Is the West Experiencing a Left-Wing Drift? (the international left politics activism, news, and strategy thread)

seize the means of production and do 100 reps with it

repeat until ripped

Conquested In The Butt By My Billionaire Anthropomorphic Loaf Of Bread

I wish people would understand how counterproductive it is to deny or downplay this stuff

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-russian-effort-to-target-sanders-supporters--and-help-elect-trump/2019/04/11/741d7308-5576-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

"Russian employees at the Internet Research Agency were given a document explaining how to influence the U.S. election. The workers were told to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),” according to Mueller’s indictment of the Russians."

On the denial/downplaying side (I'm paywalled for WaPo atm so can't assess one vs the other)

https://www.carlbeijer.com/2019/04/the-flimsy-case-for-russias-role-in.html

I agree that the efficacy is impossible to fully gauge. After Warren, I think Bernie's the best 2020 candidate out there, and I think it's going to be really interesting to see what happens if it starts to look like he's going to win the nomination. I suspect there will be an apparent collapse of his support among the far left--all of a sudden people will be taking Gravel's "joke" candidacy very seriously, and saying that Bernie's a capitalist sell-out for reasons X, Y, and Z, and so they would never be willing to vote for him.

And I think it's maladaptive to not take seriously the idea that shifts like that might not be organic.

I don't foresee that happening at all, even if Gravel makes it to the debate stage and manages to not sound like a 90-year-old quack. (Two big Ifs.) He hasn't even managed the 65k donation threshold yet AFAIK. The biggest threat to Sanders is Warren, who's been much more consistent in offering substantive legislation, but she hasn't been picking up support yet.

The gravel thing is just an example of an astroturfed message that the Left is more vulnerable to if they deny the possibility of being subjected to propaganda. It could just as easily be a heavy push on the "change never happens at the ballot box" message or any number of other things.

I could imagine Bernie's support eroding if he seems poised to capture the nomination and honestly if I were a Bernie supporter (I'm not - he's near the bottom of my list of preferred candidates) I'd be concerned about him getting the nomination. He's a great protest candidate but seems like a potential disaster for the left as an actual nominee or President (whereas Warren who is at the top of my list I think could actually make good on the left-wing agenda).

Ben Burgis went on Dave Smith’s show yesterday, and it was a rare case when you have an actual Marxist Professor debating an actual AnCap on Taxation as Theft. It goes more congenial than one would expect.

https://youtu.be/nqbglf3KRlo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbglf3KRlo

Why the attack on Highlander matters:

https://www.thenation.com/article/highlander-attack-arson-racism/

Finally having an organizing meeting for a local chapter of the Tech Workers Collective this weekend, let’s see how it goes

That’s great, Kingfish!

I could imagine Bernie's support eroding if he seems poised to capture the nomination and honestly if I were a Bernie supporter (I'm not - he's near the bottom of my list of preferred candidates) I'd be concerned about him getting the nomination. He's a great protest candidate but seems like a potential disaster for the left as an actual nominee or President (whereas Warren who is at the top of my list I think could actually make good on the left-wing agenda).

― Mordy,

Can you go into a bit more detail on this? I am a Bernie supporter, so what interests me most is good/persuasive takes that he shouldn't be. There's a lot packed into this post, so i think i have three questions

1) Why would his support erode if he got the nomination?
2) Why would he be a disaster as nominee?
3) Why would he be a disaster as president?

