GrammarPolice

I agree that economic and social issues are often intertwined. My concern isn’t with addressing social issues, but with the way they are sometimes prioritized or framed in a way that alienates potential allies.

Also, when I say 'extremism,' I’m not talking about advocating for justice, I mean tactics or rhetoric that make it harder to build broad coalitions. For example, i recently got into an argument here on Lemmy about the effectiveness of roadblocks on drawing attention to climate change and its adverse effects. I said that I don't want to be prevented from getting to school or work because people are protesting on climate change - none of these protests of which have been successful at swaying policy-making. I suggested that we rethink the way we go about activism instead of inconveniencing everyone (supporters and non-supporters). The result was i got mass downvoted and received multiple comments from car haters insulting me and calling me a fascist. This is the kind of extremism I'm referring to. Putting all nuance aside on an issue and going full gung ho.

Link to the thread in question if you're curious: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/16285500

Elitist fucks gatekeeping to prevent ideological poisoning.

While i see the logic, i think you have simplified the economics too much. Now I'm no economist, but i think the first mistake you made is assuming that economic growth (which drives labor demand) is independent of population size. More people means more consumers, more businesses, and more economic activity, which increases demand for labor.

Also, in advanced economies, high wages aren't just about fewer workers, they're about high productivity, education, and technological development. If fewer workers alone led to wealth, countries with aging and shrinking populations (like Japan) would be thriving economically, but they aren’t.

Lastly, even if labour supply is tight, companies either automate jobs, outsource work, or relocate rather than just raising wages indefinitely. If migration is restricted too much, businesses would just move instead of paying higher wages.

I think if we really care about wages, the focus should be on stronger unions, better worker protections, and policies that ensure migrants don’t get exploited as cheap labor (avoid the Canada situation).

So you're admitting that you're fine with the status quo then? Technocratic governance is great in theory, but it doesn’t win mass support because most people don’t engage with politics at a purely rational level. The right understands this, which is why they use emotion, identity, and simple narratives to drive people to action.

People don't vote based on spreadsheets! They vote based on what feels right to them, and i think we should have realized this by now. If all that mattered were competence and policy expertise, we wouldn’t be watching the rise of populist strongmen across the world. Until we learn to communicate in a way that resonates with ordinary people we’ll keep losing ground to reactionaries who have no problem using populist rhetoric to mobilize their base.

Exactly, so now leftism has been reduced to simply an ideology rather than a working system.

I already do some volunteering. Maybe i can pivot that into gaining grassroots support to run for an office?

The modern left has a problem with knee jerk moralizing instead of engaging with economic concerns in good faith. As I've previously mentioned, you will be castigated for not being "pure" enough. But I’m curious; what’s your specific reasoning for opposing migration? If it’s an economic concern, then shouldn’t the left be working to fix the economic conditions that make migration a divisive issue in the first place?

This is not the vibe buddy

This is the exact shit I'm talking about. The left likes to play this morality politics. You bring on a right-wing guest, now you're the devil and irredeemable in their eyes. It's just bullshit! Cancel culture was literally invented and is most associated with the left.

Y'know, I've always been dismissive of scare tactics, but maybe there's some sense in them

Those things you listed are just regulations though, and all leftists are for more of it. The grey area is when governments start to encroach too much on private enterprises. For example, I don't think it's authoritarian to demand that businesses pay a minimum wage to workers or adhere to environmental laws; however, I do think it's authoritarian to force forfeiture of all private assets and suppress opposition political parties which have been the hallmark of socialism and communism in the past.

Too much state control doesn’t eliminate exploitation, it just shifts it from corporations to an unaccountable government - and considering collectivisation is necessary to achieve the Marxist "dream", it doesn't make the theory any more attractive. I think decentralization and democratic institutions are better solutions to corporate overreach.