When you make generalized claims like “Democrats are not the left,” you’re literally claiming that AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani are not the left.
Anything that is not their exact flavor of policy is not the left. And anything more is extremism.
As democrats are so fond of pointing out every time someone complains about his treatment by the democratic party, Sanders is not a democrat.
If you voted for Sanders in a primary election or a local election what party did you vote for?
I see how it is. He’s a democrat when democrats want to falsely claim that they’re worth supporting and an independent when they want to block him.
I guess it depends on the Democrat just like it depends on the leftist or the independent voting or refusing to vote for him.
What do you hope to achieve by voting or not voting for a candidate? Do you hope for at least some progress for society, or do you hope to prove to everyone else how loyal you are to your own political identity?
I guess it depends on the Democrat just like it depends on the leftist or the independent voting or refusing to vote for him.
It depends on how convenient to centrists it is.
Do you hope for at least some progress for society
Yes. Unfortunately, that’s never on the ballot, thanks to the two party hegemony. Congratulations.
Ah, so Mamdani and Cuomo were the same candidate. Darn. Thanks for opening my eyes. 🙈
I’m not sorry that the machinations of both parties failed to give us the sex pest you preferred in office.
He is like Canada’s NDP.
Yes, they are not, they are socialdemocrats which are rightwing because they support capitalism.
So they don’t pass your purity test, and “nobody should support them.”
But according to right wing and right of center propaganda they’re radical leftist, and “nobody should support them.”
It’s pretty neat that you and the right have the exact same messaging.
But according to right wing and right of center propaganda
Why the fuck should I care!?
Purity testing is good, you’re just mad because you don’t pass
since when are red lines genocide & ethnic cleansing just simple purity tests?
Since when did AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani give the greenlight for genocide & ethnic cleansing?
i have to assume that this is genuine since i don’t see anything funny about it.
bernie insists the isreali main talking point: isreal has a right to exist and co-opts leftward fervor by lending his support to the party he doesn’t belong to.
aoc voted against marjorie taylor green’s attempts to block the iron dome’s re-inforcements several times as well a voted for the resolution for redefining antisemitism to isreali benefit; include speaking out against the genocide.
mamdani is not at the national level and cannot do anything about it.
Not to mention that MTG wanted that funding redirected to the fascist bullshit she supports at the U.S. border. It’s interesting that Thomas Massie also voted in favor of this bill given he and MTG are part of the Thiel dark money “progressive” team along with hypocrites like Ro Kahnna, who pretend to support Palestine, yet hold investments in fucking Palantir.
that tweet from aoc makes it clear that she values the lives of isrealis over gazans since she ignores the facts that 1) these weapons are going to the idf who doesn’t make a distinction between defensive and offensive where gazans are concerned and 2) the idf had re-appropriated weaponry from one use to the other.
also: nice deflection in ignoring her vote on the definition of antisemitism w a tweet showing a half truth.
I swear that even full trumpists are least obnoxious on the internet than you blue magas because while they try to choke me with the same capitalist nonesense, they are at least more honest and don’t pretend to be on the left.
Yes, you certainly do seems to think that, thx for confirmation.
Sick burn.
I mean, its not really a purity test. It’s just kind of definitions. The political terms “right” and “left” have meant the same thing since the French Revolution. Democrats are not left wing. We can have a whole bunch of ancillary discussions about whether that means people should or shouldn’t vote for them, which I’m not interested in having, but i struggle to see how one could argue in good faith that the Democrats are left wing. Its really not even clear that Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders are “left wing” since neither seems to oppose private property rights, nor do they advocate for the weakening or abolishment of capitalism - the traditional dividing line of left and right.
The political terms “right” and “left” have meant the same thing since the French Revolution.
the weakening or abolishment of capitalism - the traditional dividing line of left and right
Wasn’t the French revolution just abolishing feudalism and the monarchy?
I’m being less than 100% precise here. The line I’m drawing is that abolition of private property rights is co-terminus with abolition of capitalism.
“Ask them ‘what’s more important, human rights or property rights’. If they reply 'property rights are human rights, they’re on the right”.
e: I’m just going to add explicitly, since there’s clearly some confusion looking at the other sister comments. It’s not about monarchism or any of that. Its two things: Property rights and social hierarchies. If you want em gone, you’re on the left. from that perspective you need not change the definition of left and right in 1799 and 1848, and all the same from Maréchal to Mélenchon.
