Democrats? Left? Lmao XD
Fr how do these people think its “left”?!
I’m wondering when the rest of you guys are going to realize that electoralism is a huge waste of time, effort and energy. Elections are a distraction to make us think we can effect change through the system. But the problem IS the system. There is only one way forward, and it’s through a revolution that abolishes the entire existing structures of power.
We need to accept this reality, so we can actually start the long process of how to achieve that.
I think you’re correct. But if so, that means a lot of people are going to die and even after they die, we have no guarantee that the next power structure will be any better.
The death toll of capitalism is much, much higher than any of us can imagine. We should aim to have the most peaceful revolution possible, but we also should be realistic, and I know for a fact that the ruling class aren’t going to go without a fight. We can starve them out, I believe, for the most part, but yeah, there will definitely be death and suffering, I can’t deny that. But a lot of people are dying NOW. And for nothing. We can at least die trying to make a better world. That’s something I’m willing to die for.
Socialist states have had a great track record in improving living conditions as compared to previous systems.
Yes, absolutely.
My fear is whether Americans will choose socialism right now. I’m in a very queer, anarchist bubble and I’m not sure how to tell how popular this sort of thought is.
My concern is how thoroughly Americans have rooted socialists out of power and how all of our media will insist that we need more fascism, not less.
As the spoils of imperialism dry up, conditions are getting worse in the States. The task of socialists is to organize, so that revolution can be steered in a positive, unified direction if it comes to pass. We cannot vote for socialism without capital using the state to crush that movement, but we can learn from successful revolutionaries and modify what worked for them to suit our conditions.
Best synopsis I’ve seen, thank you.
I want to believe that things can be changed electorally, but I know that it wouldn’t come from anyone near power currently. Mamdani is the greatest hope right now, but he’s ultimately going to be in an ivory tower. He’s also been very clear that he’s being elected to run the ivory tower of America, so I’m not downplaying neither the significance or his awareness of the role.
There’s no argument that Republicans have found a number of large exploits in the system that they are currently manipulating to “win” the US federal government. Whether or not such a system is theoretically capable of being repaired is up for debate, but it sure as hell isn’t going to happen at the hands of fucking Democrats.
I remember when
ObamaAOCwas the hope
Spineless liberals cant even hold the line much more than one month, in any collation they are the weakest link
So an independent, a dude that essentially went maga after a stroke, and 6 other centrist Democrats making a deal means liberals are “spineless”.
I guess we should all stop voting because both sides are the same right bro?!?!
The cowardice is significantly deeper than those six Democrats, its also with Chuck Schumer and the entire party. Quite frankly if the party had even the semblance of a spine than they would have purged many of these politicans long ago. The party should uphold an absolute basic standard and if we had a real left wing party than it absolutely would.
It’s pretty obvious that without an institution there’s absolutely nothing that will be done to stop the Epstein class. A large enough institution will include some traitors.
“Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend. It can be so, sometimes.”
I’m going to take this opportunity to link this video by Richard Medhurst
This is not infighting, this is the great Un-Masking
I will also take this oppotunity to link this video about Why Leftist Purity Tests are good.
Never stop Purity Testing, Comrades, Never.
I wouldn’t even call it purity testing, they’re just testing. I’ve seen obsession over purity taken to a counterproductive extent, and I maintain that it can be a problem when dealing with a complex unideal reality, but what BadEmpanada is talking about here is fine. That’s a healthy level of testing, and important in preventing recuperation or sanewashing. Democrats are a bourgeois-controlled party and don’t share our class interests.
To give an example of the kind that is counterproductive, I know of a (small) socialist organisation in my country which has been banned from worker strikes after counterprotesting one, insisting that since industrial unions are bureaucratic, the workers should all just boycott the strike and make their own union. This group claims all other socialist organisations are impure and pseudo-leftist whenever they compromise with material reality and present conditions.
And, obviously, that’s a whole other world of purity testing to what you’re talking about. The problems are when it reaches no-true-Scotsman levels.
