***Official Political Discussion Thread***


Formerly 'red mpls'
Joined Feb 21, 2006
I think what people are pointing out is that even leftist policies are insufficient to achieve real economic and social justice for black people. You can claim there are better that whatever someone else is pushing, but they are still inadequate. They are only part of the solution. People want more because more will be needed to make the black community whole. More than what it will take to make poor white people whole.

To achieve that, at some point, you have to add additional policies and goals that explicitly spell out that their aim is to help specifically black people. The issue is that what guarantee will there be that new socialist coalition that pushes through colorblind universal policies, will also be on board with pushing through other programs specifically aimed at helping black Americans?

The goal is to use this class first rhetoric to attract a ton of new marginal voters into supporting the leftist agenda. Is it not?

But whenever someone points out the friction there, you circle back to how much good the leftist agenda will do for black people, how it is better than the liberal policy plan, or how pure of heart the median leftist is, without ever addressing that friction.

Secondly, when you have socialist/leftist/Marxist that have done an abysmal job at building a political movement big enough to gain power. That can't win in swing districts. That can't win where the Democratic brand is dead. That can't pry a decent amount of the left-wing coalition away from the Democratic establishment. A group of people that can't even prove their theories on coalition building. To trust and buy into a plan of a group that is disproportionately white already. Use rhetoric that is clearly designed not to trigger white people. Yet the request is made that people should just jump in, put concerns aside, treat anything outside of their narrow framing as distractions, and just trust socialist have ir right.

So yes, it does come off as some "what do you have to lose" steez.
Appreciate the dialogue as always fam. I will respond tomorrow.
Joined Jun 28, 2004
Nearly every group-specific measure requires a confrontation with capital. Affluent black peoples get pulled over 40 times a year, a lot of that has to do with the fact that capital needs an army, called the police, to maintain a racial and economic caste system. We’ve tried reforming the police and they still keep harassing black people even those who are well off. You have to abolish, defund or at least severely reduce the size of the police force, capital will block us.

Want black, trans people to live longer. You need a housing policy, you need FAFSA to assume their parents haven’t cut them off financially. Better yet, do tuition free college, either way, get them access to education along with housing. How do we make anti discrimination laws stick? End at-will employment and have a federal jobs guarantee. It goes without saying that we need universal healthcare/single payer which will cover mental health and any costs associated with transitioning.

Harassment from micro aggressions up to hate crimes from private citizens do damage to PoC, women, LGBT and the state and horizontalist community efforts can and should work to negate that. Most the damage, though, results from something’s done by capital, be it discrimination in hiring or an unwillingness to accommodate a disability, or the damage is caused by state policy that is the result of capital’s influence e.g. austerity or capital’s need for violent police.

No one’s struggle or combination of struggles should be subordinated but someone and/or something is causing those struggles and those forces that cause struggles are not equal, there is a senior partner within this coalition of oppressors.
Joined Jun 28, 2004
RustyShackleford RustyShackleford

To be fair, progressives and moderates don’t win very many elections either. We live in an oligarchic Republic which has only become more oligarchic and undemocratic over the last decade or so.

That’s why leftists are largely committed to building power outside of the formal channels of power. If we do that, in concert with electoralism we can have more democracy. With more democracy we can address a wide variety of injustices. Also, with more democracy smart progressives like you and Matt Yglesias, Noah Smith and Elizabeth Warren can have your ideas in play. Right now, no one to the left Ted Cruz has their ideas considered in terms of forming public policy.

So just as social and economic justice are intertwined, leftists and liberals need each other given all the constraints that exist on anyone whose public policy goals include anything other than plunder and cruelty.
Joined Dec 12, 2012
Joined Dec 15, 2012

Well I guess that solves where Texas stands on science. It will be fascinating to see how this all plays out come election time. The 65+ block is far and away the Republicans largest, most reliable voting block and they are basically giving them the middle finger telling them to go **** themselves.
Last edited:

Methodical Management

Staff member
Joined Dec 8, 1999
Also, left, right, center and grill pilled can all agree that this man is daaaaaaaaaaaapper AF!

download (2).jpg

Trump watching Spaceballs like

I don't believe I quoted or brought up Karl Marx once in that exchange, nor have I even read Capital as you had intimated in an apparent attempt to reduce me to some aloof "coffee shop revolutionary," so there goes that theory...
It seems that paranoia might be contagious. If you check the tape, the description you’re referring to was applied to the first year grad students who burned me out with their facile class reductionist nonsense a long time ago.

In the very next sentence, I exempted you from this: “I know that this discussion isn't coming from the same place as the self-satisfied Bernie Bros who would have us believe that our petty preoccupations with "identity politics" stand as evidence that we've all been turned against each other by our true enemy, the shadowy puppet masters, and that if we all set our differences aside via "class consciousness" to take on sources of White "economic anxiety," surely social justice will trickle down to everyone else.”

The Du Bois quote I selected specifically references Marx, so if you’re taking the con on that, it certainly looks like you’re saying “Marx was right, class rules everything around me.” And that may very well appear accurate from your perspective, but, as Bomani Jones aptly observed about libertarians, it takes a particular set of circumstances for someone to earnestly believe this. While I found several aspects of your argument problematic, I wasn't out here taking pot shots at you personally.

Raising the basic standard of living for everyone is obviously a laudable goal for its own sake, but in a society where even the affluent are (often publicly) subjected to racism, sexism, cissexism, ableism, and heterosexism, the notion that class inequality is the only form of inequality worth treating directly is difficult to swallow - especially when coming from a vanguard movement that otherwise isn't afraid to dream big.
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now