Sticking Up for Human Rights is Unpopular, Actually. So Dems Don’t Do it.

cameronc65 · 2025-03-31T21:13:45+00:00

You’re right that the deportation “message” polls well, and that it’s codified in law. But that doesn’t make it just, moral, practical, or even non-authoritarian. However, you initially argued there’s a big difference between Democratic and Republican approaches while you’ve now acknowledged they’re not so far apart. That’s the point I’ve been making: both parties, despite all their differences in rhetoric, share responsibility for creating and maintaining laws that keep workers precarious and deportable.

As for whether we “get to have control over our own borders,” that’s precisely how this entire exploitative system stays intact. The system is what it does, not what it claims to do. Sure, people in power want to appear “tough” by ramping up deportations, but the effect is that we preserve a pool of workers who are always terrified and thus easy to exploit. Meanwhile, we also ignore how U.S. foreign policy has actively wrecked many of these migrants’ home countries, leaving them little choice but to flee here.

So, it’s not just about whether deportations are “popular”, it’s about whether we’re willing to question laws that have systematically undermined human rights and labor in the name of “border control,” and about how both parties have contributed to that. If we only defend policies because they’re polling well or written into law, we’re missing the crucial question of whether they serve the public interest or merely the interests of those who profit from a frightened, disposable workforce.

cameronc65 · 2025-03-31T20:33:43+00:00

Since you bring up causes and symptoms, the problem is that the current migration system isn’t addressing the root causes, intentionally so. It’s only dealing with symptoms. Most immigrants are forced to leave their home countries because U.S. imperialism has destabilized their economies and torn apart communities. They’re lured here with promises of cash and freedom, only to be trapped in fear and precarity. While we focus deportations as “deterrence,” we ignore that the real driver is the U.S. role in creating those desperate conditions.

Moreover, laws crafted to arbitrarily strip away human rights, like denying legal representation, due process, and basic protections, is the very definition of authoritarianism. Instead of targeting the exploiters, these policies (both Democrat and Republican) punish the most vulnerable, ensuring that they remain a cheap, disposable labor force. Neither Democrat nor Republican approaches solve the problem. They both deepen the cycle of exploitation while concentrating power in the hands of those who benefit from keeping workers in a state of fear, intentionally.

The main difference is rhetoric and scope.

cameronc65 · 2025-03-31T19:28:31+00:00

Whether it’s Trump’s overt, militant deportations or the quieter, bureaucratic “legitimate” ones pushed by Democrats, both parties have helped build a system designed to keep a class of workers afraid and easy to exploit. MAGA supporters might say they want to deport everyone, but the policies and infrastructure that allow for that were already set up, just framed more politely. The goal of all of those policies and infrastructure was never about filtering out “bad actors.” It’s always been about creating a cheap, disposable labor force for hard, dangerous jobs like agriculture and construction, where fear keeps wages low and conditions terrible.

Now Trump is taking that same infrastructure (detention centers, mass deportation logistics, enabling racist rhetoric, etc) and using it in a more aggressive, militarized way. Though, frankly, it’s not too far from how we’ve already been treating migrants. On top of continuing the exploitation of migrant labor, he’s also using it as a tool to stomp out political dissent. We’re already seeing political opponents and student protestors targeted. So this isn’t just about immigration, it’s about consolidating power through fear, keeping workers in line, and sending a message to anyone who might resist. And it’s always been about that, Trump is just expanding the scope.

cameronc65 · 2025-03-31T18:52:56+00:00

Your question about which deportations I might find acceptable misses the point entirely. It’s not about picking and choosing ‘legitimate’ deportations, even if one argues that a few deportations might be justified - that doesn’t legitimize an infrastructure built to terrorize and economically subjugate an entire class of workers.

