this is the reason why democrats keep losing.
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
52234 readers
842 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Democrats keep losing because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the game they are playing. Democracy is not a game of having the best ideas or plans or even character. You can win hearts and minds with passionate leadership and rational persuasion, but we'll never win another election if that's the only lever they want to press. It's a progressive truism that people, given the same information and the same priorities, will reach the same conclusion. So therefore if a conservative has a difference of opinion, they must either not have the same information, or they must have different priorities. That's why progressives are so frequently astounded at the hypocrisy and mental gymnastics required to support Trump while claiming any moral highground on any position.
How can they claim they want traditional family values when Trump is a thrice-divorced rapist with an obvious attraction to his own daughter? How can they oppose immigration when Trump has had two foreign national brides and Musk was an illegal immigrant? How can they oppose a woman's right to choose when Trump has paid women to abort fetuses he sired? How can they claim to be patriotic while Trump gargles Putin's sweaty raisin bag? How can they claim to want fiscal responsibility when Trump has driven his businesses into the ground, routinely declaring bankruptcy and using his political influence to line his own pockets? How can they claim to want lower costs of living when Trump plans to raise tariffs on imported goods, making literally everything more expensive?
The answer is that they don't care. They don't care about having all the information, or having true information. The conservative mind is not a rational actor. It's not built on priorities or fundamental beliefs. There is only one core idea at the nexus of every conservative ideology:
Me good.
That's it. That's all there is. Dig down far enough, under all the bullshit and psychological spaghetti of beliefs, and you'll find one nugget of truth. I am a good person, therefore whatever I want is good, and anyone that wants something else is bad. If it helps me to lie or cheat or murder, then I'll do those things and they will be good because I did them to help me.
This has always been the comforting lie of conservative thought. Conservatives claim to want stoic preservation of national values, but the reality is that those values inexorably align with their own personal gain. It is not, as most conservatives prefer to believe, a resistance to change for change's sake, but a narcissistic demand that all policies and decisions benefit themselves.
It's more transparent now because Trump has worn thin the veneer of reasonable discretion, but the closer to the surface it gets, the more effective the messaging. It's OK to be selfish, and ignorant, and cruel, and criminal, because deep down we deserve to do whatever we want. We deserve to get whatever we want. Anyone trying to keep it from us deserves to be destroyed. Anything we do to destroy those who would stop us is righteous. Cuz me good.
You're never going to convince a conservative to vote for the lesser of two evils, because the greater of the two will simply lie to them. The greater evil will tell them they can have it all, that the dangers of climate change or viral pandemics aren't real, that they don't have to change their behavior or learn something new. They don't have to get out of bed in the morning, they can stay warm under the covers and skip school or work or adulting, and everything will be just fine.
To win an election, you have to convince the conservatives that it is in their best interest to vote for the progressive candidate. That might sound like a tall order, but we already know how to do it. We already see the gameplan that works on all conservatives. We have seen how centrists and moderates and neoliberals win in conservative strongholds.
Progressives just need to start lying.
Progressives just need to start lying.
What do you mean "start"? They already have been.
About what?
Oh I don't know, Gaza ceasefire, Biden being a one turn president and not fucking the party and the nation, pardoning your crackhead son, we can keep going all the way back to card check if you want won't help.
Also my favorite saga of this presidency was price controls. 2 years ago the CHUDs had their gas is expensive meme phase with their "I did that" Brandon stickers and the entire Dem party went on the offensive of saying "THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CONTROL GAS PRICES YOU ABSOLUTE MORON YOU ABSOLUTE IMBICILE" and then 2 years later Kamala Harris' platform (the one that nobody actually read except to send as a PDF to people to prove that they're wrong about her) says she can lower the price of groceries. Which one is it guys?
Dems lie all the time. There's just an entire media ecosystem ready to give you a technocratic puppet theater about why or how it's smart, or how it actually doesn't count and how they're still the good guys.
Hell Glen Kessler makes an entire department's paycheck by writing "fact checking" where he picks and chooses the dumbest most obvious lies to call a lie, promotes the most innocuous irrelevant truths and then conveniently ignores the statements/lies that would actually impact the American people if they were fulfilled.
