this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
1185 points (98.9% liked)
Memes
48381 readers
4070 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, I was super curious what Sanders could've done if he had the chance. Instead, we got the opposite experiment.
If democrats in the US vote for stuff like Biden, then they're not voting for any radical change. Trump isn't comparable to that.
There is a lot of speculation that Sanders would have faced enormous opposition both from the "centrist" media and conservatives within his own party, such that he was hobbled for his full four years. But the expectation is predicated on Sanders playing by Clinton/Obama rules, where you float a progressive idea and Congress says "NO!" and then throw up your hands and spend the back half of your term glad-handing dictators to sell F-35s.
I don't think Sanders would have the Trump/DOGE enthusiasm for shredding the norms and imposing radical reform at the executive level. But if this Presidency is any indication, all you really need is a ketamine fueled cartel of techbros, a stack of EO stationary, and a fresh sharpie. And you can fully remake the federal bureaucracy from root to branch.
Biden made a very conscious decision to run to the left of Bernie in 2020. He avoided Clinton's fumbles through the Midwest in large part by echoing all the Obama '08 and Sanders '16 pledges, while the national media amplified his electoral platform in the middle of a COVID-induced campaign freeze.
American Dems are just as vulnerable to a coordinated propaganda campaign as their conservative and libertarian peers. So its no surprise people who'd fallen for the corporate sponsored faux-populist schtick in elections prior would fall for it this time around. But there was also a very deep and not unjustified fear among moderate Dems that running anyone but Biden would guarantee the kind of news cycle smear campaigns against Sanders that brought down Hillary.
The failure of the American liberal movement is largely rooted in their lack of faith in their own base and their own message. Liberals have convinced themselves that every year is 1972 and every progressive is going to lose like McGovern did. They've bought fully into the Republican propaganda machine and only ever know how to fight on the Republicans' terms. And, as a result, guys like Reagan and Bush and Trump can stake out turf to the left of Democrats, win on narrow margins, and then govern uncontested as fascists.
I still remember the full-on panic mode people were in when it looked like Bernie might clinch the nomination in 2020. So absurd, but that's what happens when the ruling class is afraid that they might have to pay higher taxes.
What would it take to pass a constitutional amendment for ranked choice voting, or any other voting system without a spoiler effect?
Spoiler: not by voting
Congressional Democratic Majority and the same in most state legislatures. Its functionally impossible to pass an amendment at this point.
Yea but the Dems wouldn't pass that, though.
Oddly enough people say that they voted for these policies for change. It’s a mess.
Trump is a lot of things, but he definitely isn't a status quo politician.
No, but he’s not really what I think of when I think of “change” either.
I don't exactly know the details, but weren't there accusations of meddling from the DNC that stoppered Sanders' chance of securing the nomination, and a belief among some that he might have won the nomination if it had been a free and fair primary process?
In other words, it's possible (though by no means certain) that your sentence above works if "democrats" means "the DNC and the establishment of the Democratic Party", but not if it means "people who by-and-large support the Democratic Party".
The Dems did some delegate fuckery where all candidates endorsed Biden because ~~Bernie~~ Trump had to be stopped at all cost, and their delegates went to Biden even if he hadn't been voted for. Kamala contributed all of her 0 delegates and got VP for being ~~a cop~~ the first to drop out iirc.
Americans voted for Biden because the primary system heavily favored Biden and Americans were told Biden was "more electable" than Bernie, even though every one of Bernie's policies and his messaging polled better.
If the DNC didn't put their thumbs on the scale, Bernie would have won in 2016 (or 2020), and guaranteed a democratic victory in the next election because nobody receiving free healthcare is going to vote to go back to the current system.
Bernie isn't radical, he's a social democrat, he just looks radical because the democrats are right of George W Bush right now.
I get it and I don't disagree, but- Well, I for one wouldn't mind some radical change. Just not in the direction that it is going right now. Radical in itself is nothing bad, when the status quo is as bad as it is.
Still nothing
Courts wouldn’t even let Biden offer student loan relief
They were only able to because of the way he went about it. He could have simply ordered the Department of Education to immediately forgive the loans and erase any record of the debt, and dared the SCOTUS to order him to create new debts (which he could simply ignore).
Part of not being a dictator is not acting like it, you aren’t going to find a good person acting that way
You're not going to find a good person who puts following rules written to benefit the capitalist class above freeing people from crippling debt.
Maybe you should hang around left wingers more
Being an evil person to get rid of evil just makes another evil person, you can believe you are good until you die but can you believe the person who comes after you will be?
MLK jr and Gandhi bettered life for their people without violence
No oppressed person ever got their rights by appealing to the morality of their oppressor.
Both these movements would have failed if there wasn't a violent component demonstrating the alternative if they didn't choose the more peaceful route.
If you want more context on how the two method supported each other in the civil rights movement, here's a good book.
It's important to note that King didn't unilaterally condemn violence, he acknowledged that they were a response to a greater, ongoing injustice, and that the white moderates who pretended to agree with their aims, but opposed them because of their methods were as much if not a greater barrier to civil rights than the klanman.
uhhh, maybe you should?
left wingers have zero respect for laws and will make the world better and fairer by any means necessary.
as a leftist if I somehow got control of the state I would immediately order for the rounding up and execution of every single person in the country who is either a corporate executive for a top-250 corporation or in possession of assets worth 100 million or more.
because that would be the most efficient way of rapidly reducing the risk of the wealthy wresting back control.
and it would be totally ethical
as for gandhi and MLK, well, india is a fascist dictatorship and, well, how are things looking for black people in the US?
