My impression of what she's saying here is, vote for Harris now, but don't wait 4 years to be politically active again so we can try to actually get someone better. Which I completely agree with. Getting Trump elected doesn't help anything and might make some goals less achievable, and right now Harris is the only one who can beat him. But the more important part is to not stop critiquing her ideology. Don't let her forget about Palestinian children, don't let people be complacent with capitalist hegemony, do the ground work necessary to move our government to the left. That doesn't mean waiting four years to try and stop her reelection, it means continuing to talk in real life with people about what we should expect from government. It means trying to build momentum behind some candidates to get them elected in 2 years, and don't wait for election season to do so. This work doesn't stop.
And a brief aside for those that just want a revolution to be done with it. 1, most of the same still applies, especially the building momentum part. And 2, there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power, so we'll need to elect some sympathetic candidates before that possibility has any chance.
I'm imposing my own interpretation onto her message, but I believe that someone aligned with Greta's message would see this is an absolutely reasonable position. That message reads to me like someone much more concerned with the cessation of genocide, capitalism, and climate catastrophe than who you vote for. If we read her message and started a big Harris v Trump debate I doubt Greta would be like "Finally! They understand and are reacting just the way I had intended!"
Sankara was appointed Minister of Information in Saye Zerbo's military government in September 1981.
After a coup (7 November 1982) brought to power Major-Doctor Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo, Sankara became Prime Minister in January 1983. But he was dismissed a few months later, on 17 May.
A coup d'état organized by Blaise Compaoré made Sankara President on 4 August 1983 at the age of 33
Also important to note that it was a revolution that was tossed out the window in like five years because the guy who organized the first revolution wanted a new one.
If I remember right, Lenin and Trotsky were both lawyers (but didn't hold office and Lenin was in exile before returning to Russia) and Stalin was a career criminal (he robbed banks on behalf of the revolution) and soldier. Kropotkin didn't partake in the October revolution nor Russian Civil War and was living in exile in France.
My soviet history isn't very good, so others feel free to correct me and call me a dumbass for making shit up. I'd say a significant number of revolutions didn't include anyone with a title or office. The major figures that created the USSR were public employees at best in a place where noblemen still held vast amounts of land and wealth.
I think Mao was from the nobility and renounced his title, but maybe I'm wrong there. I know Che's Castro family owned a plantation.
Che's family was Argentinian, you are thinking of Fidel. Mao was from a minor landlord family.
However none of these figures had any connections to people in political power. Being born rich is less important in this sense than being a social climber who is friends with some politicians. Fidel for instance had long since alienated all his former ties
No buddy that is how that works. You're the one who made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Or did you mean "not how that works" in that people don't get to push back on the obvious bullshit you've uncritically ingested from the front page of statedeptalkingpoints.com? go back to your echo chamber on
This is a horribly out of touch reading on her directly calling out the US as a settler-colonial genocidal Empire. When she says Democracy is an every day thing, she isn't talking about trying to elect "good democrats," she directly tells the reader to Get Organized!
And a brief aside for those that just want a revolution to be done with it. 1, most of the same still applies, especially the building momentum part. And 2, there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power, so we'll need to elect some sympathetic candidates before that possibility has any chance.
Yes, organizing is critical, that's why she said to do so.
This is wrong on 2 fronts. The first, is the idea that successful revolutions have relied on the ruling class. This is false! From the Cuban, Chinese, Russian, Korean, to the Vietnamese, and beyond, working class revolutions have been the only truly successful revolutions. Secondly, there will never be establishment candidates symathetic to overthrowing the system they rose to power in.
Read The State and Revolution. The bourgeois state cannot be overthrown from above, it must be smashed from below.
And a brief aside for those that just want a revolution to be done with it. 1, most of the same still applies, especially the building momentum part. And 2, there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power, so we'll need to elect some sympathetic candidates before that possibility has any chance.
She implied that neither candidate will fix the issues, and actually perpetuate it. Even if she endorsed PSL or Greens, they would not win, she's pointing out that no matter what happens this election leftists must get organized to stop the genocidal settler-colonial empire.
Both recognizes those are the only 2 real options, and directly states which is the worse of those 2 options.
Yeah, and with this she successfully pacified people like you. Otherwise, you'd be jumping down her throat, like many are doing with the Washington Post.
It doesn't take a genius to see that this is a token statement to avoid being harassed.
The offices where we actually have a chance of electing someone in the next 2 years are all local positions. So that answer is going to be dependent on what state you live in.
I don't live in the US. I've just not genuinely heard of any candidates sympathetic to Revolution other than Claudia so I'm curious to know which ones you're aware of
When do local politicians decide on ending wars, nationalizing resources and industry, providing free housing and healthcare and education? How long do we have to get those tens of thousands of individual local politicians elected into power before the planet warms to a point of no return which ushers in a mass extinction event?
