Americans are backing progressives not because they want socialism, but because they want candidates who will fight for the working class
Dropout has a point.
Americans are backing progressives not because they want socialism, but because they want candidates who will fight for the working class
Dropout has a point.
That’s the literal goal of socialism though…
So they are voting for socialists not because they want socialism, but because the alternatives are refusing to reign in, or are overtly in favor of, unfettered capitalism…
they are not fighting for the dirty word but for the more acceptable wording of the same thing
Socialism is a dirty word, an “extremist” pov to those who value inanimate objects and concepts over human life, to those who dismiss the magnitude of human suffering in the name of self, over collective prosperity.
In reality, it’s the most rational outcome to create a world of less suffering that provides more insurance to the survival of our species.
The rich don’t think of the poor as members of their species. That should be very obvious by now.
Well the S word is bad so they want all the S stuff but without the word.
They want to live by the s word and die by the s word?
Seriously when will a progressive finally do some rebranding? Call your position “Freedomism” and scream it from the rooftops to establish it. Make the tenets* of Freedomism the exact same as Socialism but Americanized™.
Edit: *Fixed a typo
Totally love this idea. It’s insidious enough that it just might work. “Pro-democracy! Pro-employee! Pro-consumer! Pro-family!” And then a wild card like “pro-football!” or something for plausible deniability and to appeal to the blue collar vote.
(also fyi the word you mean is “tenets”)
I love the fact that people are dumb enough for this to work.
Because “progressive” is itself a more liberal term with its basis in inevitable, linear societal development. It often functions to naturalize the continuation of a liberal-capitalist on the assertion that “progress” (which can be either the institutionalization of social justice values or economic growth, depending on the period) is inevitable except when impeded by bad actors “misusing” what is fundamentally a stratified and violent system.
Unsurprisingly then, socialism is not very compatible with this basis save for the oftem-shared (though not necessary) idealized arc of social development and the more colloquial understandings of “progress” that are more in reference to a vague sense of social justice and its association with the more egalitarian, collectivist politics socialists subscribe to. Since socialists are also often quite mired in the linguistic specificities of political ideologies and rhetoric (for good reason), it would also create complications where further alienation of this word from its liberal use while maintaining its underlying political and social meanings could put socialist values even more at risk at appropriation by “progressive” liberal thinkers or politicians.
What you’re describing is exactly that, the process by which liberals appropriate potentially challenging ideals and politics into their logical frameworks and effectively disarm dissenting movements by forcing them to integrate liberal values into their talking points if they wish to negotiate at least a marginally “better” chance at the adoption of their politics. We are living in the consequences of this when Democrats can claim ownership over queer and anti-racist politics while they consistently erode the rights and securities that those groups gained through more radical and disruptive politics than what is currently tolerated by them.The current wave of trans genocide in the US is very much a consequence of the liberal adoption of queer rights and social justice into their political rhetoric and platforms performatively, and therefore removed from the fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-liberalism elements of anti-heteronormativity and anti-patriarchy.
What you’re talking about may seem to make sense intuitively --adjust the language to something with less propaganda baggage – but the problem is that this has failed multiple times in less than a century, and “Americanized Socialism” is already something Democrats have established when they argue that basic welfare liberal policies are somehow “leftist” policies. Since we all must be conscious of the coming genocides liberals 100% intend to commit in response to climate change, it is even harder to argue we have time to do anything else but clearly delineate their politics from what must be done in reality.
I know a Trump supporter who complains about stuff in their life and their solution is basically socialist stuff.
But when I use the socialist terms to describe it, they deflect or somehow say what they are saying is different.
If were going with the goals of socialism, the goal is to have social ownership of companies directly by the workers or through the state which is something that by and large Americans don’t support but yes, some Americans are voting for progressives and democratic socialists because they’re promising to enact regulations to help the median wage earning American.
And a reminder that this is what MAGA, in all its forms, also ran and promised and won because median Americans kept being disappointed with Democrats not doing a damn thing to help them when they got into power.
I mean I’m hopeful that the Democratic party will get its head out of its ass and and continue to vote in progressives and DSA members but overall in median America, I still have my doubts it’ll be a quick change since it’s been over a decade since Tea Party/MAGA have continued to hold power with median Americans, George Carlin voters continuing to vote these charlatans in power.
Um what?
You took the time to paste this section of his set yet neglect the literal previous ten minutes where he talks about the stupidity of the American people.
Referring to those idiots as George Carlin Voters as if they’re following his advice is disingenuous and an insult to a great man.
Mostly I want everyone involved in the Trump admin prosecuted, after that… socialism.
I’m guessing you mean democratic socialism or social democracy and not the Marxist kind.
Social democracy has created some of the best societies in the world, while the Marxist kind has created some of the worst.
Agree to disagree. Marxism wasn’t the driving force behind the failure of Communist/Socialist endeavor that I’ve heard of.
Social democracy thrives only on exploitation of the working class elsewhere. Its citizens enjoy free healthcare and a robust social net, paid for by a person on the other side of the world hyperexploited by the capitalists in charge.
Meanwhile socialist societies, while imperfect or even awful in many ways, actually build the productive forces necessary for human development and thus actual positive human rights.
I would love to see data on this. For example how do the Scandinavian countries continue to exist while exploiting third world labor? As far as I can tell, all four are net exporters.
To take it further, not just fighting for the working class, but ejecting the capitalist Epstein class and having the working class themselves run the government.
This and the worldwide eradication of imperialism.