Id consectetur dolore eiusmod culpa.
Don’t forget being called a tankie for daring to rightfully criticize the democrats for being the frauds they are.
Tankie basically means "any Leftist" at this point, though Marxists get the brunt of it.
Yeah, meanwhile the only actual tankies are the ones who cheerlead the USSR and PRC.
As an anti authoritarian, while I can see some redeeming qualities in those countries, overall I’m not a fan. Though I do love me some propaganda art from the time.
To be clear, the vast majority of Marxists support the PRC and USSR. The only major exceptions are Trots, who are mostly found in the Western Left due to their anti-AES slant aligning with the overall liberal Western hegemony, and small pockets in South America. Trots have produced no successful revolutions, so they pose little threat. Though I do think it's funny that Trots love newspapers.
As for "anti-authoritarian," I'm not really sure what that means unless you are either an Anarchist or have an arbitrary level of government you deem unacceptable.
Anarchist. I lean somewhere between anarcho communist and libertarian socialist. In the most basic sense, I’m suspicious of power because I believe power corrupts and no system of economics or government is immune to this.
Why do you believe Anarchism is better at solving this problem than Marxism?
Marxism already proved itself corruptable.
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn't mean it can't be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Marxists believe that Central Planning and Public Ownership is necessary in the long run, yes. This centralism, however, derives its power from the masses, and flows from below. It isn't a cabal of all-powerful and unaccountable individuals in theory nor in practice. Anarchism, meanwhile, only has theory, and not yet practice outside of a few short periods. Anarchism at its core retains the ability for different cooperatives or communes to develop at different rates and allow the resurgance of Capitalism on the basis of those differences, Marxism does not.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor
Most people in the West want that, thanks to the prevailing ideologies surrounding individualism under Capitalism stemming from liberalism. In different modes of production, this is not the standard.
Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Why? On the contrary, it seems to me that it's less likely to accomplish anything, so far. Anarchists do great work, and many are excellent comrades, but to proclaim Marxism as "authoritarian" and Anarchism as "more likely" to do anything is a failure to recognize the historic shortcomings thus far of Anarchist theory and praxis.
We don't have to debate, but I do think you should give this more thought. If you want to learn more about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist reading list you can check out. Open for feedback!
Anarchists have yet to murder millions, unlike communists who seem to need a state to become stateless
Your first statement is pretty silly. For starters, Anarchists have had nowhere near the level of influence achieved by Marxists, so they haven't even had a chance to make mistakes. Secondly, who are you referring to when you say Communists have "murdered millions?" Fascists? The Nazis during WWII, 80% of which were killed by the antifascist Red Army? The fascist slaver Batista and his goons? The landlords? Tsarists? Elaborate, because your only argument here is that Anarchists get to remain "pure" because they have never had widespread success. This is pointless sectarianism, Marxists are your allies.
Secondly, the Marxist conception of a State is not the same as the Anarchist conception. For Marxists, the State is a tool of class oppression, while for Anarchists the State is a monopoly on violence. Communism is a world Socialist Republic, because full public ownership eliminates class distinctions and thus the state. The State withers away as it gradually appropriates Private Property and folds it into the public sector.
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
-Engels, Socialism and Scientific
I think of Maos Cultural Revolution, or all the Korean civilians caught up in the Korean War murdered for being seen as “collaborators”
I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.
Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”. My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.
I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.
Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.
Most Communists agree that the Cultural Revolution was at minimum was misguided. The famines were avoidable, and government mismanagement was greatly to blame. However, ultimately the CPC ended famine and even under Mao, life expectancy doubled.
Secondly, the idea that it was the North Koreans doing the indiscriminate killings while the US bombed 85% of all buildings in North Korea and dropped more tons of bombs on it than the entire pacific theater of WWII, slaughtered countless villiahws of North and South Koreans, as well as the South Korean Dictator Chun Doo-Hwan murdering thousands of schoolchildren and college students for protesting for democracy is monstrous.
