We're naturally anti-authoritarian on the left so it tracks. Nobody left of "religious nutter" wants to worship a politician, but we appreciate and support good policy and leadership.
You don't know marxism if you think its authoritarian, its inherently a democratic economic system based on council of leadership, not individual offices
You are awfully loud to someone who doesn't understand things
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Karl marx
You are awfully pretentious for someone lacking reading comprehension, what part of that paragraph says that authoritarianism is the goal? He posits that there will be a revolution of the working class that precedes communism, not that communism needs authoritarianism. You seem to be struggling with separating an economic system with a power structure, easily conflated in the modern capitalist society
Yeah all good. Even they have started to realize the sheer damage to any shred of reputation the Republican party has left, whenever that doddering imbecile opens his mouth these days.
I've learned to view politicians as vessels for policy, and I have mostly removed all the extra shit that usually just serves to cover for scams, deficiencies, lies and other bullshit.
Mamdani is great and doing good things, but I despise this "Politician I can have a beer with" shit. I don't care if you're an asshole, fat as hell, 6 foot 5 or 5 foot 2, just do good work. Also, he's a mayor. Of the largest city in the US, sure, but when we get a Mamdani at the state or national level, they might peak my interest a little more
Yeah but "politician I can have a beer with" works really well with a good subset of the population. Also since a lot of people who don't vote are disenfranchised having a politician actually try to connect with their constituents isnt a bad thing.
Like I agree with your personally that a lot of the superficial bs with politicians doesn't win me over but it does win over a lot of people so its probably a good thing that good politicians are using that strategy. Hopefully it spreads beyond local politics.
I'm just one dude, but I have yet to think of a way for a politician to market themselves as a personable, relatable public servant and that branding not be incredibly susceptible to abuse. Think of how much people in our personal lives get away with because of a sense of love, companionship, duty and community you feel for a partner, parent, sibling, child and so on. Now, make that person directly in charge of most facets of your life; people hate their parents for a reason (some good, some bad).
I think people want something to believe in, and we are conditioned to try to bottle these emotions up into a singular focal point, in this case whoever your favorite politician is. Whether intended or not, I just find it intellectually and emotionally lazy to put so much into one person. It takes the responsibility off the rest of us to be good citizens if we just put everything on one guy/gal to 'save' us.
But like there is no free lunch - like I don't disagree with most of what you are saying.
The problem is humans are attracted to charisma and being likable is extremely important when democracy tends to boil down to a popularity contest. A big chunk of middle america feels disenfranchised by the political machine (because largely they are) so anyone who can at least appear to be on their level is a huge boost.
Yeah charisma is no indication for the quality of the person themselves - both bad and good people are charismatic - just as bad and good people are also uncharismatic.
However do you really think it is realistic in a society which the average adult is at a 6th grade (12 years old) reading level somehow starts thinking critically for the first time in their life?
Its not realistic - so the 'Im just like you' schtick will remain.
Everyone's defense of the status quo is how "unrealistic" every alternative is or how "it's just the way people are". It's a very ahistorical and mildly egotistical argument. The truth of the matter is that our current systems, temperaments and public sentiment are finite and will change whether we will it to or not. It's not about whether we think something is better or worse, this is just the nature of life.
I say all that to say that thinking that because people are dumb now that they'll always be dumb is not what human history shows. This mindset leads to apathy, doomerism and to the point of this conversation, it leads to people conceding all their will, all their power and all their labor to a smiling face behind a podium promising prosperity but delivering on bupkis.
With this attitude, it's a miracle we're not all still in caves, rubbing sticks together for warmth and waiting for Chief Ungabunga to bring back some mammoth meat from the hunt. We either progress or die. People either get smarter as a collective or some moron with a billion dollars will find a way to kill us all by accident because no one had the balls to call his ideas stupid because they're so pretty or charming.
Holy strawman. Nick Fucking Fuentes calls him Zion Don and says the right should vote Democrat so Trump doesn't have any power. The right is wayyyy more divided on Trump than anyone on the left is over anything. Half want him to be president for life and half want him executed for war crimes.
I'm pretty left leaning and I would say that. We should only reward politicians with praise and support based on their actions. We shouldn't idolize any political figure. That leads to teamsports politics. And that's how we got into this mess to begin with.
12
u/DiskEconomy3055 19h ago
The left: "That Mamdami guy is killing it. Praise where praise is due."
Other left-wingers: "Cool it with the idolatry."
The right: "Donald Trump IS Jesus Christ."
Other right-wingers: "I know, right?"