Is it possible for the Populists of the right and the Labour movements of the left to reconcile their differences so they can bring an end to the current Neo liberal world order? How would it work and what would it look like?
Is it possible for the Populists of the right and the Labour movements of the left to reconcile their differences so...
Other urls found in this thread:
By protesting wars and imperialism in the middle east but I doubt they would reliable when it's against a "socialist" state for example Venezuela.
Libertarians are also annoyingly idealist and don't even have an ideology that is compatible with modern capitalism and when the situation demands they would In the end support a capitalist authoritarian dictatorship for example Pinochet or even Franco. They are really conservatives that want a free markets and small businesses with a progressive social views just repackaged in a modern look. They basically want capitalism to like it was in the 19th century.
This is a common attitude these days that people look back to better times. I want the revolutionary elements from both sides to start working on a future and i don't see how it can be done without each other.
Well despite them being annoyingly idealist and cunty, I do think tthat a thier intentions are good even though it's misguided. They do know that the system is overall fucked even though their solutions and coonclusions are wrong. Ironically liberterians could be more revolutionary if put in the right direction then liberals and even socdems.
In favour of what? You want a return of some vague post-war welfare state which is not realizable in the face of globalized capitalism outsourcing everything and having to deal with the falling rate of profit? Also:
These aren't answers they are just complaints if you have suggestions that are better then post them.
The problem imo is that the more populist and/or authoritarian rightwingers may claim to dislike neoliberalism as much as us, but at the end they'll still defend capitalism. It's not like heavily protectionist and nation-centered capitalism is that much different from global neoliberal capitalism.
Same as a century ago, when people associated socialism with workers' movement rather than vaguely populist shit spouted by twitterati radlibs: class action, class-based worldview, class-oriented political demands. Render unto reformists the political tasks which aren't inherently contradictory with capitalism, be it the demands for a welfare state and idpol stuff, instead focusing on wage increases and shorter working day, from which the beneficiaries are workers and workers only. Does it lack the fanfare of parliamentary circus, marches led by activists and other stupid shit? Good.
It's true they don't have faith in a Marxist economic model but they do favor social policies and have a strong disgust towards international capital.
This. You don't actually have to agree on ideology or whatever initially, just keep throwing populist platform planks at them and hope something sticks:
>regulate the banks and the rest of the financial industry
Improving material conditions as your proposals are implemented will net your movement the goodwill needed to recruit people
No, lolberts and nazis want to preserve capitalism but friendlier to whatever fantasies they have while the left theoretically wants to abolish capitalism. Our struggle isn't against a particularly toxic form of capitalism or a particular capitalist state/bloc, it is against capitalism itself. In this the populist right are our opposition and should be treated as such rather than worked with to own the libs epic style.
I like these suggestions they are common platforms to build from.
No, because the populists of the right are neoliberals. They might complain about the EU or immigration for marketing reasons, but at the same time they do everything to please international capital. Just look at Orbán, he's rallying against the EU at every opportunity yet gives German capital huge tax brakes and minimal tax rates while he taxes the average worker dry. Don't believe their lies.
Much as with shitlibs, the distinction between the PR front of the aut-right, versus their policies in practice is something we need to hammer on. By being the only people who actually implement the aut-right's talking points, we simultaneously advance our agenda, and sow discord among them.
Okay Politcians need the bullet what else is new.
"Exacerbating" the fall of profit rate through welfare state calls for the permanent presence in the parliament in order to expand this system through passing the legislature and defend it against the electoral parties wanting to roll back those reforms. This in turn requires stronger focus on the electoral action and even watering down the political programme with interclassist populism to ensure more seats for the next elections, after all you don't want the libs to regain influence and roll back the reforms. This is how electoral opportunism gains ground in the party, slowly gutting it from the class content.
Why am I explaining the trappings of a parliamentary system to a fucking anarchist? You should be smarter than that.
Leftists must infiltrate the Republican party.
No, what you are saying is impossible, and will never happen. Worth mentioning is that what the right populists want is even worse that the status quo.
Trump is populist and Austria has right wing populist government, and they are not doing anything good.
He's a socdem that refuses to change his flag.
This is fucking stupid. Any second wasted on trying to ally with reactionaries would be much better spend trying to convert liberals, who actually aren't numerically insignificant. How many times do we have to learn not to trust rightists?
Right wing populists are gay socdems. And we already have problems when we try to work with socdems.
Make Republican Mean Republicanism Again
kek there really is justice in this world
As opposed to doing nothing impactful, losing mass support, and ceding your name to the worst libs imaginable in popular consciousness, so that when capitalism eventually implodes material conditions are as unfavorable toward socialist organization as possible?
