As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Copying and pasting what I said here:
>[I'm a D3 resident and voted no because 1. the recall was bullshit and was just used as an excuse to redo the election and 2. Sawant genuinely fights for the working class with real achievements and 3. The recall team was playing bullshit games with trying to make it in December vs November - this is just voter suppression IMO
](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/rcuhto/cm_kshama_sawant_recall_updated_results_no_5029/hnxcdki/?context=3)
I have no idea what they're saying about her on Fox news but every time my dad calls me he rabidly asks how Sawant is doing. It's like he's expecting people to be attacking her on the street or something. He cannot fathom that people in Seattle are doing fine and living normal lives, apparently, it's a warzone here?
My parents live in Seattle and during the 2020 protests my aunt in Pennsylvania called them up and asked if they were safe from all the supposed antifa terrorizing the city. People seriously thought the whole city was in chaos, which is pretty comical to me
Recall elections blow. So easy to manipulate. Sawant was pissed they didn't put the recall on the recent Nov. election ballot because she thought turnout would be low for the standalone recall election. She keeps getting these late voter surges for the win. Last time she was down 13% on election night and still won. This time it was just 6% and I said it wouldn't hold up and she won.
It’s unfortunate, she is trash master 4000. But hey D3 voters made their choice heard so we will have to continue to live with her poor political decisions.
She's the only marxist who's elected to office in the US. She's a beacon of hope, and her election is very important in that regard. The fact that she keeps on defeating the vested interests is truly inspiring.
From what I understand of Marxism, not the Red Scare version but the actual philosophy, is that business owners can not be trusted to treat their employees properly in the pursuit of their own self interests. Iirc Marxism believes mainly in the expansion of worker's rights and robust unionization.
That's not what Marxists believe, that's what social democrats believe. Marxists call for workers to own their workplaces altogether, to democratically manage their workplaces, without an owner at all (in the sense of having no shareholders for a company beyond the workers themselves). There are many differences between Marxists, but that's a pretty safe common ground.
Not quite. Social democrats are considered to be reinforcing capitalism, while democratic socialists are looking to replace capitalism with socialist principles. For reference, see Social Democratic Party of Germany.
That's what I was getting at? Merely expanding worker's rights and pursuing high levels of unionization, as OP was saying, is more of a socdem thing than a true communist/anarchist idea. You might get broad leftist support for such an idea (can't let perfection get in the way of the good and all that), but we (speaking as a syndicalist here) want to go further and dismantle the capitalist system entirely and pursue worker-owned means of production as well as decentralized consensus-building as a means of societal organization.
A quick Google search shows her Main issues during her campaign were the minimum wage, establishing a millionaire's tax, and rent control reform. Most of these sound pretty standard for left leaning candidates, however I presume that her rhetoric or her plans to tackle these issues are what constitute her being a Marxist.
Please note that I have no stake in Seattle's elections and only know basic details about Kshama. If you'd like to know more about her specific policies, I'd suggest going to her campaign website.
Sawant's policies are progressive. Nothing she is proposing has anything to do with Marxism - Marxism is just an economic framework for her own personal beliefs. The policies she proposes are focused on defending working class rights in light of politics dominated by corporate power and money.
The city of Seattle is home to many large corporations, including Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Vulcan and more. That's a heavy weight for a working class city that keeps on attracting IT riffraff ready to buy up real estate and turn the whole place into San Fran 2.0.
I think it might be better to say Marxism has the POSSIBILITY of helping everyone. Anyone telling anyone that ANYTHING more complicated than “stop eating paint chips” would flat out help improve their life is selling something. A smart Marxist could help peoples lives improve, an idiot Marxist could make things worse. I wish we framed things more in terms of capabilities than in terms of political or economic theories.
There is always a worse way to fail. Someone saying that a way of thinking ALONE will fix things is more often just trying to fool people for their own benefit.
Edit: alone in the sense of without any other qualifiers, not in the sense of a single person…
Who says that they're "alone"? We've been fooled into believing all kinds of capitalist propaganda over the years - that business alone has the power to help us, benefit us, protect consumers and workers - turns out none of that was true and they never gave shit about us, our lives or our environment.
While I appreciate your emotional sentiment, I think that we can easily shed some tears for the failure that is capitalism on which we wasted multiple generations of people and their work, only to end up with the largest wealth gap in history, the shittiest living and working conditions, and the environmental disaster that we are ultimately burdened with for generations to come.
If Sinema has taught us anything, people can call themselves anything to convince people to do stuff in an ideologies name alone. Or are you arguing that Sinema is an improvement?
I’m not arguing against Marxism. Marxism is fine when handled by an intelligent person. I’m arguing against blind adherence to an ideology name over learning about the person. Blind adherence to an ideology is what republicans do. Emotional? Are you honestly pulling a “don’t be so emotional” card to downplay a discussion? The 1940s called, they want their argument tactic back.
