The recent conservative turn in this country is in many ways due to the reaction to blm. The entire history of the 70s is right wing reaction to civil rights and the great sixties social movements, and as the decade progresses the neoliberal consensus more and more takes shape until finally coming to ascendancy under Reagan who is given more of a popular mandate than trump has ever had. More than half the time the “oppression” we want to shoot the government for is “I’m being taxed as a small business owner” or “I the vaunted small business owner am being asked to comply with regulations put in place to benefit the working class.” Hardly a revolutionary outlook. For every great example of revolutionary politics in this country, you can find like 100x as many examples of Americans expressing the violent colonial settler ideology upon which the country was founded. I’m not arguing that Americans are irredeemable, but many of the popular movements in this country were in reality not as popular as we want to believe. There was always popular support for the opposition to these movements, and it’s that opposition from which trump emerges.

Trump threw out crumbs to the left in 2016, but he didn’t campaign as a left wing candidate. He also campaigned to the right of the dnc and his most vocal support always came from the far right. Lifting a couple Bernie sanders-esque talking points doesn’t make one a left wing candidate when you’re also making statements far to the right of any other candidate in the field. Why focus in on the couple vaguely left wing statements when you have more right wing talking points and your political platform is right-wing?

“natural and strong revolutionary leftist tendencies among the US people” have you met the US people? Have you read about US history? You are doing exactly what I accused your perspective of doing in my original comment, casting white Americans as some sort of pure innocent group that has been deluded and tempted into evil by Hillary Clinton and the dnc. What is this clear preference for socialist policy? Californians rejecting an anti-slavery amendment? Floridians deciding not to expand abortion access? Voting in a guy twice explicitly campaigning on mass deportations of workers?

Trump never campaigned to the left of the dnc. Trump used some left wing talking points to seize upon most people’s dissatisfaction with neoliberalism, but being against neoliberalism isn’t by nature left wing. There have always been right wing critics of neoliberalism, and trump only ever espoused economic nationalism, America first policy and the continuation and growth of empire. His platform was for the members of the bourgeoisie hurt by neoliberalism and globalization, never for the working class.

Yeah this is exactly the perspective I’m against so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. To argue that without the dnc the USA would somehow develop into some socialist utopia is a perspective completely at odds with the entirety of US and global history. Without the dnc the bourgeois class still exists and this is the fundamental roadblock to socialism. The Marxist contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, not one liberal political party and another group which actually is mostly just another liberal political party and includes mostly liberals and much of the bourgeois class. I don’t argue with you on the basis that the dnc has nothing to answer for wrt the rise of trump, I argue with the idea that the dnc represents some sort of exceptional force in us politics that is uniquely responsible for the rise of trump and the maga movement. You’re doing great man theory just replacing the great man with the great party.

I also don’t know what you mean when you say trump was an outsider on the left since he was never on the left. He attacked Hillary from both her right and left, but he was never on the left.

And so I say again trump and the maga movement did not come from the dem party camp. You’re falling into the trap I criticized in my initial comment of denying trump and his supporters agency. The actions of Hillary Clinton and the dnc are widely known at least on this site, but those actions they took in 2016 that allowed trump to seize power did not create trump and the maga movement. Go back to the tea party, the Republican revolution, the moral majority, the southern strategy. The ideological predecessors of the maga movement had been consolidating themselves in the gop throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st. The extent to which the dems are blameful is merely inaction, co-signing the destruction of the left and acting as a bourgeois party supporting these trends, or at least supporting the colonial power structure from which these trends are a natural consequence. Which are serious charges. But the gop is equally blameful in this, why I take issue with your claim that the absence of the dems increases the chances of achieving socialism in this country. And while both parties act as bourgeois parties do, the gop becomes home to the direct predecessors leading to the maga movement.

To say the dems are the group that made trump happen ignores the actual groups who placed him in power and how present his ideas are in the American landscape. Hillary Clinton didn’t force half the country to become fascists and rabid settlers in 2016. Fwiw I don’t think blaming the dems for the rise of trump is wrong per se, I just think the focus is skewed away from the places where trump’s support actually springs from. And it tends to pin larger picture stuff on the dems that is in reality much larger than the dems

I haven’t argued they have no blood on their hands. But their responsibility in creating and sustaining settler ideology and empire is not fundamentally different or greater than any other part of the bourgeois class or the colonial power structure. I take issue with your idea that they somehow do the most work in defending settler ideology. They shouldn’t be treated as an exceptional force in the maintenance of settler ideology and I’m wondering how your statement could even be quantified. I also take issue with the idea that they are responsible for creating something (what it is you don’t say). The Dems are about 200 years old. Settler ideology and the colonial power structure stretch back 500 years. The dems are one expression of that settler ideology, not the other way around.

