AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      4 years ago

      Democrat party

      This is straight-up Republican crank speak, FYI.

      I don’t see any Soc-Dem candidate getting far in that awful party

      The fact that Bernie got as far as he did despite the media (a) trying to anoint Biden from the start and (b) alternately blacking him out and giving him laughably biased coverage shows this isn't true. Democrats aren't competent enough fend off any challenger, no matter how popular. Look at how they're trying and failing to primary the progressives in Congress. The problem isn't that the party establishment can just select a winner at will; the problem is that the left isn't popular enough -- yet -- to overcome establishment obstruction.

      • emizeko [they/them]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        The problem isn’t that the party establishment can just select a winner at will

        lmao suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuüuuuuuuure

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          4 years ago

          If the party establishment can just pick whoever they want, why was Bernie in the lead going into Super Tuesday? Why have any progressives gotten elected anywhere, and why are they now facing (and beating) centrist primary challengers?

          You can't simultaneously believe Democrats are incompetent enough to lose 2016 and maybe 2020, too, but also believe they have complete and total control over their primaries.

          • emizeko [they/them]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            If the party establishment can just pick whoever they want, why was Bernie in the lead going into Super Tuesday?

            cool what happened after that?

            You can’t simultaneously believe Democrats are incompetent enough to lose

            you can't believe winning was more important to them than stopping Bernie

            • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 years ago

              cool what happened after that?

              He lost. Does every loss mean the game was 100% rigged right from the start? Of course not.

              you can’t believe winning was more important to them than stopping Bernie

              Democrats absolutely prioritize winning on their own terms (i.e., not with Bernie) over winning, period, but that doesn't mean they can just go god mode on a primary and pick whatever candidate they want. Again, there is ample evidence to the contrary in the form of progressives winning elections and then defeating well-funded centrist primary challengers.

              • communistthrowaway69 [none/use name]
                ·
                4 years ago

                but that doesn’t mean they can just go god mode on a primary and pick whatever candidate they want.

                Yes, they literally can.

                Like, do you just not know this? They've done it before.

                Primaries are not legally binding. And they don't even have to run them fairly. They could literally cheat and it would be legal.

                They have argued this successfully in court .

                Bernie did not have a shot. It was always a game of chicken to see how far they'd be willing to let the mask slip. He didn't get far enough to force their hand, but that's what would've happened.

                • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  They could literally cheat and it would be legal.

                  And they do cheat. The question is what -- realistically -- they can do to stop a leftist candidate with even more support than Bernie. I don't think in that case they'll just cancel the primary and pick a different candidate, even if they technically can. The whole reason they're worried about the mask slipping is that if they don't even pretend to be responsive to their base they'll collapse. The hard fact here is that Bernie supporters aren't the base, or at least aren't enough of the base to get the establishment truly worried. The task is changing that to where the left can't be ignored.

              • emizeko [they/them]
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 years ago

                absolutely fucking smoothbrained. pathetic.

                • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  If you think every time you lose the game was rigged against you, I don't know what to tell you. You're just detached from reality at that point.

                  These aren't Machiavellian super-geniuses we're up against. We're up against a party that has all sorts of policy and demographic advantages and still manages to piss down their leg often enough to run a minority of the country. And you honestly think they're impossible to beat?

                  • emizeko [they/them]
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    I've been paying attention to primaries for decades, you didn't even pay attention to the last one

                    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                      arrow-down
                      7
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      I’ve been paying attention to primaries for decades

                      I'm sure you were studying the blade real good.

              • the_river_cass [she/her]
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 years ago

                bitch, there's a pandemic killing hundreds of thousands, 40% of the country is being evicted, and climate change looms like an existential threat - and you want to sit here and talk about the 2024 blue primary? who the fuck cares? odds are there won't be a coherent entity called the United States by then and you're worried about your fucking soap opera. get a grip

                • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  odds are there won’t be a coherent entity called the United States by then

                  Do you really think the United States is just going to... fade away by 2024?

                  • the_river_cass [she/her]
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    no, but I'm damn sure it will be (pick your favorite):

                    1. military junta
                    2. balkanized
                    3. in a major civil war
                    • NotARobot [she/her]
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      By what process do you expect the US to collapse into any of those in the next 4 years? I don't really see it happening that fast.