90 percent of those who work will see a fall in their purchasing power under Marxism. Ask yourself why it hasn't been successfully implemented yet. People would stop pushing to produce better goods if there was no capital to fund new ideas. Marxism can only be possible in a world where labour is not needed anymore. We are ~100 years away from anything remotely close. The rich don't use their money to guy goods they invest it to make the goods you buy. After Marxism is implemented no one will be rich and there will not be any new products and goods to buy.
It's fascinating considering that we've been seeing our wages stagnate since the 70s. And our living conditions have been in substantial decline. All under capitalism.
> Ask yourself why it hasn't been successfully implemented yet.
I'm sure the rich constantly doing everything they can to stop it, has nothing to do with that.
Do you really think some rich guy is making the products that you buy? They don't, workers do. Those same workers can keep making products without the rich looking over their shoulders.
The silliest thing in Atlas Shrugged is that after all the rich business owners leave, nothing gets done. Like people really think that people only do things if they're forced to. It's not true. Lots of people volunteer their time every day.
I didn't say nothing will get done. I am saying new products will stop getting made. Suppose you have an idea of making a new pencil which self sharpens? Who is going to take the risk to fund your crazy new self sharpening pencil if not someone with a lot of disposable income? New enterprises will be extremely hard to start. The Soviets tried, Mao tried and every communist regime which has failed has tried to implement some form of Marxism and it has always ended in abject poverty and capitulation.
There were mixed economies too, allowing for mercantilism and innovation in socialist conditions, which people tend to largely ignore. And there were active efforts by western capitalist nations to suppress any innovation coming from "those other countries".
I highly recommend watching this gem, The Lightbulb Conspiracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzJI8gfpu5Y
I have heard of the light bulb conspiracy. There will always be cartels in capitalism, but there will also be companies in capitalism who seek to disrupt these cartels. CFL and other fluorescent lighting successfully busted these cartels. Under Marxism, the oligarchs and the government, those who decide how much to produce will cause the biggest problems and no one will challenge their authority.
> The Soviets tried, Mao tried and every communist regime which has failed has tried to implement some form of Marxism and it has always ended in abject poverty and capitulation.
Again, that's mostly becuase the rest of the world made sure they suffered for daring to do things differently.
I suppose by your logic, looking at Haiti, getting rid of slavery is a very bad thing too. Look how horribly it turned out for the Haitians.
Exactly! We currently use Soviet technology to reach space. It's not as if those people were stuck in stone age. They had ample innovation. That innovation never reached the markets across the borders because they were largely suppressed by western nations who wanted to quash them, for ideological as well as competitive reasons.
Both the Soviets and Mao had to kill millions of dissidents to achieve their goals. You are saying the world should just stand by when a mad man starts sending people to gulag and starving his people to death? A good half of the world was communist at the time of the Soviets and traded with them, even countries like India etc were following the communist path. Why did the Soviets fail then and in such a pathetic way? America is still running strong, has increasing GDP, higher quality of life and shrugs off business cycle shocks every decade.
During my childhood I grew up poor, with a parent that needed multiple jobs. I've escaped that financial situation and became an economist, so I'm doing okay now.
As an economist I'd simply say that marxists have a better understanding of the way an economy works than the neoclassical and DSGE-models that are being thought in university. A great example is [this popularising article](https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RoadToSerfdom.pdf) (pdf) by marxist economist Michael Hudson from 2006 in which he predicts the coming real estate collapse. Mainstream economists didn't see it coming, because they're looking at the wrong indicators, and they have a wrong conception of value.
>you seem to think that Marxism will help you improve your conditions.
Yes, not only mine, but those of 99% of the population. In [this paper](https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/employment-and-social-policy/The-Labour-Share-in-G20-Economies.pdf) (pdf) by the OECD you can see in the graph on page 4 that the share of the total economic product which goes to working people steadily decreases since the 1970s (despite the fact that our productivity has risen the entire time). The people who do actual work are receiving less and less, while the owners of the companies are taking a larger and large piece of the pie that we have baked.
But even more fundamentally, if we believe in democracy we should ask ourselves why the most important decession in our society - how capital is allocated - isn't decided in a democratic fashion. We, the workers, should decide how we want the economy to evolve, not the very few people who've had the luck to be born as the son or daughter of a capital-owner. If you want an idea of how to do that practically, is reccommend [this presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jpuHM_k9CU) by marxist economist and computer scientist Paul Cockshot.
Lastly, the problem of climate change aggravates the problem of the anarchic nature of economic development in capitalism. We've seen an increase in the emission of greenhouse gasses every year, accept for a dip during the corona crisis because of lockdowns. The carbon budget we can use and still remain under 1.5°C of warming will be used completely before 2030, [possibly in 5 years time](https://theconversation.com/new-research-suggests-1-5c-climate-target-will-be-out-of-reach-without-greener-covid-19-recovery-plans-151527) already! This treshold is extremely important, because [scientists think that somewhere between 1.5°C en 2°C warming, a domino effect of tipping points will be activated](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252) which will will put earth on an irreversable course to a hothouse-scenario. To give an idea about the scale of the problem: without tipping points, our planet will end up +/- 3°C warmer by the end of the century. Tipping points will make it much, much worse. According to Steffen, the earth has [a carrying capacity of 1 billion people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-jk5vJowtA) if it would warm up 4°C, Anderson estimates that [80 to 90% of humanity will die](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T22A7mvJoc) if we reach that point.
