the bulk of the blue side constituency is made up of a significantly wider array perspectives than the red side
literally just had the same reaction that i could have got from some maga dude, right down to the misgendering in this exact thread. i really hope you can appreciate that this isn’t a new experience for me either.
i live in a blue state, my reps at state and federal are essentially republicans with the serial numbers filed off. as long as you don’t openly say slurs it all flies under the radar in a blue state. money dominates the conversation and people challenging entrenched democrat incumbents get accused of helping the republicans anyways.
i don’t see what benefit there is to participating inside the democratic party in any way. certainly not in voting for it; we don’t even have a popular vote.
literally just had the same reaction that i could have got from some maga dude, right down to the misgendering in this exact thread. i really hope you can appreciate that this isn’t a new experience for me either.
Try to remember everyone’s unique. I can’t answer for that person’s response to you, but I hope you can see mine are different.
But, yeah - I fully get where you’re coming from. I’m the “black sheep” of my family because I’m not on board at all with their right wing crap, and after many years I pretty much instinctively expect the worst out of every Republican because they rarely deviate from the hive mind. Yet, I still wait for them to dig their grave first before being dismissive of them because I always try to treat people how I’d like to be treated and that’s with fairness & understanding.
i don’t see what benefit there is to participating inside the democratic party in any way. certainly not in voting for it; we don’t even have a popular vote.
The progressives taking up more spaces within the party of late show why. You really need to focus on the primaries - work towards keeping the corporate Dems from getting the nomination & we can change things from within. Unfortunately, I’m not really aware of any other credible approach available to us short of an extremely unlikely full-on revolution - but at least there is a path towards change if we work it hard enough.
the problem i see is that ‘change from within’ makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of the party. the party has structural mechanisms to neutralize internal dissent.
thinking about how ‘the squad’ finally came around to endorsing kamala after years of getting boxed out on anything that mattered.
it’s not about waiting for or expecting that ‘the rev’ is imminent either.
what is actually imminent are peoples rising needs. what i think is worth engaging in is the act of creating structures that actually meet people’s needs now, outside the market. something that builds real capacity for change rather than depending on whether the right candidates win primaries inside a party structurally hostile to them.
i don’t think it’s as simple as ‘covering bases’ to be going up against a well-resourced party structure on its own terms and expecting change. to me that is an unrealistic expectation.
i’d rather see challengers running under a different party, i just have zero confidence in the democrats at this point.
i still vote because it’s convenient, i even vote in primaries and municipal. i usually just write in bullshit for all the races that are unopposed or where the democrat also sucks ass. we don’t have a national popular vote so my vote for president is essentially meaningless.
i don’t think it’s as simple as ‘covering bases’ to be going up against a well-resourced party structure on its own terms and expecting change. to me that is an unrealistic expectation.
There are weaknesses in most structures, you just have to find them. The right-wing takeover of the USA has demonstrated this, even if it did take them decades to accomplish it.
i’d rather see challengers running under a different party, i just have zero confidence in the democrats at this point.
There have been other parties for quite some time. They’re lucky to have even 1% of the population’s awareness, however. America’s electoral system virtually guarantee it’ll stay this way, which is why I see disrupting the Democratic party from within as the more likely to be viable approach for the time being. We can work towards progressives splitting off into their own party at some point, but they need to get bigger first or they’ll lose and take their reputations down with that loss.
i promise that i am not trying to get all debate-y, however this is circular.
progressives need to get bigger inside the democratic party before they can leave, but the democratic party structurally prevents them from getting big enough to matter.
the right wing takeover of the republicans was because we have a politics where money speaks louder than people. that’s why i don’t expect a left wing takeover of the democrats will work either.
a workers party isn’t going to emerge from inside the democratic party. it’s going to emerge from the kind of organizing and dual power building that creates enough independent capacity to make electoral politics secondary rather than the primary terrain.
progressives need to get bigger inside the democratic party before they can leave, but the democratic party structurally prevents them from getting big enough to matter.
