this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
-75 points (26.1% liked)
Memes
45570 readers
2051 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s a strawman argument and a very big logical leap. If 100% of the people voted, maybe we could get candidates that actually represent us and our interests. The political makeup of this country would change and somehow you think they would still act the same.
Where? You'd still see liberals crying about leftists voting third party.
The NDP in Canada is a good example. Even though they also have a first-past-the-post system of voting, they still have a thriving progressive party. If more people were politically engaged, a lot more would be inclined towards progressive politics.
Why do you believe it's different in America?
I think the Red Scare might have a lot to do with it. The generation that was subjected to the propaganda of the Cold War is still alive and they’ve passed down a lot of that thought and bias, even among so called “liberals”. Canada was somewhat (but not completely ) culturally isolated from it. We cannot remediate the American political zeitgeist without addressing this first.
The Red Scare wasn't really mass-brainwashing, though. Ultimately, the Red Scare was popularly accepted because in the aftermath of WWII, the US was the rising Imperialist power, and was a thriving Social Democracy profiting off of the aftermath of war. The material conditions of the US supported the ideas held within, if that makes sense.
The Red Scare is weakening among younger generations because Capitalism is decaying. There is a revival of the Red Scare with respect to China, which is a demonstrably rising power in the East, but the Material Conditions of the US speak for itself.
I agree with your point about the material conditions in post war US and how they helped propagate the idea of American exceptionalism but the Red Scare was actually mass brainwashing/propaganda. This is a good look at the media of the time: Anti-communist politics of the red scare
https://coldwar.unc.edu/theme/the-red-scare/
https://daily.jstor.org/how-hollywood-thrived-through-the-red-scare/
While there was a true threat in terms of espionage, it was overblown by McCarthy for political gain. The US hegemony was being threatened by a rising communist bloc. The capitalists had seen the impact of progressive policies such as the New Deal and were scared of losing their influence. The establishment of the PRC in 1949 stoked the fears further. It go so bad that the Communist Control Act was passed in 1954. It prohibited members of the Communist party, who were otherwise American citizens, from holding office in labour unions. McCarthy had used anticommunist propaganda as a partisan tool and it is still being used by the right. What’s interesting to me though, is that American right-wing media had managed to push the Overton window so far to the right that they decry the policies of the Democratic Party as being communist.
I'm aware of what was pushed and why, but those ideas would not have taken hold had the Material Conditions not supported them. "Brainwashing" is a vibes-based answer, the truth is that the base and superstructure support each other.
I'm aware of hoe it happend and what it entailed. However, I maintain that it is due to the unique material conditions of America as the world's largest Empire in the context of a competing Communist superpower. The material conditions pushed the ideas, not the other way around.
I'm a Communist, I am performing Marxist material analysis on it.
Of course it was because of the material conditions at the time and because the capitalist class felt threatened by the rise of communism and felt a need to combat it. It was still propaganda though and it has irreparably damaged the American psyche. Btw, the material conditions at the time were not all hunk-dory either. There was massive wealth disparity between “white” Americans and African -Americans. Minorities were still fighting widespread discrimination which prevented them the enjoy the same freedoms and prosperity as the rest of America.
Again, I encourage you to reject the "brainwashing" narrative. The conditions came before the ideas.
Absolutely correct, material conditions don't mean equal prosperity. How familiar are you with Historical Materialism?
It absolutely was propaganda because the capitalist class perpetuated the lie that progressive policies would hurt the country. Neoliberals, through the use of rhetoric in the media, helped popularize the idea of the infallible free market – that was propaganda. Nation states don’t have to staunchly be strictly capitalist or communist; social democracies do work, with the caveat that citizens have to be well-informed and act as stewards to protect and exercise their electoral rights in shaping a nation.
I’m well aware of Historical Materialism. My contention to your larger point, in short, was that the way forward has to be meticulous and measured. Accelerating the downfall of the system in place will have a real, disastrous impact on the lives of the existing working class. We cannot destroy lives on the promise that it will get better. Class consciousness is step 1, but we’re not even there yet.
It was propaganda, yes. It did not "brainwash" the masses, if the material conditions weren't fit it wouldn't have done anything.
Social Democracy doesn't work, the Nordics are seeing erosion of worker power and safety nets, and they depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets.
It will not get better without Revolution.
No comment on the real cost of a revolution? I guess we disagree on a fundamental level. Good day.
The question of Reform vs Revolution is already answered, Marxists believe Revolution is the only way to bring about Socialism, which is correct.
You still haven’t answered my question and are instead falling back on dogma. Revolutions work when the oppressed are acutely aware of their oppression and unite against the oppressors. You cannot realistically do that when half the working class thinks that that are the beneficiaries of capitalism.
I mean, they are. The US Proletariat is among the Labor Aristocracy, they benefit from Imperialism dramatically. The fall of Imperialism will drive the US Proletariat to revolution.
The problem is that humans are the representatives, and they represent their interests first and foremost. You could get A.I. as our overlords, but they will represent the interests of those that program them. If that day ever arrives, I'm investing in Pepsico and Frito-Lays