• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It’s not debate it’s organized material opposition.

    Nice cherry picking there. What Parenti says in the speech is that it’s actually both. He gives examples, such as how Wagner Act was leveraged by the workers to start doing mass organizing, showing how the system can indeed be leveraged along side organization outside the system. His whole point is to use all the tools available and to dismiss simplistic analysis that you’re advocating for here.

    • _pi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Nice cherry picking there. What Parenti says in the speech is that it’s actually both. He gives examples, such as how Wagner Act was leveraged by the workers to start doing mass organizing, showing how the system can indeed be leveraged along side organization outside the system. His whole point is to use all the tools available and to dismiss simplistic analysis that you’re advocating for here.

      It’s not cherry picking. Parenti is describing politics moving in a liberative direction. Your meme is describing politics moving in a oppressive direction. When politics moves in an oppressive direction “public debate” stops mattering at a point. Your meme is arguing for life near 1910, not near 1935. Public debate only matters if you can move politics into a liberative direction, AND you maintain that underlying political power that has been effectively destroyed by the Democratic party jettisoning unions and union membership dying in the late 20th.

      Nobody is going to sit thru a Parenti lecture unless they think you can change their material conditions.

      If you’re arguing about the Wagner Act’s impact you’re about a time past literal height of achievement for ideological militaristic labor organizatoin (IWW) in this country. By the time of Wagner act the US IWW was dismantled into AFL style corporate unionism. Sure they could do strikes, which was the polite thing compared to literally class warfare of the IWW.

      You’re advocating to use tactics derived from a strategic position you are not in. We are not in 1910 or in 1935 regarding union power and action.

      We are in a time where we have:

      • We have ~1900’s union participation rates.
      • Worse than 1920’s wealth inequality
      • And union bases and leadership that have been ideologically dismantled by AFL style unionism since the late 1920’s, broken by global competition, broken by NAFTA

      Nobody wants “public debate”. They’re burned out on “public debate”. People just want change, but they’re also unwilling to risk the minor comforts they have to get it. If you’re using Parenti as a model, we’re at the start of the story except instead of getting kicked out of town for public speeches, nobody is listening.

      Public debate is the labor leftist version of the electoral leftist pipe dream of 3 years ago of “force the vote” on M4A.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Parenti is describing what effective political action and organizing look like. I’m going to repeat this again, since you continue to ignore my point, public debate serves as a way to educate people. Education does not happen magically out of the blue.

        • _pi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          since you continue to ignore my point, public debate serves as a way to educate people. Education does not happen magically out of the blue.

          You know how sometimes it feels like you’re talking to a wall online? Yeah in 2024, “public debate” is talking to a wall. You have to meet people where they’re at and move them, not force feed them Parenti lectures.

          I didn’t argue against the idea that public debate serves as a way to educate people. I have said the plain truth that it is ineffective in today’s society. In 2024 there’s hundreds of thousands of ways to educate yourself for free, you need to answer the question of why people don’t use them. Not argue about how technically public debate is educational.

          Public debate is as effective as sending people marxists.org, youtube parenti library links or yelling at them to read theory over twitter.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            You’ve written walls of text in this thread, yet it’s not clear what it is you’re actually proposing. How exactly are you planning to reach people if not by talking with them?

            • _pi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 minutes ago

              In the modern era the problem isn’t “reaching people”. It’s getting them to show up. It’s the same problem of electoral politics dude.

              If I am a McDonalds worker you have to convince me that it’s worth my time to go to your little meetings, time that I could be using to watch Mr Beast give someone a million dollars in return for the same kind of light torture I experience at my job.

              Talking to leftists is the same as talking to Democrats sometimes. You just have to be “the smartest” while willfully not understanding that to a real life worker your hands look as empty as the lib next to you.

              You’re not competing with 20th century poverty, you’re competing with 21st century dopamine rat poverty and the left as a whole hasn’t evolved to handle that.