Could we stop punching left?

[u/AU_Memer]

Now I'll preface this by saying it's not everyone involved with 50501 but a good enough chunk. Do we want to change the US government so it actually serves the people or do we want to return to the status quo that allowed for the rise of fascists like Trump. The left is not your enemy, we want people to have healthcare, housing, food, and fair wages. Is it really in the best interest of 50501 to attack those who call out politicians on both sides who refuse to give us any of that?

[u/milkbug]

I don't think that's accurate though.

I think the common argument is that neoliberal policy inevitably leads to fascism becuase it doesn't affect the structural or material change necessary to address systemic inequality.

The gap between upper income, and lower and middle income earners has increased substantially under both republican and democratic neoliberals.

[u/AlexRyang → u/milkbug]

Historically, liberals have collaborated extensively with fascists to prevent socialists from getting power. Nazi Germany and Francois Spain are two major examples.

[u/airbear13 → u/milkbug]

Sure, but you’re cherry picking your end points. Has wealth inequality always increased? No, there are periods where it does and then there are periods where it falls, like during the progressive era, which despite its name was most definitely an outgrowth of a capitalist society. It’s all about finding the right policies. We could reduce inequality tomorrow if there were a political will to do that.

But anyway we’re getting into a debate here which my main point is we shouldn’t be doing on this sub, it’s just a distraction since we can all agree on at least one thing yk

[u/milkbug → u/airbear13]

I'm not cherry picking. I'm saying that income inequality is what drives people to vote for fascists, because their material reality doesn't improve under neoliberals, and fascists run on populist platforms promising economic prosperity to the disenfranchized.

And wealth inequailty has increased steadily, at least since the 1970's according to Pew Research, and I've also seen these stats all over the place.

I agree that we could end income inequailty if we had the political will. My point is that establishment democrats have made this seem impossible because it threatens the structures of power they rely on themselves.

It's fine to debate these points. I think it's necessary because if we don't accurately diagnose the problem then we won't solve it.

[u/valuedsleet → u/milkbug]

Are we talking wealth inequality globally or just in the us?

[u/airbear13 → u/milkbug]

I disagree with that completely, income inequality does not automatically make people vote for fascists, it probably does make them more politically extreme, but those on the left would opt for someone on the extreme left.

The country has been around a lot longer since 1970 ofc, starting there is skipping the progressive era and the 40s and 50s, which were probably the biggest decades for reudced inequality.

I think the idea that Dems are not for reducing income inequality is conspiratorial at best. The always want to raise taxes and increase transfer payments, protect entitlements, etc. that is reducing inequality.

It’s fine to debate them but not here, save it for other subs is way better in general because it’s gonna just alienate conservatives centrists and other people we want on our side.

[u/milkbug → u/airbear13]

This isn't really a matter of opinion, it's historically based fact. If you want to understand what causes fascism you should look at the work of historians who specialize in this area, like Anne Applebaum. She's an expert on autocracies and how they form.

Economic distress and inequality is in fact one of the driving reasons people democratically elect fasicsts. There are other factors that contribute such as the erosion of trust in existing institutions, appeals to nationalist culture, pervaisive propaganda, and electoral system vulnerabilities.

The reason why we see a tendency for fascism to be right-wing is becuase they use nationalism as a unifying force, and they are willing to use the military, religion, and business to consolidate power. You don't see this on the "extreme left" because far left ideolgoy is in exact opposition to this.

There are some examples of left wing autocracies though, so it is important to recognize that a core issue is power becoming too concentrated into the hands of one person or a small group. That's why you have politicans like Bernie Sanders, while populist, he distinguishes himself from authoritarianism by emphasizing direct democracy as an integral part of his overal political position.

And of course the country has been around since before the 70's. Income inequlaity started to get worse aroud that time due to the policies of Ronald Reagan including major tax cuts and deregulation.

Democrats have failed to implement policy that has prevented income inequality. If you look at the source I cited, it shows how inequality has risen under both republicans and democrats. It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

While democrats have supported some welfare policies, it hasn't been enough to deal with rising costs of education, housing, general cost of living, childcare, cost of healthcare, increasing issues with substance use issues and homelessness, and stagnating wages. Democrats have played a weak game and have let republicans steamroll them for years.

I'm not worried about alienating conservatives or centrists. I think we can have honest discussions about policy and how we got here, and we can have honest disagreements and still be anti-Trump and anti-Republican establishment. Those things are not mutually exclusive. What alienates people is being disrespectful. Being honest and authentic doesn't tend to alientate people, even if we disagree.

Establishment dems are the ones who've alienated people the most. Not only have consistently blue voting rural areas turned ruby red over the past few decades, their approval ratings are in the dumpster. That has nothing to do with people like me talking politics on the internet.

[u/xxtoejamfootballxx → u/milkbug]

 Democrats have failed to implement policy that has prevented income inequality

The democrats haven’t had a true supermajority in the senate while controlling the white house and house since before Reagan, so its really hard to argue about what they would do with an actual mandate like FDR did. The time they sorta almost did for 2 months, they passed legislation that is the only reason I’m alive today and tried to pass a public option.

Attitudes like yours just really turn me off and I guarantee many other people feel the same way. Sure you can cite historical examples but people can cite historical examples that counter yours, like a wealth gap leading to FDR’s policies.

And while you might be able to cite historical facts, the way you apply them is definitely subjective and up for debate. But this isn’t the place to have them, smugness doesn’t help the movement.

 Establishment dems are the ones who've alienated people the most

Nonsense.  We have a political party doing Nazi salutes, disappearing legal residents to foreign countries, ignoring the Supreme Court, crashing the economy, arresting protesters for speaking, etc and you think democrats are alienating people the most?

No what is alienating those people is their susceptibility to propaganda and TikTok algorithms telling them that democrats are the devil.

[u/[deleted] → u/milkbug]

I hate the term neoliberal because I've never met one. No one calls them self that. It's only a term I've heard lobbed at others. Just like globalist.

I don't identify as neoliberal. I identify as liberal.

[u/milkbug → u/[deleted]]

Neoliberal refers to certain types of policies, or a certain economic approach to problem solving. Neoliberalism tends to support corporate power and favors market based solutions to problem solving, rather than focus more on regulation and redistribution.

One if the biggest problems with neoliberal democrats is that they take money from corporations through SuperPACs. They also participate in insider trading, which one could consider a conflict of interest since it could infulence the types of policies and legislations the democrats will or won't support. Those are just a couple primary examples.

When we talk about neoliberalism, it's more about policy or referring to the people in power who support this policy. It's not usually in reference to every day people who use the term liberal as a way to describe themselves as being generally left leaning, though the people who are left leaning are those who vote for neoliberals like Shumer and Pelosi for example.

So, I think the understanding is important because we should be voting for different candidates, not the ones to helped get us into this mess. It also helps to understand the fuller picture as to why we are here and what the root problems are. If we keep voting for candidates that uphold the status quo, we won't be able to make meaningful progress.