Maybe we’re working with different understanding of liberals then, but to my mind, ideals like equality before the law and freedom of association certainly put them closer to us than conservatives or fascists. Social liberal policies like worker protections, universal healthcare and social security measures shouldn’t be needed, but they are at least attempts to counteract the worst tendencies of unbridled capitalism.
Out of the dominant political movements, liberalism presents the best environment to work towards replacing the system. At least they won’t lock us up in labour camps for being black, being gay or being a little too critical of the regime. As allies go, I think we could do far worse, so I’d rather save my vitriol for the shared enemy until we’re in a position to fix this shit.
‘at least they won’t lock us up’ is a selective reading of history. liberals have done exactly that if threatened. the liberal state locked people up for being black and being too critical of the regime before trump. it was democrats that were raiding gay bars and opposing gay rights until the movement got big enough that they rebranded and wrapped themselves in the flag.
the ‘best environment to work in’ assumption only holds if the goal is incremental reform within the system rather than replacing it, which goes back to the core disagreement.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms. it presents that environment precisely until you get close enough to actually threaten it.
also all of the things you credit the social liberals for were concessions extracted by organized labor through strike, occupations and political pressure that the liberals were actively resisting until they had no choice.
crediting liberalism for them is like crediting the landlord for not raising rent after a rent strike.
Okay, we’re definitely working with different definitions then. I don’t see much of a point arguing about the history of the term and associated policies.
Today’s liberals are certainly better than conservatives or fascists when it comes to human rights and shit, and that’s the people we’re working with right now. We can labour over the sins of their ancestors, or we can attempt to influence their policies to our benefit until we’re in a position where we no longer need their cooperation.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms.
Counterpoint: wouldn’t a system that doesn’t even permit these conversations be a worse environment? If there are worse environments, doesn’t that make the others better by comparison? Isn’t the “least bad” equivalent to “the best”?
Alternatively, what would you posit as the best conditions for working towards toppling the system?
the ‘least bad is best by comparison’ logic is a race to the bottom with no floor. it justifies supporting any system that’s marginally less repressive than the worst possible alternative
the ‘influence their policies’ approach has a +50 year track record of the left getting played. what policy influence did the left actually extract from liberals in exchange for votes?
my approach is building organizations in my community to feed people abandoned by liberal capitalism. that’s what i see as actively undermining the system. i don’t care about the election sideshow and all the rationalizations people come up with to get people to vote for their preferred hitler.
it justifies supporting any system that’s marginally less repressive than the worst possible alternative
I suppose that depends on your definition of “supporting”. Whether the system persists doesn’t depend on my vote, if there is no realistic option to abolish it by voting, nor does not voting seem to have much of an effect. But for some people, that margin makes a world of a difference, sometimes even between life and death. Whether trans people get to piss in peace (and generally exist) or whether the ICE gets to ramp up its operations does depend on votes.
That doesn’t mean I support the system, just that I acknowledge its nuances and that I’m not throwing marginalised people under the bus just because it doesn’t fix the root cause.
what policy influence did the left actually extract from liberals in exchange for votes?
Dunno, all the labour protections and antitrust measures the fascists are rolling back? They wouldn’t need to gut them if they didn’t work anyway; they could just keep up pretenses and work on other things.
The civil rights that, by your own description, the liberals only supported to once they realised it was more popular? Again, they’re not great, but you’ll have to admit that they’re loads better than the alternative we’re seeing now.
my approach is building organizations in my community to feed people abandoned by liberal capitalism. that’s what i see as actively undermining the system.
Agreed. Building structures that show how things could be done better challenges the value of performative social measures. But that doesn’t mean you can’t also vote; these things aren’t exclusive.
i don’t care about the election sideshow and all the rationalizations people come up with to get people to vote for their preferred hitler.
The simple fact is that liberals have also enacted a lot of progressive measures over the last two centuries, whether due to their own ideals or due to leftist pressure. It’s not enough, but for many people, it’s a significant improvement anyway. To call that “their preferred hitler” is an incredibly reductive and arrogant take that reeks of privilege. It’s easy to call the election a “sideshow” if your life isn’t impacted, but that overlooks the people whose lives are.
Those people are the common ground I’m talking about. Dismissing them and anyone who cares about them as “libs” doesn’t make you a better leftist, it just makes you a worse ally.
i’m a trans woman, i have plenty of skin in this, and from where i’m standing the democrats have been actively complying with anti-trans legislation rather than fighting it. Pretty much every day there’s a new democrat ad about how they’re going to protect women’s sports.
those labour protections were concessions extracted by organized pressure, not liberal goodwill. they’re being rolled back precisely because that pressure dissipated when the left got absorbed into electoralism.
ice is what it is today because of liberals like obama and his enablers, do you really think the same people that built these structures up will dismantle them?
i do vote, just not for genocidal centrist parties and from where im standing the priviliged one is you
Maybe we’re working with different understanding of liberals then, but to my mind, ideals like equality before the law and freedom of association certainly put them closer to us than conservatives or fascists. Social liberal policies like worker protections, universal healthcare and social security measures shouldn’t be needed, but they are at least attempts to counteract the worst tendencies of unbridled capitalism.