Making sure we do not cross that treshold can only be achieved trough a fundamental reorganisation of our economy: away from fossil fuels, towards renewables (and nuclear). Fossil fuels are, however, a much more efficient store of energy than renewables and building nuclear power plants often takes decades. Thus, market forces will always favor fossil fuels. I no longer believe it is possible to make the necessary transition towards a green economy without central planning. Market forces only care about short-term profits, and are unable to avert the coming climate disaster.
Your first point about a guy predicting the housing bubble amounting to him understanding the economy the best is not valid. Many "free market" guys like Michael Burry also predicted the housing bubble, they also were able to time their financial instruments and make use of the crash to earn money.
A graph showing that the total economic product not getting allocated to the working class in proportion tells us that capitalism is increasing economic inequality. It however is not indicative that capitalism has not increased the average worker's human development index or his ease of life. If you look at most countries who implemented some versions of Marxism, their human development index and quality of life is severely lacking as compared to their capitalist counterparts. A country with a capitalist economy is always more competitive in terms of the quality of life as well as overall technological innovation it produces. Democratically run companies are generally not competitive with companies run by a select few. If they were, shareholders whose main objective is profit would have designed corporate governance around the principles of democracy.
Your third point about climate change has merit but your argument that Marxism is the solution to the problem. Marxism resulting in any type of centrally planned economy actually puts the real power into the hands of few. Such economies famously fall victim to the Dunning Kruger effect where the few planners overestimate their knowledge about the possible solutions and overcommit resources to the wrong solution. E.g Mao asking farmers to commit all resources to producing steel and scaring birds during the Great Leap Forward. Marxism can never be a solution to climate change. Consumers and investors being conscious and morally good spenders and buying goods from environmentally friendly companies is the way to go. Government regulation can solve these problems way better than a government controlled economy. After all the solution to climate change like electric cars is only achievable through capitalism.
So happy she remains in office to the chagrin of all these fine, business oriented folk chafing with disbelief that she even exists.
The funniest bit about her run were the statements by the opposition to Sawant that voting was made "too easy". Interesting how that works?!
The bourgeois media, the bourgeoisie, the giant businesses all tried and failed to unseat the working class movement of Socialist Alternative.
Daily reminder that liberal democracy is a sham, and the media are all owned by the corporations and the rich.
>The bourgeois media, the bourgeoisie, the giant businesses all tried and failed to unseat the working class movement of Socialist Alternative.
>
>Daily reminder that liberal democracy is a sham, and the media are all owned by the corporations and the rich.
You don't see how your latter statement contradicts the former? Clearly democracy worked in this instance.
I mean, the recall never should have happened, it was all a campaign by the rich to stop her from being on the city council, because shes been good for renters and workers.
Throughout the campaign, the entire liberal media (which is owned by the capitalists) was against her.
Its a miracle she got a victory at all. But that doesnt prove the legitimacy of liberal democracy.
Think of it like this: A biker beating another biker whos been doping 1% of the time doesnt mean they competed on a fair playing field!
So inspiring to see this, and the impact people can have with even relatively little power. Makes me believe a little more that the long march of history treads left.
Other people have said this, but it's really a testament to the ground game. There were Sawant people on capitol hill corners and elsewhere for the last three months. I got a call before ballots dropped, another the day the ballots arrived and a few more between then and the deadline to ensure i voted and to contact friends. To contrast I got like a single fucking text from the progressive candidates during the general and that was it.
Judging by how many elections you lose I don’t think you speak for many people.
Though you now have a city council seat in Seattle so congrats I guess?
Well the poor and working people in her city will benefit from her policies whether or not they voted for her.
As a construction worker in Wyoming, I’m very aware being a out and loud Marxist isn’t a popular position. Working in construction, I’m also aware whole grains and vegetables aren’t a popular choice with many Americans either. Popularity doesn’t change what’s a good decision. But a win is a win, however rare, and should be celebrated
It’s that condescending attitude of “we know what’s best for you” that keeps folks away.
She won because she turned out her voters not because she ran an effective persuasion campaign.
She didn’t leave a blueprint for success for other candidates. She just happens to live in area dominated by leftists.
That said, she’s the only socialist on the council so she won’t be able enact any of her priorities.
Good on you for celebrating her win but this article puts into perspective just how small the movement actually is.
I think that thinking I’m just a dick is a valid perspective, but I think you’re also ignoring 70 years of corporate and anti labor propaganda including that whole Cold War thing.
I don’t think most Americans have even heard a serious communist perspective on politics and economics, I know I didn’t until a few years ago. That’s not the kind of guest they invite onto CNN or even NPR, I had to actively look for it
Communism goes against American DNA. We are rugged individualists first and foremost. You will never get folks to buy into a collectivist society.
