You still haven’t answered my question and are instead falling back on dogma. Revolutions work when the oppressed are acutely aware of their oppression and unite against the oppressors. You cannot realistically do that when half the working class thinks that that are the beneficiaries of capitalism.

No comment on the real cost of a revolution? I guess we disagree on a fundamental level. Good day.

It absolutely was propaganda because the capitalist class perpetuated the lie that progressive policies would hurt the country. Neoliberals, through the use of rhetoric in the media, helped popularize the idea of the infallible free market – that was propaganda. Nation states don’t have to staunchly be strictly capitalist or communist; social democracies do work, with the caveat that citizens have to be well-informed and act as stewards to protect and exercise their electoral rights in shaping a nation.

I’m well aware of Historical Materialism. My contention to your larger point, in short, was that the way forward has to be meticulous and measured. Accelerating the downfall of the system in place will have a real, disastrous impact on the lives of the existing working class. We cannot destroy lives on the promise that it will get better. Class consciousness is step 1, but we’re not even there yet.

Of course it was because of the material conditions at the time and because the capitalist class felt threatened by the rise of communism and felt a need to combat it. It was still propaganda though and it has irreparably damaged the American psyche. Btw, the material conditions at the time were not all hunk-dory either. There was massive wealth disparity between “white” Americans and African -Americans. Minorities were still fighting widespread discrimination which prevented them the enjoy the same freedoms and prosperity as the rest of America.

I agree with your point about the material conditions in post war US and how they helped propagate the idea of American exceptionalism but the Red Scare was actually mass brainwashing/propaganda. This is a good look at the media of the time: Anti-communist politics of the red scare

https://coldwar.unc.edu/theme/the-red-scare/

https://daily.jstor.org/how-hollywood-thrived-through-the-red-scare/

While there was a true threat in terms of espionage, it was overblown by McCarthy for political gain. The US hegemony was being threatened by a rising communist bloc. The capitalists had seen the impact of progressive policies such as the New Deal and were scared of losing their influence. The establishment of the PRC in 1949 stoked the fears further. It go so bad that the Communist Control Act was passed in 1954. It prohibited members of the Communist party, who were otherwise American citizens, from holding office in labour unions. McCarthy had used anticommunist propaganda as a partisan tool and it is still being used by the right. What’s interesting to me though, is that American right-wing media had managed to push the Overton window so far to the right that they decry the policies of the Democratic Party as being communist.

I think the Red Scare might have a lot to do with it. The generation that was subjected to the propaganda of the Cold War is still alive and they’ve passed down a lot of that thought and bias, even among so called “liberals”. Canada was somewhat (but not completely ) culturally isolated from it. We cannot remediate the American political zeitgeist without addressing this first.

The NDP in Canada is a good example. Even though they also have a first-past-the-post system of voting, they still have a thriving progressive party. If more people were politically engaged, a lot more would be inclined towards progressive politics.

I don’t disagree that the ruling class won’t do something that doesn’t align with their interests. I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes. The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us. Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation. The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party. Owen was apolitical, I am not.

It has to start at the municipal level. You cannot change the outlook of an entire nation without changing its sociopolitical fabric. “Starting all over again” is a very privileged take because it ignores the true cost of a violent revolution. Revolutions are bloody, full of death and despair, and they come with a lot of human lives as collateral damage. We can wield a lot of political influence if we collectively start showing up to vote. We have before and can again reform the system. Yes, there will be a lot of pushback, but that is your chance to show the world why you think reform is needed. Burning something down is no solution because until you build awareness among the voting population, their rights will slowly keep eroding away from them. And I’d argue that if you can accomplish that, you wouldn’t need to burn anything down anyway.

That’s a strawman argument and a very big logical leap. If 100% of the people voted, maybe we could get candidates that actually represent us and our interests. The political makeup of this country would change and somehow you think they would still act the same.

Calling them fascists is a little far-fetched. Do you have evidence to back up that claim? Linking a screenshot does not prove your point, it’s just more rhetoric. Yes, we have reached that point, because it’s a first-past-the-post system. We need to increase political engagement rather than stoking political apathy. We are in the mess that we are because less than 50% people vote in the first place.

The USA has a very strong and effective propaganda machine in action. It uses the Illusory truth effect, suppresses dissent and makes it so that you have to look hard to seek out the truth. I would argue that it is perhaps the most effective propaganda machine on the planet. Not really comparable here.

You say that with a lot of certainty, but without any evidence to back it up. If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.

And waste my vote in a de-facto two party, first-past-the-post system, thereby accelerating the downfall of democracy? No, thank you. They might both be pieces of shit, but one is significantly less so than the other.

That’s a very myopic view of the whole thing. In a two-party system, first past the post system, not voting for the party for which you would have otherwise voted is virtually the same as voting for the other party. A two party system is a zero sum game and unfortunately for us, it’s the system we have.

Fascism cannot flourish without the presence of a weak, ineffective liberal party.

And I agree; the onus is on us to strengthen it. We need to change it – which is why wee need build awareness and start changing things from the ground up. Even revolutions cannot be sustained if the working class is not politically engaged. Forcing the democratic party to run more working-class, progressive candidates at the local and state levels is one of the most effective ways to do it. At the same time, we must not forget that we’re stuck in a zero some game, lest we undo the progress we have made.

Do you really think that liberals are fascists? I’m curious to know why you think so. Blatant corporatists and complicit in keeping the war machine running? Sure. But I don’t see how you can call them fascists. That’s a very broad brush you’re painting with.

I think this is missing some nuance. While Marx accurately notes that liberals will talk about the imminent threat of fascism to gain public support and push the Overton window ever so slightly to the right in the name of bipartisanship, voting strategically to keep the right from taking reins is unfortunately the only viable option until such a time that grass-root campaigns can be used to change the political makeup at the municipal, district, and state levels first. It takes time to raise awareness, get the working class politically engaged, and build political momentum. Not voting for the lesser evil in a two party system, until such a time that you have built up ideological support with the masses, is a very privileged position to take because it assumes that the damage done by doing so won’t affect you that much.

I’m sorry but short of a revolution (which is unlikely), or slow, measured positive change over the course of decades (which we’d still have to fight hard for), we’re stuck with a two party system and you shouldn’t blame people for sticking with the lesser of two evils. I do agree that Liberals can be heavy handed with their bans, but I guess they’re doing so to keep the discourse focused. Trump is a very real and immediate threat who might commit far more heinous crime if he becomes the president again.

“Settlers” is such mild terminology. We should be calling them “colonizers”. Tbf though, the Pilgrims and other early American settlers were no pacifists. That’s just the image public education and the media has painted for us.

If this is indeed real, can somebody please point me to the paper/text? That introduction has piqued my curiosity and I wanna read the whole thing, even if the math might be incomprehensible.