Not to bat for the disgustingly wealthy, but at the point Leftists have had a successful revolution, we don't need to execute them outright, just lift their assets and jail them if they resist, or execute if they go on to become terrorists. Learn from successful revolutions, when the Cuban revolution succeeded Castro was actually very lenient in comparison to Batista.
Revolution is bloody, and we won't make excuses, but at a certain point it risks dogmatism. Billionaires aren't like Minecraft characters that drop their inventories on death, revolution is actually very sensible because it's a lot easier to sieze their assets when the working class has control.
don't get me wrong, if the choice for a non-violent revolution is there, i would take it every time.
but if, somehow, i magically became the president without any kind of revolutionary effort, that's what i would do, and i would be totally justified in doing so
I am not advocating against revolution, I'm a Communist. If you became president of the US without revolution, you would not be able to execute any Capitalist you wanted, that's more what I am saying. Temper your dogmatism with pragmatism, read theory and study past successful revolutions, such as in the USSR, China, Cuba, Algeria, etc.
Random executions doesn't transfer political power, adventurism was debunked back when the SRs failed to lead the Russian Revolution. Execution is a tool with its own use, but it isn't the best tool in all situations.
yeah, the USSR and China are not examples of successful revolutions, neither of those countries are communist
The former Soviet Union was Socialist, and so is the PRC. They haven't reached Communism, but they are examples of Socialism if you count Marxism as Socialist. What makes you say they weren't? Most people would disagree with you, especially Marxists, so I'm not sure what your stance is.
any marxist who thinks that the USSR or China is an example of a successful revolution is either ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, a tankie.
they had some early successes but were immediately co-opted. motherfuckers need to learn about permenent revolution.
now neither country is socialist, both are imperialist and well on their way towards fascism
The vast majority of Marxists globally are either "ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, tankies" then. The idea that the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist is an extremely fringe opinion among all of Marxists, typically limited to Trotskyists, themselves limited to Western Countries and devoid of any revolutions.
Oh, you mentioned Permanent Revolution. I take it you're a Trotskyist, then? That explains your stance, but I really don't see why Permanent Revolution is relevant in any way, the theoretical basis relied on the assumption of the Peasantry as incapable of being truly aligned with the Proletariat and thus eventually would become counter-revolutionary. This ended up being false, and Socialism stabilized in the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and more, effectively debunking its relevancy.
In China, the Trotskyists wished to martyr China by attacking the Kuomintang and the Japanese Imperialists both, rather than allying with the KMT before overthrowing them. Had the Trotskyists had their way, China would remain a colony.
Today, the Russian Federation certainly is Capitalist and extremely Nationalist, but the PRC is still Socialist. I wrote a post on some common problems that some people run into when trying to determine Mode of Production. I also made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, if you want to check it out. I think you'd benefit, especially since you took more of an adventurist route.
i'm not going to get into a debate about it, because i have better things to do, sorry.
i would agree that the USSR was socialist, but very quickly stopped being so, and now it is capitalist. that's not what i call a success.
Fair enough, but I would say that examining what went right and what went wrong is an imporant duty for any socialist examining ybe USSR not just dismissing it outright. Many of the issues and problems with Soviet Union can be applied to any country building socialism as can many of the benefits. So we must learn what to keep and what to leave aside.
And for what it's worth, I reccommend that first link I sent. I think what I described in that could be useful for you.
i still think you're assuming what my actual, real-life views are from a silly what-if scenario! i am never gonna be in control of anything more powerful than a barbeque.
but if somehow i got to mind control the president or something, yes, i'd take advantage of that brief control to eliminate as many capitalists as possible
You can't just kill Socialism into existence, though. That's Idealism, not Materialism. That removes the entire process of Historical Materialism, and erases the foundations of Scientific Socialism, as opposed to Utopianism. I recommend reading or revisiting Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
i wouldn't be trying to will socialism into existence, though, i'd just be having a little fun :3
That's "tankier" than the "tankies" you demonize, though. Kinda just confused here.
You definitely aren’t a leftist
Shhhh... Everyone be quiet, the King of the Leftists is speaking!
yes, i am. i know how horribly evil capitalism is and i would gladly make that sacrifice.
The sacrifice of being a fascist is definitely left wing
yeah you're not a leftist, you have no fucking idea what fascism is if you think what i wrote was fascistic, lmfao
violence against oppressors isn't fascism, it's justice.
Let’s play spot the difference
-Every fascist
-you
i would completely dismantle the economy, the police force, the military, prisons, and the government. i would cease the recognition of all countries and borders.
but yes you're right, i'm willing to use violence to make the world a better place, because i believe that i'm right, and i'm not scared of sacrificing all that i have and all that i am to achieve that.
i wouldn't be able to peacefully retire, of course, i would need to be brought to justice for my crimes, but i would gladly accept the punishment, because it's the right thing to do, and i know i would reduce the suffering of billions.
There wouldn’t be billions left if that were achieved
And it still brings about whomever takes over now has a massive power vacuum at their disposal
Probably, but I'd only believe that there is really nothing to be done once I see someone actually left-leaning attempt everything in their toolbox.
I believe Sanders would have tried to change as much as possible in the US. I also believe that he would have failed regarding a lot of things. Would have really liked to see him try though.