Gatekeeping a Progressive Movement by denying entry to those who do not meet your ideological standards, even though those people share similar frustrations, is pretty devisive.
Abdul El-Sayed is a great example. He bills himself as a Capitalist, but is pushing for socialist policies (socialized medicine, taxing the rich to support social initiatives, banning corporate home ownership):
When asked point-blank if he considers himself a socialist, El-Sayed didn’t flinch.
“I’m not. I’m a capitalist who just understands capitalism,” he said.
He is a Democrat and refusing to support him because he doesn’t fully align with what YOU think is the absolute moral position is very short-sighted.
Whether or not he follows through with his promises remains to be seen, but for now he is representing Leftist policies that I certainly want to see implemented.
“Taxing the rich” and “no corporate home ownership” are not socialist policies - these are social-democrat compromises. They might be improvements over the status quo, but that’s an extremely low bar, and they will likely fail to solve bigger issues, or even buffer them against further change.
Pop open his platform page and pretend he is being honest. Are there any policies that you would like to see implemented in your area?
If he gets elected and fails to substantially deliver on his promises, I’ll be the first in line to disavow him.
Voting isn’t the end all be all of change, but it is a method that has shown it can result in massive change (see Zohran Mandani and Donald Trump for the extremes of that change.)
The virtues of his policies are irrelevant to your description of them as “socialist” policies - your understanding of what a socialist is and/or believes is incorrect.
ETA: also, Mamdani is not “extreme” by any metric, except perhaps “ignorant American political spectrum”
Aside from his position on socialized medicine, yeah I gave bad examples.
I will fight to expand Medicare to cover all necessary healthcare, including vision, dental, and hearing, and extend it to every single American from cradle to grave without premiums, copays, or deductibles. Medicare should be automatic, for everyone, and accepted everywhere.
Pardon me for using the American political spectrum to define what is extreme in the country I live in.
“Expanding Medicare” is also not a socialist policy - healthcare should be entirely divorced from the any concept of “cost”.
I’m not attempting to shame you for your ignorance, merely make you aware of it. Read socialist literature and philosophy before making claims about whose policies adhere to it.
healthcare should be entirely divorced from any concept of “cost”.
There will always be limits on how much effort we are able or willing to spend on keeping someone alive, improving their condition, or accomodating their needs. While expressing these limits in a single fungible currency that is also used to pay for mansions and video games is silly, considering the cost is necessary in some non-capitalist sense of the word.
At some point a nurse will go home and rest. At some point a farmer will stop tending more crops so people can be hospital workers instead of farmers while still having access to food, and go home to rest. At some point a scientist will be too miserable working as a medical researcher and go design a better solar panel instead. At some point a doctor will despair of finding a way to cure one patient and go cure five other patients whose conditions are just as severe but simply more treatable.
The cost of helping someone can become too great, and we need a language to coordinate our efforts and our limits. That is as true in anarchism as in state communism as in capitalism.
I do a push up after every time I read “unity/e/divide [the] left.”
Now I got agitprop to reshare.
How is “dividing the left” if they don’t share any of the same goals or methods?
Gatekeeping a Progressive Movement by denying entry to those who do not meet your ideological standards, even though those people share similar frustrations, is pretty devisive.
Abdul El-Sayed is a great example. He bills himself as a Capitalist, but is pushing for socialist policies (socialized medicine, taxing the rich to support social initiatives, banning corporate home ownership):
He is a Democrat and refusing to support him because he doesn’t fully align with what YOU think is the absolute moral position is very short-sighted.
Whether or not he follows through with his promises remains to be seen, but for now he is representing Leftist policies that I certainly want to see implemented.
https://news.meaww.com/abdul-el-sayed-rejects-socialist-label-says-im-a-capitalist-who-understands-capitalism
https://abdulforsenate.com/priorities/
“Taxing the rich” and “no corporate home ownership” are not socialist policies - these are social-democrat compromises. They might be improvements over the status quo, but that’s an extremely low bar, and they will likely fail to solve bigger issues, or even buffer them against further change.
Pop open his platform page and pretend he is being honest. Are there any policies that you would like to see implemented in your area?
If he gets elected and fails to substantially deliver on his promises, I’ll be the first in line to disavow him.
Voting isn’t the end all be all of change, but it is a method that has shown it can result in massive change (see Zohran Mandani and Donald Trump for the extremes of that change.)
The virtues of his policies are irrelevant to your description of them as “socialist” policies - your understanding of what a socialist is and/or believes is incorrect.
ETA: also, Mamdani is not “extreme” by any metric, except perhaps “ignorant American political spectrum”
Aside from his position on socialized medicine, yeah I gave bad examples.
Pardon me for using the American political spectrum to define what is extreme in the country I live in.
“Expanding Medicare” is also not a socialist policy - healthcare should be entirely divorced from the any concept of “cost”.
I’m not attempting to shame you for your ignorance, merely make you aware of it. Read socialist literature and philosophy before making claims about whose policies adhere to it.
Fair enough, I guess I mixed up social policies and socialist policies. Got any recommendations aside from Das Kapital?
There will always be limits on how much effort we are able or willing to spend on keeping someone alive, improving their condition, or accomodating their needs. While expressing these limits in a single fungible currency that is also used to pay for mansions and video games is silly, considering the cost is necessary in some non-capitalist sense of the word.
At some point a nurse will go home and rest. At some point a farmer will stop tending more crops so people can be hospital workers instead of farmers while still having access to food, and go home to rest. At some point a scientist will be too miserable working as a medical researcher and go design a better solar panel instead. At some point a doctor will despair of finding a way to cure one patient and go cure five other patients whose conditions are just as severe but simply more treatable.
The cost of helping someone can become too great, and we need a language to coordinate our efforts and our limits. That is as true in anarchism as in state communism as in capitalism.
Free your capital✊🏿
I hope your method works and we all arrive at a better future!
SoupBrick be like
Nice assumption, but I don’t have capital to speak of nor do I foresee being able to afford any (including one house, nonetheless two.)
I am a working class Leftist, whether you choose to believe it or not.
I just believe there are multiple methods of change and it is stupid to throw one away because it violates your ideological purity.
Then you should be solidifying with us on ending private land.
This is Liberal rhetoric. Anarchists solidify, liberals purify social progress.
Ask them.
Free the left!✊🏿