First off, just completely unrelated, but I guess this proves quoting someone with an edit doesn't trigger a forum alert. This isn't me knocking the edit, this is me going "d'oh" because I've sometimes tried to rely on that possibility when quoting someone in after the fact
(or maybe it wasn't an edit and it just bugged out. XenForo isn't that much better than vBulletin at times)
Anyhow.
My answer lies in deconstructing yours (sorry). The problem in your analysis is twofold. The first claim is that "they" (whoever they are, be it everyone assigned to our vague grouping or some more particular group) have difficulty triaging, and the example you gave was between something like climate change and outright oppression of a group(s). Multiple things can be prioritised at once. Especially considering a spread of professional talent - some amongst the left are obvious going to be more educated on climate change and what we need to do vs. support networks for the oppressed and foreign relief - however small-scale or relegated to individualistic efforts. It's not about triaging these kinds of problems, or principles - at least at the scale you've provided. They're mostly agreed upon by a vast majority. I'm skipping the anecdote qualifier because that's all each of us have. Like I said to BD earlier, something like "the two-party state in the US is broken" would be a very uncontroversial take that would present no difficulty in triaging r.e. principles.
The second problem with regards to "what do worker collectives have to do with <list of minorities>". It answers itself. The most exploited segments of society have the most to gain from empowerment against that which keeps them down. The only qualifier you include that shifts the context is "future people who live far away". I'm unsure semantically if that's a grouping by itself, or all the groupings are qualified by being far away (and thus unlikely to benefit from something like a local worker's cooperative). Correct any assumption made there, for sure, but to me the reality is that local work comes first. Ironically, what some people parrot at leftists. Leftists, generally-speaking, know this. It's why the DSA has chapters. It's why so many leftist efforts are local, and contextual to the problems any one specific area faces. Okay, some of it is because decentralised efforts make it harder to be shut down, and power protects power (i.e. wouldn't take kindly to people trying to organise a collective, or at a less radical level, even just a union). But a large part of it is because these groups are made up of locals who know the area's problems and want to do something about them.
The actual problems leftists face isn't necessarily agreeing on principles, though the "culture war" nonsense introduces some tension into the mix. Cultural issues are newer, and are generally used by right-wingers (individually) as wedge issues to split leftist (and left-leaning) support into more individualist factions. Thankfully at this point we're seeing it being cyclic (the same propaganda used against gay folks a few decades back being used against trans folk now, for example). Lessons learned on messaging then carry forward to now.
But the real problem - my opinion, etc - is that the power structures that we need to be able to work within to change (as recommended by centrists and right-wingers alike) are at best liberal, and increasingly capitalist to boot. More for the rich, and less for the poor. It's an increasing cycle (born out by data throughout the pandemic, too). Some countries may be centre-left at times, but a lot are overtly conservative (or worse). This is easily demonstrated historically by looking at the actions required to enact significant change, every time it happened. Women's rights. Civil rights. Gay rights. Labour protections. None were achieved without struggle. All were achieved against the current status quo and resisted by the institutions of their time - every time. Conservativism was the status quo in every instance. It's no different with modern progressive politics. Now this is where, in my experience, the rub with liberals, centrists, and so on comes into play. Because they're the most ardent adherents of "work within the system to change it" (that's the type of leftist I am currently, for the record). But admitting the system is broken (yes, I still want to try and work within it to the best of my ability currently, so sue me) means their suggestions are less of a solution than they're presented as, so we get the kind of endless tautologies like Zardnaar helpfully provides (no offense Zard), e.g. "you need votes to win elections". Really?! Wow. Hadn't ever occurred to us
So what we have is, generally, a push for better labour protections, as well as (on the culture axis) better legal protections for oppressed minorities. I've used "axis" a lot, but even that's simplifying it of course. I'm just saying this to point out I'm aware it's more complicated than I'm trying to explain it as. The way these are both often presented by detractors is the "taking away from what <a majority or less-oppressed group> already has". Which doesn't hold up well to scrutiny (someone gaining something doesn't make you lose something, unless someone else is imposing a binary on you both), but it feels good. It's easy to make people fear something, moreso when there's no attempt to explain it. I'm a big fan of demystifying complicated subjects (to the best of my ability), though I recognise that expert knowledge is hard to disseminate in any realistic quantities (similar to your general wants r.e. data and Covid, as a quick aside).
Do leftists, stereotypically, get bogged down in what action is the best action for any specific event, in specific times and places? Absolutely. But so do other political groupings. The far and alt-right have had tons in the past seven years or so alone. This is why it, to me, comes back to the general bias of power structures we see in government (and similar structures). That's how the status quo is kept.
Last edited:
