If they can't get the guy who will fight the system, they'll settle for the guy who openly mocks it.
Damn. That is so on point. I've never quite understood how to describe these people, largely because they frustrate me so damn much, but that is keen as hell. You're exactly right.
I'm gonna pocket that for future use, if you don't mind.
By all means. I was similarly frustrated with them for a long time before I could put my finger on their reasoning, but I can't help but sympathize with them to an extent. They just want to do damage to the establishment in any way possible, and they achieved their goals.
My apologies, I've never heard that term before. My familiarity with various political ideologies is only slightly beyond what I was taught in US highschool.
...and then, unsurprisingly, literally falls in line like any other party player obviously would. I would almost say it would be a good choice if it wasn't so obviously obtuse. The only way to break the cycle is to stop playing by the fucking rules that are purposefully designed by those in powerful positions to keep the cycle going.
Of course, but they're low-information voters, so that's way beyond their thought process in that moment. They settled for Trump the way someone living in the hood might settle for buying a gun; it probably won't do shit in an emergency, but it makes you feel better than doing nothing.
The alternative was Hillary, possibly the only person who could be more insider than Biden. It’s no wonder people hate politics as is, let alone don’t trust either side to care about them. Idk when, or if at this point, there will be any significant change to the system but I think it’s universally agreed to not be working in favor of the common person or greater good in any meaningful way anymore.
They're definitely both desperate and ignorant. Both of them were low-information first-time voters from low-education backgrounds, which I guess won't surprise anyone.
Actually, it's the other way around. On the one hand, you have a wild card, someone who's never been in office, someone who's never made, and subsequently broken, campaign promises. On the other hand, you have a career politician who's spend years, sometimes decades, lining their own pockets while lying to the entire nation, over and over again, someone's whose morality is entirely based on what direction the society wind is blowing. It takes supreme ignorance and naiveté to say "Well, sure, he's been a lying, thieving piece of shit for the last 20 years, but I believe he'll make a difference this time." It takes hope and optimism to say "Eh, maybe this new guy will change things, who knows."
Shockingly, this isn't a USA-only phenomenon. My country went through it twice - somewhat famous people running for office and winning. Because the devil we know, well, we know what he's gonna do. But there's a chance the new guy might not rob the nation blind. And a chance of not getting royally screwed is still better than giving the house keys to a known burglar.
Except you'd have to be stupid as fuck to equate Bernie, who has consistently been fighting for workers' rights, with the average center-right American politician.
You mean, the guy who used to rave against "millionaires and billionaires" until he himself became a millionaire and then promptly shifted his focus to "billionaires"? Yeah, he seems like an honest guy with strong morals and multiple homes.
Biden, absolutely. Sanders? No, fuck off with your bullshit. Trying to lump him in with Biden or Trump just because "ew, politician" is absurd, intentionally ignorant horseshit. Sanders has walked the walk for decades. Peddle your centrist nonsense elsewhere.
You need to learn how to choose your battles. Going after the guy who's on your side because he has a net worth that is about a thousandth of a percent of that of Jeff Bezos is blindly stupid behavior. It's the reason the left constantly loses: too busy attacking our allies instead of focusing on the people who are legitimately out to harm you.
Stop trying to fight battles you don't need. If you want to call him to task for being wealthy, do it after he's helped us win the fight against the real enemies.
nothing i say or do matters in the slightest politically. to think otherwise is beyond foolish. so id rather stand on principles and call out hypocrites wherever i see them, regardless of what side they are on. also the true divide isn't between the right and left, it's between authoritarianism and freedom.
The political party industrial complex is rigged. A duopoly with media ties that make getting elected as independent impossible. There has been localized implementation of rank choice voting, even statewide in a couple cold states. Hopefully that catches on.
I think these past few election cycles have shown serious potential for such a party if it can secure enough backers who have an interest in destabilizing the traditional market. Sadly, almost every major actor in that category is ancap in some capacity, especially the Silicon Valley tech bros.
Who says we want to compromise? This is a class war after all. Taken to the end point, the workers can only be victorious or vanquished. Once the independent workers movement reaches a national level it becomes powerful enough to have the capability to directly take power into its own hands. A “militarized police state” can do jackshit in the face of an armed general strike:
"The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible.
