5 ms·

There are no leftists in the US. The people you are refering to a liberals, who are defacto identical to conservatives

by derelicta 1y ago

energy123 1y ago
Dean Preston is a self-described socialist. A socialist is not a conservative.
- svantana 1y ago
  His instagram bio reads "Housing advocate, democratic socialist", so if self-descriptions are taken as truth, it kinda undermines the whole point of the argument.
- CBarkleyU 1y ago
  Well, but a self-described socialist might just not be a socialist.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    My guess is that a Chinese communist is not a leftist.
danaris 1y ago
Hi there! I live in the US. I am a leftist. I am in favor of prison abolition, universal basic income, massively increased taxation of the rich, and voting reform. Care to explain why I either don't count or don't really exist?
- fragmede 1y ago
  Because of the two party system, you have to either vote Democrat or Republican for your vote to count, so your actually leftist ideals, which are to the left of the centrist Democrat party, do not meaningfully exist as a voting block.
  - danaris 1y ago
    So the only political movements that you think are allowed to be said to exist in a country are those explicitly and broadly represented by a major party? I mean, I guess that's a position you could take, but it seems like a pretty extreme one.
- CrossVR 1y ago
  > prison abolition Can we stop calling reform abolishment? I know it's more fun to call it abolishment because it triggers the people you disagree with, but it's entirely counter-productive. I'm just getting so tired of these constant motte and bailey fallacies in US political discourse.
  - krapp 1y ago
    People use the word "abolition" not to trigger you but because it's the word they mean to use and because they explicitly don't believe in reform. You may not respect it enough to take it seriously, but it is a position that some socialists hold.
    - CrossVR 1y ago
      Oh I take it seriously and I also agree that in the US there's a large population that's sent to prison for no good reason, with almost no attention paid to rehabilitation and treatment. However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning. Some form of restriction of movement will be required for frequent violent offenders. You may abolish the old system since you believe it's rotten to the core and you may call whatever replaces it something other than prison, but it will still be prison.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning. "Prison" (carceral punishment) does not encompass all possible restrictions on personal freedom and movement. Even in systems with carceral punishment, other restrictions on freedom and movement are used for some situations, that do not involve incarceration.
        armada651 1y ago
        And this is exactly why calling for "prison abolishment" is so counter-productive, because when most people hear that the assumption is that everyone who's in prison right now is free to go. It does not help your cause to adopt a motto that espouses a more extreme position than you actually hold and both your supporters and detractors will feel betrayed when they learn your position is actually more moderate.
- derelicta 1y ago
  Because you very likely still defend capitalism and US hegemony
  - danaris 1y ago
    ...Where on earth do you get that idea? Of course, one does have to be careful with one's definitions when talking about "capitalism", because I've seen people mean everything from "the current, specific, late-stage capitalist system and nothing else" to "the basic concept of exchanging currency for goods and services" and everything in between. Personally, I'm in favor of abolishing the former and some of the stuff in the middle, but I'm skeptical that even in a fully post-scarcity society we would abandon the need for the latter. As for US hegemony...I think that the current situation demonstrates very well why it's a serious problem. We're a single point of failure, and the polarization here has been rising for decades, leaving something like this all but inevitable. Indeed, even if someone like Trump had not come along and normalized hatred and fascism, we would still have likely been in a situation where every 4-8 years the US's policies on a wide range of things flipped violently back and forth. No; while I fear that the transition will be very rocky, the world will be better off if a broader coalition of nations can collectively take up the role of attempting to enforce the notion of universal human rights across the globe. While they're at it, maybe they'll finally be able to get the US to agree to things like the UN Convention on Rights of the Child, and the authority of the International Criminal Court.

There are no leftists in the US. The people you are refering to a liberals, who are defacto identical to conservatives

energy123 1y ago

Dean Preston is a self-described socialist. A socialist is not a conservative.

svantana 1y ago
His instagram bio reads "Housing advocate, democratic socialist", so if self-descriptions are taken as truth, it kinda undermines the whole point of the argument.
CBarkleyU 1y ago
Well, but a self-described socialist might just not be a socialist.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  My guess is that a Chinese communist is not a leftist.

danaris 1y ago

Hi there! I live in the US. I am a leftist. I am in favor of prison abolition, universal basic income, massively increased taxation of the rich, and voting reform. Care to explain why I either don't count or don't really exist?

fragmede 1y ago
Because of the two party system, you have to either vote Democrat or Republican for your vote to count, so your actually leftist ideals, which are to the left of the centrist Democrat party, do not meaningfully exist as a voting block.
- danaris 1y ago
  So the only political movements that you think are allowed to be said to exist in a country are those explicitly and broadly represented by a major party? I mean, I guess that's a position you could take, but it seems like a pretty extreme one.
CrossVR 1y ago
> prison abolition Can we stop calling reform abolishment? I know it's more fun to call it abolishment because it triggers the people you disagree with, but it's entirely counter-productive. I'm just getting so tired of these constant motte and bailey fallacies in US political discourse.
- krapp 1y ago
  People use the word "abolition" not to trigger you but because it's the word they mean to use and because they explicitly don't believe in reform. You may not respect it enough to take it seriously, but it is a position that some socialists hold.
  - CrossVR 1y ago
    Oh I take it seriously and I also agree that in the US there's a large population that's sent to prison for no good reason, with almost no attention paid to rehabilitation and treatment. However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning. Some form of restriction of movement will be required for frequent violent offenders. You may abolish the old system since you believe it's rotten to the core and you may call whatever replaces it something other than prison, but it will still be prison.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning. "Prison" (carceral punishment) does not encompass all possible restrictions on personal freedom and movement. Even in systems with carceral punishment, other restrictions on freedom and movement are used for some situations, that do not involve incarceration.
      - armada651 1y ago
        And this is exactly why calling for "prison abolishment" is so counter-productive, because when most people hear that the assumption is that everyone who's in prison right now is free to go. It does not help your cause to adopt a motto that espouses a more extreme position than you actually hold and both your supporters and detractors will feel betrayed when they learn your position is actually more moderate.
derelicta 1y ago
Because you very likely still defend capitalism and US hegemony
- danaris 1y ago
  ...Where on earth do you get that idea? Of course, one does have to be careful with one's definitions when talking about "capitalism", because I've seen people mean everything from "the current, specific, late-stage capitalist system and nothing else" to "the basic concept of exchanging currency for goods and services" and everything in between. Personally, I'm in favor of abolishing the former and some of the stuff in the middle, but I'm skeptical that even in a fully post-scarcity society we would abandon the need for the latter. As for US hegemony...I think that the current situation demonstrates very well why it's a serious problem. We're a single point of failure, and the polarization here has been rising for decades, leaving something like this all but inevitable. Indeed, even if someone like Trump had not come along and normalized hatred and fascism, we would still have likely been in a situation where every 4-8 years the US's policies on a wide range of things flipped violently back and forth. No; while I fear that the transition will be very rocky, the world will be better off if a broader coalition of nations can collectively take up the role of attempting to enforce the notion of universal human rights across the globe. While they're at it, maybe they'll finally be able to get the US to agree to things like the UN Convention on Rights of the Child, and the authority of the International Criminal Court.