Anyone trying to overhaul a corrupt system would know that infiltrating it is a highly effective opposition tactic. You’re not speaking for progress, you’re speaking for contrarianism.
Edit - besides, she’s using political donations to feed people. Corrupt systems absolutely have uses for honest individuals, because your potential allies in poverty are starving to death and she is feeding them.
This isn’t infiltrating the vague concept of capitalism, it’s infiltrating congress. She’s not trying to climb some corporate ladder here.
What, exactly, has been more effective in the US? Capitalism still isn’t defeated, as far as I can tell.
What the fuck do you want her to do, stop? Go home?
If you want heroes, if you want martyrs, if you want real people with real power and real megaphones, you need to work with the tools you have available. Whatever else you’re doing hasn’t worked any better than what she’s doing. Unions are still operating under the umbrella of capitalism - they sign deals with capitalists all the time. Do you think we should stop unionizing?
and yes, it has worked in the US to give workers better wages, and famously the right for workers to have a weekend and the 8hour-maximum workday. entrism on the other hand never did much of anything.
… HAH. No… just, no. That’s not what centrism is, and that’s NOT the story of how we got the 8 hour workday.
We have (or in some cases had) the 8 hour workday, OSHA, social security, legally protected unions, etc as a result of the New Deal.
What was the New Deal?
Well, an extremely progressive “centrist” (your words, not mine) - Frankin Delano Roosevelt - ran for President, and won. He took over the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, and Democrats attained majority in both chambers of congress.
They gained complete political power largely because Republican policies had sent the United States into an economic nosedive. They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
Sound familiar?
He - alongside Congress - passed a whole bunch of legislation, created a whole bunch of federal agencies, and forced through massive leaps forward in labor protections and social welfare programs.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
That’s fair, and we cover these points deeper in the thread. The whole point is that the New Deal was a leftist win and an electoral win. The system changed.
To claim it was just socialist activism that gave us the 8 hour workday without acknowledging the role of the shift in government that the activism actually achieved is unproductive. The New Deal wasn’t bought by oligarchs, it was built by workers.
To say there’s no point in trying to change things because the “system is corrupt”, and that supporting major paradigm shifts in the electoral system is a waste of time, is to forget the incredible effort and achievements of those movements. I perhaps overstated my piece there, I’ll acknowledge that. But only because this entire conversation started with “we have no use for honesty in a corrupt system”.
And there is the chance that the system is unfixable. That the core flaws can’t be changed from within. But that still wouldn’t be a good reason to oppose young progressives who are trying. If the system is completely overhauled, young progressives are exactly the type of people we want to be there, with platforms and networks in place.
You’re absolutely right - the New Deal was possible because:
They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
That is in fact the grassroots support I’m talking about, thanks.
How do you think we had a Congress and a President who were willing to listen to those grassroots movements?
That’s right - Americans elected a whole bunch of people like the candidate in this article.
I genuinely do agree that we do not have the same party or candidates or support as we did in the 1930s. I genuinely agree that we need systematic change, or any progress we make will only be undone within a century, like last time.
But they didn’t have that party, those candidates, or that support in the 1920s. The Great Depression changed everything.
Violence alone did not make it happen. And lol no, the current Republican Party would absolutely let the United States collapse into civil war before they passed anything like the New Deal. You know, like… the, American Civil War.
Referring to progressive movements in the 1930s as “grassroots” doesn’t fucking whitewash anything. Socialists weren’t alone in the 1930s, and socialism didn’t have anywhere close to enough support in the 1920s to get the New Deal passed.
They elected the people who made the difference. It wasn’t “benevolent capitalists” that gave us the New Deal - it was people voting for change. Real change, not the half-assed shit we talk about these days.
I wish we could skip over the terrible economic suffering that pushed Americans in that direction, but it probably will happen all over again.
Your socialist movement is possible. We’re walking into all the conditions required to make it happen. And here you are, claiming that you have no use for the exact type of people you need to see it through.
