Socialism
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
The Overton window is anchored by a series of landmarks. The most effective way to lose one of them, like the Constitution, is to start discussing whether it has merit.
Right now, the country is in the sad state that the absolute minimum, adherence to a Constitution to which government official swear an oath of allegiance, is in question. You gain absolutely nothing, right now, by questioning the Constitution. You wait until the constitutional order is re-established and actors that routinely violate it are punished, and when the Overton window moves back ... it's not really to the left, it's more towards democracy itself, then you discuss the flaws of the Constitution.
The Overton window is anchored by a series of landmarks. The most effective way to lose one of them, like the Constitution, is to start discussing whether it has merit.
Yeah. Why do you think that Lemmy, a markedly leftist platform, is so inundated with people talking about how useless all our imperfect tools for making the world slightly less authoritarian are? Why do you think they're trying to get us to abandon them rather than bolstering their support?
I've been saying this for months. The people who are trying to get the left to abandon the effective means we have for shifting the overton window to the left are right-wingers or being manipulated by right-wingers.
The people who spend their days banging away about how we don't have democracy, we've never had democracy, the constitution is useless, the democrats never accomplish anything, etc, are literally agents of the right whether they know it or not. But many of them probably literally do know it.
Why do we see this more on Lemmy than in real life or on other platforms? Because we're being targeted.
Absolutely! I had the same impression with the Gaza protests. The Biden/Harris administration handled the situation absolutely horribly, but anyone who had watched #45 knew that things were going to get a whole universe worse for Gaza if Trump got reelected. And yet, there was that strange bombardment with "I can't vote for Harris because of Gaza" that seemed astroturfed.
In no material way has the gaza situation become worse. The only change is our president is no longer shaking his finger going 'oh no, bad isreal please stop' and is extending the prosecution to Palestinians in the US.
You sound like one of those people who stopped caring about the child cages soon as biden was the one doing it.
All harris had to do was say 'i will ensure american laws are enforced with respect to weapons sales to isreal' and her major campaign problem would have disappeared.
Wouldn't have helped with all her other shitty positions but at least we would have had a candidate who didnt support genocide.
Its not astroturfing when your candidate is so bad most people in her base dont actually support her but are voting against trump. Not a recipe for success.
We're getting exactly what we deserve atm for running genocidal candidates. Next time tell your candidate to get a fucking clue and not support a fucking genocide and maybe she'll win. Though i doubt it since shes a gaslighting fuck who doesnt give a shit about the working class. Her and biden cant disappear fast enough from the political sphere as far as im concerned
In no material way has the gaza situation become worse.
I have a horrible feeling that we may, this month, be watching the final death of Gaza. And everyone's too distracted or too powerless to do anything about it.
They've just run out of food. There's none left. I think this might be the end. I think by this time next year, what was "Gaza" may simply be Israel.
There's a lot to criticize about Biden's response to Gaza (Basically all of it). But, it's outright absurd to pretend that all of that instantly applied to Kamala Harris, for more or less literally no reason at all, or that it represented a sensible reason to let someone come to power who turned "I'm going to hem and haw and at the end of the day support Israel in 90% of what they're doing while making noise about humanitarian aid" into "Fuck it, kill 'em all, I'll send their supporters to El Salvador to help support you."
All harris had to do was say ‘i will ensure american laws are enforced with respect to weapons sales to isreal’ and her major campaign problem would have disappeared.
Incorrect. I think it would have lost her a lot of support. A lot more American people support Israel than Palestine, because they're as unaware of the nature of the genocide as you are about the shockingly-good-for-American-politics steps Biden took to support the working class and a lot of the key issues the people on Lemmy are constantly clamoring about (police brutality, unions, climate change).
Fun fact: gaza lacked clean food and water for almost a year now. Its old news and was allowed under Biden. Its not a material change.
And no she wouldn't have lost a ton of support. The jewish community is 1) small, and 2) divided on the issue. Further more most of zionist are literally christians thinking isreali reclaiming the holy land is a precursor to the rapture and don't vote democrat. So no she lost more support from the antiwar Democratic base than she gained. (Fun fact she gained nothing by being pro genocide what were her % repub voters again? Oh right less than the typical. Good job)
Finally harris lost in no small part by demonstrating she'd throw any minority group under the bus and exactly how out of touch she was on working class economics.
Both issues are why the blue wall crumbled. She lost 2 critical states over gaza and support tanked even in blue states. The remaining support in the mid western states tanked due to her absolutely clueless positions on the economic hardships faced by the working class. Biden's Presidency did not make any real gains for the working class and rhey didnt have a single policy on their platform that would. Trying to say he was 'good for the work class economically' is an absolute farce; at best he was neutral.