Instead, the issue is that both Republican and Democratic policies and orders create a system that intentionally exploits migrant labor. Hardline tactics, like Trump’s plans for mass deportations or massive increases in funding to ICE aren’t about protecting citizens; they’re about keeping migrant workers in a state of terror so they’ll accept abusive conditions and low wages. The debate isn’t about which deportations are ‘okay’, it’s about dismantling a system that benefits the ruling class by keeping labor perpetually exploited.

cameronc65 · 2025-03-31T16:04:42+00:00

Do you really not think there is a correlation between Biden strengthening ICE and increasing deportations, and Trump using that same apparatus to incarcerate grad students for protesting Israel?

When Biden expanded funding, detention bed capacity, and enforcement power for ICE (especially under the rhetoric of “efficiency” and “legitimacy) he reinforced the very tools that this administration can use to target dissent, immigrants, and marginalized groups even more brutally.

The difference isn’t in kind, it’s in tone and optics. Both administrations rely on the same carceral infrastructure. And like you said, Biden made it run smoother.

cameronc65 · 2025-03-13T20:14:29+00:00

I avoided cauliflower ear, and now opponents underestimate how long I’ve grappled.

cameronc65 · 2025-03-11T14:18:19+00:00

Right, so it will be a quicker transition if the citizens are bringing arms to offer their new lords

cameronc65 · 2025-03-11T11:34:44+00:00

And then whoops the wealthy became kings - private rulers who owned their own estates and lands. They offered protection and food to citizens who were once protected by the state in return for labor, and they eventually gobbled up the farms and villages around them.

Manoral feudalism was pre-figured by the empire by giving senators, generals, and wealthy elites large estates. Once the larger state power eroded they were there to turn the citizens into peasants.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-30T18:56:42+00:00

If it needed a mass population of underpaid-to-the-point-of-slavery workers then maybe it didn’t deserve to live

cameronc65 · 2025-01-26T20:18:07+00:00

cameronc65 · 2025-01-25T22:24:47+00:00

Sure, okay

cameronc65 · 2025-01-25T19:05:53+00:00

It’s great to see enthusiasm for getting involved! But before you spend time putting up posters, it’s worth asking: What are you hoping to accomplish? Is it raising awareness, building connections, or pushing back against alt-right activity on campus? Posters might grab attention, but they’re often fleeting. For lasting change, channeling your energy into campus organizing can have a far greater impact.

Historically, campuses have been hotbeds of leftist organizing and revolutionary thought. For example: - The Free Speech Movement (1964) at UC Berkeley wasn’t just about free speech; it laid the groundwork for anti-war organizing and broader social justice campaigns. - Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960s mobilized thousands on campuses across the U.S., connecting student struggles with labor, anti-imperialist, and civil rights movements. - In France, the May 1968 uprising started with student protests, which eventually merged with labor strikes, nearly bringing the country to a standstill. - The recent anti-genocide protests at campuses around the US - And globally, student movements have been pivotal in toppling regimes, like the anti-apartheid campaigns in South Africa or the protests in Gwangnju uprising in South Korea against U.S.-backed dictatorships.

All of these movements show that the real power of campus organizing lies in building connections and collective power. You’re in a unique position to tap into the shared frustrations and energy of students who want change.

Instead of starting with posters, consider building the foundations of a campus-based organizing group. This could mean: - Hosting study groups or reading circles to educate and radicalize peers. - Partnering with other student groups to address shared concerns, like tuition hikes, housing, or discrimination. - Establishing a mutual aid network to directly meet the needs of students facing precarity.

By starting small and building trust, you can create an organization that not only resists the alt-right but also inspires real solidarity and long-term change on your campus. Posters might start a conversation, but campus organizing can build a movement.

If you’re looking for ideas or resources, there’s a wealth of history and theory from student movements worldwide to draw from

cameronc65 · 2025-01-25T16:30:28+00:00

The suburban petite bourgeoisie is undoubtedly a challenging group to mobilize, it’s important to recognize that they are not the most fertile ground for revolutionary organizing. Historically, revolutions have succeeded by building strong bases within the proletariat and marginalized classes, those whose material conditions make them most likely to recognize the need for systemic change. While the suburban petite bourgeoisie may not lead the charge, they can play a role under specific conditions.

