The debate "Leftists should focus on economic issues not social ones like immigration LGBTQ crime etc" was started by
April 27, 2019, 12:30 am.
By the way, oklagija is disagreeing with this statement.
34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 30 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
oklagija posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
UnleashedPatriotism posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
tniromin, toriboo, elegushi, lukeluckynuke123 and 30 visitors agree.
oklagija, UnleashedPatriotism, Saam, LucyTheDebatorQueen, saad786 and 25 visitors disagree.
Yes... Your definitely right.
This is not the 1st time this dilemma has come about either. One of the factors that lead to the collapse of the roman empire was essentially what the republicans are trying to do. The rich got richer to point that they were a significant power block. They would then avoid paying taxes and allowing people from their region to serve in the army, because they wanted them to be working on their farms and making money for the rich.
The government therefore relied more and more on squeezing those who couldn't avoid paying taxes, the middle and lower classes. The late roman empire was always starved for money because they had lost the ability to get the rich to pay their fair share.
This is exactly what the repubiicans are trying to do now. Make the rich as rich as possible and not have to pay taxes. Shift the tax burden onto those that cannot afford to pay it away from those that can. As tax revenues dwindle the government isn't able to offer as many services to it's own people.
And in my opinion, this plays into the rise of right wing autocrats like trump. They say look at how broken the system is, they arent doing anything to help you. Put me in power and I will help you. But it is in large part those right wing policies that are undermining the system they are railing against.
if you are advocating liberitarian wild west capitalism as "understanding the markets", then I will have to laugh in response.
if anything, the left (or at least much of the leadership, not every single individual) understand markets far better then the right. the left understands that demand drives markets. and giving more money to job creators when people are too broke to purchase things is a failing strategy.
instead what the right wing leadership is doing is helping their donors (and themselves) at the expense of the rest of us and our economy. and also promoting the influence of big $ in our politics.
If we are talking American lefties I strongly advise against it. The economic policies they've been advocating for are collectivist in narure at the sacrifice of individual agency. That doesn't play well with Murricans. Also doesn't help that the ones held up as thought leaders don't understand market behavior at all.
your scared friends' belief is their own problem. the handful of extreme feminists nobodies are allowed to say whatever they want, but is it being taken seriously by politicians and pushed to become law? I doubt it. there is a difference between giving extremists freedom of speech, and allowing them to make laws. I think your confusing the 2.
I disagree with alot of what your saying. 1. war was great for women. ww2 is how women broke into the workforce. 2. economics do not cause racism. slavery hurt the south long term. there was no economic benefit to jim crow. racism helped perpetuated their poverty. if anything, you have this completely backwards.
pride parades arent a policy. people are allowed to gather in public, at least in USA. I'm not sure if politicians have anything to do with parades. unless they are a mayor who has to plan around it. Hillary lost because of trust. you are running on ALOT of assumptions.
we have many refugees here as well, and nearly all first generation immigrants dont assimilate. Italians move to Italian communities, Chinese move to Chinese communities. Russians move to Russian communities. where they can find stores selling their cultural food. etc.
this delusion that people have to come and abandon their entire history is stupid. they dont need to assimilate. they just need to follow the laws and contribute to society. this expectation that they abandon their entire history is the only fascism I see.
you dont have to vote for someone because they are nice to a certain group. the same politician who wants to provide asylum to people fleeing danger can also pass worker protections and invest in the economy. the 2 are not exclusive. why do you think each politician is allowed only 1 policy?
A lot of my male friends are scared of even the word "feminist", because they associate it with the most radical idpol cultists. If "NOBODY" is pitted against each other, I've disproved that with only one anecdotal case.
Less angry normativity questioning, more material improvements for everyone. Because by votes, you gain influence in a parliamentary democracy. And by appealing to loud minorities, you aren't gonna get a whole lot of votes.
Now as I said, even structural violence such as the things you're concerned about is grounded in economics. The losers of an economic crisis are women. The losers of war are women. The losers of extreme, competitive, alienating capitalism are women, since the qualities of a "succesful" person in capitalism are gendered whether you like it or not.
When it comes to racism, historically it has an economic basis. Today, arguably, it has one too. Why are blacks so poor? Because of economic inequality. They're perfect pray for capitalism, as capitalists need cheap labor and social responsibility is highly secondary.
But please, tell me how symbolic issues such as pride parades are so popular. Hillary Clinton was a right wing politician yet highly socially liberal. Did she win the election, now again?
Huge strawman, sorry, I'm from Europe and these issues are a thing there ??
Regarding "workers" immigrating: that's not the case here. We don't have latin American immigration. We have refugee immigration and the numbers don't look good.
I understand American Muslims are good at assimilating. That's not the case in Europe.