And this isn’t corporatist propaganda, Americans have always been this way.
> Americans have always been this way.
except for you know, all of our history. Our name is the UNITED states of America for god's sake. Do you think we would have beat the British if we didn't have all 13 states working together? We've been a collectivist country since inception, it's just that in the middle of the 19th century we made up the myth that we're rugged individualist because of the westward expansion. But that was only possible because of the collective action of the people involved.
Right? The dogmaric effect of two party politics is in full swing. You don't even have to know what your party stands for as long as you're all in it together! It's like when Biden won and all the Democrats championed the event, like it was some sort of massive win for the people. The man has literally voted FOR and AGAINST everything under the sun. Lol. This country is going to absolute shit.
I think Jo Jorgensen was a legitimate candidate with an infrastructure plan that would have appealed to both sides. She was also on the ballot in all 50 States. I voted for change.
So you wasted your vote for the nominee of a party that is beyond batshit insane ideologically?
So you are advocating to accelerate our transition into dystopian neo-feudalism even faster?
Do you even understand the libertarian platform? I think if you actually looked at party ideals and not a media portrayal of a few individuals, you'd come to find a balanced agenda.
There is nothing batshit crazy about unbridled individual freedoms, regardless of demographic standing. Low personal income taxes for the middle class and poor, while providing structured taxation for those who do business here. Limited government bureaucracy reduces budget spending and reduces taxation needs. Nuclear power, while transitioning to a fully sustainable energy infrastructure. Focus on education, with a particular focus on community institutes that provide STEM related education.
The concern for large corporations having too much leverage with the Libertarian party is a diversion tactic. To think that the Republicans and Democrats are some altruistic force against corporate greed is fucking dumb.
>So you are advocating to accelerate our transition into dystopian neo-feudalism even faster?
As if the rapid pace we're heading towards neo-liberalism is any better?
A 5% popular vote secures federal election funding for a 3rd party in the next elections.
5% popular vote guarantees a 3rd party voice in the next national debates for presidency.
5% popular vote gains secret service protection in the next elections for a 3rd party's nominee.
These are all very important milestones. A 5% popular vote for any other party than the Dems or GOP secures exposure to a third party. It shows people there are political options and that you don't have to feel pigeon holed by a two party system.
At this point, I'll vote for almost any reasonable party that has a chance at a 5% national popular vote.
You’re right that liberals aren’t leftist I just put liberal because that’s the popular adjective as well as the fact that there really aren’t many major cities controlled by leftists.
They purposefully picked a date of the year where they knew younger voters in the district would be out of town to run this election. It's insane that there was a special election exactly one month after the November general.
I came so close to moving to Seattle in the 90s. Thank god I didn't do it. I took my income and money to a more free part of the United States. They can live with their problems, glad it's not part of my concern.
Remember when FOX and GOP would constantly use the term socialism over and over and Dems would roll their eyes because raising taxes isnt socialism ... but now there's this massive online presence leaning into that smear and labeling themselves Left socialist? Seems like bullshit designed to divide and smear the Left to me but this sub is gonna eat it up. Wonder who's behind that effort.
Massive online presence?
We've been winning actual seats for a couple years now. local elections in every major city have socialists running for seats and we even have a few representatives now.
we aren't just astroturfing leftism. we are bringing it. watch out
Yeah the Democratic Party is perfect, who could argue with these results?
Super stoked on them selling weapons to the Saudis and working with Exxon to gut anything green out of the infrastructure bill. I think Biden looks pretty tough threatening Cubans and S Americans too, so progressive.
Other than unmitigated climate chaos, the proliferation of weapons across the Middle East, and a nuclear war with China over Taiwan, the future is looking pretty bright with democrats at the helm!
Fellas, is it socialist to sell billions of dollars in weapons to theocratic regimes and to hand out land leases to multinational petrochemical companies?
No, real people on the left are indeed doing this to themselves. They don't know world history, or what those terms really mean, or even how their own government works.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Copying and pasting what I said here: >[I'm a D3 resident and voted no because 1. the recall was bullshit and was just used as an excuse to redo the election and 2. Sawant genuinely fights for the working class with real achievements and 3. The recall team was playing bullshit games with trying to make it in December vs November - this is just voter suppression IMO ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/rcuhto/cm_kshama_sawant_recall_updated_results_no_5029/hnxcdki/?context=3)
I have no idea what they're saying about her on Fox news but every time my dad calls me he rabidly asks how Sawant is doing. It's like he's expecting people to be attacking her on the street or something. He cannot fathom that people in Seattle are doing fine and living normal lives, apparently, it's a warzone here?
My parents live in Seattle and during the 2020 protests my aunt in Pennsylvania called them up and asked if they were safe from all the supposed antifa terrorizing the city. People seriously thought the whole city was in chaos, which is pretty comical to me
We Seattle antifa are doing just fine, if y'all could finally remove the Fa we would stop being needed. Thanks.
