If you can't keep a single law you enact on the books longer than 7 months because the Surpreme Court rules them unconstitutional, you're never going to see progress -- even if we used Juche necromancy to ressurect Karl Marx and elected him president.
We're roughly in the same position the far right was in the 1960s in terms of electoral influence.
It's taken them decades of gerrymandering, court packing, thinktank creating, politician bribing, astroturf movement creating, and elite level organizing to create this neoliberal consensus. It did not just materialize out of nowhere.
You have none of their power, money, or influence, and you think you have 40 years left to engage in a useless electoral project of incremental Socialism? A project you're just assuming they're going to let happen right under their nose?
What you want is for someone to validate the fucking fantasy that there's a kumbaya, easy way to do this. As if we don't have the entire 20th century to use as data points to know this for certain.
The left project going forward is going to be brutal and nearly impossible. It may occasionally involve electoralism, but it is not an electoral project. You cannot elect your way to socialism any more than you can ask your enemies to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. It's not going to happen.
Electoralism and peaceful protest are methods of elite pacification. They are busy boxes offered to you so that change can be coopted and safely eliminated or made meaningless.
The fact that our current situation is really bad, does not change the fact that that's a dead fucking end.
Literally, whatever you think the odds are of a successful revolution, even at sub 1%, it is more likely than "electoral victory." Which is something that has never happened ever, anywhere, let alone in the imperial core, let alone in a country as historically hostile to the working class as the United States.
If we're enacting laws, we're packing the Supreme Court. They both require the same amount of control, actually enacting laws requires the House so more control.
Of course. Though as far as the SCOTUS is concerned we just need the Senate and presidency.
That's why the "conservative SCOTUS for the next 50 years" argument is bullshit. Whoever controls the presidency and Senate can do whatever they want with the SCOTUS, no matter what the last guy did.
Whoever controls the presidency and Senate can do whatever they want with the SCOTUS, no matter what the last guy did.
This would require court packing, and court packing would require both houses of Congress plus the presidency. And while it's technically a possibility with that, it would still be a long shot.
That's just nominating a Justice, and it requires an opening.
Court packing is increasing the size of the Supreme Court to create those openings. Increasing the size of the Court can be done by statute, but passing a new statute requires control of both the House and Senate.
Dems are shit overall, but they could easily come up with something like marijuana legalization, which would have an enormous impact on ending mass incarceration. They already have a vote scheduled on it in the House, and at the local level Dems have passed it a dozen times over. It's not ridiculous to think about Medicare or All, either, although that's probably at least 4-5 years off.
Dems are shit overall, but they could easily come up with something like marijuana legalization, which would have an enormous impact on ending mass incarceration.
Biden would veto it
It’s not ridiculous to think about Medicare or All, either, although that’s probably at least 4-5 years off.
Biden doesn't actually believe in anything. If he ever did, he's too senile now to still believe it. What he's saying now isn't what he believes -- because he doesn't believe in anything -- it's what he thinks will get him elected.
If Democrats win the Senate and are looking for a midterm boost, it's realistic that Biden could "evolve" on marijuana legalization the same way Obama "evolved" on LGBT rights. These people are pandering, not making lifelong commitments.
The LGBT rights the Dems are pushing don’t significantly impact capital. The US state didn’t decide to enslave a tenth of the population for shits and gigs. If it was allowed to significantly impact incarceration rates Marijuana legalisation would cost private prisons (massive dem donors btw) hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Do you really believe the US Democratic Party is capable of going against US capital in general and their donors in particular to that extent?
Do you seriously believe the US Democratic Party would pass legislation that would cost their donors (private prisons & health insurance companies) Trillions of dollars?
Just like republicans stopped trying to repeal Obamacare after Trump took office, you'll see Dems give up on marijuana legalization and the Green New Deal. These policies are too popular to be passed. The two parties intentionally lose the culture wars so they can rail against the other side when they are trying to win your vote.
If you can't keep a single law you enact on the books longer than 7 months because the Surpreme Court rules them unconstitutional, you're never going to see progress -- even if we used Juche necromancy to ressurect Karl Marx and elected him president.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
read a single book of Marx
deleted by creator
We're roughly in the same position the far right was in the 1960s in terms of electoral influence.
It's taken them decades of gerrymandering, court packing, thinktank creating, politician bribing, astroturf movement creating, and elite level organizing to create this neoliberal consensus. It did not just materialize out of nowhere.
