Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Maybe I’m not well versed enough in this topic to understand, but I’m having trouble following this person’s argument. First they define materialism, then they talk about how change for the better doesn’t come only once the conditions are perfect, it evolves from a confluence of factors. I get that much. Then they talk about opportunism and how stooping to the lowest common denominator to build a movement leads socialists to fascism how Mussolini rose to power, and compromising their own values voting for the lesser evil (e.g. Hillary Clinton) would lead to fascism. I was confused for the rest of it.
Where I stand on what I think is the discussion is this: I feel that everyone ideologically should never lose sight of what they want, but to achieve it, it requires a proper transition path to help counter knee-jerk reactions and talking points. Coming at people with uncompromising and very specific jargon and dismissing attempts to dumb down things won’t get you far… simplifying your plan when explaining it isn’t opportunism.
More of my words on specific cases
Look at Mamdani, his term so far is described as “sewer socialism”, it’s rooted in socialist ideals but at the end of the day, people want to hear stuff like when New York’s potholes will be filled, and as Mayor he is delivering on that. People don’t care as much about the ideology behind the plan, but that’s how you get them on board with socialism.
In contrast, Clinton and centrist Democrats want to co-opt the idealistic language but have little interest in following through for the common person and didn’t bother to describe what good it will mean for them. Calling out billionaire/AIPAC backers reduces their influence and should be done, always. However, given a choice between that and a alt-right candidate, it’s clear the internal reform must be done after choosing the lesser evil, and the building toward a revolution has to be done all the time, not just in the months before a general election.
Another example is Peter Magyar in Hungary. Left parties and voters voted for him, despite still being right-wing, to reverse the corruption and reform the constitution so that a democratic left or socialist party can have a chance in any future Hungarian election, which was virtually impossible before.
Maybe I’m not well versed enough in this topic to understand, but I’m having trouble following this person’s argument. First they define materialism, then they talk about how change for the better doesn’t come only once the conditions are perfect, it evolves from a confluence of factors. I get that much. Then they talk about opportunism and how stooping to the lowest common denominator to build a movement leads socialists to fascism how Mussolini rose to power, and compromising their own values voting for the lesser evil (e.g. Hillary Clinton) would lead to fascism. I was confused for the rest of it.
Where I stand on what I think is the discussion is this: I feel that everyone ideologically should never lose sight of what they want, but to achieve it, it requires a proper transition path to help counter knee-jerk reactions and talking points. Coming at people with uncompromising and very specific jargon and dismissing attempts to dumb down things won’t get you far… simplifying your plan when explaining it isn’t opportunism.
More of my words on specific cases
Look at Mamdani, his term so far is described as “sewer socialism”, it’s rooted in socialist ideals but at the end of the day, people want to hear stuff like when New York’s potholes will be filled, and as Mayor he is delivering on that. People don’t care as much about the ideology behind the plan, but that’s how you get them on board with socialism.
In contrast, Clinton and centrist Democrats want to co-opt the idealistic language but have little interest in following through for the common person and didn’t bother to describe what good it will mean for them. Calling out billionaire/AIPAC backers reduces their influence and should be done, always. However, given a choice between that and a alt-right candidate, it’s clear the internal reform must be done after choosing the lesser evil, and the building toward a revolution has to be done all the time, not just in the months before a general election.
Another example is Peter Magyar in Hungary. Left parties and voters voted for him, despite still being right-wing, to reverse the corruption and reform the constitution so that a democratic left or socialist party can have a chance in any future Hungarian election, which was virtually impossible before.