They get much dumber than this. There's an aura of smug dipshittery surrounding them but they're lacking some really horrendous vibes that can best be illustrated like so:
I hope she dies on live television. I wanna see her croak. I want it to be an interview where she's being asked about how she caused the collapse of the democratic party or something (I wish it was before a revolutionary tribunal, but this is at least somewhat realistic). I guess a modern Weather Underground could execute her ISIS-style maybe.
My impression of what she's saying here is, vote for Harris now
No? Lol. She does not say to vote at all. She says they're both evil genocidal pieces of shit.
and right now Harris is the only one who can beat him
Who gives a fuck
But the more important part is to not stop critiquing her ideology. Don't let her forget about Palestinian children, don't let people be complacent with capitalist hegemony, do the ground work necessary to move our government to the left.
"WE CAN PUSH THEM LEFT"
Lmao are you people seriously saying this AGAIN? How many elections in a row are you going to say this nonsense and be proven wrong over and over again? Fuck off. You can't push ANYTHING in the american democratic system other than what the bourgeoisie want. Average people have ZERO impact on policy, fact, studied and proven.
It means trying to build momentum behind some candidates to get them elected in 2 years
lol in 2 and 4 years you will be screeching to vote liberal again because you have absolutely no commitment to building the future now.
And a brief aside for those that just want a revolution to be done with it.
You're talking about this entire instance.
1, most of the same still applies, especially the building momentum part.
No it does not. Because you are talking about electoralism, which is not remotely the same thing. Revolutions are not built by winning elections lmao.
And 2, there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power
"WE CAN PUSH THEM LEFT"
Lmao are you people seriously saying this AGAIN? How many elections in a row are you going to say this nonsense and be proven wrong over and over again?
And a brief aside for those that just want a revolution to be done with it. 1, most of the same still applies, especially the building momentum part. And 2, there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power, so we'll need to elect some sympathetic candidates before that possibility has any chance.
At this point low-information uneducated liberals attempting to lecture Marxist-Leninists on revolution stops being frustrating and starts being funny.
My impression of what she's saying here is, vote for Harris now, but don't wait 4 years to be politically active again so we can try to actually get someone better. Which I completely agree with. Getting Trump elected doesn't help anything and might make some goals less achievable, and right now Harris is the only one who can beat him. But the more important part is to not stop critiquing her ideology. Don't let her forget about Palestinian children, don't let people be complacent with capitalist hegemony, do the ground work necessary to move our government to the left. That doesn't mean waiting four years to try and stop her reelection, it means continuing to talk in real life with people about what we should expect from government. It means trying to build momentum behind some candidates to get them elected in 2 years, and don't wait for election season to do so. This work doesn't stop.
And a brief aside for those that just want a revolution to be done with it. 1, most of the same still applies, especially the building momentum part. And 2, there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power, so we'll need to elect some sympathetic candidates before that possibility has any chance.
I will not endorse genocide
I'm imposing my own interpretation onto her message, but I believe that someone aligned with Greta's message would see this is an absolutely reasonable position. That message reads to me like someone much more concerned with the cessation of genocide, capitalism, and climate catastrophe than who you vote for. If we read her message and started a big Harris v Trump debate I doubt Greta would be like "Finally! They understand and are reacting just the way I had intended!"
Gonna need some examples of what you’re talking about here
The RRSDLP won 14 out of 442 seats in the 1912 election, maybe they mean that! (lol)
See? There are many examples!
Also important to note that it was a revolution that was tossed out the window in like five years because the guy who organized the first revolution wanted a new one.
Yeah I shouldnt take for granted that people know this, and the cia likely had a lot to do with it
That's now how that works. Please show me some examples of successful revolutions that had 0 ties to those in power.
Can't get more obvious than the Haitian revolution
Russian, Cuban, Chinese, Haitian, all were working class revolutions.
You’re the one making the assertion so it should be easy for you to point out some examples that support what you’re claiming
Examples wouldn't suffice since he's making a claim of non-existence. Proving the contrary is, however, very easy.
You’re clearly the one familiar with the literature. I’m not making a claim. I’m asking for clarification. Surely you can give a single example.
If I remember right, Lenin and Trotsky were both lawyers (but didn't hold office and Lenin was in exile before returning to Russia) and Stalin was a career criminal (he robbed banks on behalf of the revolution) and soldier. Kropotkin didn't partake in the October revolution nor Russian Civil War and was living in exile in France.
My soviet history isn't very good, so others feel free to correct me and call me a dumbass for making shit up. I'd say a significant number of revolutions didn't include anyone with a title or office. The major figures that created the USSR were public employees at best in a place where noblemen still held vast amounts of land and wealth.
