Lmao this is wrong. OWS was always a protest against capitalism from the beginning. The issue and reason why it failed was two-fold: lack of actual praxis and infiltration by the FBI and DHS that instigated illegal action by protestors. I cited this already way back in the thread
What does this have to do with the radical left?
Lmao if you think any radical leftist supported Warren or supports the Biden/Harris ticket.
It seems you're confusing leftist identity politics of examining oppression through an intersectional lens and the liberal "more women cops!" bullshit.
Lmao when there isn't any violence the media doesn't cover it. See: Portland for the month before the feds showed up. Without any coverage, nothing gets done.
And what training and oversight? All of the proposals by moderates/libs (like "8 Can't Wait") are already implemented in most places. The cops just disregard them.
This is because the Republicans allow their party to shift further right, while the Dems fight tooth and nail against leftward shift, as they have since McGovern in 1972. What does this have to do with the radical left?
Imagine thinking any progressive, meaningful, structural change is possible within capitalism lmao
These people don't believe in doing the right thing, making positive changes and they will actually work to oppose them because the only acceptable solution in their eyes starts with tearing everything down
can you explain briefly an ideal endgame for the radical left that is preferable to the current system? or maybe just speak for yourself i dont even know if "the radical left" is a meaningful category
what youre saying does make sense if moderate progressivism is co-opted by the radical left under the rationale that change is impossible except via radicalism. then almost by definition its not gonna work out because most people are not radicals.
i guess the first step is to turn everyone into commies but this is rather ambitious.
I don't think it should be labeled as moderate/radical anymore as it's misleading
There's the group of people who want progressive change focused on improving our system to be the best it can be, often through an open discussion & honest examination of the facts - many of them are truly far-left, they are not moderates
And there is the group of people who believe in violence, destruction, anarchy, tearing the system down and starting over, etc. who are often very authoritarian, want to police everyone's speech, aren't tolerant of ideas that disagree with their own, and so on - they are not so much progressives as regressives
im working with the understanding that communist-anarchy type people who think we are oppressed by corporations etc. are working under some internally consistent theory. if you really do think there is a Enemy that must be destroyed then the ideology makes sense i think.
like this would make sense for people living under feudalism or slavery etc. who just want to burn down the establishment. i personally do not think we are meaningfully oppressed by corporations to a degree that warrants such a response. also i dont see a preferable alternative endgame for me at least.
i dont think hacking human nature into not wanting more stuff is gonna happen. if we went to unabomber utopia people would just start building industrial society again. because more stuff is preferable to less stuff.
No, they aren't. You're not far-left if you support the fundamental institutions that make oppression possible.
"Why not just reform the feudal system? Replacing it with a brand new system is far too much: we should make feudalism better."
Lmao, no. Read up on the paradox of tolerance. To have a functioning society in which people are tolerant, you need to be intolerant and police speech. This isn't reactionary: it's the fucking truth.
You need to justify why this is human nature. There's plenty of evidence that this is due to the structures of society rather than it being innate to humans.
Opposition to capital doesn't mean opposition to production? What the fuck are you talking about?