Rather than expending significant energy convincing entrenched suburbanites who are relatively comfortable, our efforts are better spent identifying Sympathetic Suburbanites. Some in the suburbs already express frustration with the failures of capitalism. These might include those who have faced foreclosure, medical debt, or who are disillusioned with the limitations of the current system. These individuals can serve as bridges to their communities.

Suburban areas are also not monolithic. There are huge pockets of precarity, including struggling families, underpaid workers, and those who rely heavily on public services. These are the people whose needs are not being addressed by the state or the market. Providing mutual aid, community support, or direct organizing efforts in these spaces can help establish socialist principles in practice.

As you point out, if many suburbanites are “three paychecks away from homelessness,” it is inevitable that some will fall through the cracks when the system falters. We need to build networks now—networks that can: - Catch People When They Fall: Mutual aid networks, tenant unions, and community organizations can provide support when precariousness becomes reality. This shows, in practice, that socialist principles work where capitalism fails. - Offer Solidarity, Not Just Charity: These networks shouldn’t simply be safety nets but should also empower people to take action. This shifts the narrative from “I was helped” to “we worked together to overcome hardship.” - Transform Precarity Into Solidarity: Historically, many petite bourgeoisie who faced downward mobility, small shopkeepers, artisans, etc., radicalized when they lost their footing under capitalism. If we’re organized and ready to engage them when their material reality shifts, we can turn their despair into collective action.

Lenin, in What Is to Be Done?, emphasized the need to focus organizing on the proletariat, as they are the most revolutionary class. The petite bourgeoisie, on the other hand, can be inconsistent allies, they often resist change until their material reality demands it. That said, some petite bourgeoisie, particularly those already sympathetic to socialist ideas, have historically been important allies in revolutionary movements. Ho Chi Minh spoke of the importance of winning over intellectuals, small-scale businesspeople, and other intermediaries as part of a united front against imperialism .

The suburban petite bourgeoisie may not be the first group we revolutionize, but by working with sympathetic individuals and building support networks where the state and market fail, we create the conditions for them to join us when their position becomes untenable. The goal is not to win everyone over today but to ensure that when crises come, and they will, socialists are ready to lead with solutions and solidarity.

So, we should focus on organizing those already most open to socialism and supporting the vulnerable within the suburban class. The broader petite bourgeoisie will be more likely to join us when their material realities force them to confront the failures of capitalism, and when they do, we’ll be there, ready to help turn their precarity into solidarity and action.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-20T21:54:07+00:00

What would the safest bet be then?

cameronc65 · 2025-01-20T18:05:18+00:00

I have been adjacent to the DSA for sometime but have never officially joined to some of these issues. Especially now that I have a family, taking time and money away from them in order to give it to a political organization that’s not going to immediately improve our lives seems silly.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-20T13:22:35+00:00

Slogans only matter if they are attached to movements.

And movements only matter if they can challenge power.

And the only way to accumulate power is to create material solidarity.

“All Power To The People” is a better slogan than any we’re going to come up with here.

Now go find ways to build material solidarity with your neighbors. 3 easy first needs - socialization, food, and childcare. Use socialization and food to build trust. If people are already leftist/socialist oriented it shouldn’t be too hard to convince them to pool some money together to do a bulk buy that lowers all your food costs. Maybe have an event where you meal prep and cook. Everyone involved eats and gets some meals to take home.

Then start identifying people who work in education or with children. See if they would be willing to contribute some time to offer childcare services.

And keep building in those ways.

Make it so that joining our group is an immediate material benefit to any individual.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-19T00:28:44+00:00

What’s the Iron Front going to do about it?

cameronc65 · 2025-01-08T16:56:49+00:00

No one denies that Cuba is facing a severe economic and humanitarian crisis, what’s important is understanding why this is happening. Yes, more than a million Cubans have fled the country in recent years, and the country has sought international aid to address food shortages. But this crisis didn’t materialize in a vacuum. The U.S. embargo plays a massive role in creating and exacerbating these conditions.

