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.
Is anyone understanding yet that the status quo is that elected officials report to a group of influential people who have selected them because they can be controlled and that is all?
It's true that the people with the power would rather their controllable opponent win an election than a candidate in their own party who has ideas of their own.
Until that can be remedied, democracy is truly afflicted by ophiocordyceps unilateralis.
Your vote means NOTHING
Your voice means NOTHING
CARRY ON AS DIRECTED
Most of the Democrats are bought off by the same people as the Republicans. All this political theatre is just a show for the illusion of choice. Hopefully more people who can't be bought off get elected, but I doubt it.
Hopefully more people will realize that bourgeois democracy is working as intended, and that it cannot be reformed; it must be replaced.
now that's surprising /s
They sure shut the fuck up about " blue no matter who" real fast.
Democrat leadership would choose Trump over Zohran.
They're lining back up behind Eric Adams, which is functionally the same thing.
The destroyer?
You don't mess with the Zohran
The fact that liberals refuse to read just 100 pages of State and Revolution while insisting that they are having new ideas or that the political environment has somehow changed is by far the most frustrating thing about Lemmy comment sections. I'm an anarchist, someone smeared by Lenin in that book but at least I read it and understand. My disagreement is with the vision and form of the dictatorship of the proletariat and how we can build a new commune, not the need for revolution or insisting that somehow, some way after 175 years of the same discussion voting for reform will work.
I swear Americans have never read a book that wasn't Harry Potter in their lives.
I swear Americans have never read a book that wasn’t Harry Potter in their lives.
Nonsense. Some of them have read The Bible.
That's not true, they've also read 1984 and thought all "adult" books are gonna be this fucking dreadful and boring so they don't read anymore, they just pretend
idiocracy was a documentary1984 is like, so true, manThat’s not true, they’ve also read [the wikipedia article about the plot of] 1984 [while furiously arguing about things on the internet they don't understand]
ftfy lol
they’ve also read 1984 and thought all “adult” books are gonna be this fucking dreadful and boring
I gotta say, 1984 has a lot wrong with it. But it's pretty short and punchy as books go. Espionage, sex, torture, murder. Orwell was Tom Clancy before Tom Clancy was cool.
If you're looking for something that's endless, dreadful, and boring, you might want a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Not true. Some of them use it as an instruction manual.
I'm curious to hear the objections and alteratives. I'm not fully versed in anarchist thought.
Essentially that there is no way that the dictatorship of the proletarian will ever be temporary and that even though he spends time talking about the evils of the bourgeois state and how it must be dismantled this dictatorship with its "vanguard" (which are just new elites) will necessarily form a new state that will also form self-preservation methods and never transfer to a workers run stateless system. Bakunin calls them a red bureaucracy and Emma Goldman writes about how the Bolshevik state simply replaced the old Tsarist state and became reformist and bourgeois in nature losing its revolutionary character in time. The crackdown of the Kronstadt rebellion was the first seeds of this nearly immediately after the October revolution. The anarchist response and alternative to the centralized state that Lenin believes is required is a decentralized system of worker self-management pods in federated councils and communes, not a top-down elite vanguard run dictatorship.
A lot of the disagreement comes from the understanding and lessons learned from the Paris commune. Lenin believes this is a prototype of a worker's state with recallable delegates, less red tape/bureaucracy and the removal of the existing state but Anarchists don't believe the lesson here is to just create another state, although I personally would argue a dictatorship of the proletariat is preferable to the dictatorship of capital we currently live in, we want more communes that work together. We don't believe the revolutionary character of the commune went far enough to actually destroy the existing state and instead tried to recreate it on a smaller scale.
100% when the Democrats have full control it's all 'golly gee willikers' but the second the Republicans have full control it's like 'everyone loves steak now. EAT IT'
Damn, if you posted this six months ago, people would have tried to ban you for it.
It is an actual concept??!?!
I have been calling it the ratchet effect for years (because it is a ratchet).
Just happy to see someone else calling it that.
Ah yes the Corbyn technique.
They tried the Corbyn technique in the primaries. It didn’t stick, and that’s why they’re freaking out right now.
The Democrats are afraid Democratic Socialism as it is the anti MAGA—and they should be, the sellouts.
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.
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.
The left threatens power. MAGA doesn't.
Which is why we need a Democrat socialist party. Unfortunately, voters are incapable of voting for anything other than red or blue.
It's not the voters fault. If you split the Democratic vote, you will only get a permanent Republican government. And that doesn't help anyone.
Politicians like Mamdani are the only way forward. We need more people like him to run for local government like this, and move their way up from there...making way for more like them to take their places, as they go. You can't change things at the top, without laying the foundation for that change, first.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation already exists, though all socialism is democratic, it just stands for reformist socialism. PSL is revolutionary, but also runs candidates.
That's the party Zorhan is from. Look for a local chapter and join, they are lively and worth it.
This is evidence that the US political system does not function.
There are two paths forward;
- Burn down the entire thing (which Trump and frenemies are currently doing).
- rebuild and reform the existing system (which can happen by voters voting for progressive centralist candidates in local and state representatives en-mass (like in NYC).
I would not call Zohran Mandani a socialist. I would call him a progressive rational centralist.
I would not call Zohran Mandani a socialist. I would call him a progressive rational centralist.
I agree with you. We shouldn't present it as "left politics". We should present it as "politics for the people". That way, it makes it compatible with more people.
You wouldn't believe how many americans have a deep fear of the word "left". We should call it centrist instead, even if it is left.
Maybe, let's use the phrase "socialism is to listen to the heart of the people, and the heart sits in the center of people, so it's centralist politics" or something.
wouldn't believe how many americans have a deep fear of the word "left". We should call it centrist instead, even if it is left
Which is just dumb as hell
I strongly disageee. Historical experience of communists and socialists proves that hiding your actual views is a way to earn deep distrust from the people. Honesty, and a focus on the Mass Line, are what has brought the most unity and most success.
I would not call Zohran Mandani a socialist.
He literally said, "The end goal is seizing the means of production"
Zohran Mamdani is a Socialist.
The existing system cannot be fixed, it depends on imperialism and as such has hollowed out industrialization in favor of finance capital. Mamdani is a "boot of the neck" candidate, someone to show a bit of what's possible with a properly run economy, but even electing progressives elsewhere can't bring about socialism. Revolution is still necessary.
I think I was wrong. I think both sides maybe are the same...
Mmm yes. Not enough liberals have been attacked yet.
edit: i think the point was lost. dems feel too safe under Trump. he's only attacked four and a half.
Not even close.