Democratic Party lawmakers are refusing to endorse Zohran Mamdani and are spreading lies about him in the process
Democratic Party lawmakers are refusing to endorse Zohran Mamdani and are spreading lies about him in the process
Despite his decisive primary victory and impressive campaign, many Democratic lawmakers are refusing to endorse Zohran Mamdani and are spreading baseless lies and smears in the process.
Relevant rant:
📺 Why the Democratic Party CANNOT and WILL NOT be Reformed
Democrats would rather lose to a Republican, to a conservative, to a fascist, to Trump, than address the material conditions of the American people.
You're viewing a single thread.
The Democrats are afraid Democratic Socialism as it is the anti MAGA—and they should be, the sellouts.
To be clear, all socialism is democratic. "Democratic Socialism" is just for reformist socialism, and I'd argue Mamdani is just to give New Yorkers a taste of what a better world could look like. You can't actually change capitalism by working within it, though, revolution remains necessary. Mamdani could prove beneficial in normalizing socialism.
Traditionally yes, but the Democratic Socialists of America, as an organization (and of which Mamdani is a member), has a wide array of internal ideological factions within, that include Reformist Socialists, but also more revolutionary factions like Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, etc.
Sure, and I'd say this fracturing and factionalism works against its effectiveness. Democratic Centralism works.
Personally, I think that Democratic Centralism is too strict. I understand the idea behind ensuring the subordination of the minority to the majority, but as the party grows and especially after it seizes state power that subordination becomes enforced, and at that point it becomes oppression. It doesn't get rid of factions either, it just hides them and fosters resentment towards the majority faction.
Just so we're clear on what we're talking about, here are the tenets of Democratic Centralism as I understand them:
- That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.
- That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organization.
- That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
- That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.
I believe that point 3 should be a suggestion, and never enforced. It should be up to the individual whether any given disagreement is enough to warrant going their own way, and an option should be given to "stand aside" in cases where someone would prefer not to participate in an action but otherwise wants to remain with the group.
Point 4 is backwards IMO, and a recipe for authoritarianism. Any sort of elected authority should always be instantly recallable by the electorate, and any "lower" body should always have the autonomy to make their own decisions.
Factionalism is not a bad thing if you embrace it rather than trying to fight it.
Democratic Centralism is the result of communist parties figuring out what works best through practice. It's at the core of the fast response times, stability, and popular support of socialist systems. Each point is developed and proven in importance through practice.
Point 3 is just basic democracy. If a group comes to a vote, what's the point if the minority just refuses to follow? Unity in action is the strength of the working class, it's what turns the sheer numbers into a mighty sword to fight the bourgeoisie, without unity you have a directionless and mushy form. Further, you can have revotes on decisions if necessary down the line.
Point 4 is not as scary as you think. Recall elections are a core aspect of the electoral system in demcent countries and parties if needed. The lower rungs get to elect the higher rungs, the top is only there because they have won elections, and if they lose the trust of the people they can be ousted.
As for factionalism, it's a recipe for instability and this is where capitalism thrives. A competent, unified, democratic body is far superior than competing private interests at achieving the goals of the people. It's part of why China's government, as an example, has over 90% approval rates, while the US as a two-party system has less than 50% approval rates consistently. Having a single party is not anti-democratic, it means everyone is on the same team and is willing to work together.
Overall, I think you need to actually see the success of demcent orgs like PSL vs how a party like the DSA functions. PSL, with fewer party members, gets pound for pound more done. The DSA is highly divided, its biggest strength is its size, but it can't weild it properly. Meanwhile, PSL is growing rapidly, and is at the forefront of the No Kings and pro-Palestinian protest movements in the US.
I appreciate the well thought out response. My main point of contention is the enforcement mechanism. I agree with point 3 as a strategy, and I have actually participated in groups that follow this general principle, but I have always had the option to simply leave and find another group or form my own. The problem arises when the group is the only permissible form of organization (such as, for example, if it is the one party in a one-party state). You actually see this problem in China, when the state cracks down on workers who attempt to organize on their own terms by forming independent unions. I see this as an unambiguous moral failing of the Chinese state, and is an issue on which I will not budge. Bureaucracy makes determining the will of the majority complicated (no democracy is perfect), but even if it is indeed the will of the majority, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
There are things more important than unity. I do not believe that a better world must necessarily come at the cost of individual autonomy.
Labor unions are promoted and are permissible, just as long as they don't work against the socialist system. It isn't a moral failing to value unity, especially when disunity is what has been historically used by the west to topple governments it doesn't like. Further, again, over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their system, and a similar quantity believe it to be genuinely democratic.
I don't disagree, but I think it's worth recognizing that when we talk about the DSA, that it is, for better or worse more than just a reformist org.
When people speak of Democratic Socialism, they usually are referring to the ideological position, not just the USian party, for what it's worth. That's my point, I'm aware of Red Star caucus and whatnot.
democrats as in dnc elites don’t give a fig about democracy, socialism or maga. they are freaking out because their employers (superpacs and israel) have shoved a rod up their ass for allowing this to happen. they know if he gets elected then the lobbyists will kick them out and bring in new more shameless hacks. they are grifters who have been riding the two-party lesser evil gravy train for decades now.
Your grammar is atrocious but your point is excellent. Why???
Why ??
It’s likely an aggregate effect of just waking up and rushing it to as I had to get ready for work.
not so much grammar as e. e. cummings orthography.
The left threatens power. MAGA doesn't.