The DNC certainly puts up a hell of a fight, yet more progressives are set to take up positions within the party. There are a good number on ballots across the US, and it’s inevitable the number will grow this November. I get the pessimism - really, I do - but I think it’s possible to overcome the power of the DNC establishment, especially as a number of them (like Pelosi) age out.
the right wing takeover of the republicans was because we have a politics where money speaks louder than people. that’s why i don’t expect a left wing takeover of the democrats will work either.
The thing is that only works when enough of their constituency also feel like they’re making enough money to be comfortable. With the wealth of the country being concentrated into fewer and fewer people, that also means there are fewer who feel that way. That, IMHO, is a significant part of the reason why progressives have started seeing so many successes of late.
Nonetheless, I’m interested in hearing what alternative approaches you feel would work better. Up until the next quote, you’ve been very vague about what you mean, so thank you for the next bit:
a workers party isn’t going to emerge from inside the democratic party. it’s going to emerge from the kind of organizing and dual power building that creates enough independent capacity to make electoral politics secondary rather than the primary terrain.
That does indeed seem extremely ambitious, and I’m curious how you see that coming about short of a full-on revolution. I’m assuming “tankies” are well-versed in this, but I am not, and that may be the source of the problem. Unfortunately, being less educated in this area means I likely can’t just dive into reading the literature I’ve occasionally seen recommended. The way my mind works requires an overarching summary for me to build my exploration of the subject upon - without the groundwork, it can quickly become all too abstract for my mind to put the pieces together.
pelosi + co aging out just means a new crop of corporate democrats take over. the machine does not depend on individuals and there’s plenty of young ghouls waiting in the wings.
‘progressive’ is pretty much branding at this point. someone can call themselves progressive while supporting weapons shipments to a genocide and opposing medicare for all because it’s ‘not politically feasible’
the label does no analytical work at all.
I’m assuming “tankies” are well-versed in this
they tend to be, i’m an anarchist and i’ve had many mls work with me in a positive way locally over the years.
I’m curious how you see that coming about short of a full-on revolution.
i did spell it out in that same statement, but maybe it was not clear enough.
when i said ‘organizing and dual power building’ i’m thinking of things like mutual aid as entrypoint. the idea that building networks where people can take care of eachother outside the market both meets immidiate needs and builds the relationships to make future organizing possible.
the ELI5 version would be summed up as 'build things that work outside the market, make peoples lives better now, demonstrate that another way of organizing is possible. ‘voting’ may be a tiny sliver of your time in the year, but electoral politics takes an inordinate amount of resources and time. despite all that effort any one election can flip the script on decades of work.
i could recommend reading material if you’re interested in de-naturalizing some of the operational assumptions of capitalism.
literally just had the same reaction that i could have got from some maga dude, right down to the misgendering in this exact thread. i really hope you can appreciate that this isn’t a new experience for me either.
i live in a blue state, my reps at state and federal are essentially republicans with the serial numbers filed off. as long as you don’t openly say slurs it all flies under the radar in a blue state. money dominates the conversation and people challenging entrenched democrat incumbents get accused of helping the republicans anyways.
i don’t see what benefit there is to participating inside the democratic party in any way. certainly not in voting for it; we don’t even have a popular vote.
Try to remember everyone’s unique. I can’t answer for that person’s response to you, but I hope you can see mine are different.
But, yeah - I fully get where you’re coming from. I’m the “black sheep” of my family because I’m not on board at all with their right wing crap, and after many years I pretty much instinctively expect the worst out of every Republican because they rarely deviate from the hive mind. Yet, I still wait for them to dig their grave first before being dismissive of them because I always try to treat people how I’d like to be treated and that’s with fairness & understanding.
The progressives taking up more spaces within the party of late show why. You really need to focus on the primaries - work towards keeping the corporate Dems from getting the nomination & we can change things from within. Unfortunately, I’m not really aware of any other credible approach available to us short of an extremely unlikely full-on revolution - but at least there is a path towards change if we work it hard enough.
the problem i see is that ‘change from within’ makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of the party. the party has structural mechanisms to neutralize internal dissent.
thinking about how ‘the squad’ finally came around to endorsing kamala after years of getting boxed out on anything that mattered.
it’s not about waiting for or expecting that ‘the rev’ is imminent either.
what is actually imminent are peoples rising needs. what i think is worth engaging in is the act of creating structures that actually meet people’s needs now, outside the market. something that builds real capacity for change rather than depending on whether the right candidates win primaries inside a party structurally hostile to them.
