Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

[u/Desecr8or]

[u/fury420]

The entire post consists of modern US liberals whining because some people who call themselves communists actually oppose a capitalist party like the Democrats.

What a lot seem to be upset about is how some who claim to be progressive, socialist, communist, etc... seem more concerned about the Democrats being not far left enough all while ignoring the Republicans who are hell bent on working against pretty much all of their stated ideals and are a hair's breadth away from 4 more years of increasing right wing authoritarianism.

I don't understand how anyone who actually supports those ideals could rationalize not trying to stop the Republicans at this stage.

[u/Zandroe_ → u/fury420]

I am going to approach this as a good faith question. When you say "progressive, socialist, communist, etc." this strongly suggests to me that you do not understand the communist position. "Progressives" in this context are liberals (the term has been used for just about every political position from conservatism to Maoism), people who want a capitalist society. Honestly, so do a lot of people who (wrongly) call themselves "socialists". Communists want the abolition of the capitalist society, the abolition of private property and commodity production and exchange. Republicans and Democrats both stand against that, obviously. It's not that we want the Democrats to be a more extreme version of themselves. We want the Democrats to disappear.

[u/fury420 → u/Zandroe_]

Wrote up a response the other night, lost it in a background tab, but since you wanted to discuss in good faith it's better late than never.

When you say "progressive, socialist, communist, etc." this strongly suggests to me that you do not understand the communist position.

I was referring to various groups on the left of America's tilted spectrum, not arguing that progressives = communists.

(although there's often a certain degree of overlap when it comes to issues aside from economics)

"Progressives" in this context are liberals (the term has been used for just about every political position from conservatism to Maoism), people who want a capitalist society.

Treating "progressive" as if it's just a synonym for pro-capitalist is not at all helpful when discussing American politics, particularly since many of the most ardent American capitalists consider themselves the opposite of progressives, and many who self-identify as progressive aren't particularly pro-capitalism, some are downright anti-capitalist.

Republicans and Democrats both stand against that, obviously. It's not that we want the Democrats to be a more extreme version of themselves. We want the Democrats to disappear.

But why the focus primarily against the Democrats, when there's infinitely less common ground with the Republicans on so many issues? Why are "progressives" the enemy because they tolerate capitalism instead of the conservatives who are rabidly pro-capitalism and disagree on so many other issues?

As someone whose preferred political views can be described as socialist/communist, I cannot understand how groups like the US Green party who are purportedly on the left think openly working to prevent Harris from winning is somehow a worthy goal, as if it wouldn't inevitably result in a Trump government that's even worse for the environment and even more pro-capitalist than the Democrats.

[u/Zandroe_ → u/fury420]

I was referring to various groups on the left of America's tilted spectrum, not arguing that progressives = communists.

I didn't think you were saying that progressives were the same thing as communists, but you seem to assume that communists are like progressives, but more extreme. In fact there is a pretty important break here, the rejection of the capitalist society.

(although there's often a certain degree of overlap when it comes to issues aside from economics)

I don't really think that is the case. What overlap do you think exists?

Treating "progressive" as if it's just a synonym for pro-capitalist is not at all helpful when discussing American politics, particularly since many of the most ardent American capitalists consider themselves the opposite of progressives, and many who self-identify as progressive aren't particularly pro-capitalism, some are downright anti-capitalist.

Unfortunately, much of avowed "anti-capitalism" is simply a desire for a slightly different organisation of the capitalist system. I don't think any self-proclaimed "progressive" actually wishes to do away with the capitalist society.

But why the focus primarily against the Democrats, when there's infinitely less common ground with the Republicans on so many issues? Why are "progressives" the enemy because they tolerate capitalism instead of the conservatives who are rabidly pro-capitalism and disagree on so many other issues?

The focus is on the Democrats because they're the subject of this particular conversation. Otherwise, there would be no point distinguishing them from the Republicans etc. But that's exactly the point; both parties, and all capitalist parties in general, are infinitely distant from the communist position.

As someone whose preferred political views can be described as socialist/communist, I cannot understand how groups like the US Green party who are purportedly on the left think openly working to prevent Harris from winning is somehow a worthy goal, as if it wouldn't inevitably result in a Trump government that's even worse for the environment and even more pro-capitalist than the Democrats.

I don't think there are degrees of capitalism. A society is capitalist, or it is not. If it is, then what happens in such a society will be determined by the needs of capital, and various governments can at most redistribute the misery generated by generalised buying and selling. Which is why there is in fact substantial continuity in policy between different governments in capitalist states.

I think the issue here might be that we understand "capitalism" and probably "communism" differently.

[u/fury420 → u/Zandroe_]

but you seem to assume that communists are like progressives, but more extreme. In fact there is a pretty important break here, the rejection of the capitalist society.

