What's really the point of any of this? Force the vote, cush bomb nonsense, menaker movie rants.
What's really the point? Chapo at this point is just a grift. They offer no solutions just depression. Matt even admits in one of his cush logs that he'll be here to just keep gifting after the election.
Force our politicians to do anything why? Why should we bother. Clearly the left is just going to swirl down the drain of nihilism while the right invades capitals.
What's really the point of the left?
deleted by creator
People are trying to apply pressure through force the vote.
But matt has said it's pointless and said it's nothing more than choosing wrestling heel or face.
Movements need out spoken leaders and momentum. Not a bunch of sad rich hipsters poopooing shit or intellectuals that are too scared or trying to protect the cash flow.
Either way I'm going to bed. Thanks for helping me figure this out, even though we don't agree you have been helpful.
the chapo people are not movement leaders, they're regular-ass white-ass rich dudes who happen to have ok politics and want to make you laugh. we do need movement leaders, but if you want it to be will menaker you're just simply barking up the wrong tree
AOC is not a movement leader,
Also, you have to keep in mind that Matt is taking very much in the context of Twitter/online debate when he talks about things being pointless. He is correct that it's pointless because all of us, collectively, are all nothing but Monday morning quarterbacks in the end.
Remember that Chapo is just "weird Twitter, the podcast". Weird Twitter has had a lefty bent for a long time, and Matt at the very least is a Marxist. Beyond that, you can't really get much out of it.
Force the vote does not apply pressure in any meaningful way.
Why not? The tea party got a looooot of energy from trying to repeal Obamacare 500 times. It the elected socialists in congress would demand a house vote for medicare for all during a pandemic, it would make them popular, it would put pressure on the corporate democrats (imagine if they 'd come out immediatly after Pelosi caves that they would endorse a primary challenger against every democrat who votes against M4A) and it would in general mean the left would be dictating the terms of the political debate in the country for once.
Leftists are massive babies who can't even handle a slight win without crying. Our movement doesn't have the stability to handle 500 losing floor votes like a bunch of Tea Party psychos.
All what, 3 (at best)?
We've been in a pandemic for almost a year, and Medicare for All is less popular than it was a year ago! Adding "in a pandemic" to the end of something does not make people change their mind. Many people would be convinced that a global health crisis is the worst time to do Medicare for All because "we can't change course now" or "we can't risk our seniors with socialized death panels"
L M A O. It would be about as much pressure as the air being too cold on their offices.
The threat of primary challengers? Jesus Christ man, are you listening to yourself? The Democrats have a massive war chest, and guess what? The electorate is only getting worse for Lefties because whatever tender memories of organized labor or a functioning welfare state that the Boomers had, Gen Xers have zero. Corporate Dems are the Party.
Absolutely fucking delusional
Found the chud.
Emotional fragility is a real issue on "the Left", and it's frequently used to our detriment.
Perhaps, but your comment was derogatory and preaches inaction. Put you own house in order first.
Quoting the good doctor does not seem to earn you many points here.
What doctor?
The one that wants you to clean your room.
Huh, why do you think I'm quoting Peterson? Are you sure you're responding to the right comment?
Any such win would be co-opted by the dems instantly. They would act like they always wanted it. Look at any past similar victory to know I am right. It would only give the shittiest democratic system on the planet more half-life, when it foes NOT deserve it.
Any energy spent dragging the dems kicking and screaming an inch to the left would be better spent organizing an alternative. And as Bernie has proven twice over now, that alternative can't come from inside that wretched decrepit corpse of a a party.
Engaging in the struggle for medicare 4 all is worthile in itself as a socialist. The struggle (whether you win it or lose it), is a valuable organising tool to build socialist organisations among the masses. If AOC and the rest of them would be real socialists interested in such a thing, they would use their position in parliament in such a way.
The value in that would be exclusively in recruiting a few disillusioned wonks as that struggle fails. It won't however activate anyone who has correctly realized neither party is gonna piss on them if they are on fire and has thus checked out of politics. That is the larger and easier audience to go for.
The important part here is: Build the parallel power first. Then have the parallel power agitate for change. It does not work the other way around and never has.
Parallel power comes from having organised structures which are capable of positively affecting humans lives like unions, cooperatives and so forth which are lead by socialists. How can you build those organisations if you're not engaged in campaigns to achieve material benefits for people such as M4A?
Uh..what? The parallel power agitates for the change, so you need to build it up, so that it can do so. You need a sturdy-ass movement that will keep demanding change and currently no such thing exists on a large enough scale.
The proposal here is the reverse. Somehow through a few dems asking for and failing to get M4A through congress, without any support from the press or anyone, we will get ahead. How is that supposed to work? Which Fox news level media organization will report on these attempts in a positive light for years on end to energize people, for one?
No, it's not the reverse. A good example is the way Kschama Sawant (I'm generally not very fond of tratskyst, but in the US she's the best example, unfortunatly) is used by socialist alternative. She uses her position as a megaphone for the broader movement, and that's an important part of both popularising demands and giving people hope that change is possible. Seattly won $15 minimum wage and a tax on large corporations and Sawant as the most famous propagator played a large part in that.
Yes, Sawant wouldn't be were she was without a movement, but the movement wouldn't be where it is without the elected socialist. They reinforce eachother, and that's exactly how socialists should use electoral politics.
If AOC and the rest of the squad would be comitted socialists, they'd use their position in a similar way. They're extremely popular figures so they could force the media to acknowledge what's happening, but also, they'd be able to communicate directly with the population trough their own channels.
deleted by creator