I’m on board with that, but I don’t see why the two approaches are mutually exclusive. I don’t see the harm in covering the bases.
i don’t think it’s as simple as ‘covering bases’ to be going up against a well-resourced party structure on its own terms and expecting change. to me that is an unrealistic expectation.
i’d rather see challengers running under a different party, i just have zero confidence in the democrats at this point.
i still vote because it’s convenient, i even vote in primaries and municipal. i usually just write in bullshit for all the races that are unopposed or where the democrat also sucks ass. we don’t have a national popular vote so my vote for president is essentially meaningless.
There are weaknesses in most structures, you just have to find them. The right-wing takeover of the USA has demonstrated this, even if it did take them decades to accomplish it.
There have been other parties for quite some time. They’re lucky to have even 1% of the population’s awareness, however. America’s electoral system virtually guarantee it’ll stay this way, which is why I see disrupting the Democratic party from within as the more likely to be viable approach for the time being. We can work towards progressives splitting off into their own party at some point, but they need to get bigger first or they’ll lose and take their reputations down with that loss.
i promise that i am not trying to get all debate-y, however this is circular.
progressives need to get bigger inside the democratic party before they can leave, but the democratic party structurally prevents them from getting big enough to matter.
the right wing takeover of the republicans was because we have a politics where money speaks louder than people. that’s why i don’t expect a left wing takeover of the democrats will work either.
a workers party isn’t going to emerge from inside the democratic party. it’s going to emerge from the kind of organizing and dual power building that creates enough independent capacity to make electoral politics secondary rather than the primary terrain.
The DNC certainly puts up a hell of a fight, yet more progressives are set to take up positions within the party. There are a good number on ballots across the US, and it’s inevitable the number will grow this November. I get the pessimism - really, I do - but I think it’s possible to overcome the power of the DNC establishment, especially as a number of them (like Pelosi) age out.
The thing is that only works when enough of their constituency also feel like they’re making enough money to be comfortable. With the wealth of the country being concentrated into fewer and fewer people, that also means there are fewer who feel that way. That, IMHO, is a significant part of the reason why progressives have started seeing so many successes of late.
Nonetheless, I’m interested in hearing what alternative approaches you feel would work better. Up until the next quote, you’ve been very vague about what you mean, so thank you for the next bit:
That does indeed seem extremely ambitious, and I’m curious how you see that coming about short of a full-on revolution. I’m assuming “tankies” are well-versed in this, but I am not, and that may be the source of the problem. Unfortunately, being less educated in this area means I likely can’t just dive into reading the literature I’ve occasionally seen recommended. The way my mind works requires an overarching summary for me to build my exploration of the subject upon - without the groundwork, it can quickly become all too abstract for my mind to put the pieces together.
So, got any ELI5-level explainers? Please & TY.
pelosi + co aging out just means a new crop of corporate democrats take over. the machine does not depend on individuals and there’s plenty of young ghouls waiting in the wings.
‘progressive’ is pretty much branding at this point. someone can call themselves progressive while supporting weapons shipments to a genocide and opposing medicare for all because it’s ‘not politically feasible’
the label does no analytical work at all.
they tend to be, i’m an anarchist and i’ve had many mls work with me in a positive way locally over the years.
i did spell it out in that same statement, but maybe it was not clear enough.
when i said ‘organizing and dual power building’ i’m thinking of things like mutual aid as entrypoint. the idea that building networks where people can take care of eachother outside the market both meets immidiate needs and builds the relationships to make future organizing possible.
the ELI5 version would be summed up as 'build things that work outside the market, make peoples lives better now, demonstrate that another way of organizing is possible. ‘voting’ may be a tiny sliver of your time in the year, but electoral politics takes an inordinate amount of resources and time. despite all that effort any one election can flip the script on decades of work.
i could recommend reading material if you’re interested in de-naturalizing some of the operational assumptions of capitalism.