There's REALLY mask off stuff thats from genuine fascists but there's still otherwise fairly normal libs doing more soft mask off stuff or not totally disagreeing with the fascists and thats what bothers me because at least on reddit the unhoused seem to be the issue that brings out that side of them the most.
there's still otherwise fairly normal libs doing more soft mask off stuff or not totally disagreeing with the fascists
Agreed, but this is a really important difference.
Libs can get moved either way. Put them in a room with a bunch of fascists and they'll probably go along. But put them in a room with a bunch of people talking about housing first, or guaranteed basic income, or the evils of landlords, and they'll probably go along with that, too. The trick is getting them to reject the bad things and push the good things on their own, that is, to make them leftists.
Mistaking libs for fascists is bad analysis and actively harmful to growing the left.
As is the case with many other subjects, they'll agree with a surprising amount of leftist points until you label them "socialism" or start referencing AES states. Progressive ones will agree with basically all our reasons about why landlords are bad, and may even agree with "we should just take their rental properties" -- especially if framed in the context of local reactionary landlords and their influence on local politics -- but you'll lose them talking about Mao. Your more mainstream Dems might draw the line at rent control, but will at least talk about it, and will nod along to everything you say about enforcing existing housing laws or expanding renter protections.
You'll of course have some neolib psychos or lib landlords who'll have far more reactionary opinions, too.
The mask off stuff generally isn't coming from libs.
There's REALLY mask off stuff thats from genuine fascists but there's still otherwise fairly normal libs doing more soft mask off stuff or not totally disagreeing with the fascists and thats what bothers me because at least on reddit the unhoused seem to be the issue that brings out that side of them the most.
Agreed, but this is a really important difference.
Libs can get moved either way. Put them in a room with a bunch of fascists and they'll probably go along. But put them in a room with a bunch of people talking about housing first, or guaranteed basic income, or the evils of landlords, and they'll probably go along with that, too. The trick is getting them to reject the bad things and push the good things on their own, that is, to make them leftists.
Mistaking libs for fascists is bad analysis and actively harmful to growing the left.
Yeah I dont disagree with this. Good points.
deleted by creator
As is the case with many other subjects, they'll agree with a surprising amount of leftist points until you label them "socialism" or start referencing AES states. Progressive ones will agree with basically all our reasons about why landlords are bad, and may even agree with "we should just take their rental properties" -- especially if framed in the context of local reactionary landlords and their influence on local politics -- but you'll lose them talking about Mao. Your more mainstream Dems might draw the line at rent control, but will at least talk about it, and will nod along to everything you say about enforcing existing housing laws or expanding renter protections.
You'll of course have some neolib psychos or lib landlords who'll have far more reactionary opinions, too.