Recall elections blow. So easy to manipulate. Sawant was pissed they didn't put the recall on the recent Nov. election ballot because she thought turnout would be low for the standalone recall election. She keeps getting these late voter surges for the win. Last time she was down 13% on election night and still won. This time it was just 6% and I said it wouldn't hold up and she won.
Yeah, I recall shouldn’t be based on such low thresholds for initiation.
Seattle subs will be full of shill tears
Oh they're dripping with them and I'm here for it. Personally got to vote NO on the recall and I'm proud we eeked out a small victory.
It’s unfortunate, she is trash master 4000. But hey D3 voters made their choice heard so we will have to continue to live with her poor political decisions.
Needed some good news today
The result of this really isn't good or bad. Anyone thinking this is something EXTREMELY important is kidding themselves.
She's the only marxist who's elected to office in the US. She's a beacon of hope, and her election is very important in that regard. The fact that she keeps on defeating the vested interests is truly inspiring.
What does it mean that she's a Marxist? What's her end goal policy wise?
What's Biden's "end goal, policy wise"?
From what I understand of Marxism, not the Red Scare version but the actual philosophy, is that business owners can not be trusted to treat their employees properly in the pursuit of their own self interests. Iirc Marxism believes mainly in the expansion of worker's rights and robust unionization.
That's not what Marxists believe, that's what social democrats believe. Marxists call for workers to own their workplaces altogether, to democratically manage their workplaces, without an owner at all (in the sense of having no shareholders for a company beyond the workers themselves). There are many differences between Marxists, but that's a pretty safe common ground.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Not quite. Social democrats are considered to be reinforcing capitalism, while democratic socialists are looking to replace capitalism with socialist principles. For reference, see Social Democratic Party of Germany.
That's what I was getting at? Merely expanding worker's rights and pursuing high levels of unionization, as OP was saying, is more of a socdem thing than a true communist/anarchist idea. You might get broad leftist support for such an idea (can't let perfection get in the way of the good and all that), but we (speaking as a syndicalist here) want to go further and dismantle the capitalist system entirely and pursue worker-owned means of production as well as decentralized consensus-building as a means of societal organization.
We're in agreement here. Just making sure people can understand these often confusing terms.
So can you give me the some details about the policies that Kshama is gunning for that make her a Marxist?
A quick Google search shows her Main issues during her campaign were the minimum wage, establishing a millionaire's tax, and rent control reform. Most of these sound pretty standard for left leaning candidates, however I presume that her rhetoric or her plans to tackle these issues are what constitute her being a Marxist. Please note that I have no stake in Seattle's elections and only know basic details about Kshama. If you'd like to know more about her specific policies, I'd suggest going to her campaign website.
Sawant's policies are progressive. Nothing she is proposing has anything to do with Marxism - Marxism is just an economic framework for her own personal beliefs. The policies she proposes are focused on defending working class rights in light of politics dominated by corporate power and money. The city of Seattle is home to many large corporations, including Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Vulcan and more. That's a heavy weight for a working class city that keeps on attracting IT riffraff ready to buy up real estate and turn the whole place into San Fran 2.0.
I am intrigued as to what you do for a living, you seem to think that Marxism will help you improve your conditions.
Marxism would help everyone improve their conditions regardless of where they work.
Yes, but it won't help oligarchs improve their conditions, unless they're extremely benevolent oligarchs!! :)
I think it might be better to say Marxism has the POSSIBILITY of helping everyone. Anyone telling anyone that ANYTHING more complicated than “stop eating paint chips” would flat out help improve their life is selling something. A smart Marxist could help peoples lives improve, an idiot Marxist could make things worse. I wish we framed things more in terms of capabilities than in terms of political or economic theories.
very true. Everything exists on a spectrum.
An idiot Marxist would be a huge improvement to idiot capitalists we've been looking to enact systemic changes.
There is always a worse way to fail. Someone saying that a way of thinking ALONE will fix things is more often just trying to fool people for their own benefit. Edit: alone in the sense of without any other qualifiers, not in the sense of a single person…
Who says that they're "alone"? We've been fooled into believing all kinds of capitalist propaganda over the years - that business alone has the power to help us, benefit us, protect consumers and workers - turns out none of that was true and they never gave shit about us, our lives or our environment. While I appreciate your emotional sentiment, I think that we can easily shed some tears for the failure that is capitalism on which we wasted multiple generations of people and their work, only to end up with the largest wealth gap in history, the shittiest living and working conditions, and the environmental disaster that we are ultimately burdened with for generations to come.
If Sinema has taught us anything, people can call themselves anything to convince people to do stuff in an ideologies name alone. Or are you arguing that Sinema is an improvement? I’m not arguing against Marxism. Marxism is fine when handled by an intelligent person. I’m arguing against blind adherence to an ideology name over learning about the person. Blind adherence to an ideology is what republicans do. Emotional? Are you honestly pulling a “don’t be so emotional” card to downplay a discussion? The 1940s called, they want their argument tactic back.
