• archomrade [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    Ā·
    2 months ago

    I reject your analogue. There have been no ā€œpublic statements about private negotiationsā€ with the GOP. We donā€™t know the GOP toā€™ve made ANY negotiations.

    That was the hypothetical side of the analogue. Them announcing that they wonā€™t be endorsing is similar to a union announcing negotiations have failed and they going on strike - an action that materially damages their companyā€™s income and is (in some ways) a violent means to escalating the issue. The union is definitionally an appendage of its parent company; them ā€˜leaving to work for a different companyā€™ just doesnā€™t make sense, itā€™d be like an arm cutting itself off at the shoulder.

    I never said ā€œunions shouldnā€™t target democrats at all with direct actionā€, Iā€™m saying actions that directly aid another party, where that other party is the modern GOP, are fucking stupid.

    ā€œNonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.ā€

    If any action that hurts a democratic campaign is outside the bounds of acceptable direct action to you, then this is precisely where our disagreement is. Electing not to endorse the democratic ticket is the lightest possible criticism one could possibly make.

    You went on about issues that rust belt union members are having. But the Democrats donā€™t control the rust beltā€¦the GOP does. And they are fucking over their own union constituents.

    Look, I already told you I had no interest in having this debate with you. We are clearly not seeing eye to eye.

    Rust belt unions are less concerned with expanding union protections than they are concerned with their industry going bankrupt. A coal mining union isnā€™t concerned with having better legal protection for going on strike, theyā€™re concerned that the entire coal industry is getting replaced elsewhere by renewables and wont have anyone to negotiate with.

    I already said that the PRO act is an excellent bill, and that dems should be campaigning on it, but thatā€™s simply not why theyā€™re losing union support in the rust belt. Millions of americans are afraid that theyā€™re going to loose their livelihoods to changing economic priorities, and democrats are allergic to taking any action that addresses that fundamental apprehension because theyā€™re terrified of being called socialist.

    Why arenā€™t the teamstersā€¦openly mad at the GOP? The party of people who, in your own words, would ā€œaccuse [democrats] of being radical socialistsā€ for proposing action that helps working class people?

    Because the democrats havenā€™t proposed anything that actually addresses their concerns, and theyā€™re frustrated that the things democrats have proposed are targeted in other places of the economy and callously ignores their material interests. Theyā€™re convinced that democrats will never solve their problems - but the GOP is promising to preserve their industries by passing tarrifs, removing environmental protections, stopping the growth of renewables and tech that threaten to put them out of businessā€¦ And those are simple, believable solutions to their problems. You and I understand that those are problematic in a million different ways, but from their perspective everyone else seems to be fucking over everyone else to get their bag, so why not them? Democrats simply donā€™t have a response to that, especially when theyā€™re insistent on stopping short of breaking with neoliberal economic policy.

    Iā€™m exhausted by having this same conversion over-and-over again. Moderate democrats have this way of middling their way out of grasping the underlying issues voters are experiencing and instead try to bandaid over huge gaping wounds, then cry bloody murder when voters donā€™t act as grateful as they think they should. Liberals are never going to understand why theyā€™re losing support if they arenā€™t able to even conceptualize the concerns of the working class in small-town economies.

    • aalvare2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      2 months ago

      To address your first 3 paragraphsā€¦youā€™re acting like all I care about is Oā€™Brienā€™s non endorsement. I guess Iā€™ll spell out the thing Iā€™ve said in every single comment on this thread: Not endorsing democrats = fine. Not endorsing democrats + speaking at the RNC and NOT directly calling them out on their bs = fucking stupid. You keep treating the non-endorsement like itā€™s in a vacuum. And you can disagree with my math, but if you continue to pretend that this isnā€™t what Iā€™m saying, then youā€™re just straw-manning me.

      Rust belt unions are less concerned with expanding union protections than they are concerned withĀ their industry going bankrupt. A coal mining union isnā€™t concerned with having better legal protection for going on strike, theyā€™re concerned that the entire coal industry is getting replaced elsewhere by renewables and wont have anyone to negotiateĀ with.

      Yes, itā€™s understandable that workers feel like they wonā€™t survive if their industry diesā€¦but in the specific case of coal, the solution isnā€™t to bolster that industry. Much of the solution is to create new jobs in growing industries that coal workers could transfer into, and to set guarantees that those new jobs arenā€™t exploitative. Democrats have fought, withĀ real action,Ā to do both the former, and the latter (I wonā€™t source the latter again, read any of my pro-union sources).