I get what you’re saying, regardless; never stop the tests.
Agreed
hmm, so the US citizens trying to get the Democrats to stop aligning with the Republicans should just stop because they’re indistinguishable. Got it.
Look if the Democrats were interested in shifting to the left they would have done it by now. They know progressive policies are popular. They know progressive policies get people excited. They’re not interested in being progressive. They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and if stepping on you is necessary to do that, they’ll happily do it. Some of them will make a somber face on the news about it before gleefully stepping on you again.
Redditors have no concept of what the democrats are: a controlled opposition party in a one-party capitalist empire.
know progressive policies get people excited. They’re not interested in being progressive. They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and if stepping on you is necessary to do that, they’ll happily do it. Some of them will make a somber face on
All fine and dandy, but voting 3rd without the 3rd being actually viable is just voting 1st for the other side.
That’s an idiotic hot take that gives the Democrats in power a lot of undeserved confidence in their seats and is exactly why Kamala failed to excite voters.
In a very small handful of very vulnerable seats, sure, that might be true. For literally every other race in the country, that’s not only bullshit it’s problematic.
“I don’t have to try, x number of people will vote for me no matter what.” That’s not conjecture, it’s literally part of the calculation campaign managers do for every single election. X voters will always vote for D/R candidate, and Y voters never will. If X is greater than half of the number of votes in the last election, campaign to your donors.
Democrats will not change their tune until they start seeing some risk. Safe and leans D seats need to start shifting away from them. They need to lose votes they once thought were guaranteed and a sizable portion of those votes need to be for non viable progressives.
It’s about as productive as trying to turn a lion vegetarian.
Going by the recent bullshit in today’s senate, they are right-lite
Democrats are controlled opposition, which the belief is solidified by the recent senate vote. I’ll still vote blue, but if the politician option of it being a coward/establishment then I might as well vote for a rat. Absolute disgusted our elected leaders have no spine as Republicans continue on their quest to achieve fascism and white supremacy.
Fuck those 6 and fuck Schumer.
I’ll still vote blue, but if the politician option of it being a coward/establishment then I might as well vote for a rat.
why not vote for 3rd party instead of wasting your vote like this?
The republicans have a strong enough, brainwashed base that will vote for them come hell or high water. Around 35% of people who will vote are seriously engaged on their side and will do whatever they need to vote for them. That’s a pretty strong hurdle to overcome
The democrats also have a contingent of Better Blue than Red and will vote for them no matter what.
The largest party next in line would be the Green party, and honestly, they’re barely trying. I mean the head of the party has investments in Fossil Fuel companies supporting fracking. AOC rightfully critisized them for a lack of organiztional development. It’s just this mess of funding going in and our for visibility and the dilution of the “not republican” vote.
So voting for a third party, at best, lets the republicans continue their destruction of the country and sends a message to the democrats that we’re tired of their crap, which has happened twice now with zero changes.
If you want us to vote for 3rd party, you need to deliver us a 3rd party with enough leadership to campaign and win it.
For nationwide elections I agree there isn’t much of a choice, but I’d argue voting third party outside of swing states is still good to express dissatisfaction, and third parties and independents can still win in local elections.
When did America decide to remove first past the post? Oh they didn’t …so how is 3rd party not a wasted vote?
True, but is the A for anarchists? Anarchists are not left.
Edit: oh, I’m on .ml. I didn’t know yous had a thing going for anarchism as well, now I know.
They most certainly are?
Maybe you are thinking of anarcho-capitalism which is not a serious ideology
Anarchists are left. Anything to the left of capitalism is left. Anarchists want to get rid of capitalism.
Could you elaborate? My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government. That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
Anarchists are usually leftists… though not all of them are, some can be quite selfish
I think it’s a beautiful ideology, but one that can’t really stand up to imperialistic powers in the real world
My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government
The finer details will always change depending who you ask, but yes, it’s generally either the elimination of government, or of all ‘unjust hierarchies’ (which includes state government).