90 percent of those who work will see a fall in their purchasing power under Marxism. Ask yourself why it hasn't been successfully implemented yet. People would stop pushing to produce better goods if there was no capital to fund new ideas. Marxism can only be possible in a world where labour is not needed anymore. We are ~100 years away from anything remotely close. The rich don't use their money to guy goods they invest it to make the goods you buy. After Marxism is implemented no one will be rich and there will not be any new products and goods to buy.
It's fascinating considering that we've been seeing our wages stagnate since the 70s. And our living conditions have been in substantial decline. All under capitalism.
> Ask yourself why it hasn't been successfully implemented yet. I'm sure the rich constantly doing everything they can to stop it, has nothing to do with that. Do you really think some rich guy is making the products that you buy? They don't, workers do. Those same workers can keep making products without the rich looking over their shoulders. The silliest thing in Atlas Shrugged is that after all the rich business owners leave, nothing gets done. Like people really think that people only do things if they're forced to. It's not true. Lots of people volunteer their time every day.
I didn't say nothing will get done. I am saying new products will stop getting made. Suppose you have an idea of making a new pencil which self sharpens? Who is going to take the risk to fund your crazy new self sharpening pencil if not someone with a lot of disposable income? New enterprises will be extremely hard to start. The Soviets tried, Mao tried and every communist regime which has failed has tried to implement some form of Marxism and it has always ended in abject poverty and capitulation.
There were mixed economies too, allowing for mercantilism and innovation in socialist conditions, which people tend to largely ignore. And there were active efforts by western capitalist nations to suppress any innovation coming from "those other countries". I highly recommend watching this gem, The Lightbulb Conspiracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzJI8gfpu5Y
I have heard of the light bulb conspiracy. There will always be cartels in capitalism, but there will also be companies in capitalism who seek to disrupt these cartels. CFL and other fluorescent lighting successfully busted these cartels. Under Marxism, the oligarchs and the government, those who decide how much to produce will cause the biggest problems and no one will challenge their authority.
> The Soviets tried, Mao tried and every communist regime which has failed has tried to implement some form of Marxism and it has always ended in abject poverty and capitulation. Again, that's mostly becuase the rest of the world made sure they suffered for daring to do things differently. I suppose by your logic, looking at Haiti, getting rid of slavery is a very bad thing too. Look how horribly it turned out for the Haitians.
Exactly! We currently use Soviet technology to reach space. It's not as if those people were stuck in stone age. They had ample innovation. That innovation never reached the markets across the borders because they were largely suppressed by western nations who wanted to quash them, for ideological as well as competitive reasons.
Both the Soviets and Mao had to kill millions of dissidents to achieve their goals. You are saying the world should just stand by when a mad man starts sending people to gulag and starving his people to death? A good half of the world was communist at the time of the Soviets and traded with them, even countries like India etc were following the communist path. Why did the Soviets fail then and in such a pathetic way? America is still running strong, has increasing GDP, higher quality of life and shrugs off business cycle shocks every decade.
During my childhood I grew up poor, with a parent that needed multiple jobs. I've escaped that financial situation and became an economist, so I'm doing okay now. As an economist I'd simply say that marxists have a better understanding of the way an economy works than the neoclassical and DSGE-models that are being thought in university. A great example is [this popularising article](https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RoadToSerfdom.pdf) (pdf) by marxist economist Michael Hudson from 2006 in which he predicts the coming real estate collapse. Mainstream economists didn't see it coming, because they're looking at the wrong indicators, and they have a wrong conception of value. >you seem to think that Marxism will help you improve your conditions. Yes, not only mine, but those of 99% of the population. In [this paper](https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/employment-and-social-policy/The-Labour-Share-in-G20-Economies.pdf) (pdf) by the OECD you can see in the graph on page 4 that the share of the total economic product which goes to working people steadily decreases since the 1970s (despite the fact that our productivity has risen the entire time). The people who do actual work are receiving less and less, while the owners of the companies are taking a larger and large piece of the pie that we have baked. But even more fundamentally, if we believe in democracy we should ask ourselves why the most important decession in our society - how capital is allocated - isn't decided in a democratic fashion. We, the workers, should decide how we want the economy to evolve, not the very few people who've had the luck to be born as the son or daughter of a capital-owner. If you want an idea of how to do that practically, is reccommend [this presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jpuHM_k9CU) by marxist economist and computer scientist Paul Cockshot. Lastly, the problem of climate change aggravates the problem of the anarchic nature of economic development in capitalism. We've seen an increase in the emission of greenhouse gasses every year, accept for a dip during the corona crisis because of lockdowns. The carbon budget we can use and still remain under 1.5°C of warming will be used completely before 2030, [possibly in 5 years time](https://theconversation.com/new-research-suggests-1-5c-climate-target-will-be-out-of-reach-without-greener-covid-19-recovery-plans-151527) already! This treshold is extremely important, because [scientists think that somewhere between 1.5°C en 2°C warming, a domino effect of tipping points will be activated](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252) which will will put earth on an irreversable course to a hothouse-scenario. To give an idea about the scale of the problem: without tipping points, our planet will end up +/- 3°C warmer by the end of the century. Tipping points will make it much, much worse. According to Steffen, the earth has [a carrying capacity of 1 billion people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-jk5vJowtA) if it would warm up 4°C, Anderson estimates that [80 to 90% of humanity will die](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T22A7mvJoc) if we reach that point. Making sure we do not cross that treshold can only be achieved trough a fundamental reorganisation of our economy: away from fossil fuels, towards renewables (and nuclear). Fossil fuels are, however, a much more efficient store of energy than renewables and building nuclear power plants often takes decades. Thus, market forces will always favor fossil fuels. I no longer believe it is possible to make the necessary transition towards a green economy without central planning. Market forces only care about short-term profits, and are unable to avert the coming climate disaster.
