Just when you think there's at least one or two politicians in the US who are not openly genocidal fucking maniacs...
When is Bernie Sanders going to be accepted for presenting himself as Bernie Sanders ?
lmao
Oh wait, you're actually serious
The US has never had anyone who could tangibly gain national power that was actually left wing, because they all get subverted or commit suicide by shooting themselves multiple times in the head.
Sanders, AOC, Rashida Tlaib are some of the only ones who hold ANY sort of left wing ideals, and ALL of them have serious problems. Sanders is basically a neolib vis a vis foreign policy, AOC gets browbeaten into submission and is frankly basically a garden variety lib at this point, and Tlaib had some issues (which I cannot recall), and is probably going to get primaried if she doesn't stop locking horns with the DNC over things like selling guns to Israel.
Who you vote for doesn't matter anyway, since libs controlled the entire legislature and presidency when Roe got overturned, and Biden put a knife in the backs of unions by backing strike breaking
Voting in places like the US is an illusion to keep people complacent.
Voting in places like the US is an illusion to keep people complacent.
cause no one gives a shit about the local and state elections
I did note 'national power' in my comment for a reason.
State stuff absolutely matters, keeping states from stripping away further rights is something that can and should be done.
your quip indicates you missed my point. hardly anyone starts out at the national level.
My point was that no one left wing is ever going to be allowed to hold power at the national level in the US
It is a two party state, and neither have any interest in anything anticapitalist. No local official will ever be allowed to get that far, either they get deep sixed procedurally by some committee or another, or they get it literally
and my point is I think you're wrong in that regard. you should pick up a history book, we had socialist congressmen in the early 20th century. look up Victor Berger
I'm not trying to get into it this much, and I'm not trying to be combative here (I kind of hope I am wrong), but it doesn't help that the only name you give me is from pre Red Scare times, and when I look up the name this is one of the first things I see:
In 1919, Berger was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for publicizing his anti-interventionist views and as a result was denied the seat to which he had been twice elected in the House of Representatives...Wisconsin promptly held a special election to fill the vacant seat. On December 19, 1919, they elected Berger a second time, and on January 10, 1920, the House again refused to seat him. The seat remained vacant until January 1921, after his previous electoral opponent, Republican William H. Stafford, once again prevailed over Berger in the 1920 general election.
I really just do not believe electoralism will ever be a potential path to power for contemporary leftists in this country. It may once have been, but that was before 'socialist' was a term that became synonymous with 'Nazi' in the minds of many Americans.
Looking at self described socialists we have now, most of them are under the DNC banner, which makes them inherently beholden to that party, their funding at it's whims (and always with the threat of being primaried if they become too problematic)
I am glad to see more socialists in current Congress then I remembered, that does give a little hope for the future. But surely you understand why I'm not exactly optimistic about electoralism as a path forward
The guy who literally wasn't allowed to hold office nationally because he was a socialist? I don't think that proves your idea that socialists can hold office nationally if we just try hard enough
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
whoa, WSWS managed to end an article without an abrupt call for people to join a Trotskyist org in the last paragraph! Impressive.