You really need to read up on your history.
I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.
You've stated this, yes, but have done nothing to respond to my valid critiques of communes and cooperatives potentially giving rise to Capitalism again, nor to my statement that corruption can be fought just like hunger and poverty.
Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”.
It is not. My argument is that you can't claim Anarchism "solves" anything until we see it in practice, if ever. I seem to have a better opinion of modern Anarchists than you do, as recognizing the failures and successes of former Anarchist movements is necessary to move on.
My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.
What do you mean by "failed?" Is it a failure to double life expectancy, as happened in the USSR and PRC? What about going from vast illiteracy to near 100% literacy rates, as happened in Cuba, the PRC, USSR, and many others? What about increased housing, free healthcare, lower working times, eradication of famine, or even now with the PRC being the largest economy in the world with respect to Purchasing Power Parity?
Moreover, you're implying support for the Tsars, the fascist Batista, the agrarian Nationalist Kuomintang, the French Colonizers of Vietnam, and so forth. Would you tell the people overthrowing these regimes that they "failed?"
I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.
So if you're not going to argue, but are going to take unsourced, unsubstantiated potshots and respond to no points, and moreover refuse to read theory out of principle, what's your point? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is an essay, by no means a "long book," so I am not even sure what you mean here. Do you expect to just have knowledge beamed into everyone's heads? I tried to explain Marxism to you and you promptly ignored and took sectarian potshots.
Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.
Yes, safely inoffensive for not being threatening in any capacity to the Capitalist order, meanwhile much larger and more successful Marxist states like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and so forth continuously work to improve the lives of the whole of society. Silly.
You don't need to do this sectarian nonsense.
I’ve said multiple times I’m not interested and you continue to bombard me with theory. I’m not reading it and I don’t care. Go mansplain leftism to someone else.
Marxists ain’t gonna do shit in the US.
I "bombarded" you with zero theory here, all of that was just Cowbee. You say you aren't interested, but you're more than happy to peddle nonsense.
Why do you think Marxists aren't going to do anything in the US?
"boo reading is hard"
this kinda shit is why you dorks get called anarkiddies
meanwhile marxists are the only ones who have staged successful large-scale revolutions, so they were obviously doing something right in regards to appealing to the general public in ways anarchists haven't been able to. might be getting results and maintaining them for longer than a few years? idk
Y’all are the dorks writing novels instead of touching grass and organizing people in person.
and yet we're the ones who have actually accomplished real things while you dorks just vibe over vague sentiments and disrupt leftist movements for not being pure enough
Leading up to the election? Very reasonable. The Democrats are frauds, but they're not as bad for the left as Republicans. It's in our best interest to big tent with them for damage mitigation, to prevent the fascists from gaining power. Criticism, however deserved, helps the fascists.
After the election? Have at 'em. They're not as terrible as the Republicans, but they're awful nonetheless.
Having a big tent isn't winning the election. They need to be offering seats at the table.
Big tents absolutely win elections, that's really the only thing that does. Seats at the table are incentives to get people in the tent. But if they don't get the votes , they don't get the table, and any seats they offer are worthless.
You put me in a room with Democratic party leadership, and I'll tear into them with all the rightful criticism they deserve. You put me in a room with voters, before the election, I will sing their praises. I'll advocate their victories and downplay their flaws.
Not because the victories are substantial, and certainly not because their flaws aren't terrible. But there are two tents big enough to win the office, and the other one is worse and backed by lockstep support.
Did the Dems gain significant votes by offering Liz Cheney a seat at the table?
Liz Cheney represents conservatives who don't want to vote for Trump. That demographic represents more votes than leftists. That's what happens when you play hard to get too hard, the person you're after gives up and goes after someone else.
Id consectetur dolore eiusmod culpa.
Exactly, which is why Kamala won!
Just because it wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't the rational choice. It's very possible that she would have done worse if she hadn't courted conservatives, and possible she would have done even worse than that if she'd gone full tilt toward progressives. Hindsight is easy.
Id consectetur dolore eiusmod culpa.