Ok, this is making things more clear, although I get the impression I’d have to know way more about the Fr. Revolution, and maybe the following period in France to actually understand it. Was it really politically commonplace already in early 19th c. to demand abolishment of property?
Who’s Maréchal?
leftism is defined by opposition to the status quo. the french monarchy was capitalist as well as the status quo at the time; we still have monarchies and capitalism is unquestionably the status quo.
leftism is defined by opposition to the status quo
You’ve just introduced a whole other definition of leftism. Also it seems to mean that no leftist society could exist in practice.
the french monarchy was capitalist
From what I can figure out, it was still in principle feudal but moving towards capitalism due to the growth of the bourgeois class. Is that correct?
opposition to the status quo is the definition of leftism, but anyone can be forgiven for not understanding this since westerners define it in the same terms as classical liberalism due to monarchies still (barely) being the status quo back then (and still existing to this day); back then, liberalism was “left” of that.
now-a-days neo-liberalism is the dominant hegemony and it’s pro-capitalist; anything to the left of that is modern day leftism.
no, it’s not. That would make fascism left wing, it is not.
fascism is right wing and a big part of late stage capitalism.
Under feudalism: Left is about abolishing feudalism and the monarchy. Right is about preserving them.
Under capitalism: Left is about abolishing capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Right is about preserving them.
So they don’t pass your purity test, and “nobody should support them.”
no, they don’t pass the definition of what left wing means
That would be 100% accurate
as much as I prefer AOC, or Bernie to the average dem, they are at best cautionary tales about fixing a corrupt system from the inside.
and at best, I would classify them as centrists.
Yeah, they’re mostly centrist, somewhat left of center, but they’re far from socialist, let alone communist.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
I’m going to take this opportunity to link this video by Richard Medhurst
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFSbavvow7s
This is not infighting, this is the great Un-Masking
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.
It literally is not.
What makes the third viable is voting for it. But that aside, making the Democrats lose with a clear auditable trail of votes to the left makes it clear they have to move left (and take the third party’s positions) or be destroyed. This is how the party system in the US has always worked, from the Whigs to the FDR coalition. The modern GOP almost did this, but was so sidelined by the FDR coalition and failures of Nixon that their right wing didn’t even have to leave under Reagan to take over.
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.
That’s an idiotic hot take
keep on trolling, seems to be working
You are just desperate not to get it aren’t you?
what an idotic hot take
It’s about as productive as trying to turn a lion vegetarian.
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
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.
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.
“Liberals are the real leftists!!!” - Blue M AGA
Breaking up the banks won’t end sexism, so why bother?
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.
Yes we just sometimes forget we (leftists) are their enemies not the republican party.
Agreed. And are simultaneously displaying that the Republicans are their friends.
Not even that distant. They’re the same wealthy pedophile christofascists.
True, but is the A for anarchists? Anarchists are not left.
Anarchists are left. Anything to the left of capitalism is left. Anarchists want to get rid of capitalism.
Anarchy is more of a fundamental method of ruling/source of power/social policy. It’s neither left or right; and so different types of anarchy exist such as capitalist anarchy.
Anarchist communism is what you’re technically referring to. Economic ideologies seem like the mixup here.
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.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron
The oxymoron definitely checks out after verification. So essentially anarcho-capitalism is a corporatocracy.
Read a book pls
Could you elaborate? My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government. That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
No its the idea that authority/power is bad and we shouldn’t have it.
Including cops, oligarchs, presidents, kings, popes, and sometimes even bed times.
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
one that can’t really stand up to imperialistic powers in the real word
Which is why I am communist and not anarchist. To fight capitalism one must organize much more than anarchy movements could .
Yep. I love the idea of anarchism but the reality is power comes from the barrel of a gun and without a strong unified government of the proletariat, the capitalists will eat you.
Exactly
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.
Bruh
Anarchy is the left at its apex
I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.
Communism wants to achieve anarchy.
Marxist analysis points towards full collectivization of production and distribution globally, it isn’t about communalization and decentralization. When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
You are oversimplifying anarchism when you suggest that communalization necessarily leads to new classes or states. Anarchists don’t reject global cooperation, they want it to be based on free association, not authority.
