Can leftism survive without idenity politics? (drugs, racism, Canada, ideology)

[hakkarin]

So what happens once the left can't get support through the use of identity politics anymore? At some point however long that may be, they will not be able to use the racism/gender/sexuality card, and what happens then? Can leftism in any form survive on only it's economic arguments? Or will it just become a fringe idea with few supporters?

EDIT: Ops, this was suppose to go into the poliics forum. Would be nice if this were moved there.

[Spodi90]

It'll be obsolete once everyone is rich, hence never.

Why wouldn't it survive? It's succeeded where it's actually been tried.

What has failed are right wing economics. The only reason it sticks around is that people vote against their economic interest so long as the candidate gives them someone to hate and blame for their crappy situation.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Why wouldn't it survive? It's succeeded where it's actually been tried.

What has failed are right wing economics. The only reason it sticks around is that people vote against their economic interest so long as the candidate gives them someone to hate and blame for their crappy situation.

it seems to me that for it to "succeed" it needs to begin in a system that already has a great deal of wealth. then you can use government power to redistribute some of that wealth to improve conditions across the board. then you risk reducing productivity and bankrupting the country. this seems to be the case of the "success" stories like western Europe and Canada.

if you attempt it in a situation where there currently is primarily poverty, it has no ability to improve that situation. that's what you get in places like Venezuela, cuba, china, soviet union, etc.

the funny thing is that some people think you can choose which one you get. as if the poor people in south America chose Bolivarian socialism and so they want poverty and crime. while the people in Nordic countries chose Nordic socialism to succeed. the current conditions and culture and demographics made the difference. id imagine America would end up somewhere in the middle but considering we are already starting out with a tremendous debt load, it would be a delicate balance. then there is no telling what the future holds, its not like western Europe doesn't have significant issues that could hurt the quality of life for people there.

[Reynard32]

There hasn't been an economically successful Republican administration in more than a hundred years.

And by the way, the people of both Norway and Venezuela were made better off by their versions of socialism.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by Reynard32

And by the way, the people of both Norway and Venezuela were made better off by their versions of socialism.

id love to see you elaborate on that.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by hakkarin

So what happens once the left can't get support through the use of identity politics anymore? At some point however long that may be, they will not be able to use the racism/gender/sexuality card, and what happens then? Can leftism in any form survive on only it's economic arguments? Or will it just become a fringe idea with few supporters?

EDIT: Ops, this was suppose to go into the poliics forum. Would be nice if this were moved there.

You misread the situation - liberalism is closely aligned with urbanism. It is a brand of political beliefs that are prevalent in cities. Cities tend to be diverse, hence it may appears like it is speaking to race, but in reality it is speaking to urbanites.

More and more population are expected to move to the cities, ie away from the conservative strong holds like rural, suburbs, towns. So Liberalism is actually going to strive and increase in both population and popularity. It will of course evolve as the population/idea changes.
.

[petch751]

Democrats want socialism. Socialism is all about turning people against each other. It has to be. After all, if you believe in controlling people's lives, the people who don't wish to be controlled need to be vilified.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by petch751

Democrats want socialism. Socialism is all about turning people against each other. It has to be. After all, if you believe in controlling people's lives, the people who don't wish to be controlled need to be vilified.

Absolutely, I mean controlling who can get married, and who is forced to have children against their own will, and the war on drugs is all about controlling peoples lives.

Ohhhh wait.

Socialism is not about turning people against each other.

I could certainly argue that Capitalism has fit that more then anything else as of late.

[The Blunt Conservative]

Of course the left cannot survive without identity politics, that's a major tenet of the whole leftist ideology. Leftist are in the business of never accepting responsibility and pawning it off on to others. It does get comical when they begin to attack each other because not everyone can be the biggest victim.

Originally Posted by greywar

Absolutely, I mean controlling who can get married, and who is forced to have children against their own will, and the war on drugs is all about controlling peoples lives.

Ohhhh wait.

Socialism is not about turning people against each other.

I could certainly argue that Capitalism has fit that more then anything else as of late.

You mean redefining the definition of marriage to suit less than 2% of the population, gays? And you mean expecting people to take personal responsibility for their actions, i.e not just having an abortion after?

You're right socialism isn't just about turning people against each other, it's more about taking from more productive citizens to subsidize the impulsive and irresponsible behaviors of women and minorities. Essentially, it's a wealth transfer from those who worked hard, to those who are lazy, unproductive and in most cases are even criminally inclined.