This message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (DemocraticWing) on Sun Oct 10, 2021, 11:44 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
A lot of people are having an argument with an empty chair they only imagine Bernie Sanders to be sitting in.
In all the manufactured outrage, I haven't heard a single reason why a platform of economic justice can't exist in the same platform as civil rights. I think ultimately people are still struggling with the reality that voters stayed home rather than come out for a continuation of neoliberalism or a candidate they simply did not trust.
and personal smears.
There is no way the rust belt would have voted for a socialist. You can't have it both ways. If the economy was the single reason that 100,000 people spread over 3 or 4 states didn't vote for the Democrat, then they sure as hell wouldn't vote for even more expensive social programs under a socialist. 
Sending you a PM. I wrote so much about it today in other threads 
Don't want to constantly repeat myself and be a nuisance.
While I was chasing "voting discrepancies" I kept wandering into facts. Sander's fans "won" the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries, so if we just take them at their word, a significant number of them did not vote for the Democratic nominee.
The Pennsylvania outcome was unexpected, but it's there if you look. The following is the "flipped" Cumberland County, a typical rural county.
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-results-show-political-shifts-within-cumberland-county/article_618944e6-c74a-5a8f-99cf-59e71051144e.html
No one is arguing against civil rights, quite the opposite. The question is why is it such a horrible thing to say that if you want to actually win an election you need economic justice as well?
12 years of Republicans in the White House.
Where were Sanders and Warren then? I was here, I know they were, too. Just not at the wheel?
solidarity of and w/the oppressed is what is at stake here. and the all around solidarity brings TOGETHER race, gender, class etc. Sure some will squabble over the priority (which differs depending on the situation at hand, with a strong argument that class is ULTIMATELY primary at the macro level) but we should remember that people don't experience life at the level of "macro theory" and tune the arguments down.
Obviously some people (Todd Gitlin and others) really DO want to claim a mantle of progressivism and put down so-called identity politics (THAT's the term to use -- "SO-CALLED IDENTITY POLITICS"
which in turn for real and substantive reasons alienates many who feel the sting of "identity" oppression very strongly.
The thing to always keep in mind is solidarity against oppression, against all oppression, and not to play one kind of oppression off against others.
Bernie overall seems in many contexts, especially at first, to have put too singular an emphasis on class and economics for some, yielding some silly counter-forces trying to dismiss or downplay economic forces. Rigidity and a lack of sensitivity to the variety of experiences and allegiances needs to be recognized for what it is; there is great reason for unity over time against the unfolding politics of Trump-ism
Somewhere there needs to be a broadening of Bernie's efforts from just "Our Revolution" to embrace the concerns of all those staff members who quit and the massive petition that Michael Albert and others were gathering, but I guess that's a topic for another thread
Last edited Fri Nov 25, 2016, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)
between "social justice" and "economic justice" activists.
In fact, in the left I grew up in, those were the SAME people about 90% of the time.
There are distinctions between the movements focused on combatting institutional bigotry(which are the series of causes being talked about now as representing "social justice" and those challenging extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the few/extreme concentration of economic power in the hands of the few/the exploitation of working people.
But in the post-1965 left(as opposed to the old CP-based left) there were few, if any situations in which economic justice types saying "shut the hell up about that racism/sexism/homophobia/other bigotry jazz-it'll all be taken care of 'come the revolution'".
There was a clear understanding that, for either justice struggle to prevail, the other had to prevail, too. The rise in backlash politics and grassroots racism was directly proportional to the weakening of unions, the assault on the middle-class standard of living, the sense that there was "less", so people had to "stick with 'our own kind'". The decline in the effectiveness of the various freedom movements, essential as all of the are, was directly connected(in addition to a few other factors) with the loss of a general sense of prosperity
In the Mid-Sixties, some of the New Left was slow to back feminism(a lot of the early second-wave feminists were female New Left types who were sick of being expected to make coffee, clean the office and worse by the MEN in the movement)and didn't back the gay liberation cause until after Stonewall, even then taking their time about it. But they had always been a part of the civil rights and farmworker causes and were backing feminism solidly by 1974 or so, and gay and lesbian rights by about 1978. So, for at least thirty-eight years now, the social and economic justice wings of the change community were at least largely on the same page and worked together in close coordination in both causes. People of all races, genders, and sexual orientations have been strongly represented in economic justice work. White, male economic justice advocates have joined in many, many struggles against social injustice.
So how did we manage to get to the place, in 2015 and 2016, in which it sounded like you could be active for "social justice"
a range of causes that always had a clear economic component, since it has been clear from the time of Dr. King that you couldn't defeat bigotry without addressing the economic factors that play a major role in keeping it alive) or "economic justice" which has been recognized for decades now as requiring a person to be a committed opponent of grassroots AND institutional bigotry), but somehow not BOTH?
Are there people reading this who actually believe that "economic justice" work somehow means being chill with Jim Crow? Or that "social justice" work means seeing the corporate sector as a reliable ally for liberation, and those who want us to come up with an economic model that puts human dignity, worth, and need as enemies?
We are past the 2016 primaries now. Neither Hillary nor Bernie will ever seek the presidency again. We need to move past any feelings have about any of them and find the way back towards the unity of commitment most of the American left had on social AND economic justice, causes that are distinct, yet will always be intersectional and related.
For our own survival, especially for the survival of the most vulnerable communities in this country, communities who have only become MORE vulnerable, we need to get past the notion that this is binary...that you can only support ONE struggle for justice, rather than both.