      I already said that the PRO act is an excellent bill, and that dems should be campaigning on it,

      Yes, and not only do they campaign on it - they consistently vote in favor of it. But go on.

      but thatā€™s simply not why theyā€™re losing union support in the rust belt. Millions of americans are afraid that theyā€™re going to loose their livelihoods to changing economic priorities, and democrats are allergic to taking any action that addresses that fundamental apprehension because theyā€™re terrified of being called socialist.

      Yes, I get their fear. And thatā€™s why the liberal solution to those fears is making it easier to switch jobs and to provide better childcare, healthcare, housing, food, unemployment, all on top of pro-worker reformā€¦all LEFT-LEANING policies that the modern GOP will NEVER ENDORSE.

      It sounds like youā€™re just trying to explain what many workers see as the solution. They think the tried-and-true solution is to bolster their industries, instead of all the stuff I just listed. But thatā€™s a conservative solution to the problem.

      It sounds like you want the democrats to have liberal policies in general, which is what I want too. But what, in your head, does Oā€™Brien want? If he wants conservative industry-first policies, then AOC isnā€™t punching left at the guy, end of story. And if heĀ actuallyĀ wants liberal, boosting-quality-of-life-policies (the kinds of policies I want and you seem to want), then heā€™s an idiot or a coward, or both, for not getting mad at the modern GOP for spinning all of that negatively as socialism.

      Because the democrats havenā€™t proposed anything that actually addresses their concerns, and theyā€™re frustrated that the things democratsĀ haveĀ proposed are targeted in other places of the economy and callously ignores their material interests. Theyā€™re convinced that democrats will never solve their problems - but the GOP is promising to preserve their industries by passing tarrifs, removing environmental protections, stopping the growth of renewables and tech that threaten to put them out of businessā€¦And those are simple, believable solutions toĀ theirĀ problems. You and I understand that those are problematic in a million different ways, but from their perspective everyone else seems to be fucking over everyone else to getĀ theirĀ bag, so why not them? Democrats simply donā€™t have a response to that, especially when theyā€™re insistent on stopping short of breaking with neoliberal economic policy.

      Youā€™re not addressing the subtlety that whileĀ theyĀ feel democrats arenā€™t proposing good solutions, and whileĀ youĀ seem to feel democrats arenā€™t proposing good solutionsā€¦your solutions and their solutions are different. Youā€™ve said you want more of the kinds of solutions theyā€™d call ā€œradical socialismā€. (I want those solutions too, but imo Democrats are already working on it, they just have an uphill battle against conservatives.) (And sure, many conservative workers probably just donā€™t realize that theyā€™d love those solutions, too, but in the meantime theyā€™re duped into supporting the GOP and their worse, pro-some-industries, anti-other-industries solution.) Are you under the impression that the reason Oā€™Brien isnā€™t capitulating to democrats is theyā€™re not embracing those solutions? Do you think that when Oā€™Brien cozies to the GOP, that heā€™s secretly trying to get the GOP on board with those solutions? When thereā€™s negative evidence of that?

      Iā€™m exhausted by having this same conversion over-and-over again. Moderate democrats have this way of middling their way out of grasping the underlying issues voters are experiencing and instead try to bandaid overĀ hugeĀ gaping wounds, then cry bloody murder when voters donā€™t act as grateful as they think they should. Liberals are never going to understand why theyā€™re losing support if they arenā€™t able to even conceptualize the concerns of the working class in small-town economies.

      If youā€™re trying to say that pro-worker policy is the bandaid, and widespread policies that provide better childcare, healthcare, housing, food, and unemployment areĀ yourĀ solution, then I donā€™t disagree, other than that pro-worker policy isnā€™t as much a band-aid at it is part of that solution. But if thatā€™s Oā€™Brienā€™s solution, then heā€™s a bad leader for helping the republicans who reject that solution. If thatā€™s not Oā€™Brienā€™s solutionā€¦then attacking his leadership isnā€™t ā€œpunching leftā€.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Iā€™m not engaging with this anymore, youā€™ve obviously not understood my perspectives here (intentionally or not).