my thought when i wrote that post is that a lot of what ppl like about bernie don't seem to be attributes that suggest success in governing. they like that he's antagonistic and critical of the dem party but if he wins the nom he's going to need the wide support of that party to win the election. they like that he wants a political revolution but his supposed plan for governing (generate a mass mobilization of protestors that force ppl like senate republicans to pass legislation) seems very unlikely to me. once he's in office he'll have trouble enough shepherding his own party where some of the party will be openly hostile (cf corbyn labour), and it'll be even harder to get republicans in line which will be necessary even if he did have a full support of the dem party. there are options for getting around that as well (like ending the filibuster) but he seems totally unwilling to consider them. so if he did win it would be with a divided dem party, a recalcitrant republican party. much of his agenda relies on radical new legislation but if it plays out like this he'll be limited to executive orders. one could easily imagine a scenario where he's a complete disappointment and ineffective president which ultimately sets back the leftist agenda. (by contrast Warren i think has more of these transactional skills, she at least seems willing to get rid of the filibuster, she seems to have a good handle on what kind of policy is necessary and what will be effective.) i have no faith that bernie has either the disposition or intelligence for POTUS - but i think he's great for organizing people and exciting people so it's not like he's a bad person just imo unsuited for this particular job. so i could imagine if it seems like he's going to win ppl starting to notice these areas of concern. as long as he's primarily about registering a protest ppl may (huge caveat here that i could be super wrong and ppl will just get really fired up at this point but at the time i wrote that post -- and iirc without scrolling back up i was responding to someone or somepeople making a similar claim?) be willing to overlook what seem like terrible flaws but once he's going to be the nominee and/or actual president the same skills don't apply and the risk of the venture might become more apparent.

i don't like trump is like bernie comparisons bc trump is a liar, criminal and bigot and bernie is not but they both have styles of "leadership" where i think it'll be a big struggle to "get stuff done." the press will be extremely critical, i don't get the sense bernie knows how to hire good employees, that it's hard for him to listen to others, hard to run a large organization, he'll be fighting his own party, he'll be fighting the opposition, and his entire plan (a critical mass of protestors) is a fantasy. i think one of the reliefs of the trump era is how incompetent he has turned out to be about exercising his will - he's been incapable of marshaling the tools and power of the presidency to enact the kind of changes he wants and that's been a blessing. but bernie might struggle in similar ways and if you're a bernie supporter that might not be quite the same sort of blessing to see him flounder and fight a dozen different enemies while his legislative wishlist languishes.

i think there's a lot too that analysis, and it captures some aspects of why i'm leaning more warren than bernie (tho i think i'm more in line with the latter's structural critique, sorta). but you do lean really heavily on this notion that his "entire plan" is to count on popular mass movement demand. if that's true, it's true of any politician advocating for something - it's never enough to get in office with something in your "platform," there have to be organized people beyond and outside your campaign who are beating the drum for it and getting neighbors to call their congresspeople, etc. saw a good article the other day about how warren's college debt plan will require a continuous massive push from the public even if she's elected.

so that's all pretty normal. but have other candidates spelled out a more specific set of legislative tactics ("I pledge to you that first I will meet with Senator Bugs Meany and agree to form an executive task force to study his proposed farms bill in exchange for....")? or is this more an impressionistic take on their personality and style?

*to

yes just impressions. any dem will rely on some level of push from the public but that alone won't be sufficient (and the kinds of numbers that would be required for it to be sufficient -- i just don't see millions & millions of Americans marching especially *after* the Dems win and a lot of that expectation is satiated - but there will likely be loads of right-wingers protesting and fired up over the loss). they'll need to be able to negotiate with Senator Bugs Meany, and maybe having a legitimate threat of ending the filibuster will help too. it will def help within the party to not have alienated key wings (like the moderates + neoliberals) that are losing influence but aren't going to disappear. i know they fear and hate warren too but she has a level of comity and her policy proposals will immediately have an impression of validity and intelligence. the media wonks will love her and her proposals which will help. i can't help but feel like an ideal situation for bernie would be recruiting warren and actively promoting legislation as the Warren Plan, to try and capture some of that enthusiasm from major party players.

mordy super otm. you need your caucus to be in line to get legislation through congress. i can't see the nominally-independent sanders corralling waffling establishment dem senators as well as warren could.

