dude is selling himself to the people of michigan who largely believe socialism is evil. whether he actually understands the basics of socialism isn’t material to that goal.
You can do that without making further political development more difficult. That’s why I despise framing welfare as socialism, or tax breaks for capitalists as “socialism for the rich,” confusing radicalized liberals inevitably leads to socdem politics as reinforced by bourgeois cultural hegemony.
He’s personally never claimed to be a socialist. He has no ties to any movement that would benefit from people wanting socialism. He’s just one guy who cares about his career as a senator.
Yeah, you’re not about to catch me saying that this isn’t a limit of electoralism or it’s a good thing. But what it is is an example of someone who has undoubtedly looked at some kind of opinion poll, social media sentiment check (especially as is relates to smears made against you), and recent election messaging response to determine what kind of phrasing moves the needle. More correct != more votes. In my personal experience tying yourself into a knot to be correct and still appealing only serves to confuse your audience who doesn’t understand the domain enough to understand what you’re being correct about. Socialism is when the government does stuff it the prevailing understanding, socialism is when the government does stuff for corporations is a critique that the GOP can’t untangle in the voter’s mind because Rogers gets a Gorillian dollars from AIPAC.
That’s the way I’ve been observing the landscape recently.
This is true. The calculus then asks “can he win the race without saying this garbage” and if the answer is yes, then he shouldn’t have said it. But seeing as he has no personal investment in the success of socialism, he isn’t bothered to ask that question or take the risk of being conscious not to punch left for no reason.
”
All this shows is he has absolutely zero understanding of political theory or economics.
dude is selling himself to the people of michigan who largely believe socialism is evil. whether he actually understands the basics of socialism isn’t material to that goal.
It is because you don’t “sell” socialism by lying
This is blatant tailism. Conceding to reactionaries undermines your goals long term unless you yourself are a reactionary.
We shouldn’t be fucking galvanizing the masses to take brutal action to suppress “socialists”.
You can do that without making further political development more difficult. That’s why I despise framing welfare as socialism, or tax breaks for capitalists as “socialism for the rich,” confusing radicalized liberals inevitably leads to socdem politics as reinforced by bourgeois cultural hegemony.
He’s personally never claimed to be a socialist. He has no ties to any movement that would benefit from people wanting socialism. He’s just one guy who cares about his career as a senator.
Agreed.
For generations Michigan has been the center of American working class resistance. You can talk about class politics there.
Yeah, you’re not about to catch me saying that this isn’t a limit of electoralism or it’s a good thing. But what it is is an example of someone who has undoubtedly looked at some kind of opinion poll, social media sentiment check (especially as is relates to smears made against you), and recent election messaging response to determine what kind of phrasing moves the needle. More correct != more votes. In my personal experience tying yourself into a knot to be correct and still appealing only serves to confuse your audience who doesn’t understand the domain enough to understand what you’re being correct about. Socialism is when the government does stuff it the prevailing understanding, socialism is when the government does stuff for corporations is a critique that the GOP can’t untangle in the voter’s mind because Rogers gets a Gorillian dollars from AIPAC.
That’s the way I’ve been observing the landscape recently.
This is true. The calculus then asks “can he win the race without saying this garbage” and if the answer is yes, then he shouldn’t have said it. But seeing as he has no personal investment in the success of socialism, he isn’t bothered to ask that question or take the risk of being conscious not to punch left for no reason.