So kindly fuck off with your genocidal apology nonsense and go fuck yourself i have no interest in engaging with your stupidity further.
Fun fact: gaza lacked clean food and water for almost a year now. Its old news and was allowed under Biden.
You really don't know?
There is 0 food coming in. The aid agencies inside have just run out. I'm not talking about "clean food." I'm talking about mass starvation.
People can't survive for a year with 0 food. That's what I am talking about. There was food coming in before, including with that pitiful effort to build a pier to get the US military directly involved in providing it. It was terrible, but whatever, it was something. Now it's 0.
Finally harris lost in no small part by demonstrating she’d throw any minority group under the bus and exactly how out of touch she was on working class economics.
No, Harris lost because masterpieces of propaganda convinced people that she would be worse for the working class and Trump would finally set things right. Her actual positions had literally nothing at all to do with it, and Gaza was a tiny sideshow to it that was only occasionally deployed to people on the left who it would influence.
They actually did opposite propaganda sometimes, depending on who was being targeted: To mainstream Americans, she was a friend to "terrorists" who was on Palestine's side, and that's why we can't vote for her, and to leftists, she was a friend to Israel who was responsible for 100% of Biden's Gaza policy, and that's why we can't vote for her.
And people bought it. Like you! Good job. And look at how we're fucked now.
but anyone who had watched #45 knew that things were going to get a whole universe worse for Gaza
In what way exactly? So far it's just a little more of what they've been doing since October 7th. Gaza was not a distinguishing factor between Republicans and Democrats in November unless you consider genocide with rainbows a distinction.
And yet, there was that strange bombardment with "I can't vote for Harris because of Gaza" that seemed astroturfed.
You do realize that there were multiple large real-life movements about exactly that right? Like it or not that shit was real.
The people who are trying to get the left to abandon the effective means we have for shifting the overton window to the left are right-wingers or being manipulated by right-wingers.
It's amazing how often I see someone proclaiming to have a deeply held belief only to turn around and immediately support a political pathway that is objectively detrimental to their cause and crow about how their position is the most moral while ignoring the 100% predictable consequences. Bonus points for them also arguing that picking the obviously better choice is wrong because both sides are the same, or the other person would have done the shit that only one of them was saying they'd do.
Almost as if they are being disingenuous, and the theory under which what they're doing makes perfect sense is more likely than the one at face value which makes 0 sense.
So… wait for never?
I think of this as an opportunity. The administration seems to be incredibly incompetent in addition to corrupt. The resulting economic calamity will probably taint everything they advanced with the stink of failure - from anti-trans policies to willy-nilly suspension of constitutional rights and declarations of phony emergencies.
It's never good to have enemies, but it's almost tolerable when they are incompetent.
Seriously. What this country actually needs is a massive people movement to get the crooks and tyrants out of government. Trump didn't invent any of that or even close to, but if him trying to have the government kill everybody who looks at him funny or gets in his way is what it takes to get that going, let's fucking take advantage and accomplish some things, lord knows we need it.
Because the democrats work so hard to change things, right? Biden did so much the first time around.
You wait until the constitutional order is re-established and actors that routinely violate it are punished, and when the Overton window moves back ... it's not really to the left, it's more towards democracy itself, then you discuss the flaws of the Constitution.
But then your alleged temporary allies will turn back to enemies and you'll be back to square one with neoliberals and conservatives playing their farce of a tug of war game.
Yeah, the constitution has a whole bunch of problems with it that are the direct cause of the issues the US has been seeing for decades (weighting a lot of the votes towards empty states, many of which were actually created explicitly in an effort to make sure the political balance remained the same).
At the very least talk about an amendment that fixes those issues, or you'll just go back to a ratchet towards more inequality, neoliberalism and authoritarianism.
Re-establish the system that got us here in the first place? The status quo before Trump... in which Trump got elected twice? I wonder if, once balance is restored, you'll say "now's not the time to question things" again because "our people" are in power?
I'm not saying the point is to make questioning the Constitution the most important leftist platform. I'm saying that the protest moment we have here is an opportunity. The Democratic Party wants to use the opportunity to get people to vote Democrat in elections and nothing more. It's fine to vote that way, but it just creates the opportunity for the next charismatic "outsider" figure to arise after we've had a Dem administration again. My point is that the left needs to offer a real alternative to the failing constitutional system and to the dictatorship the right is offering.