Anyone trying to overhaul a corrupt system would know that infiltrating it is a highly effective opposition tactic. You’re not speaking for progress, you’re speaking for contrarianism.
Edit - besides, she’s using political donations to feed people. Corrupt systems absolutely have uses for honest individuals, because your potential allies in poverty are starving to death and she is feeding them.
I always imagined that if I won an office and lobbyists were throwing donations at me, I would spend all of it plus $1 on charities they despised
.
This isn’t infiltrating the vague concept of capitalism, it’s infiltrating congress. She’s not trying to climb some corporate ladder here.
What, exactly, has been more effective in the US? Capitalism still isn’t defeated, as far as I can tell.
What the fuck do you want her to do, stop? Go home?
If you want heroes, if you want martyrs, if you want real people with real power and real megaphones, you need to work with the tools you have available. Whatever else you’re doing hasn’t worked any better than what she’s doing. Unions are still operating under the umbrella of capitalism - they sign deals with capitalists all the time. Do you think we should stop unionizing?
.
… HAH. No… just, no. That’s not what centrism is, and that’s NOT the story of how we got the 8 hour workday.
We have (or in some cases had) the 8 hour workday, OSHA, social security, legally protected unions, etc as a result of the New Deal.
What was the New Deal?
Well, an extremely progressive “centrist” (your words, not mine) - Frankin Delano Roosevelt - ran for President, and won. He took over the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, and Democrats attained majority in both chambers of congress.
They gained complete political power largely because Republican policies had sent the United States into an economic nosedive. They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
Sound familiar?
He - alongside Congress - passed a whole bunch of legislation, created a whole bunch of federal agencies, and forced through massive leaps forward in labor protections and social welfare programs.
That’s why you have the 8 hour workday.
Read a book.
Been on your side up to this point.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
That’s fair, and we cover these points deeper in the thread. The whole point is that the New Deal was a leftist win and an electoral win. The system changed.
To claim it was just socialist activism that gave us the 8 hour workday without acknowledging the role of the shift in government that the activism actually achieved is unproductive. The New Deal wasn’t bought by oligarchs, it was built by workers.
To say there’s no point in trying to change things because the “system is corrupt”, and that supporting major paradigm shifts in the electoral system is a waste of time, is to forget the incredible effort and achievements of those movements. I perhaps overstated my piece there, I’ll acknowledge that. But only because this entire conversation started with “we have no use for honesty in a corrupt system”.
And there is the chance that the system is unfixable. That the core flaws can’t be changed from within. But that still wouldn’t be a good reason to oppose young progressives who are trying. If the system is completely overhauled, young progressives are exactly the type of people we want to be there, with platforms and networks in place.
.
You’re absolutely right - the New Deal was possible because:
That is in fact the grassroots support I’m talking about, thanks.
How do you think we had a Congress and a President who were willing to listen to those grassroots movements?
That’s right - Americans elected a whole bunch of people like the candidate in this article.
The one you claimed we “have no use for.”
.
My friend, you’ve gone too deep.
I genuinely do agree that we do not have the same party or candidates or support as we did in the 1930s. I genuinely agree that we need systematic change, or any progress we make will only be undone within a century, like last time.
But they didn’t have that party, those candidates, or that support in the 1920s. The Great Depression changed everything.
Violence alone did not make it happen. And lol no, the current Republican Party would absolutely let the United States collapse into civil war before they passed anything like the New Deal. You know, like… the, American Civil War.
Referring to progressive movements in the 1930s as “grassroots” doesn’t fucking whitewash anything. Socialists weren’t alone in the 1930s, and socialism didn’t have anywhere close to enough support in the 1920s to get the New Deal passed.
They elected the people who made the difference. It wasn’t “benevolent capitalists” that gave us the New Deal - it was people voting for change. Real change, not the half-assed shit we talk about these days.
I wish we could skip over the terrible economic suffering that pushed Americans in that direction, but it probably will happen all over again.
Your socialist movement is possible. We’re walking into all the conditions required to make it happen. And here you are, claiming that you have no use for the exact type of people you need to see it through.