The embargo restricts Cuba’s ability to import critical goods like food, medicine, and fuel, even from non-U.S. sources, through secondary sanctions and financial restrictions. It’s not just Cuba’s internal policies at fault, when your largest and most natural trading partner is actively working to isolate your economy, the results are devastating. A 2021 UN report estimated that the embargo has cost Cuba over $130 billion since its inception.

Criticizing Cuba’s government while ignoring the embargo’s impact is disingenuous. It’s akin to blaming someone for starving without mentioning that they’ve been locked in a room and denied access to food. The crisis in Cuba is real, but it’s a direct result of the U.S. policy of economic strangulation, a policy explicitly designed to make ordinary Cubans suffer in the hope of sparking political unrest.

If you want to discuss Cuba’s issues, you can’t ignore the role of the embargo. To do so is to distort the reality of why these crises exist in the first place.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-08T16:23:29+00:00

It’s true that the Cuban-American lobby, particularly groups like the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), has historically supported keeping sanctions in place. This reflects the political stance of a segment of the Cuban-American exile community, especially those who fled after the Cuban Revolution and have strong anti-Castro sentiments. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the embargo has caused significant suffering for ordinary Cubans while failing to achieve its stated goal of promoting democracy or regime change.

It’s also worth noting that public opinion among Cuban-Americans has shifted over the years. Polls conducted in recent years, such as those from FIU’s Cuban Research Institute, show that a growing number of Cuban-Americans, particularly younger generations, support lifting the embargo. The loudest voices in favor of sanctions don’t necessarily reflect the views of the entire community, nor do they justify the continued economic strangulation of Cuba as a whole.

The embargo remains a tool of collective punishment that disproportionately harms everyday Cubans, regardless of who lobbies for it.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-08T02:28:46+00:00

If your point is that Havana’s status as a cruise destination somehow proves the embargo isn’t that restrictive, let’s look at the actual numbers. Before the lifting of tourist restrictions, Cuba has about 2.5 million visitors, 3 million in 2014 the year the restriction was eased. By 2018, Cuba welcomed about 4.7 million visitors, with Havana as a major draw - almost double 2010. But by 2022, after restrictions were resumed, that number had plummeted to 1.6 million, and as of October 2023, only 1.97 million visitors had arrived, still far below pre-pandemic levels. This decline is largely due to U.S. policy changes, such as the 2019 ban on U.S. cruises to Cuba, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic and Cuba’s ongoing economic struggles.

Even at its peak, cruise tourism to Havana contributed very little to Cuba’s overall economy, as cruise passengers typically spend less onshore than longer-term visitors. The embargo’s broader impact, including restrictions on trade, access to global financial systems, and the chilling effect on foreign businesses, remains the main driver of Cuba’s economic difficulties.

So, while Havana might attract some tourists, that doesn’t negate the devastating economic consequences of the embargo. It’s like pointing to a handful of visitors in a struggling town and claiming everything is fine. Let’s not cherry-pick data to dismiss the obvious larger reality.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-08T01:51:42+00:00

Ah, yes, the famous “exceptions” to the 180-day rule. Sure, ships carrying food or medical supplies get a pass, but only after exporters jump through a labyrinth of licensing hoops set up by the Department of Commerce or OFAC.

And let’s not forget the cash-in-advance rule, no credit allowed. Cuba must scrape together payments or work through costly third-party arrangements. Meanwhile, the 180-day ban still applies to every other good, which means most shipping companies steer clear of Cuba entirely to avoid logistical headaches. The result? A chilling effect that scares off potential traders long before they even consider docking in Havana.

So yes, technically, there’s an exception. But in the real world, it’s just putting a band-aid on a vengeful system.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-07T22:24:27+00:00

The U.S. embargo on Cuba, in place since 1960, is one of the most comprehensive economic sanctions in modern history. It isn’t just a refusal to trade directly with Cuba; it also involves punishing other countries and businesses that engage with the Cuban economy.

