So...David Pakman put out a clip ringing the alarm bells about the DSA taking over the democratic party. He framed it from the perspective that he's a social democrat, but that these guys are literal authoritarian socialists and tankies and we are playing with the same fire the republicans were with the tea party, and then MAGA.
I have mixed views on this. On the one hand, I absolutely opposed literal socialism beyond like worker coops and crap like that, and maybe having the government take over a handful of industries like healthcare where severe market failures exist. I'm still on the "capitalist" side of the aisle. I also dont like all the tankie crap you sometimes get from these groups. Those ideologies are disgusting and have no place in the overton window.
At the same time, the centrists of the democratic party...suck. The reason why the DSA got the support they did in the first place is because the democrats are TOO centrist, TOO worthless, TOO unwilling to fight for things. Originally, it seemed like DSA style candidates like Bernie were just...social democrats. Many mainstream "socialists" like AOC and Bernie are just advocating for New Deal type policies. And I've been supporting those guys since, quite frankly, they align with me more than the moderates, and a lot of them dont seem dangerous.
Still, having been in online social circles that are DSA adjacent, and having even left some of them because they got too extreme and too toxic, I've watched these guys radicalize in real time over the past 10 years and yeah, some of these guys need to "touch grass" to put it lightly. As i always say, I dont think anyone wants ACTUAL socialism and ACTUAL leftism. They just want a better shake. I do believe we need a transformational economic agenda for the 21st century, but that agenda needs to remain within the realm of liberalism and reformism. And some socialist types....don't want that.
It's kinda stupid. The online spectrum has gotten to a point where the liberals are die hard insufferable centrists, and even the likes of david pakman kinda suck for me, he was a die hard biden bro. But at the same time, again, I'm not for LITERAL socialism. My own agenda is equivalent to Yang's "human centered capitalism" with a more leftist flair. UBI, medicare for all, free college, student debt forgiveness, a housing program, a shorter work week. many of those proposals are supported by DSA candidates. And that's fine. one of the reason I vote for a lot of DSA types is because what they actually propose...is social democracy. For all of the utopian rhetoric, their actual policies are moderate. But yeah. I have been noticing there is something much darker behind that. Like that this movement has been radicalizing and runs the risk of further radicalization into authoritarian communism. Like Pakman mentioned Hasan Piker dressing up like Mao. I mean, F Mao. I don't like Mao. I dont like Lenin, I dont like Stalin, I dont like Castro, or Xi, or the Kim family. I'm not a communist.
But...again...at the same time....these "democratic socialists" seem to be running on social democratic policy, policy that I largely support, even if I do have some differences. And the mainstream centrist democrats with their moral panics over this stuff...they're LITERALLY USELESS. So...idk. This puts me in a hard spot. Ideally, we would just have a faction of progressive democrats who want large scale social democratic or New Deal type policy without calling it socialism. or UBI without calling it socialism. But in a lot of ways, the left has become so polarized it feels like a choice between the DSA and the centrist craplibs who dont wanna do anything.
So...I kinda end up supporting DSA candidates...because the dems wont step up.
Again, I keep saying it, but FDR did the original new Deal in part to stop us from electing literal fascists or communists. The democrats had to move left to make the system work....to stop those who wanted to overthrow the entire system. And that's the problem, the democrats AREN'T DOING THAT! So people are driven to DSA types because they're the only ones standing up, and that's the reality.
Is the DSA a long term threat, like the tea party/MAGA became? Perhaps. Populism is like fire. It's useful when controlled, but when NOT controlled, it can burn everything down. We need left wing populism, we need fire, but we also need a licensed pyrotechnician to actually utilize it properly, ya know, like Rammstein, but for politics. Fun fact, ya know Till had an accident in his early days with the pyro that sent a few people to the hospital? Then he got his license and now he does even crazier shows safely.
The democrats need to be like Rammstein, full of fire, but responsible with it.
And..btw, I think centrist democrats are mostly fine on social and foreign policy. Abolishing the police, prisons, and borders is NOT gonna play well with the general electorate. neither will excessive wokeness. I do think we can swing the populace to the libertarian center left, but yeah, the leftists go way too far with it.
And on foreign policy, eyah, we should be less interventionist, but we should do it the Biden way. biden MOSTLY had an ideal foreign policy. You can argue that he wasnt good enough on Israel, but honestly, I dont think the public really cares about that either. Most of the reason the left at large is turning on Israel now is them influencing our elections, and manipulating Trump into wars. I dont think most democrats are the "FREE PALESTINE, GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA" types. And it would be a tactical mistake to assume that they are.