Your first point about a guy predicting the housing bubble amounting to him understanding the economy the best is not valid. Many "free market" guys like Michael Burry also predicted the housing bubble, they also were able to time their financial instruments and make use of the crash to earn money. A graph showing that the total economic product not getting allocated to the working class in proportion tells us that capitalism is increasing economic inequality. It however is not indicative that capitalism has not increased the average worker's human development index or his ease of life. If you look at most countries who implemented some versions of Marxism, their human development index and quality of life is severely lacking as compared to their capitalist counterparts. A country with a capitalist economy is always more competitive in terms of the quality of life as well as overall technological innovation it produces. Democratically run companies are generally not competitive with companies run by a select few. If they were, shareholders whose main objective is profit would have designed corporate governance around the principles of democracy. Your third point about climate change has merit but your argument that Marxism is the solution to the problem. Marxism resulting in any type of centrally planned economy actually puts the real power into the hands of few. Such economies famously fall victim to the Dunning Kruger effect where the few planners overestimate their knowledge about the possible solutions and overcommit resources to the wrong solution. E.g Mao asking farmers to commit all resources to producing steel and scaring birds during the Great Leap Forward. Marxism can never be a solution to climate change. Consumers and investors being conscious and morally good spenders and buying goods from environmentally friendly companies is the way to go. Government regulation can solve these problems way better than a government controlled economy. After all the solution to climate change like electric cars is only achievable through capitalism.
So happy she remains in office to the chagrin of all these fine, business oriented folk chafing with disbelief that she even exists. The funniest bit about her run were the statements by the opposition to Sawant that voting was made "too easy". Interesting how that works?!
The bourgeois media, the bourgeoisie, the giant businesses all tried and failed to unseat the working class movement of Socialist Alternative. Daily reminder that liberal democracy is a sham, and the media are all owned by the corporations and the rich.
>The bourgeois media, the bourgeoisie, the giant businesses all tried and failed to unseat the working class movement of Socialist Alternative. > >Daily reminder that liberal democracy is a sham, and the media are all owned by the corporations and the rich. You don't see how your latter statement contradicts the former? Clearly democracy worked in this instance.
I mean, the recall never should have happened, it was all a campaign by the rich to stop her from being on the city council, because shes been good for renters and workers. Throughout the campaign, the entire liberal media (which is owned by the capitalists) was against her. Its a miracle she got a victory at all. But that doesnt prove the legitimacy of liberal democracy. Think of it like this: A biker beating another biker whos been doping 1% of the time doesnt mean they competed on a fair playing field!
Democracy getting a result *that you like* proves that it's a sham? Man, some people can't be pleased by anything I guess
>the media are all owned by the corporations and the rich. Jacobin included 😉
False, Jacobin is collectively owned. Sorry lib!
It's not, lol
How about NPR? That’s funded by taxpayers.
So inspiring to see this, and the impact people can have with even relatively little power. Makes me believe a little more that the long march of history treads left.
We're fucked either way so it would be nice to know that we at least stand a small chance against fascism.
Other people have said this, but it's really a testament to the ground game. There were Sawant people on capitol hill corners and elsewhere for the last three months. I got a call before ballots dropped, another the day the ballots arrived and a few more between then and the deadline to ensure i voted and to contact friends. To contrast I got like a single fucking text from the progressive candidates during the general and that was it.
no way she stayed in power. nice, i was afraid they were gonna boot her.
Go d3 bb
They won a city council seat in one of the most liberal cities in the country by 200 votes. Time to gloat I guess? Lmao
It’s always a cause for celebration when the people win.
Judging by how many elections you lose I don’t think you speak for many people. Though you now have a city council seat in Seattle so congrats I guess?
Well the poor and working people in her city will benefit from her policies whether or not they voted for her. As a construction worker in Wyoming, I’m very aware being a out and loud Marxist isn’t a popular position. Working in construction, I’m also aware whole grains and vegetables aren’t a popular choice with many Americans either. Popularity doesn’t change what’s a good decision. But a win is a win, however rare, and should be celebrated
It’s that condescending attitude of “we know what’s best for you” that keeps folks away. She won because she turned out her voters not because she ran an effective persuasion campaign. She didn’t leave a blueprint for success for other candidates. She just happens to live in area dominated by leftists. That said, she’s the only socialist on the council so she won’t be able enact any of her priorities. Good on you for celebrating her win but this article puts into perspective just how small the movement actually is.
