Non-revolutionary, language appropriating liberals. With no anti-imperialism or international solidarity, no support for AES, convenient agreement with all state dept talking points. And just generally not being a threat to capital and conveniently diverting people away from real socialism (which they conveniently deride themselves as "not real socialism"). Anti-communist leftists, what Parenti called the unkindest cut.
Universal healthcare isn’t a socialist platform?
Ah no. Free stuff is actually not what socialism means. Neither is it government doing things. I forgive you for thinking it as that is a deliberate and loudly blared lie. A socialist society would do many things (including providing healthcare) but to achieve any of them it must overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and establish control over the means of production. Socialists can force concessions from the capitalists when the capitalists panic but that should not be mistaken for the primary goal. If they want to give healthcare as an appeasement I wouldn't necessarily say we'd have to refuse it but it wouldn't be the goal of the movement so much as an attempt to buy it off that we would have to ignore and continue pushing after.
It’s downright laughable to say this when we’re only a few months out from Bernie leading the Democratic primary
What you said is laughable. He led until he didn't, he only led in a split field. They organized behind closed doors to block him and did so handily. He did not go to the convention, he wasn't close, he was destroyed by South Carolina, and the primaries that followed on Super Tuesday sealed his fate. So no. He wasn't close. He only appeared that way for a short while and only as a result of a heavily divided field. And they will do that every time. Stop drinking your own pro-Bernie kool-aid. That's what skewed your view of reality.
Let me tell you something liberal. Bernie is the furthest left candidate you're going to see for some time at the national level. And frankly he is unacceptable, he was the hardest compromise. AOC is to his right, the other people getting in are to his right. They don't even want realistic plans for M4A. AOC undercut him by contradicting him to the press during his campaign regarding a key part of how it would be implemented by suggesting a government plan option which would just be sabotaged, underfunded, and intentionally destroyed from within to save the healthcare industry then discarded when it has "failed". She's a piece of shit imperialist too. One who thinks reading theory is elitist.
This kind of renewal of image is necessary from time to time for the Democrats, to fool young, bright-eyed, impressionable, misled liberals into thinking they're achieving anything. What have they got? A handful of powerless House reps (and for every one of these liberals that won a dozen lost their primaries) one old man who will never run another presidential campaign. A party happy to sabotage even someone as far to the right as Bernie. You cannot win. You investing energy into this rigged machine called electoralism is by design. The capitalists designed it to subvert popular change, to destroy popular movements, and to keep the levers of power firmly in their hands.
The Democrats have spent decades subverting similar movements. A century in fact if you count FDR saving capitalism.
And Biden, he is their champion and he stands a very good chance of winning. Even if he doesn't you saw them, the voters and the party officials tripling down on moving right. This isn't a ship you can take. At best you can hope to shatter it into pieces.
How can you possibly create a revolution unless you move a significant part of the population much further left? How can you possibly move a significant part of the population much further left without people in the political mainstream who will advance leftist ideas?
You can be dead set on the idea that revolution is ultimately necessary to achieve socialism, but that doesn't make politicians who are de-stigmatizing socialism bad, even if they aren't revolutionaries themselves. We're in no position to turn down good-faith allies even if we don't agree with them 100%. For instance, calling Bernie "unacceptable" is a fast track to getting nothing done. You can't be a serious revolutionary -- i.e, literally willing to kill and die for socialism -- if you're not even willing to work with people on the left who don't perfectly align with you.
Free stuff is actually not what socialism means.
Did I say that? Of course not. Universal healthcare is unquestionably socialist. It involves public ownership of the means of production (M4A would essentially destroy private health insurance companies and create a publicly-owned, non-profit replacement; the NHS goes farther with publicly-owned providers). It prioritizes the well-being of people over the accumulation of profit. From an empirical perspective, even the poorest socialist countries have prioritized the creation of a universal healthcare system.
Obviously universal healthcare is not a full overthrow of the capitalist state (another thing I never said). If you call everything under capitalism capitalist, you'll get nowhere because you give capitalism credit for a bunch of good, non-capitalist things, and you have a lot less to show people when they ask what good socialism has done. The goal isn't to win some academic debate about what is or isn't socialism; the goal is to create socialism. Pointing out the effectively socialist facets of the capitalist state advances that goal. Quibbling over an academic question like "can anything be socialist if the capitalist state is still in place?" does not.
One who thinks reading theory is elitist.
