The New Socialists

[wakephan09]

Guess I have to wonder why blacks continue to live in the south?

Because many poor people tend to remain for their entire lives where they grew up, and many poor black people in the south descend from slaves who were brought there against their wills.

Think you probably knew that though.

 

[RChildress107]

It's a conundrum. Most (certainly not all) activists, particularly white political activists, are economically comfortable, so their economic protests aren't as urgent, whereas POC who are protesting racial injustice are understandably more urgent, so the notion of a comfortable white activist convincing a POC that economic activism is equally as important as racial activism is a difficult sell. I've noticed that economic focused activist POC, such as Briahna Joy Gray, tend to be treated like tokens and Uncle Toms by racially focused activists.

I wish I saw a way to circle that square, but I don't. It seems that socialists finding legitimacy with racially focused activists, or vice versa, requires making political concessions that undermine their philosophy. Included in that concession, for socialists, is a burning resentment of poor whites that almost requires political abandonment.

Why?

I don’t think you have to resent poor whites or abandon their political needs in order to fight for racial justice.

 

[Strickland33]

Why?

I don’t think you have to resent poor whites or abandon their political needs in order to fight for racial justice.

Yeah, I’m kind of confused by that phrasing, too. Can you please clarify, mdmh?

 

[PhDeac]

I think you have to present economic solutions without appeasing white identity politics. And you do so realizing there are people you will never reach. Maybe that’s what he meant.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I'm basing that statement on the schism in social media between more racially focused establishment liberal activist types vs DSA socialist Bernie-bro types. Bernie Bros like myself are interested in also getting out the impovershed white vote despite their potentially regressive social views (racism), whereas the Hill-shill #resistance seemingly believes that white rural outreach is traitorous to minority (Democratic base) interests (civil rights)

You can call it hyperbolic, but i've felt that exact push back on this board, and in speaking about politics off line with certain "liberal" posters. Theres always the same 1 or 2 weak studies referenced showing that poor white republican voters are more influenced by racial animosity than economics, therefore poor whites are hopeless and should be abandoned to the Republican party.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

It's always the dumb ass Pod Save America crew with the, "If they havent voted with us yet, they wont ever vote for a Democrat" point of view.

 

[PhDeac]

I’m not sure if it’s possible to oversimplify things more in two posts.

The PSA take is that some people are just idiots and it’s not worth sacrificing on race to try to bring them in because we shouldn’t sacrifice on race and it won’t work anyway.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I’m not sure if it’s possible to oversimplify things more in two posts.

The PSA take is that some people are just idiots and it’s not worth sacrificing on race to try to bring them in because we shouldn’t sacrifice on race and it won’t work anyway.

And there it is. Voter outreach to poor rural whites is "sacrificing on raceSpeaking of being dense, you know damn well who's willing to "sacrifice on race" to gain power.

https://amp-news--leader-com.cdn.am...council-endorses-claire-mccaskill/1278451002/

https://www-theatlantic-com.cdn.amp...able-with-racial-and-ethnic-profiling/277900/

https://static-theintercept-com.cdn...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

 

[PhDeac]

And there it is. Voter outreach to poor rural whites is "sacrificing on raceSpeaking of being dense, you know damn well who's willing to "sacrifice on race" to gain power.

https://amp-news--leader-com.cdn.am...council-endorses-claire-mccaskill/1278451002/

https://www-theatlantic-com.cdn.amp...able-with-racial-and-ethnic-profiling/277900/

https://static-theintercept-com.cdn...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

I can't discuss things with you if you're just going to replace what I say with whatever you imagine in your head. I didn't say voter outreach to poor rural writes is sacrificing on race. PSA definitely doesn't say that either. The only way you read it that way is if YOU think all poor rural whites are idiots. Voter outreach to poor rural whites is necessary and important, but it's not worth sacrificing on race to bring in the idiots among them who will never vote Dem.

 

[vadimivich]

Yep, I'm all for a big tent, but I'm also not touching the center pole to try and expand it.

You're racist or motivated by racial/xenophobic issues? Get the fuck out of here and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

And that definitely means there's at least a portion of poor rural whites who I'm not willing to be involved with.

 

[birdman]

Hillary gets it. She learn the JH lesson of the 2016 election.

 

[RChildress107]

I'm basing that statement on the schism in social media between more racially focused establishment liberal activist types vs DSA socialist Bernie-bro types. Bernie Bros like myself are interested in also getting out the impovershed white vote despite their potentially regressive social views (racism), whereas the Hill-shill #resistance seemingly believes that white rural outreach is traitorous to minority (Democratic base) interests (civil rights)

You can call it hyperbolic, but i've felt that exact push back on this board, and in speaking about politics off line with certain "liberal" posters. Theres always the same 1 or 2 weak studies referenced showing that poor white republican voters are more influenced by racial animosity than economics, therefore poor whites are hopeless and should be abandoned to the Republican party.