I think Mao was from the nobility and renounced his title, but maybe I'm wrong there. I know
Che'sCastro family owned a plantation.Edit: brainfart
Che's family was Argentinian, you are thinking of Fidel. Mao was from a minor landlord family.
However none of these figures had any connections to people in political power. Being born rich is less important in this sense than being a social climber who is friends with some politicians. Fidel for instance had long since alienated all his former ties
Fixed. I knew that sentence didn't look right lmao
lmao classic lib move, pull something straight outta your ass and then expect a detailed response to your baseless argument
I'm sure the Bolsheviks asked a lot of politicians for permission before occupying all strategic points in one night right?
As evidently in your other comment, your "in power" there meant "in the government":
All revolutions
well stalin robbed the state bank of Georgia ... and he was imprisoned 8 times .. do you mean that connection to the state ?
No buddy that is how that works. You're the one who made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Or did you mean "not how that works" in that people don't get to push back on the obvious bullshit you've uncritically ingested from the front page of statedeptalkingpoints.com? go back to your echo chamber on
Your government must be eradicated
This is a horribly out of touch reading on her directly calling out the US as a settler-colonial genocidal Empire. When she says Democracy is an every day thing, she isn't talking about trying to elect "good democrats," she directly tells the reader to Get Organized!
Yes, organizing is critical, that's why she said to do so.
This is wrong on 2 fronts. The first, is the idea that successful revolutions have relied on the ruling class. This is false! From the Cuban, Chinese, Russian, Korean, to the Vietnamese, and beyond, working class revolutions have been the only truly successful revolutions. Secondly, there will never be establishment candidates symathetic to overthrowing the system they rose to power in.
Read The State and Revolution. The bourgeois state cannot be overthrown from above, it must be smashed from below.
Lol, vote brain
lol
the history understander has logged on
nowhere did she imply that
Both recognizes those are the only 2 real options, and directly states which is the worse of those 2 options.
Implying you do need to settle for the least worst option but going on to say that that's not enough to actually make change.
She implied that neither candidate will fix the issues, and actually perpetuate it. Even if she endorsed PSL or Greens, they would not win, she's pointing out that no matter what happens this election leftists must get organized to stop the genocidal settler-colonial empire.
Are you a member of a left organization? Which one? And if not, why not?
Yeah, and with this she successfully pacified people like you. Otherwise, you'd be jumping down her throat, like many are doing with the Washington Post.
It doesn't take a genius to see that this is a token statement to avoid being harassed.
wow the old :vote: and then push dems left argument huh
Which sympathetic candidates are you thinking of?
The offices where we actually have a chance of electing someone in the next 2 years are all local positions. So that answer is going to be dependent on what state you live in.
I don't live in the US. I've just not genuinely heard of any candidates sympathetic to Revolution other than Claudia so I'm curious to know which ones you're aware of
What candidate is sympathetic to overthrowing the system, other than Claudia De La Crúz of PSL?
lmao typical with the copout
When do local politicians decide on ending wars, nationalizing resources and industry, providing free housing and healthcare and education? How long do we have to get those tens of thousands of individual local politicians elected into power before the planet warms to a point of no return which ushers in a mass extinction event?
Hi person from lemmy
My power level is to high for you to even imagine
so these are the libs from lemmy you guys told me about
They get much dumber than this. There's an aura of smug dipshittery surrounding them but they're lacking some really horrendous vibes that can best be illustrated like so:
Lmao
Hillary
Anyone who supports her or voted for her is a disgusting pathetic piece of shit human being
I hope she dies on live television. I wanna see her croak. I want it to be an interview where she's being asked about how she caused the collapse of the democratic party or something (I wish it was before a revolutionary tribunal, but this is at least somewhat realistic). I guess a modern Weather Underground could execute her ISIS-style maybe.
Liberals and talking over marginalised people, name a more iconic duo
No? Lol. She does not say to vote at all. She says they're both evil genocidal pieces of shit.
Who gives a fuck
"WE CAN PUSH THEM LEFT"
Lmao are you people seriously saying this AGAIN? How many elections in a row are you going to say this nonsense and be proven wrong over and over again? Fuck off. You can't push ANYTHING in the american democratic system other than what the bourgeoisie want. Average people have ZERO impact on policy, fact, studied and proven.
lol in 2 and 4 years you will be screeching to vote liberal again because you have absolutely no commitment to building the future now.
You're talking about this entire instance.
No it does not. Because you are talking about electoralism, which is not remotely the same thing. Revolutions are not built by winning elections lmao.
Absolutely false lol
The only "connection to those in power" a successful revolution has is a noose.
They've been saying it for over half a century. In some ways since the 1800's. Luckily for the dems, libs have the memory of a housefly
At this point low-information uneducated liberals attempting to lecture Marxist-Leninists on revolution stops being frustrating and starts being funny.