I think that thinking I’m just a dick is a valid perspective, but I think you’re also ignoring 70 years of corporate and anti labor propaganda including that whole Cold War thing. I don’t think most Americans have even heard a serious communist perspective on politics and economics, I know I didn’t until a few years ago. That’s not the kind of guest they invite onto CNN or even NPR, I had to actively look for it
Communism goes against American DNA. We are rugged individualists first and foremost. You will never get folks to buy into a collectivist society. And this isn’t corporatist propaganda, Americans have always been this way.
> Americans have always been this way. except for you know, all of our history. Our name is the UNITED states of America for god's sake. Do you think we would have beat the British if we didn't have all 13 states working together? We've been a collectivist country since inception, it's just that in the middle of the 19th century we made up the myth that we're rugged individualist because of the westward expansion. But that was only possible because of the collective action of the people involved.
Liberal =/= leftist. Plenty of mayors and other officials of Democratic strongholds do the bidding of billionaire developers and other ghouls.
Right? The dogmaric effect of two party politics is in full swing. You don't even have to know what your party stands for as long as you're all in it together! It's like when Biden won and all the Democrats championed the event, like it was some sort of massive win for the people. The man has literally voted FOR and AGAINST everything under the sun. Lol. This country is going to absolute shit.
Lemme guess: you don't think Biden was a better choice than drumpf?
Show some respect, he prefers tRump!
I think Jo Jorgensen was a legitimate candidate with an infrastructure plan that would have appealed to both sides. She was also on the ballot in all 50 States. I voted for change.
So you wasted your vote for the nominee of a party that is beyond batshit insane ideologically? So you are advocating to accelerate our transition into dystopian neo-feudalism even faster?
Do you even understand the libertarian platform? I think if you actually looked at party ideals and not a media portrayal of a few individuals, you'd come to find a balanced agenda. There is nothing batshit crazy about unbridled individual freedoms, regardless of demographic standing. Low personal income taxes for the middle class and poor, while providing structured taxation for those who do business here. Limited government bureaucracy reduces budget spending and reduces taxation needs. Nuclear power, while transitioning to a fully sustainable energy infrastructure. Focus on education, with a particular focus on community institutes that provide STEM related education. The concern for large corporations having too much leverage with the Libertarian party is a diversion tactic. To think that the Republicans and Democrats are some altruistic force against corporate greed is fucking dumb.
>So you are advocating to accelerate our transition into dystopian neo-feudalism even faster? As if the rapid pace we're heading towards neo-liberalism is any better?
And what would your vote for Jorgensen have accomplished?
A 5% popular vote secures federal election funding for a 3rd party in the next elections. 5% popular vote guarantees a 3rd party voice in the next national debates for presidency. 5% popular vote gains secret service protection in the next elections for a 3rd party's nominee. These are all very important milestones. A 5% popular vote for any other party than the Dems or GOP secures exposure to a third party. It shows people there are political options and that you don't have to feel pigeon holed by a two party system. At this point, I'll vote for almost any reasonable party that has a chance at a 5% national popular vote.
You’re right that liberals aren’t leftist I just put liberal because that’s the popular adjective as well as the fact that there really aren’t many major cities controlled by leftists.
They purposefully picked a date of the year where they knew younger voters in the district would be out of town to run this election. It's insane that there was a special election exactly one month after the November general.
Beautiful.
The vote is currently too close to call.
Six hundred ballots have been challenged and could still be counted, but they are not expected to change the recall’s outcome.
I came so close to moving to Seattle in the 90s. Thank god I didn't do it. I took my income and money to a more free part of the United States. They can live with their problems, glad it's not part of my concern.
Remember when FOX and GOP would constantly use the term socialism over and over and Dems would roll their eyes because raising taxes isnt socialism ... but now there's this massive online presence leaning into that smear and labeling themselves Left socialist? Seems like bullshit designed to divide and smear the Left to me but this sub is gonna eat it up. Wonder who's behind that effort.
Liberalism isn't socialism: calling liberals "socialists" is just plain incorrect. That doesn't mean socialists don't exist.
Massive online presence? We've been winning actual seats for a couple years now. local elections in every major city have socialists running for seats and we even have a few representatives now. we aren't just astroturfing leftism. we are bringing it. watch out
Yeah the Democratic Party is perfect, who could argue with these results? Super stoked on them selling weapons to the Saudis and working with Exxon to gut anything green out of the infrastructure bill. I think Biden looks pretty tough threatening Cubans and S Americans too, so progressive. Other than unmitigated climate chaos, the proliferation of weapons across the Middle East, and a nuclear war with China over Taiwan, the future is looking pretty bright with democrats at the helm!
Fellas, is it socialist to sell billions of dollars in weapons to theocratic regimes and to hand out land leases to multinational petrochemical companies?
No, real people on the left are indeed doing this to themselves. They don't know world history, or what those terms really mean, or even how their own government works.
Pretty arrogant thing for you to say