You're viewing a single thread.
Support more progressive democrats like AOC and Bernie
They follow the party line just as much all the other democrats.
That won't fix things, though. The Democratic party can't go against its base, the bourgeoisie, it acts like a great filter. An actual worker party, like PSL, needs to be built up and supported instead.
Bernie has literally stated that he only runs as a Dem because of the 2 party system and would otherwise be an independent which is the case with most progressives.
Turning up your nose at 2 perfectly good candidates in favor of some non-existent hypothetical candidate is crazy.
it's not crazy; it's ackowledging the absurdity that there's no real choice and examples like mexico w shienbaum & amlo proved that it's easily possible once you stop uncritically swallowing this type of propaganda.
Correct, Bernie's strategy also hasn't worked. As a Communist I don't consider Bernie and AOC to be "perfectly good," and the 2 party system itself needs to be overthrown in order to be fixed, which isn't happening at the ballot box either.
Bernie and those like him have informed me and many others of what a good politician can look like and may have inspired others like AOC to start their career. I will support them as much as I can because they may inspire even more like them to actually have enough people to make a meaningful change in the party or, if we miraculously get away from the two party system, spin up a new one.
Bernie certainly isn't as bad as, say, Fetterman, but he has his fair share of bad policy (especially foreign policy, which ends up just being justification for US Imperialism), and due to how the 2 party system works the Democrats will never be able to truly be "taken over" by progressives, as that would hurt their donor-base, the bourgeoisie. A genuine worker party is necessary, but it will not be capable of being reformist, it must be revolutionary, ie PSL.
I respectfully disagree that the party could never change due to their current funding, and I am rubbed the wrong way by how you continue to seem to push that I shouldn't support better politicians just because they aren't perfect.
I respectfully disagree that the party could never change due to their current funding
If what you are saying is that the democratic party could change because we vote in enough progressives then I have a bridge to sell you. The capitalists who own the government would just out-finance progressive election attempts. Think of how many progressives we would need to have it impact the whole Dem party, now think about how many elections that is where the entire force of the media is against the politician who will actually fight for you. Now consider how easily manipulated our wildly uneducated population is.
I know its a bitter pill to swallow but capitalism has already destroyed democracy long ago. It is just that we have been in decline for so long now that it is finally becoming unavoidably obvious.
This is a lot of words for "Nothing can be done". You balk at getting a ton of progressives elected, but you advocate getting a bunch of progressives to lead a revolution? You're kind of hand waving over some huge details there.
It would be easier to get a shitload of progressives elected into positions of power in the US via the democratic party than it would be to lead a successful revolution to overthrow the US government, and I agree with your take on how difficult that would be.
It would be more difficult to build a third party that's larger than the democratic party than it would be to infiltrate the party with progressives. You said it yourself, the money is center-right. The hard left parties need money, and small doner donations only work if your base is huge, which it isn't for the hard left.
Historically, running as an independent or unaffiliated has a higher success rate than any other third party, especially at the local level where it matters the most, because those local politicians go on to run for state and federal positions once they build up enough clout.
The real issue is that very few hard-left people have gained the trust and support of the general population. Bernie, AOC and a handful of other progressives have managed to carve out a foothold in the Democratic party, but they're a handful of people out of hundreds of millions. Where are all the good non-democratic-party leftist leaders? What is the PSL or anyone else doing to build their mind share with the voting public? This kind of "middle mile" groundwork is super important for parties. Having a pipeline of party-affiliated people to run as candidates nationwide is a huge job, and it's something the Dems and the Republicans have locked down.
A leftist party in the US doesn't have a base exact because the traditional laborer blocks are uneducated and kept ignorant by the ruling class. They also have very little money. That's why the Dems go center right for votes. If the left wants to be taken seriously, it MUST participate, at ALL levels. AOC was a joke to the right when she was elected. This past election right-aligned PAC's spent millions to kick the squad out of government and only succeeded in ousting two of them. IMHO, that's indicative of a huge shift. Working to change the system works. It's hard, takes a ton of energy, and a handful of people can't do it alone.
This kind of opportunistic small-shifts is exactly how the GOP gained all of its power. Every step mattered, from the Karen advocating for banning books in her local elementary school all the way up to state governors passing abortion laws until one of them stuck. The far right has a pathological persistence that no organization on the left has come close to matching, and thats why the fascists are winning. They don't stop.
Not trying to be mean, but how do you envision the DNC changing its tune?
As for your bit on me implying only perfection is acceptable, that's not my stance, rather what I consider acceptable is pretty different. Again, I'm a Communist, that doesn't mean I need my candidate to start a guerilla war from the mountains against their local Wal-Mart, but it does mean I hold stock in anti-US Imperialism and a dedication to bringing about Socialism, which at this point does require revolution.
Unfortunately I dont have the time or willpower to go into detail and I do disagree with how you want change to come about, but if what you want happens, I truly hope it results in a better society for people to live in. I think we can both agree we just want things to be better for people.
Sure, that's fair enough. I think a big problem with communication on Lemmy is people speaking past each other.
On a side note, if you do decide you want to talk, I can do so, or if you want recommendations on Marxist-Leninist theory I can provide some good works if you want to understand my viewpoint better.
Bernie, the guy who refuses to call the Palestinian genocide a genocide? This marvelous tweet Bernie? https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d200e7bc-08c9-4b63-954b-0a7973050cc3.jpeg Bernie the supporter of about every US regime war?
You are in .ml, of course they would advocate for someone further left than Bernie and AOC no matter how implausible their ideas are.
To be clear, AOC's and Bernie's ideas don't seem to have a real path to implementation. Marxists aren't idealists, we are practical and are Materialists, and part of that practicality is understanding that policies can sound good, but without a path to implementation they might as well be ghosts, even if they are more moderate ideas.
Funny how their "marxist" ideas are and have been implemented in Europe for 80+ years.
I didn't call Bernie or AOC Marxists, rather they are Social Democrats. I myself am a Marxist-Leninist and am speaking as one, hence "we." Social Democracies in the Nordics are built on Imperialism, that's how they sustain themselves, and only have the privledges they do because the bourgeoisie was afraid of revolution like in Russia when it first went Socialist.
LOL