Even on economics, I think that while the public DOES want a more progressive turn, and a more progressive turn is necessary, we gotta be careful with how we frame it. The public doesnt have a set ideology, if anything theyre just bouncing between the two parties hoping one of them does something. And while the dems need to be the ones to ultimately fix the problems, again, I think it's a mistake to assume that the public wants LITERAL socialism. I think we can sell social democracy to people, and heck, even my policies, as "anti work" as I am (a cardinal sin in the eyes of the american public), can probably be sold if we can convince the vast majority of people of them. But again, LITERAL socialism is a whole different animal altogether, and I think these guys would be in for a rude awakening if they tried to push that.
Ya know, social democrats often ask a question, why did leftist movements never shift to actual socialism in social democratic countries? The answers are two fold. First of all, social democrats did a good enough job at dissuading people from revolutionary action. People were comfortable enough under social democracy that they didn't want full blown socialism. Second of all, it's because the logistics of transitioning to socialism are tricky. Replacing the entire capitalist structure with something else entirely would require massively transforming our economy on a level even most socdems wouldnt attempt. And again, when we see countries do it, we see the actual communist ones that didnt work. For all the talk of "democratic socialist" theory, I have yet to see an actual demsoc offer a convincing pathway of how to get there, other than just nationalizing everything. And that's obviously bad. Like, we've seen some push "universal basic services" instead of UBI. And here's why i dont like that. You give people cash, you let them buy what they want in the market. You let supply and demand do its thing. You have the state do individual services, suddenly theyre telling you what food to eat, where you can live, etc. You're not giving power to people to do what they wanna do, you're giving that power to the state And that takes away peoples' freedom. Again, you can justify this with some policies like universal healthcare, free college, maybe even a public housing program. But ultimately we shouldnt need to axe the entire free market to make that work. Free college still means some institutions will be private. Public housing still means the private market is available. hell, even Zohran Mamdani's socialist grocery stores still compete with capitalist enterprises. And public option healthcare would leave the private market to exist if people want it.
We dont need a government monopoly on things to fix things. And I can get behind M4A, dont get me wrong. Canada has a decent healthcare system in a country that is still capitalist. The UK does too. So, on healthcare, I COULD theoretically go full state monopoly. I tend to advocate more for a public option these days than M4A, but...I'm not opposed to M4A in principle. As I keep saying, I support a public option primarily due to costs. Still, I could see a public option being a convincing alternative ideologically given my stance on other things as well. But yeah. I don't want socialism.. I dont want communism. I just want progress.
Now, again, DSA is weird. I know a lot of the DSA people have brainworms, but most of them, running for office, are running on socdem priorities, and I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to that. And I would support DSA candidates in their current form. BUT...I did notice Platner had some tankie reddit history. I also notice some candidates like DAC are also way more extreme than just social democracy. They might have to back away from such statements running for office, but their history is their history, and some wonder if these candidates really are that extreme. And obviously is Hasan is literally cosplaying as a literal communist dictator, uh..that's bad.
Like, again, actual communism bad. But if youre running on socdem policy, that's good. And if the socialists are running on progressive socdem policy that the mainstream dems refuse to support, they have no one to blame but themselves when they get in a moral panic about the DSA taking over their party. it isnt like this wasn't entirely avoidable. If the dems dont wake up and actually move left, they might lose their party to DSA types, and that is totally the democrats' fault. Because I've spent the past decade watching these guys run centrists and tell us to get ####ed every election cycle, and now that the left is starting to win they're freaking out about a hostile takeover. In the current environment, that takeover might actually be welcome. Again, because the establishment of the party is that fricking useless.
But...again, to come back around to why Im writing this...I get it. I get why the dems are kind of concerned. Because again, the DSA is like fire. A little bit, that's controlled, can be useful and cool. But if it gets out of hand, it burns everything down. There is a risk long term that if the DSA is allowed to keep radicalizing for long enough, we COULD see a similar trend to what the GOP has done over the past 15-20 years or so. But I would honestly hope that the dems would get some balls and triangulate back to the left before that happens. I think for now, if we vote for DSA candidates, we're MOSTLY going to get socdem priorities. But if they DO entirely take over and get their way, well that CAN be dangerous. So we do gotta keep our eyes on them, but I also do think, in the mean time, we also kinda need them to pull the dems back to the left in the first place. because let's face it, no one else is, and this moment does call for economic populism.
No comments:
Post a Comment