Most of our recruits do come from liberals, but that has nothing to do with endorsing liberal ideology.
A lot of false assumptions.
No, not with the leading figures of the contemporary populist right, but the left definitely needs to attack their base and draw them back into the worker's movement. Never call them "deplorables" etc. - they are all cucked on economics so you need a simultanous paradigm shift in the debate about socialism, both debunking muh gorillions and open up future prospects of socialism, in the first world, this would be: Reduction of the workday (5 hour day is possible), automation, cybernetic planning, digitalization, no more wars. Of course your platform would be different if you are agitating in the Third World. The problem is that the people who usually do the former are not interested in the latter and the people who do the latter are not interested in the former. But to have a real paradigm shift, we need both a future that isn't associated with gulags but we also can not just present our vision with effectively changing the historical perceiption of historical (and contemporary?) Marxist-Leninist states - otherwise it's not a convincing argument.
When it comes to practice, you can work with right-winger insofar when you share a common goal, for example, anti-imperialism, or just blocking things in the parliament together with the right like the KPD did, therefore sabotaging the bourgeois state (yes, I know how this particular story ended but that was because the Reichstag wasn't very powerful in first place and Hindenburg appointed Hitler).
can not just present our vision without effectively*
As opposed to unification of proles in a class organization which defines itself as defending the interests of wage labour and wage labour only. Even though eg. a 35 work week is technically reformist, it's a purely classist demand, as it benefits only the wage earners, and in fact it is not wholly dependent on the parliamentary fight(cf. German metal workers winning a 28 work week), though it help. On the other hand, a demand for the restoration of a Keynesian welfare state lacks that class basis, as it wholly depends on the parliamentary circus, appealing to the voting "citizens" and necessitating a continuous compromise with bougie political organizations to gain and maintain 51% in order to upkeep your precious welfare state.
No user, you are the libs. You probably know the cliched phrase that the modern state is always an instrument of capitalist power and yet you seem to approach it like a neutral mechanism rather than like something capable of molding you into a governor of capital if you wish to maintain control over it.
In its pejorative Rosa killer sense, "socdem" refers to someone who unironically believes "muh mix of both systems" to be a desirable end goal in and of itself, rather than a path elsewhere. "Socdem" in the sense of mere willingness to use parliamentary reform to one's advantage when and where possible, would include everyone from Marx to Stalin.
Remember the "parliamentary circus" is something that will exist under socialism as well, obviously in a far more functionally democratic form, but still. This means our ultimate goal, whether by violent revolution or peaceful reform, is to alter it, not abolish it.
Insofar as I push for alterations to the current capitalist state that parliament is attached to, however, I do so not only with the hope that it may chart the course into socialism, but with the intent it casts chains around capital and arms labor.
Whether uninterrupted peaceful reformism will ultimately be our path out of capitalism, or some (hopefully brief) violent revolution is necessary, each reform we win makes us stronger, and capital weaker, also making each fresh reform easier to gain and secure. In addition, as I noted above, every reform wins socialism praise and loyalty among the masses.
This isn't to say the voting booth is the only viable praxis, as pragmatic parallel acts such as community aid, protests/sabotage, labor/consumer unionism, syndicalism, etc. are vital in building parallel systems outside capitalism and producing further improvements to material conditions for the working class. Both together are necessary for any activist movement with a real desire for victory.
The trump voter base, as propagandized as they may be, is a strong working class movement that has solidarity. Plus, they use the color red for their hats, aren't we supposed to be the reds? And you would turn your back on this group and try to appeal to liberalism?
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?
Communists appeal to proletarians. How? By telling them the truth about their tasks and what they can expect from parliamentarism.
That's how rightwingers always do things. This is how musolini, hitler and franco took power. They lie. This is why hitler called his party Socialist Workers Party and mussolini called his country as Social republic. Jesus Christ how dense do you have to be not to see trought trumps lies?
Two tigers may work together to bring down an animal, but when the animal is dead and it's time to feast, the claws always turn on each other.
Hitler only got In power due to being appointed by the conservative chancellor Hindenburg, though the Nazi's were popular to a certain extent. Communism was quite big in Germany. It was most likely that the socialists went underground and hidden.
These fascist's never gained power through popularity and democracy, only through the rulings classes consent can they rule. Even though I don't haves for this, I think that these fascists never indeed that popular, it was only through fear and a police state they could reigned so long.
where's that quote from
At best Trump's base(Cult to be more accurate, as they always keep finding excuses)is 25% of the population. This is due to the fact that only half voted in the 2016 election.
They don't even have progressive social views though. They just don't care because they come from a background wealthy enough that social issues don't affect them.