nb i think warren would have a tougher route to actually winning the election and absolutely to winning the nomination which seems like a longshot at the moment. whether that's because of american misogyny or her own flaws or whatever i can't speculate but obv who you support has something to do w/ whether they could win not just how they'd do once they did but atm since it's so early in the race by the time PA votes in the primaries a lot about the field could change, i'm just talking about who i think would be the best president. if it's just about winning back the WH bernie might be the best option but in terms of long term success of the left i don't know if disappointment over the accomplishments of the most left-wing President in US history is going to be good for it. but tbph i have no idea it could very well be that even in a worst case bernie presidency scenario the left is so fired up about their successes that it galvanizes new movements, new participants, the next president is an all star leftist policy machine idk.

it could very well be that even in a worst case bernie presidency scenario the left is so fired up about their successes that it galvanizes new movements, new participants

I think this is what a lot of Bernie voters are banking on, and certainly what I would hope for - galvanizing enough traditional nonvoters and the usually-disillusioned to help build a left movement with a spine. (and no, I don't think Bernie is the only person who could do this, he just happens to be the best-positioned at this time.) tbh without that movement in place I would need to be convinced that lasting, meaningful change is even possible given the immense legislative and systemic hurdles in place.

re the nuts and bolts stuff, I would only add that Bernie actually has a history of working with sympathetic Republicans and moderate Dems on particular issues

re: Corbyn, AFAICT he's actually been pretty successful at holding his party together given the various strains of chaos at work. Labour have been ahead in the polls for weeks.

idk if yall are big investors but i've got a v exciting opportunity you'd be a fool not to snap up today: it's called the Meaningful Redistribution, But Moderates And Neoliberals And Media Wonks Support It Because Of Its Convincing Tone Of Voice Bridge

leads right onto the The Democratic Party Isn't Divided By Anything "Transactional Skills" Couldn't Fix Causeway (via the Obama Tunnel)

i love warren and would be happy to see her in the white house-- i'd also prob prefer bernie as her running mate to her as his-- but the "political revolution" stuff bernie is predictably maligned as a che-shirt stoner for seems better-positioned to prepare the american people for the long, relentless slog they have ahead of them than warren's Smart Ideas approach, which seems to have convinced you that standing down in relief after electing her will somehow be less of a disaster than doing it w bernie. if you "don't see millions & millions of americans marching" then you don't see a future imo, simple as that.

re: Lab's recebt poll surge is partly to do with how badly May has managed to fuck up Brexit; the extension till Autumn by the EU has been a disaster for her. Corbyn has really let her get on with it and given her enough rope. His tactic of not actually going for any option (2nd ref etc.) has worked -- because that would've meant needless infighting within Labour.

Mordy totally underplays the role that a critical mass of protestors will need to play over the next decade. Both Labour and Democrats will need a progressive leadership + that critical mass to put pressure on a centrist layer that occupies both parties. Some of that has layer is under threat by newly elected progressives if you look at Omar/AOC (and really good crop of young Labour left-wing MPs in the UK) but a sizeable gap remains if progressive, paradigm-shifting legislation is to be passed through.

Warren -- while her platform is terrific and she is outdoing Bernie atm -- sounds like she would struggle to marshall the people and would fail to get legislation through if its just left to machine politics. I can see her proposals being watered down significantly. Besides, I get the impression Bernie can actually listen and be talked out of some of his worse positions by the progressive groups and people he gathers around him. That isn't so true on the foreign policy stuff, where he appears weak.