And specifically we’re talking about the rise of trump and the maga movement. For all we can say about the dems, for all of their fault in helping to unleash that force, at the end of the day it didn’t come from their camp. It came from something with a long history in this country that greatly predates the dems that has been present on the American landscape since the first European settlement. The dems are a part of that force which I think is what you’re saying, but I don’t think the dems can truly be blamed except as one part of a wider condemnation of capitalism, colonialism and empire. To single out the dems in assigning blame for the rise of trump to me just seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

Sorry, maybe I’m still misunderstanding, but I don’t see how this responds to what I was saying above. Whether or not the dems are lying (I’m assuming lying about being anti-trump and against the current hard right turn) I don’t believe contradicts my point that when explaining the rise of trump settler colonial ideology, the racial landscape of the us, and the collapse of empire are more important than any action by the dems. Things like the pied piper strategy commonly blamed for the rise of trump are important and should be criticized, but the only reason those things had the effect they did is because of the things cited above that are baked into the American landscape. Without Clinton and the dnc’s actions in 2016 we still get a trump-like figure, though maybe not in 2016.

In terms of the furtherance of settler colonial ideology and the maintenance of racial hierarchy, the dems are to blame, but I don’t believe more than any other bourgeois capitalist. I think this this is what you mean when you’re talking about how the dems are lying, like they’re not really against trump and the inaction is deliberate. But they’re a bourgeois party so any action (or inaction) is due to that imo, not anything specific to the dem party. In terms of actions specific to the dem party, there’s still important stuff to criticize there, but to me the focus tends to be skewed when the rise and continuing support of trump is really rooted in things that go far beyond the dem party.

Don’t understand what you’re trying to say

I understand the criticisms of the democrats and have often made them myself, but sometimes I worry that the focus on the dems diminishes the agency of the actual Trump supporters.

The dems didn’t conjure up the settler colonial ideology in 2016. The dems didn’t create wholesale a legacy of racism, colonialism and genocide in 2016. White Americans were not some pure innocent race tempted into evil by Hillary Clinton.

The dems’ role in the rise of trump is more of a “just the way it happened to play out.” As capitalism and empire collapse, climate crisis is ramped up, a figure like Trump in the American landscape was an inevitability. The dems have nothing to do with this, at least not any exceptional role. But the fact that it was Trump in 2016 - the fact that it happened how it happened - that’s the dem’s fault. But it wouldn’t have happened at all, even if the dems did everything the same, if the US populace had not been primed for the entire country’s history to embrace fascist rhetoric. The dems should be criticized for the actions they did take, and the dems and liberals in general should continue to be criticized for inaction. But in terms of the rise of trump, I just find the focus on the dems sort of useless, as if shitty electoral strategy allows us to ignore the entirety of settler colonial and fascist ideology that’s baked into the American landscape.

Yeah to be clear I’m not gonna fall on my sword defending the pope lol. Also I think “progressive” means something very different in the Catholic Church vs the real world, and I don’t think this pope is even necessarily that, probably more moderate. But this pope does seem to follow Francis in a number of ways so it’ll be interesting to see where he falls on this issue. Personally, I don’t think he’ll be horrible, but this is also the Catholic Church so not horrible still isn’t that great. I just don’t think he’ll be a hardline conservative or something.

That quote above tbh wouldn’t be out of place being said by a lib during the gay marriage debates. Maybe without the religious angle, but the general sentiment was there.

I have seen the stuff about protecting pedophile priests. Obviously horrible, but it’s also the Catholic Church so I’m not really expecting great things from them. Iirc Francis was also not great on those things. Not really sure if this guy is worse, I don’t keep up on those things.

Can you expound a bit on the Rerum Novarum? I’m not in a place where I can really read anything rn. I did look briefly at the Wikipedia page, it seems like it’s mostly some typical lib “we don’t like socialism but we’re also against ‘crony capitalism’” stuff. Is that generally correct?

I wasn’t expecting some socialist or something in the papacy. But I suppose I’m coming from the perspective of seeing a lot of people hoping for the immediate rollback of the past 70 or more years of social progress after the election of Trump. Like a great worldwide mandate to return to the social order of old. And so even though this guy seems like just some basic moderate, not even as progressive as Francis (a low bar), the fact that he’s not completely against those reforms and in many cases supportive seems like not the worst outcome.

Your basic milquetoast lib was still anti-gay marriage in 2012. That was the year Obama completed his “evolution.” Wonder if this guy has undergone a similar “evolution” on this topic in the years since. This was also pre-Francis. Not that I expect him to be extremely pro-lgbt or something, but a lot has changed since then and in many other respects he seems like a milquetoast lib.

The tradcaths are malding or doing some “well I’m going to reserve judgement” cope. It’s the Catholic Church it was never going to be good. But it seems like he’s pretty much just some milquetoast lib, less progressive than Francis but not the worst guy.

From what I can tell not the worst guy. Sort of a continuation of Francis though more moderate.

I’m sure he’s not great in like an absolute sense. Don’t really think any pope would be. Also I’m not a catholic so idrc what they do. But I just read a bunch of comments from a bunch of tradcaths malding about this choice so I’m happy.

deleted by creator

The new punk rock

Oh no my congressional decorum!

Yes. In fact I’d prefer it to whatever the hell it is you’re suggesting

What’s your point here? We should be policing how people dress because having an outfit makes someone feel good? That’s such a non-point. And who’s to says this style of dress doesn’t make Fetterman feel good?

No one’s gonna shit on Claudia de la Cruz because the whole point is it shouldn’t matter what people wear. It’s the content of what they do that matters.

Around me it’s the public schools too

People are very intent on it