I wholeheartedly support David Hogg's movement to primary away status quo Democrats. I have seen Chuck Schumer's "negotiating skills" with the continuing resolution, I have seen Newsom's equivocation on trans rights, I have seen Biden's handling of Gaza. Believe me, I understand how useless it is to have one party be radically authoritarian and the other wants to play nice and get along.
What I am saying is that I think it makes more sense to get rid of the status quo party now than in 2024.
The Overton window is anchored by a series of landmarks. The most effective way to lose one of them, like the Constitution, is to start discussing whether it has merit.
In any kind of public, widespread platform/ venue, I agree with you 100%. Discussing whether the US is a moral entity at its root is not something you do on CNN or even Facebook, because it is going to be weaponized by the Right to paint you as anti-US to the politically-disengaged Center, and also to justify their unconstitutional actions as being less harmful via whataboutism.
I don't think Beehaw- a small, intentionally Leftist space- is equivalent. No one here is going to say, "hmm, maybe Trump ignoring the constitution is the same as people discussing whether a document that first enshrined slavery and then sustained it in a carceral system, is capable of reformation. Makes sense." Nor is anyone outside this space reading or broadcasting it. And there does have to be space for free political discussion somewhere, or you've just abdicated free speech out of fear of politicization.
You wait until the constitutional order is re-established and actors that routinely violate it are punished, and when the Overton window moves back … it’s not really to the left, it’s more towards democracy itself, then you discuss the flaws of the Constitution.
This presupposes that the form of democracy it will move "back" towards will be the same as where it was before all this. There is no reason to think that will be the case, and certainly major political events of the past in the US (Civil War, Civil Rights movement, WW2, 9/11, etc) have often included large constitutional shifts either through amendment or interpretation. This is certainly a major political event.
We could go on a tangent about whether political capital is real, and whether (if it is) we are capable of returning to where we were before even if we wanted, but suffice it to say that many people would likely disagree with the premise that we can ever perfectly revert to pre-2024 Election America. A lot of people (even in the Center) believed that our checks and balances under the Constitution would prevent a dictator. Now that we're seeing otherwise, I highly doubt most Democrat voters will ever again fully trust the Constitution to protect them, without serious amendment.
So discussing what those amendments might be, how that reform could work, or whether those protections are even possible to regain via the Constitution without e.g. giving congress or the judiciary enforcement abilities (or via some other means entirely), seems like a pretty important discussion for people to be having.
Do you think the constitution is a deeply flawed document written by the oligarchs of their time, which included among the institutions it codified slavery, misogyny, and war as a normal part of the human condition? Excellent, you're in good company and I (among many others) agree with you. That's why amendments and judges exist, also, so that we're not limited to its fairly flawed implementations and goals in governing what we're doing today.
Do you like having human rights, including the freedom to criticize the government, the right to due process, and the right to defend yourself against a tyrannical government? Great! So do I. As it happens there's a common phrasing that you can use as a quick code-word for saying that, which will engage the support of a massive range of people including among them conservatives, liberals, leftists, military people, police, lawyers, judges, and so on. And you know? It won't even made them want slavery back, if you do choose to say it that way. You could, of course, decide that it's more important to alienate 99% of those people immediately, and then provide fodder for extensive arguments with the remaining 1%. You could do that, that would be fun too.
Do you like having big performative "I'm more left than you so I'm superior I'm actually very smart because everything YOU think is good is actually bad" contests which assail whatever people are trying to do and distract from the most urgent issues of the day? Well... you're in good company with that one, too. This has always been a part of the left from the beginning, and I guess not for nothing; it's connected up with the freedom to speak your mind, not having to agree with any particular herd, and with having passion about issues and wanting to analyze everything and be on the right side of history. I get it. But I think the fight this person is picking is a pretty silly fight to pick right now.
100% of people you will talk to will understand what's meant by "the constitution," and literally nothing about it is anything other than urgent self-defense against a genuinely very urgent threat.
These people who spend their days trying to prove how "leftist" they are by destroying every tool we have are literally right-wingers.
If you believe words on a piece of paper are going to protect you. you're incredibly delusional.
You believe words have power or you wouldn't be out here trying to sabotage us with them.
Ding ding ding you broke the code lol.