        Iā€™m speaking to a very specific set of material conditions that a particular subset of the electorate is experiencing and liberal policies fail to address, and youā€™ve dismissed them yet again. Itā€™s extremely calloused to ignore the economic hardships experienced by these workers when the industry that supports them and their community is broken into pieces and replaced by another, and I donā€™t think youā€™re in the right place to see or acknowledge those. Maybe thatā€™s just a function of where we are in the election cycle. A part of the way capitalism works is by holding the means of survival hostage to coerce labor to protect it, and when democrats turn a blind eye to the trap those people are stuck in it solidifies reactionary political perspectives.

        I donā€™t give a shit what Oā€™Brianā€™s personal politics are or what Teamsters endorsement or platforming at the RNC means to the democratic campaign. He represents a segment of the population that is experiencing conditions not addressed by current or proposed democratic policies, and heā€™s using his platform to put pressure on both parties to address them by dangling Teamsterā€™s influence, and I think thatā€™s a fine (good, even) strategy.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          2 months ago

          Iā€™m not engaging with this anymore, youā€™ve obviously not understood my perspectives here (intentionally or not).

          Youā€™re free to choose not to engage any further. But Iā€™d wager to say you havenā€™t understood my perspective either. At least Iā€™ve tried to make sense of what youā€™ve said so far, and provide citations to enforce my perspective. I get the sense that you think you have an insight into unions and working class people that I could never fathom, or something like that. Hopefully Iā€™m wrong.

          Iā€™m speaking to a very specific material conditions that a particular subset of the electorate is experiencing and liberal policies fail to address, and youā€™ve dismissed them yet again.

          Okayā€¦so you believe that liberal policies canā€™t address the problems of certain people? That seems bizarre, given what you said a few replies up:

          The more socialized benefits available to small town workers, the less pressure there will be to remain employed in a dying industry. That includes childcare, healthcare, housing, food; basically everything theyā€™re afraid to campaign on because republicans will accuse them of being radical socialists.

          I figured your main beliefs were in that quote, and that a lot of what youā€™ve said thus far was just an effort to empathize with conservative-minded workers. Guess youā€™re a more befuddling guy than I thought.

          Itā€™s extremely calloused to ignore the economic hardships experienced by these workers when the industry that supports them and their community is broken into pieces and replaced by another, and I donā€™t think youā€™re in the right place to see or acknowledge those.

          Buddy, Iā€™m just some guy on the internet, same as you. At the end of the day we donā€™t really know a thing about each other. At least Iā€™m not assuming you ā€œfail to seeā€ this or ā€œarenā€™t in the right place to seeā€ that.

          Maybe thatā€™s just a function of where we are in the election cycle. A part of the way capitalism works is by holding the means of survival hostage to coerce labor to protect it, and when democrats turn a blind eye to the trap those people are stuck in it solidifies reactionary political perspectives.

          Man, I get it, you hate capitalism. Thatā€™s okay. IMO economic systems donā€™t really matter nearly as much as the rules and regulations above those systems. Thatā€™s okay, too.

          I donā€™t give a shit what Oā€™Brianā€™s personal politics are or what Teamsters endorsement or platforming at the RNC means to the democratic campaign. He represents a segment of the population that is experiencing conditions not addressed by current or proposed democratic policies, and heā€™s using his platform to put pressure on both parties to address them by dangling Teamsterā€™s influence, and I think thatā€™s a fine (good, even) strategy.

          I donā€™t care what it means ā€œto the democratic campaignā€, either. I just care that he might help Trump win, because IMO thatā€™s bad for his constituents. Trump doesnā€™t care about workers, teamsters included, and Harris is the successor to the guy who you canā€™t deny at least cared enough to give them the largest pension bailout in US history. To me, thatā€™s whatā€™s most practical to care about.

          • archomrade [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            2 months ago

            IMO economic systems donā€™t really matter nearly as much as the rules and regulations above those systems

            Whoomp, there it is

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I donā€™t really know what youā€™re getting at, but if all youā€™re saying is ā€œwow, this dude doesnā€™t hate capitalismā€, thenā€¦sure? I consider myself a social democrat.

              Kind of a weird thing to fixate on. Especially after proclaiming you were done responding.

              • archomrade [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                Ā·
                2 months ago

                I was pointing out the ideological difference at the root of our disagreement.

                Not ā€œcapitalism badā€, but ā€œeconomic systems are unimportantā€

                • aalvare2@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Ah, thatā€™s fair. Thatā€™s a pretty key difference between us, and Iā€™m fine agreeing to disagree.

                  Thanks for the spirited discussion.