                      • the_river_cass [she/her]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        over the next two months, a staggering number of people will face evictions. a staggering number of people will go hungry. a staggering number of people will be devastated by the on-going economic collapse. through it all, the state is not merely choosing not to act - it cannot. the ruling class is divided, practically at a breaking point between the two major factions as is, and very busy looting what remains of the petit-bourgeoisie, fighting over consolidation of market monopolies, etc.. economic subsidies to the (lumpen)proles or petit-bourgeoisie would interrupt this profit machine at a time when virtually no other profit is being extracted. so they're stuck doing what they're doing. that leaves the state at a deadlock, one that has been growing more and more intense for a full decade. the election cannot resolve the crisis because neither candidate fundamentally wants to change anything. the next election is for control of Congress in 2022 and it will remain gridlocked because any populist wave will run into an unsympathetic white house, however this election turns out. the election after that is almost five years after the start of the crisis. so elections will not provide relief. states will have to do their own thing - indeed there's already a brewing power struggle between the federal government and the states their authority to solve these problems themselves. it's likely the courts will uphold the power of the federal government over the states on this.

                        that means that in the next two months, a staggering number of people will get directly fucked by a system that has tied its own hands behind its back. it's only tool? repression. when people take the streets demanding bread and the government meets it with repression, the sheer scope of the number of people it's attempting to repress will force its immediate collapse. it will happen so fast that we might blink and miss it. one day people will be protesting, then there will be blood, and then there will be a wave of strikes and action directed against the state a la our May Days.

                        the election will proceed, whatever that means, with likely the military overseeing it and what happens going forward from there depends entirely on the quality of the response from the military and the immediate concessions made by the ruling class. we're looking at 2 decades of serious Instability.

                        • NotARobot [she/her]
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          Interesting read. Given what's happened so far, it's certainly possible.

                    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                      arrow-down
                      4
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      Sure, anything's possible, but it's ridiculous to be "damn sure" of any of that. Odds are the most powerful country in the history of the planet will continue to exist in a recognizable form for at least another four years.

                      • Bread_In_Baltimore [he/him]
                        arrow-down
                        1
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        When you definitely have a grip on the history of capitalist states in times of capitalist crisis.

                        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                          arrow-down
                          2
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          Guaranteeing anything four years in the future is silly, especially when your prediction involves a police state with nukes (and no history of popular, organized rebellion) collapsing. We're going to be stuck dealing with this shit until we change it.

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          4 years ago

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

          "Democrat Party" is literally a focus-grouped Republican smear. We can criticize Democrats without using reactionary propaganda.

          M4A has overwhelmingly positive reception

          And most people weren't voting on that issue alone, because "dang cheeto in the White House" centrist messaging was more effective than the messaging coming out of the left. We have to actually convince people to vote for leftist candidates; we can't just point to a poll that says something is popular and hope.

            • emizeko [they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              4 years ago

              they're referring to Frank Luntz's advice to the GOP to use "democrat" instead of "democratic" as if that kind of wizardry is why dems lose and not because their job is to fight the left and they haven't delivered material benefits for four decades

              • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 years ago

                as if that kind of wizardry is why dems lose

                That type of advertising bullshit absolutely makes a difference in close races. And because Democrats' "job is to fight for the left and they haven’t delivered material benefits for four decades," they're always in close races.

            • communistthrowaway69 [none/use name]
              ·
              4 years ago

              No dude, he's right. Its technical name is the Democratic Party.

              This is a 1990s Republican troll move. They started calling it the Democrat Party.

              When Democrats went to correct them, they'd call them out for being elitists. So they eventually just gave up on it, because they lose either way.

                • communistthrowaway69 [none/use name]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Oh yeah for sure.

                  I mean fuck that, even. There isn't time to replace them with a working class party, either.

                  People don't understand how fucked the electoral project is at this juncture. You'd need like 65 Senate seats, the entire house, and then to fire and pack the entire judiciary just to get started.

                  At which point the CIA or DoD would merk you without a second thought, if it could even get that far.

                  There is no electoral path forward for the left with the time that's left. There just isn't.

            • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              4 years ago

              So it’s a Republican smear to actually call the party by their name?

              It's not the party's name, that's the whole point.

      • Bread_In_Baltimore [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Imagine having faith in liberal democracy lmao. You really think that we just have to win the hearts and minds of a reactionary nation and then some day, maybe in 2042 we will get an Imperialist succdem in office who will not be able to pass anything? You really think this country has the time to do the outreach it would take to change democrats to """"socialists""""? do you think there will still be elections by then?