I also like how, if you sort of unfocus your eyes and take a broad look over the comments, it's very obvious that the chief purpose is shitting on "liberals." There's very little interest in the topics about democracy and improvement of the government and people power that are the ostensible purpose for this whole thing. Basically, almost all of it boils down to:
- There are all these horrible people running around who believe the constitution is sacred and everything in it is great but they are wrong it's just a piece of paper and also it and they are going to make fascism
- And you are one of them, no don't tell me what you believe, I already told you what you believe, shut up listen to me
- YOU'RE A BIG PIECE OF SHIT ARAGRABRAGREWHDBEFJKHEBF
Uhhhh, I don't think a document that outlines the basis for a type of democracy is anti democratic. There are plenty of things wrong with it though, maybe talk about those parts instead to build a stronger case against the constitution
Everyone knows that when the ship is having trouble and seems like it might be out of control, the first thing to do is destroy the wheel. After all, it wasn't working right, it was a big problem.
The supreme court is 9 ppl appointed for life, so that's antidemocratic. The Senate is 2 ppl per state regardless of population, that's antidemocratic. Amendments need 3/4 of the States, not people, to go through, that's antidemocratic. The federalist papers specifically discuss the desire to prevent the people ("the mob" they called us) from having much power.
Why are these things anti democratic? If you want to go down this path you first need to establish a clear definition for what is and isn't anti democratic. Is a doctor anti democratic because he wasn't elected by popular vote? The supreme court is appointed by the current sitting (democratically elected) president. Should every government position require a nation wide popular vote? Is that really the only way to have a democracy?
You and I can disagree about our minimum level of democracy, but how will we actually change society if we don't change how the decisions are made in society?
For me, the most possible democracy is when the people affected by a given decision (and only those people) are the ones who make the decision in a way they consider fair (however fair is defined) and are empowered to do what they decided on.
If the same group of people instead choose, via 1 person = 1 vote, one or more among them to make the decision, it's less democratic in my view, but at least they each had an equal vote.
If the same group of people instead choose, via any voting system that changes 1 person = 1 vote (e.g. x amount of votes for each parcel of land), one or more among them to make the decision, it is even less democratic, because they did not all have an equal vote due to variations in how many people live in each parcel of land.
The current US Constitutional system has us here, between the above example and the below one, because land parcels in large part determine relative voting power and then the electeds make appointments of further decision makers, such as the Supreme Court.
Zero democracy is when the person/people making the decisions are not chosen by the people affected by the decision and the people affected by it have zero say in the decision.
I'll preface by stating that I'm not an American.
I think society is too interconnected and any decision in any area could be argued to have an effect on the entire population. I also think it's good to have competent people in positions of leadership. I don't think that most people are capable of choosing who is well suited for a given task. In that sense I somewhat agree with what you said here "people affected by a given decision (and only those people) are the ones who make the decision" though I believe I'm arriving at this conclusion from a different perspective than you. I would also point out that in both cases it is inherently less democratic than the current us government (as in less people are given more power) though I think this is partially desirable since a true perfect democracy won't select who is most capable, but who is more popular.
The supreme court is 9 ppl appointed for life, so that’s antidemocratic.
Yeah, we should change that.
The Senate is 2 ppl per state regardless of population, that’s antidemocratic.
Yeah, we should change that.
Amendments need 3/4 of the States, not people, to go through, that’s antidemocratic.
That one I'm a lot less sure about but we can talk about it.
The federalist papers specifically discuss the desire to prevent the people (“the mob” they called us) from having much power.
Yeah, they also said we shouldn't have a bill of rights.
Also, the need to protect government against "the mob" and how it's not as simple as just "let's let people vote and whoever wins the popular vote gets to rule because that's democracy" should be absolutely starkly apparent after November of last year. Trying to build a government that works is not really a simple thing, and just like in engineering, saying that some tool is deeply flawed isn't always necessarily an argument for why things will get better if we just get rid of it (without exploring what the alternate option is going to be and how it'll play out).
But mostly we're in agreement. Glad we worked all that out! It turned out to be really simple, who knew.
I dunno y'all, maybe just listen to the interviews?
They weren’t geniuses ...
Actually some of them were Enlightenment polymaths.
I mean they did great given the circumstances. Their first try was a total failure but the revised version worked. They were doing their best. We don't need to cling forever to the stuff they got wrong, but for the time they did a really incredible number of things right, far better than some governments that tried big ambitious reforms in the 20th century that I could name. (Although, they had a huge advantage by starting small and scattered with limited technology and then working out the problems of government in a sort of unnoticed backwater of the world as they went, without a lot of the pressures of a modern state in the modern environment. And even with that they still had to struggle a lot, a lot.)
almost every comment here reads like an LLM sharting out a light novel in response to a prompt that didn't tell it to format it as a comment..