• 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.

      • 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.

        • Dragonstaff ( Dragonstaff@leminal.space ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • krakenfury ( krakenfury@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • comfy ( comfy@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • rumba ( rumba@lemmy.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SippyCup ( SippyCup@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • rumba ( rumba@lemmy.zip ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • SippyCup ( SippyCup@lemmy.ml ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

  • jcarax ( jcarax@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • jcarax ( jcarax@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess my major issue is that unifying discussions shouldn’t be behind closed doors, and it certainly shouldn’t be around anything and everything one person or group of people says. Both of those things are dangerous, and it’s partially in contrast to those dangerous forms of unity that Democrats seem so disjointed.

        Another part of it is that the Republican party has been going off the rails for decades now, and that’s brought the Democratic party further right as people jumped ship to it. With the party representing such a large spectrum, it’s understandable that there’s more diversity in opinion. Two parties are already not enough, but when you cram more of the political landscape into just the one, well, here we are. It makes it even harder to stand up to what caused it in the first place.

        Though that still pales in comparison to the problems of money in politics and lack of term limits, and many other things I’d consider in different layers.

  • stinky ( stinky@redlemmy.com ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Etterra ( Etterra@discuss.online ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.