Out of the dominant political movements, liberalism presents the best environment to work towards replacing the system. At least they won’t lock us up in labour camps for being black, being gay or being a little too critical of the regime. As allies go, I think we could do far worse, so I’d rather save my vitriol for the shared enemy until we’re in a position to fix this shit.
‘at least they won’t lock us up’ is a selective reading of history. liberals have done exactly that if threatened. the liberal state locked people up for being black and being too critical of the regime before trump. it was democrats that were raiding gay bars and opposing gay rights until the movement got big enough that they rebranded and wrapped themselves in the flag.
the ‘best environment to work in’ assumption only holds if the goal is incremental reform within the system rather than replacing it, which goes back to the core disagreement.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms. it presents that environment precisely until you get close enough to actually threaten it.
also all of the things you credit the social liberals for were concessions extracted by organized labor through strike, occupations and political pressure that the liberals were actively resisting until they had no choice.
crediting liberalism for them is like crediting the landlord for not raising rent after a rent strike.
Okay, we’re definitely working with different definitions then. I don’t see much of a point arguing about the history of the term and associated policies.
Today’s liberals are certainly better than conservatives or fascists when it comes to human rights and shit, and that’s the people we’re working with right now. We can labour over the sins of their ancestors, or we can attempt to influence their policies to our benefit until we’re in a position where we no longer need their cooperation.
Counterpoint: wouldn’t a system that doesn’t even permit these conversations be a worse environment? If there are worse environments, doesn’t that make the others better by comparison? Isn’t the “least bad” equivalent to “the best”?
Alternatively, what would you posit as the best conditions for working towards toppling the system?
the ‘least bad is best by comparison’ logic is a race to the bottom with no floor. it justifies supporting any system that’s marginally less repressive than the worst possible alternative
the ‘influence their policies’ approach has a +50 year track record of the left getting played. what policy influence did the left actually extract from liberals in exchange for votes?
my approach is building organizations in my community to feed people abandoned by liberal capitalism. that’s what i see as actively undermining the system. i don’t care about the election sideshow and all the rationalizations people come up with to get people to vote for their preferred hitler.
I suppose that depends on your definition of “supporting”. Whether the system persists doesn’t depend on my vote, if there is no realistic option to abolish it by voting, nor does not voting seem to have much of an effect. But for some people, that margin makes a world of a difference, sometimes even between life and death. Whether trans people get to piss in peace (and generally exist) or whether the ICE gets to ramp up its operations does depend on votes.
That doesn’t mean I support the system, just that I acknowledge its nuances and that I’m not throwing marginalised people under the bus just because it doesn’t fix the root cause.
Dunno, all the labour protections and antitrust measures the fascists are rolling back? They wouldn’t need to gut them if they didn’t work anyway; they could just keep up pretenses and work on other things.
The civil rights that, by your own description, the liberals only supported to once they realised it was more popular? Again, they’re not great, but you’ll have to admit that they’re loads better than the alternative we’re seeing now.
Agreed. Building structures that show how things could be done better challenges the value of performative social measures. But that doesn’t mean you can’t also vote; these things aren’t exclusive.
The simple fact is that liberals have also enacted a lot of progressive measures over the last two centuries, whether due to their own ideals or due to leftist pressure. It’s not enough, but for many people, it’s a significant improvement anyway. To call that “their preferred hitler” is an incredibly reductive and arrogant take that reeks of privilege. It’s easy to call the election a “sideshow” if your life isn’t impacted, but that overlooks the people whose lives are.
Those people are the common ground I’m talking about. Dismissing them and anyone who cares about them as “libs” doesn’t make you a better leftist, it just makes you a worse ally.
i’m a trans woman, i have plenty of skin in this, and from where i’m standing the democrats have been actively complying with anti-trans legislation rather than fighting it. Pretty much every day there’s a new democrat ad about how they’re going to protect women’s sports.
those labour protections were concessions extracted by organized pressure, not liberal goodwill. they’re being rolled back precisely because that pressure dissipated when the left got absorbed into electoralism.
ice is what it is today because of liberals like obama and his enablers, do you really think the same people that built these structures up will dismantle them?
i do vote, just not for genocidal centrist parties and from where im standing the priviliged one is you