You have none of their power, money, or influence, and you think you have 40 years left to engage in a useless electoral project of incremental Socialism? A project you're just assuming they're going to let happen right under their nose?
What you want is for someone to validate the fucking fantasy that there's a kumbaya, easy way to do this. As if we don't have the entire 20th century to use as data points to know this for certain.
The left project going forward is going to be brutal and nearly impossible. It may occasionally involve electoralism, but it is not an electoral project. You cannot elect your way to socialism any more than you can ask your enemies to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. It's not going to happen.
Electoralism and peaceful protest are methods of elite pacification. They are busy boxes offered to you so that change can be coopted and safely eliminated or made meaningless.
The fact that our current situation is really bad, does not change the fact that that's a dead fucking end.
Literally, whatever you think the odds are of a successful revolution, even at sub 1%, it is more likely than "electoral victory." Which is something that has never happened ever, anywhere, let alone in the imperial core, let alone in a country as historically hostile to the working class as the United States.
deleted by creator
There is none, you are defeated.
You do not understand. There is no lever you can pull right now that will end this hell.
You are marooned on a desert island. You can try to build a raft, and brave the stormy seas, but there is no other way out.
You have to build the "alternative," it doesn't exist currently. And no one knows how to do it.
But playing around in the fucking sand cannot change anything. It never, ever will.
deleted by creator
This will be a problem for leftists no matter what, unless we literally abolish the Supreme Court.
Why are you talking about electoralism lmao.
The left in America will never win unless it drives out the Supreme Court justices at gunpoint
deleted by creator
If we're enacting laws, we're packing the Supreme Court. They both require the same amount of control, actually enacting laws requires the House so more control.
Not gonna happen again until the left is big enough to control congress and the presidency.
Of course. Though as far as the SCOTUS is concerned we just need the Senate and presidency.
That's why the "conservative SCOTUS for the next 50 years" argument is bullshit. Whoever controls the presidency and Senate can do whatever they want with the SCOTUS, no matter what the last guy did.
This would require court packing, and court packing would require both houses of Congress plus the presidency. And while it's technically a possibility with that, it would still be a long shot.
Court packing doesn't need the House. It's literally just nominating a new Justice and having the Senate approve.
That's just nominating a Justice, and it requires an opening.
Court packing is increasing the size of the Supreme Court to create those openings. Increasing the size of the Court can be done by statute, but passing a new statute requires control of both the House and Senate.
Realistically it's going to be way harder to get Dems on board with court packing than it is with about anything else.
If we're relying on Dems, we won't be passing any meaningful laws anyway.
Or picking any decent SC justices, from a left perspective.
Although I guess Sotomayor is actually pretty cool.
Obama threw is a bone in exchange for one of the most massive wealth consolidation scandals in history.
Dems are shit overall, but they could easily come up with something like marijuana legalization, which would have an enormous impact on ending mass incarceration. They already have a vote scheduled on it in the House, and at the local level Dems have passed it a dozen times over. It's not ridiculous to think about Medicare or All, either, although that's probably at least 4-5 years off.
Biden would veto it
Biden would veto it
Biden doesn't actually believe in anything. If he ever did, he's too senile now to still believe it. What he's saying now isn't what he believes -- because he doesn't believe in anything -- it's what he thinks will get him elected.
If Democrats win the Senate and are looking for a midterm boost, it's realistic that Biden could "evolve" on marijuana legalization the same way Obama "evolved" on LGBT rights. These people are pandering, not making lifelong commitments.
The LGBT rights the Dems are pushing don’t significantly impact capital. The US state didn’t decide to enslave a tenth of the population for shits and gigs. If it was allowed to significantly impact incarceration rates Marijuana legalisation would cost private prisons (massive dem donors btw) hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Do you really believe the US Democratic Party is capable of going against US capital in general and their donors in particular to that extent?
Do you seriously believe the US Democratic Party would pass legislation that would cost their donors (private prisons & health insurance companies) Trillions of dollars?
Just like republicans stopped trying to repeal Obamacare after Trump took office, you'll see Dems give up on marijuana legalization and the Green New Deal. These policies are too popular to be passed. The two parties intentionally lose the culture wars so they can rail against the other side when they are trying to win your vote.
Buttigieg was ostensibly for court packing
the only people to talk about Marx on this website are smooth brained reactionaries who don't know anything about him.