As someone else mentioned, ideological anarchists tend to be socialists, and in this context ‘anarchism’ is assumed to be that socialist strain, but not everyone calling themselves an anarchist is also a socialist. It’s a broad school of thought.
That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
Capitalism isn’t organic. I can’t think of a case where it has developed outside of a revolution (like the anti-monarchist revolutions) and/or imperial suppression. It requires the enclosure of the commons and development of private property security forces like a police, neither of those are an organic phenomenon.
If anything, I would assume anarchism is more organic, since it could be found in many hunter-gatherer gift economies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies
Now, I’m personally not convinced that this makes anarchism appropriate for our industrial/post-industrial societies, but it’s not inorganic.
deleted by creator
Read a book pls
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
As Wikipedia succinctly (and loosely) put it, anarchy is society without rulers - a society without authority or hierarchy. Authority and hierarchy would definitely be present in anarcho-capitalism. Wealth, power, and influence would likely still concentrate into the hands of the few (i.e. rulers).
It’s essentially just capitalism without an official state and practices like regulation or reigning in corporate power. Corporations would function effectively as states in such a scenario.
Anarchism is left. Anarcho-capitalism is a meme ideology that is mostly an offshoot of liberalism, while actual anarchism has a rich history on the left, as the other major umbrella of leftist thought compared to Marxism.
This is a pretty biased way of putting it. The concept of anarchy predates the interpretation used by modern left-leaning self-identified anarchists by a couple of thousand years. In online circles such anarchists often seek to monopolize the term (like you are doing right now), but they factually weren’t the ones to coin it; when it was originally coined by Plato, nobody had any idea what the fuck capitalism or socialism even are, and in fact Plato used it as a cautionary example.
I am guessing your gut reaction will be to recoil at this grave attack on your ideology. I implore you to stop and consider that most people are not in fact at all familiar with left-wing anarchism as defined by Proudhon etc., but are vaguely familiar with the concept from many other sources. Therefore when you talk about anarchism without a qualifier to mean anarchic socialism, most people will assume you are talking about some Mad Max law of the jungle nonsense and then summarily dismiss anything you say as insane rambling.
Following this to its logical conclusion, we don’t have democracy because only Athenian democracy is democracy, they articulated it first.
I’m not an anarchist, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. Not sure where you got the idea that I’m an anarchist from. Secondly, I’m not referring to what the random person thinks anarchy is, but what actual anarchists believe, and among anarchists anarcho-capitalism is fringe, and an offshoot of liberalism. Plato having talked about anarchy at one point doesn’t suddenly mean that the entirety of anarchist history suddenly doesn’t matter.
Secondly, I’m not referring to what the random person thinks anarchy is, but what actual anarchists believe, and among anarchists anarcho-capitalism is fringe, and an offshoot of liberalism.
You’re doing the monopoly thing here again. When by “anarchist” you refer exclusively to left-leaning anarchists, of course anarcho-capitalism is going to be fringe among them.
Not to mention the fact that free-market anarchism is a distinct ideology from anarcho-capitalism and, to my understanding, much less fringe among self-described anarchists. The primary distinction seems to be that anarcho-capitalism exists at a lower energy state, a sort of a decay product that free-market anarchism would likely almost immediately decay into upon contact with the real world.
Plato having talked about anarchy at one point doesn’t suddenly mean that the entirety of anarchist history suddenly doesn’t matter.
One ideology misappropriating the term also doesn’t mean that all other meanings of the word suddenly don’t matter. Don’t get me wrong, I sympathize with many of the ideas of left-leaning anarchists, but they do suck at naming things. When the same concept covers both extreme right-wing libertarianism and extreme socialism, you really should be qualifying it with something to avoid confusion.
No, I mean among all anarchists. Anarcho-capitalism is fringe within anarchists, and has no real presence historically outside of a few extreme libertarians. Anarchism historically is tied to communalized production, and while I don’t personally think it has staying power practically, I also recognize it as a thoroughly left-wing ideology historically.
