4 ms·

I am curious about this “non-US-left-wing”, maybe someone can clarify. I consider left-wing to mean the same here in the US and abroad. But the presence of act

I am curious about this “non-US-left-wing”, maybe someone can clarify. I consider left-wing to mean the same here in the US and abroad. But the presence of actual “leftists” in the US dialogue has decreased dramatically since the bad old Rockefeller/Carnegie days when the working class made some nominal but real progress. These days in the US, people associate the “left” with identity politics and some vague, ever-decreasing lip service to the oppression of the working class voter. The Democrat Party establishment is staunchly neoliberal, in practice, nearly indistinguishable from the Reagan-era Republican except for some theatrics around gender and race, but they are not leftist by any reasonable measure. Is that the distinction you are referring to here, or is this another classification of leftism that doesn’t apply to either US contingency?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
I read it as saying that it's also a pejorative against lower class centrists, in particular those without unwavering party loyalty.
- whstl 3y ago
  By “non-US” I mean the left outside the US that didn’t get too influenced by Democrats. Not saying Democrats are good or bad, I’m not American. But their brand of leftism is quite different from what I knew as a young person.
jjjjj55555 3y ago
It seems like the words are all increasingly meaningless. It's about what connotation you can give to them for the people in your base. And if you can't change the connotation, you just invent a new word. I think I remember some on the left calling when Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama "populists", but in a good way. Or maybe the word was "grassroots." Nowadays the word populist has a negative, right-wing connotation for many in that group.
- frank_nitti 3y ago
  Sanders is a great example case. As I recall, he was ultimately labeled as a populist with a negative connotation, framing him as a demagogue and “reminding” people of the danger of direct democracies (as opposed to democratic republics etc closer to the actual US system). This narrative emerged only when he became a legitimate challenger to the Clinton and Biden campaigns in 2016/2020. Prior to that, his populist designation was generally framed as a positive: a man who represents and embodies the will of the working class voters. The establishment Dems and their media allies found him useful to engage their base, but never intended for him to be considered for the actual nomination (as was made clear from the guccifer leak). Very interesting case study and a blueprint for weaponizing a term like “populism” in public discourse.
whstl 3y ago
> These days in the US, people associate the “left” with identity politics and some vague, ever-decreasing lip service to the oppression of the working class voter Not passing judgement to US politics because I am not even there, but this is what I mean. The US left is traditionally different from other places, though. Today it is completely different from the traditional left. The gap is narrowing due to US influence, though.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

I read it as saying that it's also a pejorative against lower class centrists, in particular those without unwavering party loyalty.

whstl 3y ago
By “non-US” I mean the left outside the US that didn’t get too influenced by Democrats. Not saying Democrats are good or bad, I’m not American. But their brand of leftism is quite different from what I knew as a young person.

jjjjj55555 3y ago

It seems like the words are all increasingly meaningless. It's about what connotation you can give to them for the people in your base. And if you can't change the connotation, you just invent a new word. I think I remember some on the left calling when Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama "populists", but in a good way. Or maybe the word was "grassroots." Nowadays the word populist has a negative, right-wing connotation for many in that group.

frank_nitti 3y ago
Sanders is a great example case. As I recall, he was ultimately labeled as a populist with a negative connotation, framing him as a demagogue and “reminding” people of the danger of direct democracies (as opposed to democratic republics etc closer to the actual US system). This narrative emerged only when he became a legitimate challenger to the Clinton and Biden campaigns in 2016/2020. Prior to that, his populist designation was generally framed as a positive: a man who represents and embodies the will of the working class voters. The establishment Dems and their media allies found him useful to engage their base, but never intended for him to be considered for the actual nomination (as was made clear from the guccifer leak). Very interesting case study and a blueprint for weaponizing a term like “populism” in public discourse.

whstl 3y ago

> These days in the US, people associate the “left” with identity politics and some vague, ever-decreasing lip service to the oppression of the working class voter Not passing judgement to US politics because I am not even there, but this is what I mean. The US left is traditionally different from other places, though. Today it is completely different from the traditional left. The gap is narrowing due to US influence, though.