disparities are a problem than to not care about them? Of course. But is it also completely inadequate to actually resolving these injustices, even for black people specifically? Yes. Can that standard of non-discrimination fit just as easily within regressive neoliberalism that will intensify inequality as it can within democratic socialism that will ameliorate it? Yes. And if the former is the clearly predominant political-economic framework, isn't it reasonable to think that, absent clearly leftist politics, it is the neoliberal version of this vision that's going to win out? In my mind, it is.

I had other thoughts but tried to keep this as short as possible :lol:
 
2,230
2,631
Joined Feb 21, 2006
Yea, you're not listening to what I'm saying. Seems like you're set on interpreting them a certain way. Race neutral "socialist-oriented policies" do not account for racism and oppression specifically suffered by Black Americans, thus, I personally do not see them as the same solve that white leftists generally think that they are for the class issues in the United States of America, as even when this class issue will be address, Black Americans will still face the same race based oppression at the hands of white people. Thus, leftists emphasis on these types of policies, attacks against "identity politics", etc., show me that white leftists either don't get it or are complicit in the same white supremacist system that they claim to be so ardently against as they fight against class warfare. You can't be for the liberation of working class/poor people without also specifically considering how these "race neutral" policies still have/will have harmful effects on the liberation of Black folks. It's not sufficient for me.

Why can't the leftist revolution also specifically address this as well? Why is it silent on how even among poor people, Black people are disproportionately affected and that's something that you will consider? Leftists can come up with a million plans under the sun with regards to class warfare, but when it comes to how Black poor people are disparately impacted here because they are also oppressed by racism, it's up to me to come up with "a concrete plan" that I want to see. That's my issue. It's either tone deaf, or willfully ignorant.
I am listening. I am asking you to be specific in terms of what you envision as adequate. A general statement that a policy "do[es] not account for racism and oppression specifically suffered by Black Americans" indicates your dissatisfaction but not what would actually meet that threshold for you.

What policy is going to ensure that "Black Americans [won't] still face the same race based oppression at the hands of white people," since that is apparently a criterion you're using to assess leftist policies? (It is statements like these from which I deduced the "eradicate racism" language from, since that seems to be the gist of this.) Since that is literally impossible to ensure as an outcome for any social policy as far as I can tell, I don't know what you want me or anyone else to say, be they leftists, progressives, neoliberals, or reactionaries. You're not identifying anything specific yourself that I can even respond to!

Please tell me specifically how a race-neutral federal living wage jobs guarantee "will have harmful effects on the liberation of Black folks." Please tell me specifically how Medicare for All will do the same. I'm all ears, fam.
 
2,230
2,631
Joined Feb 21, 2006
It's weird that you're continuing to misrepresent what I'm saying when other people seem to have no problem understanding the point that I'm getting across. If you think that "socialist-oriented policies" are only capable of addressing classism, but not specifically considering and addressing racism --- then there's a problem with "socialist-oriented policies" and not with anything that I'm saying.
What, specifically, would adequately constitute "specifically considering and addressing racism" in your eyes?

I'm literally quoting your posts and asking you questions for clarification. I seriously don't know how you think I'm misrepresenting your views.
 
4,763
8,859
Joined Jun 28, 2004
If we had actually race neutral universal programs (as opposed to the new deal and post war labor peace programs which were not race neutral nor universal in many cases), the racial wealth gap would close and black people would be helped and helped disproportionately.

That said, it’s a moot point because we cannot do anything now, neither universal nor race based programs of redistribution are possible given the power that capital wields. If we do beat Capital with a multi racial workers’ coalition then we get to dictate terms and why settle for the second best thing when can get the best thing, universal programs combined with race specific restitution?

If we had to choose between a race neutral universal program and what we have now, we’d go with the race neutral programs. But if we have a chose of universal race neutral programs and universal programs in concert with a de facto or de jure reparations program, of course we should go with the latter.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now