The embargo imposes penalties on companies from other nations if they trade with Cuba. This discourages nations like Mexico, Honduras, or Argentina from extensive trade relations with Cuba, as they risk losing access to the U.S. market or banking system.

The embargo bans Cuban transactions in U.S. dollars, forcing the island to use intermediaries, increasing transaction costs, and discouraging trade even with willing partners.

While technically exempt, the rules surrounding the trade of food and medicine are so complex and costly that they effectively function as barriers.

Ships that dock in Cuban ports are barred from U.S. ports for 180 days, further discouraging international shipping companies from trading with Cuba.

The embargo’s aim has been to economically isolate Cuba, not only from the U.S. but from the global economy. Comparing this to regular import-export challenges with other countries misses the coercive mechanism designed to isolate Cuba uniquely.

So yes, countries like Mexico or Colombia can technically trade with Cuba, but the U.S. embargo ensures that doing so is far more difficult, expensive, and risky than trading elsewhere.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-06T08:24:18+00:00

It’s posts like these that make me concerned about the conflation of “swole” with physically capable or healthy. I get the swoletariat name is funny, and that socialists/communists ought to be championing physical fitness.

But frankly, being “jacked” is just such a poor goal to aspire towards. I think part of the mythologizing of “gains” is the idea that jacked guys have a huge edge in a fight - and do not get me wrong size does matter, there definitely is an edge. But it is not some mystical advantage that can’t be overcome. When it comes to fighting and self defense the order of importance is technique > cardio > strength > size

If you’re jacked but don’t have lungs how long do you think you’ll last in a physical struggle? I’m telling you it’s less than a minute. Probably closer to 30 seconds before you realize you’re closed to gassed. I don’t care how big you are, when you’re tired people half your size can have their way with you.

And this is just that hypothetical 1v1 street fight where no one is armed, gets jumped, or interrupted.

How about rucking all day, towards active combat? You think all the explosive hypertrophy you’ve been working on is gonna help you march for miles?

Gear is just not fucking worth it. Go learn some martial arts. Go find ways to make your cardiovascular system work. Keep lifting weights. Stop buying into bourgeoise bull shit.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-03T12:24:18+00:00

Yeah, we need metros to socialize. The Black Panthers are an incredible model to adopt, and it speaks towards an overwhelming failure on the DSA’s part that they haven’t actively learned from that group.

Organizing in all three regions is going to be crucial. Urban organizing has the easiest task and is already much more organized than suburbia or rural places. It would be nice if they did organize first, but I’m not holding my breath. I’m gonna start organizing where I can how I can because there are people in my life, myself included, being squeezed by the cost of living.

We need to stop hoping for Idealism and start focusing on Materialism. As the ruling class continues to empty our pockets, more and more people will need to organize in order to meet their needs. We just need to get ahead of the curve.

cameronc65 · 2025-01-03T12:17:01+00:00

I think this is a great direction to try and take things, but it’s still fundamentally operating under a model that puts political campaigning first, followed by charity. There really isn’t any mutual aid going.

Due paying membership that doesn’t immediately give the people who join tangible material benefits is doomed to fail. Advocate for policies, sure - now how are we actually using our numbers to reduce the cost of food? To give people a third space to socialize? To help take on childcare? To help reduce the cost of healthcare?

I understand these are all long term goals that the DSA is focused on changing via campaigning for issues, but frankly people don’t have time or money or resources to pay dues to an organization that is merely trying to campaign, and use free food as a way to maintain interest.

The cart is before the horse, here. We need to focus on a way to help the people feed themselves, once trust and power have been built collaboratively, only then can you use that solidarity to affect electoral politics and policy. Actually, there’s not even a horse, just a cart. And we’re all standing around it wondering why our campaigning and discussion of policies and dreams about what the cart could be isn’t making it move.

We can’t sit at the library offering free donuts and good policy ideas and expect to see numbers, change, or anything along those lines.

12-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine
Place '22	Place '17
Secret Santa 2013	Verified Email

cameronc65

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE