Surprised no one made a thread about this here already so I decided to do it myself.
My take on this is that this seems like a good step for US politics and may very well be so because it shifts the overton window to the left. However the problem with candidates like her is that the policies that she advocates are not actually socialist but welfare capitalist. If implemented the policies that she advocates for will not actually pave a path to socialism but attempt to retain the integrity of capitalism as had been done in the post Great Depression era.
She is not a socialist but a social democrat and the social democrats have already won. We are simply living through the fallout of their policies. The problem with social democrats is that they have no answer to the crises of overproduction inherent in capitalism and they keep power in the hands of the ruling class.
When the next recession hits we are sure to see the rise of candidates like her and they will likely be able to pass policies that attempt to curb capitalism's excesses but that may just lead the cycle of capitalism to repeat itself.
Passing universal healthcare, a jobs guarantee, government sponsored initiatives will lead to a rise in the standard of living for most people but it wont do anything to deal with the mass resource depletion that we are currently going through. It will do nothing to curb overall consumption in the western economies which is causing irreversible damage to the environment. It will do nothing to deal with the employer-employee dynamic which inevitably leads to a massive hoarding of wealth and resources by the ruling class.
The way to break through and destroy capitalism is by having a mass movement that calls for radical democracy in the workplace and politically where people can cooperatively make decisions about their lives. Only by breaking the employer-employee dynamic and doing away with republican ideas of "democracy" can we institute socialism and the rise of social democrats may in fact be counter productive as their policies seeks to preserve capitalism not seek its destruction.
Continuing to feed the Democratic Party with sacrifices is not a good step for US politics.
And the news, of course, just talks about ethnicity and gender.
Could Bernie still have won if he ran third party? Is there even second round in the US?
Just americans being american. Their entire political environment is a fucking joke and the worst part is that the weak minded elsewhere gets influenced by their cancer.
All the rightists fearmongering about her being a "socialist" is good for us, imo. It will help deprogram the retarded Americans who think socialism is a bad word.
No and no. The US is effectively a two-party state, elections for the national government use a winner take all system and single member districts for the legislature. You don't have to win a majority to win the election, whoever gets the most votes wins the entire district. This encourages tactical instead of preferential voting, "well I prefer the less mainstream candidate X, but I really don't want mainstream candidate Y to win so I better vote for mainstream candidate Z instead because they have a better chance of winning." This is why you will commonly hear Americans refer to voting third party as "wasting" a vote, or even as "spoiler" votes, as the perception is that third parties draw votes away from the 2 main parties and can spoil the chances of a mainstream candidate to win. After the 2000 US Presidential election for example we saw a lot of anger from Democrats directed at Ralph Nader supporters, as they felt he drew votes away from Al Gore which allowed George W. Bush to win.
Yeah and make them think it's the same as social democracy
It definitely would have shaken things up in a way that's needed.
Just like when they passed the entire Obama term calling him a socialist, it worked like a charm and now there's not even a single murrican who thinks that socialism is a bad word, right?
Its ironic that "progressives" moan about how they need purity testing in the democratic party but when socialists call for purity testing for people masquerading as their own then its called being unpragmatic.
If people like Sanders and Cortez call themselves socialists then they should be questioned for their views.
This, it's time we stop doing this shit, if one is not anti capitalist is nit socialist full fucking stop
There were too many registration hoops for Bernie to have gone third party or independent after losing the primary. A lot of states explicitly have a rule that you can't do it. He definitely has time to run independent or third party from the beginning this time, which he won't because he's compromised. Even somebody kind of like Bernie who started campaigning on those talking points if they ran as an independent would stand a serious chance. Especially if they weren't soft and polite like Bernie. Trump showed how stupid that strategy is. If somebody stood up and started demanding for prosecution of politicians and Wall Street and shit they would get a lot of support. Most burgers (like, over fucking whelming majority) hate the government. They're just spooked into believing in muh peaceful transfer of power.
The point is that they are watering down the term by overusing it. When everyone and their mother is supposedly a socialist, then maybe people will realize they've been duped.
I'll take it. I'm happy about it.
Same. The DSA are actually turning into a political force, small as it is right now. Knocking out a possible future House Speaker ain't nothing. Bernie's positions are spreading as people realize the country's situation is fucked up and bullshit and how everyone is broke except a tiny handful of people at the top who are making off with the goods.
This is a big coup and DSA's numbers are going to grow.
Well, it looks like accelerationism works. Imagine if Hillary had won; it's easy to imagine things just deteriorating but now corporate dems know they're vulnerable. The problem with accelerationism is: when do you grab the wheel?
Running as a Democrat isn't "grabbing the wheel", it's engaging in a bad strategy that has failed for well over a century. The Democratic party is too captured by business interests to be reformed. It should not be legitimized anymore than it already is. If leftists wish to engage in electoral politics they should do it independent of the Democrats.
As long as the Democrats are still alive there isn't much of a choice. Americans can't think beyond the two-party system.
I'd expect this bullshit elsewhere but not here. The amount of time it would take to clean the corruption out of the Democratic party, if it were even possible, is certainly not the amount of time left between now and the next major crisis. If you continue to legitimize the Democratic party when the next crisis hits, people who see that corruption are going to feel like there's no other alternative but to tack to the far right. Now is the time to be organizing alternate political power, not playing more of the the shitty game of Who's More Frightened of Duverger's Law.
Establishing a new party would take a long time too. The only surefire way to both kill the Democrats and pave the way for a new party is if Bernie said "fuck you" to the Democrats and ran in 2020 as a new party. I doubt he would do that though, he is too entrenched in the establishment.
Social democracy is a bad strategy that has failed for well over a century.
I'm of the opinion that the Greens can be reformed into a class-conscious mass-based party of the left, but it's going to take some work. I am not of the opinion that hedging your bets on Bernie is a smart idea. At least 3 or 4 times in the 20th century a progressive third party has been formed around a cult of personality only to evaporate after that personality left politics. Parties need to be built from the ground up, not rely on a celebrity. Well Bernie is just another succdem anyway. He played his role well in 2016 taking the stigma back out of "socialism", now I hope he fucks off.
Indeed, but the Socialist and Community parties had power in the '30s. They didn't waste their organizing efforts feeding the bourgeoisie parties legitimacy.
How about attempting to let the working class generate the power this time and not the labor aristocracy, bureaucracy and petit bourgeois while baiting the neo-nationalist reaction into unashamed fascism like last time? It didn't go so well that time around so I'm betting for the similar to happen again but perhaps just worse this round, considering most westerners don't even work manual labor jobs anymore and have capital programming their minds via interactive advertainment boxes mediating their social networks 24/7.
Well we live in a 2 party system and that ain't going away anytime soon as it benefits both parties. Anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool republican/democrat is going to have to sacrifice some values and pride for a chance to get elected. Even before the USSR the bolsheviks still had to participate in russian parliament system they were given.
The Communist Party supported the Democrats over the Republicans in the 1930s in addition to running its own candidates. The CPUSA even had a slogan in 1936: "Vote for [Earl] Browder; Defeat [Alf] Landon at all cost.” Referring to the Republican candidate and allowing communists to behave tactically.
I'm not so sure. There's no party that's emerging to replace the Democrats in the state houses and in Congress. Democrats still control 47 of 100 senators (and two independents caucus with them). They won the popular vote in 2016 and the margins in the key states were rather thin. There's a chance Democrats will retake one if not both houses this year. At the least, they will gain seats.
The only time a major party has collapsed to make way for a new party is the Whigs but they declined in the legislature as well. It's true that the Democrats are in godawful, terrible shape in the state houses and governships at the moment but the situation is more akin to the 1950s than the 1850s I think.
I'm not sure what the big, single-issue is that "snaps" the Democrats in half like slavery did first to the Whigs and then the (old) Democrats.
Not really. Who in the "progressive caucus" is actually a leftist? Not many I would assume.
It really isn't, "caucuses" are completely divorced from voters. People vote for parties and then individuals come to congress and pick a sports team.
I mean Barbara Lee is in it.
The trouble with this is that these factions ultimately report to their respective party's national leadership for one all-important thing in American politics. Money. Ultimately the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC can exercise a great deal of control over candidates and elected officials by deciding who gets financial support from the national party organization, and how much they get. There may be substantive differences in certain policy areas between factions within each party but the party leadership can determine the boundaries of those differences, because running in an American election for national office is nothing if not expensive.
True. But that also runs against the idea of forming a third party, as some want. They're going to have to raise immense amounts of money to compete. Someone suggested Bernie run third party to destroy the Democrats. He is still going to have to raise money. To compete in congressional elections? Same thing.
If anything, winning elections like this are good for recruitment. The danger there is that it starts to become a "chic" thing, like fashion. I saw Dan Savage of all people today teasing about joining DSA. And I thought, oh god. Well if he gives us all his money, I say let him join, and he also has to read all three volumes of Capital and write a book report.
I'm not necessarily worried about being co-opted, though. Zizek said something once about how socialists really should learn to use capitalism is a brutal way. If some rich guy like Dan Savage wants to join, take his money. Why not? Then after the revolution you can go "you idiot, why did you give me money?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA COULDN'T WAIT TO GET INTO OFFICE TO START SHOOTING ROSA
The Democratic leadership is unlikely to send more than token amounts the way of any left (or "left") candidates who make it to a general election in any case. They can always fall back on the electability excuse to avoid spending that money. Not that incidents like this are necessarily all bad, it can increase then alienation of the Democratic establishment from the left wing of its rank-and-file, and perhaps even radicalize some of them and allow a genuine socialist opposition to break off. As a long-term strategy though there's nothing to recommend it, the party leadership would rather let Republicans win than fund their own hangmen.
so is this just a massive backpedal or an attempt at being competitive. I don't know why the latter would be the case though, most people in the US are for a restrained military.
Pretty much this. She's a young, fresh face that can at the very least get more young people comfortable with the word socialism. I'm not expecting her to lead a revolution, no one should, but it's a step in the right (left) direction. I'm happy for any socialist victory we can get, even if it's a "socialist" victory, because at the very least if she fails or turns into another big business Democrat, then more young people will be motivated to disavow the Democrats.
But it's a hate of muh taxes and laws against muh liberty of having machineguns and tigers, and not really a critical hate, they don't hate the value of the dollar in the world market and the central government using it to subsidize sprawl infrastructure that otherwise couldn't pay for itself and various other things.
The "persisters and resisters" are so fucking lame.
In any case, what's wrong with primarying a bunch of shitty Democrats and taking over the Democratic Party maybe? It'll at least be funny watching these old dinosaurs who rose up through the party's city-machines go down in flames. Much deserved. You're gonna die one day and you might as well have some fun during your brief, miserable life on this rock.
Even if capitalism persists at least we kept the idea of socialism going and the next generation can pick it up. Think of yourself as a historical actor and if you fail, then they can learn from your mistakes but won't be able to say you didn't at least try.
Also, while I'm at it, even if we do fail, communism already most certainly exists in space because the aliens contacted J. Posadas in 1959 but have since overlooked our backwater planet. Don't blame them.
The Democratic Party isn't even a party. It's a non-profit corporation. Unless you are a donor you cannot change it.
this, might as well try.
I've heard recently about an old communist dude in Houston who lived in the USSR at one point and has an awesome house full of Marxist books and busts of Lenin and shit like that. I'm going to try and check this out as well and learn from the master.
>She ran as a woman, as a young person, as a working-class champion, as an unabashed liberal and as a person of color. Lol
It is the only strategy. Like points out, in FPtP elections, primaries are the only way for a 3rd-party candidate to win elections.
Don't use the archive.org Wayback Machine, it was one of the first sites compromised by SJW memoryholing in GG, use archive.is instead.
This. Much like "racist" and "sexist" being smeared on anyone that steps an inch out of line, it's starting to lose its punch.
Greens have had 3 decades in which to build a base, and they haven't even captured triple-digit numbers of the local positions (civic council, etc.) that any determined bozo and their personal friends/family could win.
Speaking of the 1950s, remember that's also when the Democrats & Republicans traded places, with the "dixiecrats" walking out of the party as a group.
Reminder that one of Bernie's key accomplishments was precisely that he raised enough of a warchest to run a serious campaign, all without sucking corporate dick. It's possible.
Getting elected is. And as far as I'm aware, the Democratic Party organization has no means to compel you to do their bidding once you get into a position of influence.
This makes the choice between running under Dem and Socialist banners purely identitarian. And, well, fuck that.
The name is shortened to whatever is convenient. Zapatero's full name, for example, is José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Picasso's was Pablo Ruiz Picasso.
Not quite, often names that stand out more are prefered. Rodriguez and Ruiz are more common surnames than Zapatero and Picasso.
Dash-united surnames are a single surname.
Take off that flag you fucking joke.
Wow, what convenient timing for removing probably the most popular position.
Inside the government it's a game of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Party members can and will stonewall someone they don't want to work with so when they go back home they can't show their voters any accomplishments and somebody else gets voted in. Not to mention the ins and outs of the various committees are complex and something you have to be read into. There's a pretty serious hierarchy within Congress that exists specifically to resist change through electoral politics.
There's nothing 'wrong' so long as you're not successful. The danger is if you win.
Once the old centrists go down in flames I could easily see the Democrats rebranding themselves as "socialists" i.e. extra-woke Keynesian/MMT socdems with a more cautious foreign policy. That would do nothing to address the contradictions of capitalism, build working-class power, etc. but it would quell enough dissent to keep more radical forces in check, and further cement the idea that "socialism doesn't work/is when the government does stuff" when their socdem policies are rolled back with the next big recession.
Even if it doesn't get coopted, an electoral 'red wave' could just suffer the same fate as SYRIZA: getting into power, being confronted by the massive power of finance capital, and knuckling under to austerity and war in order to keep their seats. Thus an entire generation would be alienated and turned off from socialism and electoral politics and nothing would get solved.
If they see socialists doing worthwhile shit other than electoral politics then they'll just be alienated from electoral politics which is a good thing.
Wow, that is… Really, really generic. It's appalling the state of burgerstan partisan politics has degenerated so far that this is "radical left".
>Democrats rebranding themselves as "socialists" i.e. extra-woke Keynesian/MMT socdems with a more cautious foreign policy. That would do nothing to […] build working-class power […] when their socdem policies are rolled back with the next big recession. Considering the towering brick wall of labor union power that was constructed under FDR in burgerstan, and postwar in Europe, staving off any serious recession until it was dismantled by a neolib coup, I think anything that could tighten the labor market and make unionization mainstream again would be the biggest imaginable victory we could have now. Even ignoring the tidal wave of radicalism that nearly knocked over the entire system in the 1960s, I question whether the 2nd Red Scare would've even happened at all without the fragmentation of Allied relations into the Cold War against the USSR/PRC providing a ready spectre of "le ebil gommynizm". Russia and China today provide a far less plausible menace, one that if anything is explicitly right-wing in nature. A repeat of the 1st Red Scare is even less plausible, since nuclear-armed Europe wouldn't dare to start shit on their own continent again. Wasn't their actual problem that most of them were centrist cocksuckers in leftist drag, and the actual leftists in the party (both elected and voters) were completely shut out?
Working within the Democratic party had been tried since the 1930's and it's failed. The candidates elected won't be able to do shit and will tow the party line. The best thing that can come out of this is that people become so disillusioned with electoral politics that they will take to the streets and commit violent protest.
This. It's why Sanders endorsed Hillary. If he hadn't the dems would have shut him out of congress.
More likely she would have killed him.
Putting figures into public office could work as long as it's part of a broader strategy. I don't think that strategy exists yet, but we'll see how things develop.
We Bolsheviks participated in the most counterrevolutionary parliaments, and experience has shown that this participation was not only useful but indispensable to the party of the revolutionary proletariat, after the first bourgeois revolution in Russia (1905), so as to pave the way for the second bourgeois revolution (February 1917), and then for the socialist revolution (October 1917). In the second place, this sentence is amazingly illogical. If a parliament becomes an organ and a “centre” (in reality it never has been and never can be a “centre”, but that is by the way) of counter-revolution, while the workers are building up the instruments of their power in the form of the Soviets, then it follows that the workers must prepare—ideologically, politically and technically—for the struggle of the Soviets against parliament, for the dispersal of parliament by the Soviets. But it does not at all follow that this dispersal is hindered, or is not facilitated, by the presence of a Soviet opposition within the counter-revolutionary parliament. In the course of our victorious struggle against Denikin and Kolchak, we never found that the existence of a Soviet and proletarian opposition in their camp was immaterial to our victories. We know perfectly well that the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918 was not hampered but was actually facilitated by the fact that, within the counter-revolutionary Constituent Assembly which was about to be dispersed, there was a consistent Bolshevik, as well as an inconsistent, Left Socialist-Revolutionary Soviet opposition. The authors of the theses are engaged in muddled thinking; they have forgotten the experience of many, if not all, revolutions, which shows the great usefulness, during a revolution, of a combination of mass action outside a reactionary parliament with an opposition sympathetic to (or, better still, directly supporting) the revolution within it. Lenin, Left-Wing Communism
My theory is they threatened to kill one or more of his kids. Killing him would be too obvious, even though you could see he was injured at the DNC so they probably beat him up.
My theory is that Bernie Sanders has been scared to death of third parties ever since he lost a three-way race in the late '70s. Wait, that's not a theory, that's reality. Stop lionizing him. He has a deal in Vermont with the Democrats to not run against him and he stopped receiving anti-war activists at his office decades ago.
Lol elections. America is functionally a one-party state. The two "parties" are not actual parties, they're essentially arms of the government (which is why they can get away with saying that an attack on the ostensibly private Democratic Party is an attack against the American state itself - because the parties are not separate from the state, they are built in. Electoral law enshrines the two parties in a way that is more akin to outright dictatorships than anything in standard liberal democracies, even though constitutionally parties are not even supposed to be a thing.
I am not surprised this socdem is quickly veering right after she won. OR and so-called "progressive" groups have a lot of these trojan horses, because "progressivism" is such a nebulous nonsense term that it can't be the basis for an actual reform movement, let alone an actual political party. Most of OR's wins were just from incumbent office-holders at the local level who decided to put on a fucking OR badge, and they're just as corrupt as ever. That certainly describes "progressive" politics in the shitty mid-sized state capitol I call home, bunch of posing for the camera and the usual neoliberal faggotry and disdain for actual poor people.
Americans don't really have experience with genuine party politics, so the concept of a third party is going to go nowhere fast. At most a third party can form over some contentious issue, but the rulers aren't going to allow that to happen ever again. They're not even going to allow another Perot to happen again after getting spooked about his 19% vote share.
OR = Our Revolution, the progressive group that Bernie formed after losing.
He had a facial injury at the convention just before he endorsed Clinton.
We shouldn't have any naivety about the party organization, let alone support them as a whole, but seizing their ballot lines seems like a legitimate strategy under FPTP. Of course they'll turn on us, but you use the party to build support and run the independent candidates after they kick the DSA out.
Voting merely to disrupt the process isn't bad. It would be pretty good for the public reaction if someone won and the victory got overridden by the system, either by shit like the president being appointed or a senator being stonewalled.
Just posting an update that the section on war on her website has been restored and expanded.
Looks like they were reformatting the site, but it's still weird that they specifically removed this section. She caught flak for it, so it's entirely probably they put it back up for PR reasons. Still, we should never trust a succdem.
I suppose my beef with the naysayers is that they propose organizational forms and actions which were developed during very context-dependent periods in which workers were at a much higher state of militancy. This would be the "grab a gun, join a BASED socialist militia" like Trotsky's transitional demand of armed factory militias etc. etc. etc. You have to realize this very lukwarm socdem-ism is actually radical in U.S. discourse after decades of neoliberalization, the crushing of the left during the Cold War and its subsequent demoralization in the 1990s.
It's never a good idea to have faith in any candidate. Especially one that runs in soc-dem policies and has suddenly become a darling of the mainstream Democrats. You might feel that you're doing a good thing supporting her outright but you are likely channeling revolutionary anger into a person who will side with the establishment over socialists. I understand that people want to believe that there is someone in politics in their side but it's a tough pill to swallow to realize that there isn't anyone there yet. Look up on what the DSA stands for. This is the organization that has CIA shills and Hillary Clinton supporters in it's top brass.
"In fact, few pseudo-left organizations, with the possible exception of Socialist Alternative itself, are as closely integrated into and function so openly as a faction of the Democratic Party as the DSA. The DSA’s top leadership includes Democratic Party luminaries, among them union bureaucrats such as Dolores Huerta (who supported Clinton over Sanders in the Democratic primaries) and celebrity intellectuals such as academic Cornel West and feminist writer and former CIA collaborator Gloria Steinem. The DSA endorsed Hillary Clinton in the general election in all but name, attempting to camouflage its position by calling for a “social movement” to defeat Trump in key swing states. After the election, it endorsed Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison in the contest for the chair of the Democratic National Committee."
If a socialister candidate loses in the primaries it's okay not to vote for the corporate one if you feel it's a extortion, but remember that voter supression is something actively sought. The right is told not to vote for a communist and the left is told not to vote for what is really the establishment.
France has that low of union membership? It's virtually the same as that of the US. And yet I see union flags at nearly every large French riot in recent years. Is that 11.2% nearly 100% revolutionary syndicalist? By contrast most Scandinavian unions are class collaborationist / labor aristocracy-unions; AKA useless.
One thing that survived the advent of 3rd-world offshoring in Europe was the democratic structures in addition to unions that allowed workers to have elected representatives both inside larger employers, and in regional worker/employer councils, which in spite of France's low unionization rate, around 2/3rds of Frenchmen participate in elections of.
As for the actual unions themselves, they have a long-held policy of striking at the start of negotiations, rather than as a last resort when negotiations already underway stall for an extended period.
They're off to a very weak start for having already won.
Progressives need a cycle or two of these doomed to failure political solutions before lefties can lead them to a social solution. Let me stress "can". Brush up your propaganda, know your audience, be active and friendly. We offer violent revolution to a committed pacifist and it's like offering atheism to a christcuck. (Also the security state is too strong)
They won in the post depression era dipshit. Its just that social democracy's inability to deal with the falling rate of profit led to scenarios which caused the crisis we are currently in.
nah mofo is right. they won, they're indeed the next step to slowly get to socialism and all that shit. it's the democratic choice I would choose tbh because the other ones suck more.
I've got little hope that she is anything more than another future Hillary. Still, shifting the overton window to the left is a commendable goal, and if she and others like her can achieve this, then I am all for that. I applaud our demsoc (let's be frank, mostly socdem) comrades who worked for this, but I am well aware that she likely will do nothing to achieve leftist priorities, and that the shifting of the public perception and acceptance of leftist ideas will be the best thing she will be able to achieve.
So, this is basically the death of the democratic party?
No need for name calling, goober. How many races have the progressives won? They're being out spent, out maneuvered, and no doubt cheated in some cases. You're saying they're going to win big in the future though, right? The "right side of history" and all that jazz. I don't care if they pull off a political miracle by 2020. Say someone leads them to a third party that vacuums up all the former DNC support and a fair amount of swing-rightist. The enact a Green New Deal, a universal basic income, etc. I don't care. They will be corrupted in the end. Capitalism/monetism is corruption itself. *IT* must be stopped is all I was saying.
All they ever lead to is social democracies, at best. Though the US will never see a European style flourish, since capitalism is in some seriously fitful stage.
Hopefully, but that doesn't mean our troubles are over.
wouldn't it be funny if she supports unions for state agents and more spending on schooling which will have little impact
No, this is the start of battle between center-libs who have overwhelming leadership of democrat party right now and new resurgence of socialists who are disillusioned with the current democratic party and to a further extend capitalism in general. We will have to see how this pans out………
Scandinavia (especially Denmark) is taking a turn for the worse, unions no longer oppose and fight capital but only serve to get better pay and ensure people are not fired unjustly……….