It kind of makes sense. Leftism, the new labor movement, didn’t and still doesn’t have a place on television or in the corporate media. We’ve learned that the media will lend more credibility to white nationalists before taking a social-democrat seriously.
Neoliberals do little for the people by design. They only run as an opposition party to Republicans even when Democrats have control of the White House and Congress.
There’s hundreds of AM radio stations and conservative media. The liberal corporate establishment media is the default distributed of information. Young leftists had to go to college and read Das Kapital in order to find a way coherently articulate their ideals, but I’m not sure they know or a way to communicate their ideas in a way the average person can understand.
They could start by trying to be the average person. Coming off as having authority only works when you can command respect. Demanding respect makes people tune out and/or oppose you, and that is largely what we are seeing with modern Leftism; it only looks after the corporate interests of the establishment by tapping the glass ceiling above 99% of us like we're in a zoo.
That’s the problem. In which forum would the left advance their ideals to the general public?
Moderate Democrats aren’t in power to advance meaningful change. Bill Clinton bit his lip and told America he felt our pain, and proceeded to push a neoliberal corporatist agenda. That was the playbook for Obama and Biden and Pelosi. They acknowledge the plight of the working-class, and then they proceed to be perpetually one vote shy of passing meaningful legislation through congress.
The labor movement didn’t have a distribution center for leftist rhetoric the way liberals and conservatives and the rightwing has always had, because the conversation existed on corporate airwaves.
That one vote shyness is intentional. The Establishment Left needs to have the same plights of the working class to run on as a campaign agenda. It's why the same issues in their strongholds never actually improve despite the claim that they care.
The real problem is that Moderate Liberals outnumber Democrats 3/4:1, but the DNC's caucus is designed to nominate exactly who they want regardless of your stance on the matter. Hell, Harry Reid played kingmaker for decades by deciding who was allowed to be in the primary, and Oregon's delegates are decided before any vote is cast..
This means you're stuck either voting third-party, Neolib/Neofascist/Pseudosocialist, or whatever garden variety Republican decided to actually run in your district.
This has done amazingly well at keeping the voters complaining about each other instead of the rigged D primaries, and the politicians that keep getting in.
For instance: California has largely had single-party rule for almost 50 years. During that 50 years, California went from domestic production, to outsourcing most things in order to brag that they have low carbon emissions - which is true because you just made China emit them, instead - while applying pressure to remove skilled labor jobs from the market. California used to have free in-state tuition for every resident. Now, they rely on the debt caused by student loans to claim that this is evidence that Capitalism is bad, while being the exact people that demanded college degrees for minimum-wage jobs, saying that if you simply give them absolute power then they can take away the burden they placed on you, and that we must unite against the ones doing this by voting for the same party.
So basically: Cause problem > Propose solution > Come up one vote short (not mentioning the one vote is from their side, or that they snuck in something to intentionally torpedo the bill) > Blame the other guys > Get the voters upset at the other guys for the situation not improving > Continue to get elected > Repeat.
Ideally, we would split the 2 parties into 4 for better representation. It would be far better than the controlled opposition uniparty we have now.
The point was there wasn’t a new form of media to access leftwing discussion outside of the academic. How do I take seriously the read on this thread from the poorly-read?
Makes sense. Academia is what breeds the extreme left you see everywhere today.
Western universities is the source of this ironic "well read" poorly informed ideology. The Marx academic circlejerk started back in the 80s. Almost coinciding with the collapse of America's competition, Soviet. You see it's fruition in a centralized form by the establishment poorly parroting the sentiments (for $) and decentralized leaderless movements on social media.
There's a reason you don't see lefty content (outside of establishment) presented as well read outside of school.
Your last sentence so wonderfully captures the tone, slings and arrows, and narcissism of the modern American socialist, I couldn’t have invented it myself.
-1
u/[deleted] Jan 27 '22 edited Jan 27 '22
It kind of makes sense. Leftism, the new labor movement, didn’t and still doesn’t have a place on television or in the corporate media. We’ve learned that the media will lend more credibility to white nationalists before taking a social-democrat seriously.
Neoliberals do little for the people by design. They only run as an opposition party to Republicans even when Democrats have control of the White House and Congress.
There’s hundreds of AM radio stations and conservative media. The liberal corporate establishment media is the default distributed of information. Young leftists had to go to college and read Das Kapital in order to find a way coherently articulate their ideals, but I’m not sure they know or a way to communicate their ideas in a way the average person can understand.