If you think it’s thoroughly left-wing then I think you must not be familiar with individualist and libertarian anarchist thinkers. I don’t think free-market anarchism involves much social production for example. In American political theory anarchism is what gave birth to libertarianism, which is pretty much a right-wing ideology.
I’m aware that they exist, being fringe implies that they do exist but are an extreme minority. Libertarianism is an extension of liberalism, and the anarchist offshoot of libertatianism is as such a more extreme offshoot of liberalism.
do a flip!
Your “left” has a monopoly on dividing the left.
Granted, but that doesn’t make liberals on the left. The left right divide is primarily defined by the property question and liberals agree with conservatives on this matter making both of them on the right.
Oh, yeah this is defo controlled opposition. When people asked for spine, they got jello.
No, the dems are going at their enemies pretty hard.
Agreed. And are simultaneously displaying that the Republicans are their friends.
Not even that distant. They’re the same wealthy pedophile christofascists.
if you gatekeep the left, then no one is left.
Mamdani just won New York. That is good. We should not be critical of his efforts.
Also, his movement is successful in beating the administration. Yours isn’t.
Ciao
Lmao, the left are Marxist and Anarchists
Imagine a beach of infinite length with one lemonade stand on it.
Where do you open a second lemonade stand to maximize sales if people will buy from the closet stand?
The answer: next to the first stand. Everyone to the left of your stand will find you are the best option and everyone to the right will choose the other.
This model explains why two political parties along a spectrum can end up not too different from each other in an attempt to capture the most votes.
Weird how the republicans never use this logic to add dem policy, but democrats always use this logic to duplicate republican policy and messaging, and then eat shit in elections because betraying your base to do what the opposition wants is the best way to decrease turnout.
Democrats are like half the left tho, so we can either fight prog vs dem, or we can unite to actually take on an external foe
Democrats are right wing.
I suppose you are both referring to USA politics: it seems clear that dems contains many different souls but I wouldn’t call AOC or Sanders right-wing, even here in Europe where we actually have real left.
The left starts at anti-capitalism. Anything other than that is right wing
Left and right are relative to the actual political spectrum of the subject. There are different approaches to anticapitalism, centrist on the left-wing wants to implement social politics to improve welfare, this doesn’t make it socialists.
Your notion is a very post modernist ideology of absolute relativism, which is an idealist unscientific notion. Socialism starts at anti-capitalism. Anything pro-capitalist is not left wing because everything falls under liberalism which is not a left wing ideology.
That’s not what I wrote but hey, nice sofism here.
They’re not saying that’s what you wrote, the saying that what you wrote was incorrect and they’re right
Don’t Sanders, Mamdani, and AOC call for socialist reforms in the US?
Socialism is a mode of production, social programs and welfare exist in capitalism and socialism.
Reformism is not anti-capitalism. Reforms are just nicer capitalism. There will still be capitalism and imperialism but people just get a bigger slice of the imperialist pie until the ruling class decides to take the slice away.
“People get a bigger slice of the … pie until the ruling class decides to take the slice away”
Isn’t that just the same with all systems?The state is the mechanism through which one class exerts its dominance over the others.
Bourgeois states are the enforcement arm of capital. When it offers improved conditions, it is merely a carrot to prevent you from taking actions that may jeopardize its power.
In a similar vein, proletarian controlled states can do the same, but the concessions go towards capital and the day-to-day ruling is on behalf of the workers.
If we want concessions that cannot be revoked, we must overthrow the bourgeois state and replace with a workers state. We cannot reform our way into a society where capital does not have near complete power.
In a state where there are neofascists like Trump, Mamdani is the left, face it. If you deny this, you’re completely ignoring political pragmatism and confusing the historical left with their actual political left.
And this take is why Trump won. Congrats.
The right wing starts at fascism. Or so it has evolved to.
Vote against fascism next time.
“Enjoy the camps” ass shitlib appeared again.