This trend of tearing down people on the left with bad-faith interpretations (or blatant misrepresentations) of their statements is pathetic, counterproductive, and needs to be ended.
Non-revolutionary, language appropriating liberals. With no anti-imperialism or international solidarity, no support for AES, convenient agreement with all state dept talking points. And just generally not being a threat to capital and conveniently diverting people away from real socialism (which they conveniently deride themselves as "not real socialism"). Anti-communist leftists, what Parenti called the unkindest cut.
Ah no. Free stuff is actually not what socialism means. Neither is it government doing things. I forgive you for thinking it as that is a deliberate and loudly blared lie. A socialist society would do many things (including providing healthcare) but to achieve any of them it must overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and establish control over the means of production. Socialists can force concessions from the capitalists when the capitalists panic but that should not be mistaken for the primary goal. If they want to give healthcare as an appeasement I wouldn't necessarily say we'd have to refuse it but it wouldn't be the goal of the movement so much as an attempt to buy it off that we would have to ignore and continue pushing after.
What you said is laughable. He led until he didn't, he only led in a split field. They organized behind closed doors to block him and did so handily. He did not go to the convention, he wasn't close, he was destroyed by South Carolina, and the primaries that followed on Super Tuesday sealed his fate. So no. He wasn't close. He only appeared that way for a short while and only as a result of a heavily divided field. And they will do that every time. Stop drinking your own pro-Bernie kool-aid. That's what skewed your view of reality.
Let me tell you something liberal. Bernie is the furthest left candidate you're going to see for some time at the national level. And frankly he is unacceptable, he was the hardest compromise. AOC is to his right, the other people getting in are to his right. They don't even want realistic plans for M4A. AOC undercut him by contradicting him to the press during his campaign regarding a key part of how it would be implemented by suggesting a government plan option which would just be sabotaged, underfunded, and intentionally destroyed from within to save the healthcare industry then discarded when it has "failed". She's a piece of shit imperialist too. One who thinks reading theory is elitist.
This kind of renewal of image is necessary from time to time for the Democrats, to fool young, bright-eyed, impressionable, misled liberals into thinking they're achieving anything. What have they got? A handful of powerless House reps (and for every one of these liberals that won a dozen lost their primaries) one old man who will never run another presidential campaign. A party happy to sabotage even someone as far to the right as Bernie. You cannot win. You investing energy into this rigged machine called electoralism is by design. The capitalists designed it to subvert popular change, to destroy popular movements, and to keep the levers of power firmly in their hands.
The Democrats have spent decades subverting similar movements. A century in fact if you count FDR saving capitalism.
And Biden, he is their champion and he stands a very good chance of winning. Even if he doesn't you saw them, the voters and the party officials tripling down on moving right. This isn't a ship you can take. At best you can hope to shatter it into pieces.
How can you possibly create a revolution unless you move a significant part of the population much further left? How can you possibly move a significant part of the population much further left without people in the political mainstream who will advance leftist ideas?
You can be dead set on the idea that revolution is ultimately necessary to achieve socialism, but that doesn't make politicians who are de-stigmatizing socialism bad, even if they aren't revolutionaries themselves. We're in no position to turn down good-faith allies even if we don't agree with them 100%. For instance, calling Bernie "unacceptable" is a fast track to getting nothing done. You can't be a serious revolutionary -- i.e, literally willing to kill and die for socialism -- if you're not even willing to work with people on the left who don't perfectly align with you.
Did I say that? Of course not. Universal healthcare is unquestionably socialist. It involves public ownership of the means of production (M4A would essentially destroy private health insurance companies and create a publicly-owned, non-profit replacement; the NHS goes farther with publicly-owned providers). It prioritizes the well-being of people over the accumulation of profit. From an empirical perspective, even the poorest socialist countries have prioritized the creation of a universal healthcare system.
Obviously universal healthcare is not a full overthrow of the capitalist state (another thing I never said). If you call everything under capitalism capitalist, you'll get nowhere because you give capitalism credit for a bunch of good, non-capitalist things, and you have a lot less to show people when they ask what good socialism has done. The goal isn't to win some academic debate about what is or isn't socialism; the goal is to create socialism. Pointing out the effectively socialist facets of the capitalist state advances that goal. Quibbling over an academic question like "can anything be socialist if the capitalist state is still in place?" does not.
This trend of tearing down people on the left with bad-faith interpretations (or blatant misrepresentations) of their statements is pathetic, counterproductive, and needs to be ended.