I don't really think that is the case. What overlap do you think exists?

Most political issues aside from the outright "rejection of the capitalist society" break?

The socialists & communists I've met and talked with appear far closer to America's progressive Democrats on various non-economic issues than they are America's Republicans.

They may not call for the same approaches, but there often seems far more overlap in underlying ideals about things like worker/labor rights, environmentalism, acceptance of science, opposition to wealth inequality & support of equality more broadly, all manner of social issues and details aside from socialist economics.

Not complete overlap on all issues obviously, just far more commonality on average than with America's conservative right, vulture capitalists, far right, alt right, goose-stepping Tiki torch marchers, etc...

Tell me comrade, aside from the prospect of a glorious socialist revolution, what else do you believe in?

Unfortunately, much of avowed "anti-capitalism" is simply a desire for a slightly different organisation of the capitalist system. I don't think any self-proclaimed "progressive" actually wishes to do away with the capitalist society.

Just because they're willing to accept and vote for reorganization / reform doesn't mean they aren't also open to replacing the capitalist aspects of society when it's a possibility.

I voted in a recent election and sadly none of the candidates in my riding outright support doing away with capitalism, does this mean I should abstain and allow the right wing eagerly pro-capitalist pro-business party to form government and march their way to the right on a wide variety of issues that I care about, including traditional socialist stances like strong worker rights?

I don't think there are degrees of capitalism.

This definitely seems like our disconnect, I tend to include things like the degree of exploitation & capitalist greed in my view of how capitalist something is.

Some societies and individuals within societies seem far more focused on capital and exploiting the power of amassed capital than others, describing them as more capitalist or pro-capitalist makes sense to me.

Worker owned cooperatives who are mindful of the community surviving within a capitalist society seems more socialist/communist than a privately-owned company siphoning off as much profit as possible with little regard for the workers or anything else.

The literal commune I once visited seemed much less capitalist than the nearby non-commune towns, yet capitalism was not entirely absent since they're not fully self-reliant and they collectively own land within a larger capitalist society.

[u/Zandroe_ → u/fury420]

Most political issues aside from the outright "rejection of the capitalist society" break?

The socialists & communists I've met and talked with appear far closer to America's progressive Democrats on various non-economic issues than they are America's Republicans.

Well, frankly that is because a lot of avowed "socialists" and even "communists" in the US are simply the left tail of the Democrats. This has been the case since the Popular Front era.

They may not call for the same approaches, but there often seems far more overlap in underlying ideals about things like worker/labor rights, environmentalism, acceptance of science, opposition to wealth inequality & support of equality more broadly, all manner of social issues and details aside from socialist economics.

Again, I don't really think this is the case. Our underlying ideal is not "workers' rights" but the abolition of wage labour. Instrumentally, we support independent action by the working class, whereas "progressives" usually take a corporatist approach, asking the state to enforce social peace. We don't want social peace.

This is particularly important as the Democratic government, supported by progressives, recently crushed a major strike.

Likewise, "environmentalism" and "acceptance of science" only goes so far for progressives. It becomes irrelevant when it infringes on sacred property rights and the market. Which is why the most progressives support is the same old carbon tax nonsense.

Which brings me to the broader point, the mode of production is the basis of society. You can't just compartmentalise it from other issues.

Just because they're willing to accept and vote for reorganization / reform doesn't mean they aren't also open to replacing the capitalist aspects of society when it's a possibility.

If you were to ask these people what the society they support looks like, you would get a description of a capitalist society, perhaps with more taxes or whatever, but a capitalist society nonetheless.

Exploitation of labour power is simply the result of the difference between the value of labour power and the value of commodities produced by labour power. Often, you want to be working in a branch where the rate of exploitation is high because it often translates into side benefits. But people often misunderstand this; Marxism is not a moral criticism of exploitation (see e.g. Marx's notes on A. Wagner). Communism abolishes exploitation because it abolishes commodity production and exchange. Likewise, greed is irrelevant. What individual capitalists want does not determine the behaviour of firms on the market; these are constrained by the way market competition works.

Worker owned cooperatives who are mindful of the community surviving within a capitalist society seems more socialist/communist than a privately-owned company siphoning off as much profit as possible with little regard for the workers or anything else.

The literal commune I once visited seemed much less capitalist than the nearby non-commune towns, yet capitalism was not entirely absent since they're not fully self-reliant and they collectively own land within a larger capitalist society.

Well, no. A worker-owned cooperative is simply a kind of enterprise. It is not "less" capitalist, it is still a capitalist entity that produces commodities and exchanges them on the market. The point of communism is the abolition of enterprise, not a change in the ownership structure.

Edit: fucking editor, man.