I’m simplifying for the sake of a Lemmy comment, sure, but just because anarchists say they don’t reject global cooperation doesn’t mean the decentralized and communalist nature of anarchism works well with that. Collectivized and planned production and distribution works because it has administration and the advantages large-scale industry and logistics brings. Trying to have a bunch of decentralized communes create, say, a smartphone, would be a nightmare.
anarchism is definitely left. however, this Left right spectrum is bs and definitely cant handle things like the differences between categorically different leftists ideologies.
that’s like having a scale of solid to gas, putting water and milk in the middle because they are both liquid,. but arguing which one is more liquid or gas of the two.
I’m curious to read your arguments about the denial of the political spectrum.
not denying it, just that it is very oversimplified.
Like if you can only compare things by big and small and you are trying to differentiate things by weight or shape. it’s a good rule of thumb in general, just very oversimplified.
They most certainly are?
Maybe you are thinking of anarcho-capitalism which is not a serious ideology
Isn’t anarcho capitalism just extremely radical liberalism? In which case people do take it very seriously. I know someone who is flying to some island in the pacific soon to get away from taxes and the government.
Sorta, its the belief that capitalism can (and should) exist without the state, which is what makes me call it an unserious ideology. Seeing as the state arises from class contradiction and capitalism cannot exist without class. There are people who seriously believe this but that doesn’t make it coherent.
That makes sense, thanks for explaining (:
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.
and the concept of height predates the metric system. does that mean you cannot measure height in metres?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here? But to go along with what I assume your analog is, if you’re talking about height then you need to say you’re talking about height regardless of what unit you’re using. “Two metre box” means constrains only one dimension, much the same as the word anarchy by itself does.
just because an ideology predates the left right spectrum (quite flawed as it is but this isn’t the problem), doesn’t mean it can be put in there.
fascism and democracies predated the left-right spectrum, would you say they can’t be there
The political compass has both an X and a Y dimension, you know. As it happens, the Y dimension exists almost specifically because of anarchy.
oh god, don’t bring even more arbitrary BS into here.
the phase space of vague stuff like political ideology would have an arbitrary large number of parameters, not whatever 2 you see in memes.
Is the society so painfully brainrotted that people genuinely think memes are realities?
oh god, don’t bring even more BS into here.
The political compass isn’t a good way to view political ideology in any way. You can’t distill ideology into 4 vaguely defined quadrants.
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.
Following this to its logical conclusion, we don’t have democracy because only Athenian democracy is democracy, they articulated it first.
What? It’s possible for both modern democracy and Athenian democracy to be democracy, because it is an umbrella term that covers many different implementations of rule by the people.
The exact same thing applies to anarchy. It is possible for both The Culture and Lord of the Flies to be anarchy, because anarchy is an umbrella term that covers many different situations of “no rulers”.
do a flip!
ITT: Lots of folks who don’t ever want the GOP to be out of power again, but would rather just burn each other and the entire party to the ground because of (insert your reason here).
Not in this thread: a serious plan by the high and mighty “progressives” to actually accomplish anything
Not that I have seen any “keep voting blue” lib put forth any plan other than “keep voting blue no matter who and eventually they’ll run a candidate that isn’t dogshit because…” but the DSA and PSL are actually doing something and the way zohran got the establishment spooked its not negligible.
First of all, you’re not only wrong you’re also kind of a dick.
Second of all, people like you love to mouth off about voting blue no matter who, insist we support whatever Democrat shows up, even if it’s literally a Republican who changed parties to run for a vulnerable seat. Then turn around and tell us that any alternative to just voting isn’t a serious plan and we should all step in line. Which is exactly how we ended up in this fucking mess.
So finally, fuck you buddy.
We tried nothing and we are out of ideas. Also, don’t tell us to vote, we haven’t done that either but it won’t work.
In the UK we are finally beginning to see a shift away from the traditional 2 big parties, Labour and Conservative. Unfortunately far-right Reform are looking to be the biggest beneficiaries of this shift, however the Greens are polling ahead of Labour and they are filling in that huge gaping hole on the left that was created by Labour’s move to the right.
