I’m open to different ways of expressing the idea, but is the idea itself that controversial?
They’re an explicitly capitalist party who maintain hegemony in part by perpetuating the idea that capitalist goals are the same as working people’s. The false consciousness that they work to create (see the Resistance for an obvious example) serves only to siphon off dissatisfaction into nonrevolutionary channels.
Here's what your friendly neighborhood :LIB: would say to that:
They're capitalist, but that doesn't mean they're controlled opposition. Just look at all the places they oppose Republicans. Look at how efforts to end the War on Drugs are almost entirely led by Democrats. Look at how efforts to protect abortion access are 100% led by Democrats. Look at how many Democrats vs. Republicans opposed the Iraq War, and how party support differed for Trump's attacks on Iran during the Soleimani episode. How can you say they're controlled opposition when there are so many points of genuine, intense disagreement?
Do you honestly think Democrats are getting paid to lose, and that all this disagreement is just an act? Do their campaign workers -- who have jobs riding on this stuff -- know it's an act? Does your state-level candidate -- who has to go out and get a real job if he loses -- know it's an act?
It's just a far harder sell than "Democrats just suck at politics because their only real competition is cartoonishly evil."
Only Democrats could take a majority in the House and Senate while controlling the Executive branch and decide they need to fucking compromise. Democrats are that weird kid who shows up on board game night and decides to make up their own bizarre-ass rules that literally nobody else is playing by, and then they throw a tantrum when they lose and will not fucking shut up about how no one else would play by their weird-ass house rules, when it's not even their house.
The problem with Democrats is that they think they're playing a friendly board game when they're really in a knife fight. But again, that's just political incompetence, not some sort of controlled opposition theory.
I’m open to different ways of expressing the idea, but is the idea itself that controversial?
They’re an explicitly capitalist party who maintain hegemony in part by perpetuating the idea that capitalist goals are the same as working people’s. The false consciousness that they work to create (see the Resistance for an obvious example) serves only to siphon off dissatisfaction into nonrevolutionary channels.
Here's what your friendly neighborhood :LIB: would say to that:
It's just a far harder sell than "Democrats just suck at politics because their only real competition is cartoonishly evil."
Only Democrats could take a majority in the House and Senate while controlling the Executive branch and decide they need to fucking compromise. Democrats are that weird kid who shows up on board game night and decides to make up their own bizarre-ass rules that literally nobody else is playing by, and then they throw a tantrum when they lose and will not fucking shut up about how no one else would play by their weird-ass house rules, when it's not even their house.
The problem with Democrats is that they think they're playing a friendly board game when they're really in a knife fight. But again, that's just political incompetence, not some sort of controlled opposition theory.