The right wing starts at capitalism. Fascism is capitalism in crisis, forcing austerity domestically when the fruits of imperialism dry up. Trump won because the democrats failed to meaningfully answer the problems of capitalism, alienating their base, and allowing Trump’s base an easy win, it wasn’t because of leftists sitting out of an election.
Trump won with a sliver of majority support in a handful of states because of electoral college fuckery. Every state he lost could have voted against him 10 times harder and he still would have won.
The swing votes he won in those few states were people fundamentally worried about the same things we are. Childcare, healthcare, cost of living, and keeping their jobs. They had two choices, a man who had a plan, and a woman who said “look how not that guy I am!”
Trump won because he’s mastered the grift and the Democrats dropped the fucking ball, again.
Anti-capitalists working on socialist reforms are right-wing, and you oppose them?
You guys are truly destined for irrelevancy. 🤣
“Social democrats” are imperialists, not socialists
prog vs dem, or we can unite to actually take on an external foe
This.
Started seeing progs refer to dems as “demoncrats” and now I legitimately can’t tell them apart from MAGA online half the time.
You are the epitome of the suppressed class war you constantly criticize for being in favor of in-group fighting. At least try to remember who your real enemies are.
Just unite behind us while we sell weapons for genocide and let republicans destroy healthcare!
Leftists support moving onto socialism, democrats support maintaining capitalism and imperialism. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference, and is why leftists opposing the democrats isn’t infighting, it’s just fighting. It’s entirely different from MAGA, which also wishes to perpetuate capitalism and imperialism.
And what about what middle America wants? The voters, you know, that we have to get? “Socialism” is a non-starter for people outside of NYC.
Middle America has a lot of unmet needs, with a horrible health care system and food insecurity. Most will gladly embrace anything that may help.
What many see as crazy politics is a desperate attempt to latch onto anything remotely promising.
middle america wants the same things that leftists wants (eg healthcare, education, childcare, equitable living conditions, etc.).
the word socialism itself is a non starter thanks to the propaganda against it; you only need to see how mamdani was attacked even in new york for it.
Loser talk
As the working class continues to slide into futher and further misery, more and more are awakened to the idea of radical politics, and are more understanding of socialism. Capitalism must decay, so the task of socialists is to organize and teach about socialism, not just vote in lock-step with the right-wing democrats.
On the one hand, a totally unified party is clearly a problem. I don’t particularly want the Democrats to be united on everything, we can see from the Republicans that is a recipe for authoritarianism.
On the other hand, it would be nice if they could fucking unite against authoritarianism.
Unity is a good thing if it’s around a good idea, like climate change. Disciplined parties that openly discuss problems internally and come to a resolute conclusion on are far more effective at meeting the needs of the people. There isn’t a “recipe for authoritarianism,” we can see that it is through disunity that the Statesian working class is divided and oppressed.
Politics today:
-Far Left pretending they are normal Left wing, and everyone else are dumb fascists.
-Far Right pretending they are normal Right wing, and everyone else are woke communists.
You forgot:
-Centrists pretending they see through everyone by just picking the centerpoint on an arbitrary axis, without actually considering which side is actually correct
The “left” in the United States is much further right on the global median. The Democrats are barely a center-left party on the global political spectrum.
Traditionally, at least since the Reagan Coalition was formed, the Democrats have functioned as a Republican-regulation party, the safety valve of rightwing ideas. The Republicans have put all of their chips on the Reagan Coalition, which they know is a tent with limited accommodations for the non-white non-rightwing. Both of these strategies have weaknesses that we can see cracking open in real time.
The Democrats, by comparison, are a much bigger tent of a party, and regional pressures and interests make it much harder for them to break the mold. There are still Democrats that identify as “conservative,” if you can believe that, and a substantial amount of them, too. There used to be “liberal Republicans,” but that number has dwindled into near-zero %.
I’m not in any way forgiving these dissenting senators for destroying what little health care Americans have. If there were any time in history where any one senator could choose to go rogue and still get re-elected, it’s now.