So is everyone else. We just aren’t willing to compromise our values on race or put those issues on the back burner in order to do so. Unfortunately, that means a large portion of poor, white, rural America is lost to us for the foreseeable future. I don’t resent those people, and don’t think we should abandon them once in power though.

I think our economic policy needs a vast shift to the left in this country, but the idea that we can pursue economic justice now and then worry about racial justice seems ass backwards to me. That might not be what you’re proposing, but it would be the practical effect of an all out pursuit of poor white Americans and fair or not it’s how people perceived Bernie and his Bros during the primary (full disclosure, I voted for Bernie).

I think this is yet another area where DSA types confuse pragmatism with centrism. I think most of the policies are great and that they should be aggressively pursued, but in a pragmatic way. Any non-violent course towards the left in this country begins with excising the cancer that is the GOP. Let’s tackle that first, together.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I can't discuss things with you if you're just going to replace what I say with whatever you imagine in your head. I didn't say voter outreach to poor rural writes is sacrificing on race. PSA definitely doesn't say that either. The only way you read it that way is if YOU think all poor rural whites are idiots. Voter outreach to poor rural whites is necessary and important, but it's not worth sacrificing on race to bring in the idiots among them who will never vote Dem.

The Democratic establishment already "sacrifices on race" in a myriad of ways, so the statement that we "can't' do that is ridiculous - we're doing it now. Secondly, leftists never propose "sacrificing" racial or social justice platforms. Why would we? Socialism, green climate policy, and isolationist foreign policy aren't at odds with racial justice.

It's just a sad presumption of Democrats that the only political interest of poor rural whites is racial antagonism/nativism. That mindset is based on modern voting participation, where I say for the millionth time, poor people don't vote. If racism morivated poor white people to vote, than more than 35% of them would vote. Democrats would rather spend tons futilely campaigning to flip dyed in the wool Republican votes rather than proposing radical legislation to reach non-voters.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

The knee jerk "we can't sacrifice on racism" responses are so predictable, and so ridiculous in light of how often Democrats sacrifice those interests already for corporate interests, for AIPAC, for defense contractors, for the private prison industry, the banking idustry, the real estate industry. We're hyper vigilant about preventing blatant hypothetical racism, and ignorant as fuck about actual racist policy.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

winning hearts and minds as always, i see

 

[RChildress107]

The knee jerk "we can't sacrifice on racism" responses are so predictable, and so ridiculous in light of how often Democrats sacrifice those interests already for corporate interests, for AIPAC, for defense contractors, for the private prison industry. We're hyper vigilant about preventing blatant hypothetical racism, and ignorant as fuck about actual racist policy.

This is true (other than the hypothetical part), though overstated, and certainly relevant to the discussion of Bernie as President or DSA candidates in office. Unfortunately it’s not relevant to Bernie as a candidate.

 

[RChildress107]

The Democratic establishment already "sacrifices on race" in a myriad of ways, so the statement that we "can't' do that is ridiculous - we're doing it now. Secondly, leftists never propose "sacrificing" racial or social justice platforms. Why would we? Socialism, green climate policy, and isolationist foreign policy aren't at odds with racial justice.

It's just a sad presumption of Democrats that the only political interest of poor rural whites is racial antagonism/nativism. That mindset is based on modern voting participation, where I say for the millionth time, poor people don't vote. If racism morivated poor white people to vote, than more than 35% of them would vote. Democrats would rather spend tons futilely campaigning to flip dyed in the wool Republican votes rather than proposing radical legislation to reach non-voters.

Of course it’s not the only political motivation. But Republicans have proved over the last 50 years (and the Democrats before that) that it has been the primary (and most powerful) political motivation for a vast swath of rural white Americans. I don’t think it has to remain that way, but the only realistic way to chip away at the right-wing bubble created to ensure poor whites stay motivated by racial animus is to get Democratic majority rule across all three branches AND have a generational progressive political talent emerge. I just don’t see Bernie solving that centuries old problem.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

This is true (other than the hypothetical part), though overstated, and certainly relevant to the discussion of Bernie as President or DSA candidates in office. Unfortunately it’s not relevant to Bernie as a candidate.

This is not the candidates thread.

 

[RChildress107]

This is not the candidates thread.

Unfortunately it’s not the elected officials thread either.