And no, I'm definitely not a right winger. There's nothing "right wing" about seeing the reality as it is. Of course, the logical implications of "reality" might be different. I advocate of protection both for Muslims and LGBTQ people as two wrongs don't make a right. But idpol is problematic, you are per definition pitting people against each other because some people have less education and don't buy academic idpol talk. It's pretty simple - if you focus on symbolic issues of marginal minorities, chances are a whole lot of people from the majority (Read: white working class) will fail to see you as an ally.
I'm a university student. I won't vote for someone just because they're nice to some other group. Stupid example, but most people vote based on their own interest. The only way to beat fascism is to convince people we are the answer to their struggles. You don't necessarily have to change every single individual's world view. That's a liberal bullshit solution.
reading some of your posts, I'm not so sure your from the USA, but the arguments are nearly indistinguishable. shall I guess: England?
I'm assuming your country is USA, and yes we have the same country. I'm suprised to see a member of the left explaining left wing policies with definitions I would find only on the dirty part of the right (which is rapidly becoming mainstream)
no community is being pit against each other. many of the illegal immigrants who have been living here for decades have had these jobs for decades. and with record unemployment, I'm not sure what the conflict is. we need MORE workers, not less. and working hands have never hurt the economy. more people = more houses, more food, more stuff. they dont just take jobs, they make jobs. demand creates jobs, not excess money for the wealthy.
muslims in America and LGBTQ have no conflict. their right to worship and have mosques in no way allows them to pass religious laws and more then the in power Christians can pass intelligent design into science class. these conflicts are fabricated alt right wing fake news that doesnt actually exist. immigration does have some discussion, but there is nothing wrong with debate. do you think all 100 million+ people on the right have no disagreements?
who is serving vegan food in elementary schools when kids need good protein?
what legislation is being passed to limit your language?
arent the right crying that dominant christianity and the white Male are under attack all the time showing a culture of victimhood?
what is a "queer femenist"?
and this is America. EVERYONE IS MATERIALISTIC.
although some seem to want to give corporations free reign with no laws or oversight. there is still alot of variability within the title "materialistic".
Nah I disagree, structural violence is fueled by economics. There is a great deal of fantastic empirical data on the political economy of violence against women, for instance. Racism is also rooted in the fact that it was profitable, it had a function.
I am not against the interests of these groups, I'm rather against the divisive focus on identity politics, as there are big issues that actually unite people. What is the alternative, if we're going to beat fascism, other than being a workers' movement? How are you gonna mass mobilize people behind gender neutral language, vegan food served in elementary school and a general mentality of victimhood? (I don't know about your country, but those are issues in mine - and we have a WEAK left)
I think to take steps towards more vegetarian food, to start legislating about gender neutral things and do reforms that are critical against structures and norms, you first have to convince the majority (Read: white working class) you are for their interests. You don't do that by focusing on for them irrelevant things. The left was always materialistic. It's not supposed to be the "good" folks that feel sorry for everyone.
Haven't said you argue for any of this, but I'm just clarifying what I mean.
There is also a direct conflict between different identities sometimes. Working class against immigrants, muslims against LGBTQ+ people, "cis normative femimists" against queer feminists - if this idpol project is ever gonna have any credibility outside of left wing universities, these conflicts have to be resolved.
the thing is, the left is not promoting competition amongst the different groups. all of the different groups are United, represented by the left.
as I said, I agree with you that economics is a good focus, but I get to say that because my group isnt currently under threat. you could imagine that if you were a member of a targeted group would feel that economics is rather secondary.
I think the left definitely has the winning strategy economically, but turning a blind eye on injustice for strategical purposes is a moral call that depends on the details
generally I prefer to focus on the economic and meta politics. but when asked about "what do you feel about trans rights" I support freedom of speech and expression. and I am against trolls.
its funny, I would say the same thing about righties. I feel that the many anti "x" group are used as distractions to the many right wingers who would benefit from democratic policies
Why? Because the declining support for left wing ideas in many parts of the world (maybe not the US and UK but pretty much the whole of Europe) can be tackled efficiently by focusing on common denominators instead of promoting competitions between different social identities about who people should feel sorry for the most.
1) Key Word: FOCUS. I'm for gay rights, helping refugees as much as it's possible economically and on the topic of crime I think prevention is just as important as punishing criminals. But the FOCUS should lie on issues that working class people care about. W.o.w: material issues such as healthcare reform, maternity/parental leave, working conditions, etc.
2) You can bring up TAN-leaning points of the GAL-TAN spectre while at the same time being left wing. There is not really a conflict, I don't see why me being a leftist binds me to accepting weird Tumblr genders. (Note: I didn't say there are only 2 genders)
3) You don't have to be politically correct to be a leftist.