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 years ago

          You really think that we just have to win the hearts and minds of a reactionary nation

          Uh yeah, if we build a movement too big to ignore we can win. That's the whole premise here. Do you have a better plan? I'm all ears.

          You really think this country has the time to do the outreach it would take to change democrats to “”"“socialists”"""

          Look at how fast the material conditions of ordinary Americans are changing. All that's needed are people who can explain why that's happening and provide a better alternative. And again, if you have a better plan that will work more quickly, I'm all ears. I just don't see one.

          • Bread_In_Baltimore [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I wrote a long reply then auto-update erased it so I'm just going to say that the US is headed towards fascism and nobody is prepared for it. The crisis of capitalism will not radicalize everyone by itself, most people in the US are petit bourgeois and will want to return to that class position. We need to be ready to fight that. We need to have more guns on our side because political power grows out of their barrels. We need to be organized and disciplined.

            • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 years ago

              I wrote a long reply then auto-update erased it

              This blows, yeah.

              We need to be ready to fight that. We need to have more guns on our side because political power grows out of their barrels. We need to be organized and disciplined.

              To add to that: we need a lot more people on our side than we had in the 2020 primary.

                • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  If we can't win a primary, talking about a revolutionary left is laughable. You need people to put their lives on the line in a revolution -- we didn't even get enough people to go stand in line and fucking vote.

                  I'm as pessimistic about electoralism as you are, I'm just more pessimistic about everything else because any other path to a better future requires a lot more work and a lot more committed support than winning an election.

                  • throwawaylemmy [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    we didn’t even get enough people to go stand in line and fucking vote.

                    Being fair: None of the states voted before Bernie dropped, besides like 5. The primary system being dragged out as long as it was is an issue. You throw in closed-primaries in certain states and that double's the problem. A lot of independents leaned Bernie over the Democratic registered party members and couldn't vote him by the time he dropped because of those rules.

                    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                      arrow-down
                      3
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      4 years ago

                      None of the states voted before Bernie dropped, besides like 5.

                      This isn't really accurate. Only a handful of states voted before the other candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden, but Super Tuesday happened with Bernie still in the race and he lost conclusively. We didn't even get probably a third of the Democratic primary electorate to sign on for an extremely moderate left alternative to maybe the worst centrist candidate. That's not anywhere near the type of popular support needed for a revolution.

                      If there are somehow a bunch of people that are willing to pick up a gun and get shot at for socialism, but who aren't willing to vote for something as obvious as universal healthcare, sure, let's put our eggs in a non-electoral basket. I just don't see anyway that's happening, though, at least not right now. We have to get a lot more people on our side.

                      • throwawaylemmy [none/use name]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        My point is more: Super Tuesday took forever to get to and even then we shouldn't have a "Super Tuesday" and then a trickle of about 30-35 states primaries after that. The primary system in general is dumb because of how long the process takes.

                        I would've voted/nominated Sanders in the primary full-stop. But 1) By the time the state I'm in would've gotten to it: He dropped out/Super Tuesday's "rigging" happened and his chances were sank. and 2) the state I'm in would require me to change my party nomination to nominate him (or Trump or any other Republican) in their primaries.

                        I'm sure there's a lot of younger voters that aren't registered in either party that would be excluded on #2 and even if they weren't couldn't get a chance to have their voice heard due to #1/long primary voting process.

                        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                          arrow-down
                          3
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          The primary system in general is dumb

                          OK, it's dumb. But if the left can't figure out a game designed by politics dorks because it's complicated or it takes too long, how the hell is the left supposed to win a revolution? Or how the hell is the left supposed to organize protracted general strikes? Or how the hell is the left supposed to do any significant non-electoral strategy, because at bottom they're all more complicated than a primary and require something closer to actual sacrifice.

                          That's my main issue with people who talk about abandoning electoralism completely: they stuff they're suggesting as alternatives won't work until we have widespread popular support, and I don't see a way of gaining widespread popular support that doesn't involve (at least in part) doing politics the way most Americans think politics are done (i.e., through elections). The fastest way to build a leftist movement is to have popular leftist candidates running in races people care about. If you win you win; if you lose you still get leftist ideas out there to people we need to persuade.