yes. infiltrating capitalist institutions famously doesn’t work. we call those entrists.
i don’t care for lone wolf martyrs. be them entrists or shooters or bombers alike. those can be cathartic but this is it.
leftists organizing their own institutions is what historically works, and is a better use of talented people’s time and abilities.
and yes, it has worked in the US to give workers better wages, and famously the right for workers to have a weekend and the 8hour-maximum workday. entrism on the other hand never did much of anything.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
the new deal came about because of socialist pressure. thats also why it ain’t happening again, because there are barely any socialists in the us anymore.
grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions
who was supporting grassroots work reform? thats right, the socialists. under the threat of violence. saying it was simply “grassroots support” whitewashes all the blood spilled to make it happen. it wasnt given by benevolent capitalists.
“centrist” (your words, not mine) - Frankin Delano Roosevelt
i literally said nothing about roosevelt or centrism in any of my responses to you. putting words in my mouth.
you are the one who should read a book, preferrably something not whitewashed by the CIA or something, cause holy shit.
since you are repeating yourself ill take the liberty to do so myself:
saying it was simply “grassroots support” whitewashes all the blood spilled to make it happen. it wasnt given by benevolent capitalists.
socialist blood. the candidate in your article will fade into irrelevancy because there isn’t a mass leftist movement to support radical change like there was back then.
if there was enough of a movement, you can bet you could force trump himself into passing progressive laws. no need for specific candidates to vote for.
violence is one of the tools at our disposal, the threat of the upending of the status quo is what did it. that comes from leftists, not politicians or institutionalism.
the institutions are there to uphold the status quo, regardless of the good people that might be elected. it also explains why the trump admin is dismantling them, he wants to break the status quo for something else.
deleted by creator
yes. infiltrating capitalist institutions famously doesn’t work. we call those entrists.
i don’t care for lone wolf martyrs. be them entrists or shooters or bombers alike. those can be cathartic but this is it.
leftists organizing their own institutions is what historically works, and is a better use of talented people’s time and abilities.
and yes, it has worked in the US to give workers better wages, and famously the right for workers to have a weekend and the 8hour-maximum workday. entrism on the other hand never did much of anything.
deleted by creator
Been on your side up to this point.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
deleted by creator
the new deal came about because of socialist pressure. thats also why it ain’t happening again, because there are barely any socialists in the us anymore.
who was supporting grassroots work reform? thats right, the socialists. under the threat of violence. saying it was simply “grassroots support” whitewashes all the blood spilled to make it happen. it wasnt given by benevolent capitalists.
i literally said nothing about roosevelt or centrism in any of my responses to you. putting words in my mouth.
you are the one who should read a book, preferrably something not whitewashed by the CIA or something, cause holy shit.
deleted by creator
who are you quoting again?
since you are repeating yourself ill take the liberty to do so myself:
socialist blood. the candidate in your article will fade into irrelevancy because there isn’t a mass leftist movement to support radical change like there was back then.
if there was enough of a movement, you can bet you could force trump himself into passing progressive laws. no need for specific candidates to vote for.
deleted by creator
violence is one of the tools at our disposal, the threat of the upending of the status quo is what did it. that comes from leftists, not politicians or institutionalism.
the institutions are there to uphold the status quo, regardless of the good people that might be elected. it also explains why the trump admin is dismantling them, he wants to break the status quo for something else.
deleted by creator