free market think tank¶

I wish people would understand that the Overton Window is a flawed conception of politics invented by an arch-libertarian working for a "free market think tank" to propose a strategy that only really works within a hegemonic system and cannot meaningfully oppose it. https://t.co/WnAYJ2ALsX The dual premise is that there is a range of "political acceptability" among the masses that:

a) is governed mainly by ideas, rather than material relations, and

b) is the determining factor in what can be achieved politically, rather than the real movement of entire classes. To put it simply, it is the definition of idealism. It's the type of "ideas make society" thinking that is only applicable to those whose ideology is already enmeshed so tightly in the fabric of the political economy that all there is left to do is negotiate the specifics. The "window" is this context is constrained by the existing political hegemony. It is not possible to "shift the conversation" to such a degree that you can overturn that hegemony, because the center of that window is not dictated by "popular consensus."

It's dictated by force. The "legitimate avenues" for putting forward these "conversation shifters" within bourgeois society -- electoral candidates, think tanks, advocacy groups, educational institutions, etc. -- are not neutral. They are governed and policed by ruling class ideology. A political candidate who openly advocated for the violent overthrow of the capitalist system would not make it into office. Not because these ideas are "unpopular," but because that person would be barred from office, imprisoned, assassinated, etc. A string of such candidates could make the same case for revolution over and over and it would not shift the needle whatsoever. All it would do is help cement the immutability of the system in the eyes of onlookers -- because the system is immutable through that arena. When people espouse idealistic notions of a "window of political discourse," they are exposing their own constrained political window. A revolutionary break with the status quo is beyond their horizons, and they will not accept a politics that isn't tied to extant hegemony. They consistently demonstrate that they cannot have their "Overton Window shifted left." If our existence at their left flank can't shift them away from idealistic reformism, why do they believe that their existence at the left flank of capitalism can do any better? The answer, of course, is that their project has no horizon beyond the capitalist system anyway, so there's no real comparison. They long to be an institution within the system, not overturn it.

On that front, I wish them all the best. We'll overturn that system all the same.