I've no doubt that Bernie or Corbyn would fail at quite a few things but stopping the tide is a significant step. xp

The only issue I think rises to the level of potentially uncorrectable and existential enough a threat that it might require (and even impel by the nature of its severity) complete system takedown is one Bernie isn’t even that good on and we might be better off with like Inslee. I’m not pessimistic enough to believe the wealth distribution stuff can not be done through the current system bc it has been done in the past more than once and in many other similar systems to great effect.

i agree with Mordy in that, impressionistically, i buy warren getting stuff passed more than bernie. but that's not quite the same as his entire plan amounting to mass pressure on legislators, any more than anybody else who runs with ideas that aren't the current status quo. i also think that in a universe where bernie becomes president, congress and the conversation probably look differently than they do now. that's a hypothetical primary season and general election that swaps out a few more AOCs for conservative dems and flips some more seats from R to D. and the media conversation would be about an insurgent outsider that animated a previously unchanneled hunger, maybe that gets vaguely described as a hunger "for change" or "against the establishment" but everyone watching will have seen bernie yelling about the 1% and know what the mandate was for. and at least some smart politicians will figure their best bet will be to seem like they're on board and accomplishing something especially once their organized constituents are demanding them to declare where they stand on the BernieCare bill. (others will be positioning themselves as "cooler heads" wanting to make sure "we get the details right" or whatever.)

and i'm all in for the galvanizing new movements and new participants. that was the point of his 2016 run and it's already paid off. actually that campaign should be exhibit A against the idea that he can't head a successful organization or hire the right people. he made some missteps and could have done a lot of things much better (most obviously incorporating a critique of structural racism, the main way in which way warren has rocketed past him imho). but he basically accomplished everything i thought he set out to do and the Left-Wing Drift is way better off for it.

somehow it does feel as if bernie would be shooting for the New Deal, and the compromise version would be the post-New-Deal conservative coalition era from Truman to LBJ. warren feels like she's shooting for that latter era and the compromise version would be something less again. but i'm not actually versed enough in their current platforms to say whether that's true, whether it reflects rhetoric and energy more than policy (bernie is very well dialed into a sense that this is an emergency, that we've been ripped off and it's bullshit and it needs to change now), and/or whether that rhetoric-and-energy reflects sexist constraints on candidate posture (could warren be as fiery without being shut down as a ~crazy woman~) or my own internalized sexism in how i view/hear them. to be clear, at present (as of the student debt proposal and the televised town hall) i am a warren voter. i just think bernie gets a bad rap.

Mordy, don't keep us in suspense - what exactly is this critical mystery issue? (I'm assuming it's climate change and that it just fell out of the post partway through...)

i'd also prob prefer bernie as her running mate to her as his

sorry, maintaining a distinction mordy makes upthread-- i meant VP here, not running mate.

xp yes sorry thought that was obv

this is ilx, people recognize a lot of existential threats. could have been about DMB fans for example.

look I don't like Buttigieg either but there's no need for hyperbole

lol

re: Corbyn, AFAICT he's actually been pretty successful at holding his party together given the various strains of chaos at work...
― Simon H., Friday, 26 April 2019 16:33 (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes and no - the party did splinter of course, though it's not been as big an issue as people maybe feared because the splitters are so politically inept not many other backbenchers have followed. there are still however massive internal fractures, the most visible manifestation of which are the recent manoeuvres by deputy leader tom watson. this has led to some disquiet in the membership with various CLPs passing motions of no confidence in TW. if a corbyn government is elected, it would face massive pressure from all sides from UK civic society... including from its own internal coalition of MPs and the detractors within the PLP. this is why there's a vocal strain of the membership who want the leadership to face down these people, democratise the party, and refresh the PLP

The mechanics of British parliamentary politics are so different from US duopolistic politics I can never come to grips with them, whereas foreigners living under parliamentary systems, like Fred, seem effortlessly to grasp all the intricacies of US politics firmly by the pinkie finger.

Thanks Mordy, and others, I somehow missed this thread had new answers since I asked the question(s). Lot to take in here!

I can imagine being shifted from Bernie to Warren, but its very difficult to imagine being shifted to any of the others

same

Fred seem effortlessly to grasp all the intricacies of US politics firmly by the pinkie finger.

New board description?

The mechanics of British parliamentary politics are so different from US duopolistic politics I can never come to grips with them

Well its not about the intricacies of failing systems of governance, more that they fail in the first place, not how. Groups of people disagreeing, so many whose voices aren't heard, and so much failure to grapple with the issues...these are things that resonate on both sides of the pond.

Concentrating on mechanics is for nerds, basically.

impressionistically, i buy warren getting stuff passed more than bernie.

I don’t really get this line of thinking - chances of a Dem Senate are extremely slim, and a Republican Senate will try to block everything either one proposes. It seems to me like the main question is who can rally public support and anger during the inevitable prolonged shutdowns and stonewalling of their agenda. My impression right now is that Bernie would me more successful in that arena.

are they that slim though? i thought the CW was that 2020 was a better senate map for dems than 2018, and in a world where bernie wins that probably means high dem turnout. not saying it's something to bank on, but i do think it's possible that if someone beats trump in 2020 they will be able to pass legislation, and that the big challenge will be making sure all dems vote for that legislation (could imagine certain dem senators already salivating at the prospect of being their party's susan collins).

https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/

shows 3 tossups (AL, CO, AZ), 5 lean dem (MI, NM, MN, VA, NH), 3 lean rep (NC, GA, and ME). dems need to keep their leans, win the 3 tossups, and one lean rep. or if they lose jones' AL seat, they'll need two lean rep seats. it'll be a challenge but i think if they can amass a turnout similar to 2018 they could grab CO, AZ, NC, and ME.

GA sen becomes competitive to me only if abrams runs. likewise tx if joaquin castro runs.

Means TV with a cute bit featuring some Pod Damn Venezuela podcasters...

All the U.S. media coverage of Venezuela: pic.twitter.com/LKdCARrUOg

— MEANS TV (@means_tv) May 15, 2019

U.S. media coverage of Venezuela: 2/2

w/ @feraljokes @melisshious @andersleehere pic.twitter.com/dBxbh3qjPu

— MEANS TV (@means_tv) May 15, 2019

The left has won the elections in Denmark, w/ Labour being the biggest party and enough left seats to form a coalition, aiui. But I'm hearing Labour won because of a tougher anti-immigration stance? Care to elaborate for us, Fred B?

Yeah, it's a massive victory for the left of centre. The far right collapsed, DPP, the populist anti-immigration 'economic anxiety' type party suffered what seems to me to be the biggest collapse for any party in a 100 years, lost 12,4% and went from 21,1% to 8,7%. The Libertarian party collapsed as well, from 7,5% to 2,3%. It's true that 'Labour' (the Social Democrats) has moved to the right on immigration, and the leader underlined that fact a lot in her victory speech, but the result is that they've stayed steady, and every other left wing party has had a huge increase. Except for the far left, the party I vote for :( So all in all, a good evening, and the voters has pretty conclusively rejected the alliance of small government libertarianism and harsh immigration policy, which has basically dominated the country for twenty years at this point. in the end, it was unstable, the racists wanted bigger government, not smaller, just only for whites, so it can't work anymore. We'll see what happens, I don't expect the country to become a multiculturalist utopia, it's too far gone for that (a party of pretty straight up nazis/alt-right 4chan weirdoes very nearly made it into parliament) but I do think the consensus has been shattered. We'll see.

Thanks for that! This is all good news, esp the DPP's disintegration. With the far right on the rise in Sweden I thought perhaps it might stay that way in Denmark too, but I'm glad I made the wrong assumption. I read a profile about Mattias Tesfaye here, his story seems to have caught the media's attention. Frederiksen will be your youngest ever PM no?

She's probably the youngest at 41, yeah. But not by a lot. I'm not sure what happened to Tesfaye?

They profiled him as a "popular" politician under both Danes-by-birth and immigrants because of his half-Ethiopian background. He's in the running for integration minister? It was a bit of a "succesful immigrant" story (even though he's from Arhus iirc).