Not that things are the same in the US other than the two-party system, but it shows that there is hope and that people should not have to settle for the less evil option. Americans should not have to keep voting against things and they should be able to vote for something.
In the UK we are finally beginning to see a shift away from the traditional 2 big parties
Doesn’t Labour have a supermajority in Parliament? That looks more like a one party government to me.
Don’t we have a “worker’s party” in UK ?
I think Jeremy Corbyn was kicking around something. But “Your Party” seems reluctant to leave the launch pad.
How long does it take you to vote for “not Trump”?
A few hours? Still leaves plenty of time to work towards a sustainable alternative.
That’s the reason the left always fails. The right will have power struggles but close ranks when it comes down to ensuring the left (or slightly less right) don’t win.
The left always ensure the worst possible outcome by playing trolley problem at the ballot box.
Tell me you don’t understand how American elections work without actually telling me.
Feel free to explain it to me.
hey, how’d voting “not Trump” work out for you in 2020?
Liberals seem to have the memories of goldfish, which is how the Democratic party is able to keep moving steadily to the right.
How’d doing nothing except being snarky on .ml work out for you?
I left the US already - because it was obvious your ilk couldn’t deal with the GOP. I hate that I was right, but so it is.
It’s worked out pretty ok for me. For the rest of the US, not good.
I’m not American.
As a favour to whatever country has graciously taken you in, you should probably leave the attitude in the US where it belongs.
Oh, so you stupidly just support the US Democratic party for sport?
Seek help.
Not in this thread: a serious plan by the high and mighty “progressives” to actually accomplish anything
I gotta say, didn’t the DSA just post up the next New York Mayor? And didn’t he have a laundry list of really popular reforms that the Strong Mayorship of the city effectively hands him a blank check to implement?
Meanwhile, over in Minnesota, the state declared itself a “Trans Refuge” by preventing out-of-state laws from interfering in the practice of gender-affirming health care. In Virginia, the sweep of the state legislature brings the local Ds (who had uniformly supported a trio of constitutional amendments to guarantee Virginians’ right to abortion care, automatically restore voting rights to disenfranchised felons and remove an antiquated law banning same-sex marriage) into a majority needed for their passage.
And that’s before we get into all the progressive ballot amendments - from raising the minimum wage to ending felony disenfranchisement to abolishing the archaic FPTP voting system - that have succeeded in states as blue as California and as red as Florida.
What’s all this about progressives not actually accomplishing anything? Seems like they’re the only ones serious about setting policy.
Oh we have accomplished things buddy. Trump is simply exposing American politics for whole world to see.
It’s a shitshow
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?!?!
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.”
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.
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
The only divide on the left right now is the the traitorous assholes - none of whom are up for reelection - who voted to end of the shutdown. Fuck you Dick Durbin. If I had you in a room for 5 minutes with a megaphone I would definitely so hard that your ancestors would be able to hear it.
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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Just unite behind us while we sell weapons for genocide and let republicans destroy healthcare!
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
Don’t Sanders, Mamdani, and AOC call for socialist reforms in the US?
Read Rosa Luxemburg.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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 because Hillary&co deliberately elevated his campaign in the misguided belief that he woukd be easier to beat
“Enjoy the camps” ass shitlib appeared again.
The right wing might start at fascism but if you look even further to the right, there’s neoliberalism.
And this take is why Trump won. Congrats.
Anything but enthusiastic complicity with genocide and capitulation to republicans is “why trump won” according to the wing that would rather have trump win than tell netanyahu no ever.
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 write was incorrect and they’re right
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
Bernie Sanders is not a democrat. He is the longest-serving Independent in Congress.
Both pro-war candidates. Sanders voted to bomb like 8 countries, and AOC has supported israel many times with her votes also, like the iron dome.
You have two examples of non-quisling democrats, and one isn’t even a democrat.
The left starts at anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, buddy boy. Reformists are still right wing.
So unite with progressives. Or keep attacking them instead of the republicans your wing of the party just capitulated to.
Democrats are right wing.
I can’t think of a way to gwt them to stop fighting us except winning and putting their asses down. They are rhe fucking enemy.
I’d rather they stand back and sit it out, but they cannot risk us getting any win.
Sure. I’m a Communist, surely we can meet halfway under a socialist platform. A politician should earn their votes, so it’s their choice really.