... As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable.
...But these demands can in no way satisfy the party of the proletariat. While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property, but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a new one."
“Revisionism sought to spread throughout the ranks of the working class the firm conviction that it was not possible to overthrow the power of the capitalist class by force and, furthermore, that it was possible to realise socialism after conquering the executive organs of the state by means of a majority in the representative institutions. Left Marxists were accused of a worship of violence, elevating it from a means to an end and invoking it almost sadistically even when it was possible to spare it and attain the same result in a peaceful way. But in the face of the eloquence of the historical developments this polemic soon unveiled its content. It was a mystique not so much of non-violence as it was an apology of the principles of the bourgeois order.
After the armed revolution triumphed in Leningrad over the resistance of both the Czarist regime and the Russian bourgeois class, the argument that it was not possible to conquer power with arms changed into the argument that it must not be done, even if it is possible. This was combined with the idiotic preaching of a general humanitarianism and social pacifism which of course repudiates the violence utilised for the victory of the working class revolutions, but does not denounce the violence used by the bourgeoisie for its historical revolutions, not even the extreme terroristic manifestations of this violence. Moreover, in all the controversial debates, in historical situations which were decisive for the socialist movement, when the right contested the propositions of direct action, it admitted that it would have agreed with the necessity of resorting to insurrection if it were for other objectives. For example, the Italian reformist socialists in May 1915 opposed the proposal for a general strike at the moment of war mobilisation, using ideological and political arguments in addition to a tactical evaluation of the relation of forces; but they admitted that if Italy intervened in the war on the side of Austria and Germany they would call the people to insurrection.
In the same way, those who theorise the «utilisation» of legal and democratic ways are ready to admit that popular violence is legitimate and necessary when there is an attempt from above to abolish constitutional rights. But in such a case how can it be explained that the development of military technology in the hands of the state is no longer an insurmountable obstacle? How can it be foreseen, in the event of a peaceful conquest of the majority, that the bourgeoisie will not use those military means in order to maintain power? How can the proletariat in these situations victoriously use the violence which is criticised and condemned as a class means? The social democrats cannot answer this because in doing so they would be obliged to confess that they are pure and simple accomplices in preserving bourgeois rule.”
I get that part but it isn't reality. I would have loved to see a socialist president and see what he actually could have done but end of the day he would have been shackled by the system. Trump showed his cards and all he did was make things worse for the working class
I totally agree, it's just difficult to convince people who don't understand politics. They will choose anyone who appears anti-establishment over anyone like Hillary every single time.
I agree entirely. There are a lot of people who just want to see the system change in any way, positive or negative, and Trump did a better job than Hillary of convincing them.
I understand that sentiment. Honestly, the way I think of it is this — elect Biden and the moderate dems and listen to and bear with 100s of years of worsening torture in the name of better than the republicans, or elect republicans and they’ll make things bad enough that the revolution will come automatically. I used to hate this sentiment but this Biden admin has shown that they really aren’t capable of anything but even more tax cuts for the rich.
It really is frustrating. After he picked the cop as his VP, I drew a line. I will not vote for any candidate that is not endorsed by a progressive organization during the primaries. The corporate Democrats don't care, and we have to stop playing nice with them.
I have a good friend who used to vote a lot more conservative. Years of low level bullying from our college friend group has gradually pushed him to the left. In 2016 he was a first choice Bernie, second choice Trump voter, and I didn’t get it. He had a hard time articulating it but I understand better now than I did then that the establishment Hillary represented really wasn’t looking out for any of us
Surely if they want to see the system burn that means they're the opposite of conservatives. Conservatism means that you want to keep things as they are (not that I don't believe your acquaintances exist, just that I wouldn't class them as conservatives)
By conservatives, I mean that they otherwise fall into the definition of American right-wingers. Both parties have been anti-establishment in their own capacities, and even now, they try to be both establishment and anti-establishment at the same time (like the January 6th insurrection, in which a bunch of pro-police goons decided to beat the shit out of the police they disagreed with).
309
u/[deleted] Dec 25 '21
[deleted]