this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
87 points (97.8% liked)
chat
8544 readers
415 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What are you having trouble with definitions, you don't know what the word rupture means or what the two-party duopoly is?
Yeah, duh, and none of them are viable, hence the reason I brought it up
Historically yes, but obviously we want to use the next rupture and realignment for the benefit of a more radical socialist movement
That's not an argument against electoralism, the left was not defeated because they simply did elections too much like you're implying, we have far better reasons for why the American left succumbed to the red scares and the Truman coup
No, we have the Fourth Party System of the Progressive era, the Fifth Party System that saw the emergence of the New Deal, then came the current Sixth Party System with the advent of the Southern Strategy
During each dealignment, socialist currents exploded onto the electoral stage, necessitating massive capitalist counter-attacks in the form of the two red scares and outright violence, but the left bloomed during these periods and reached inflection points where the movements could've taken a far more radical turn if not for externalities that sidelined them, the most notable being the World Wars
It's the thing you all dream about, a grassroots worker's party with no connection to either of the two main parties that can win or spoil national elections and can certainly dominate state elections
Obviously that remains a dream
Why do you keep bringing up the NYDSA? They're a sideshow even to the Zohran campaign, they were only useless insofar that Zohran felt the need to signal his socialist bona-fides
Do you think I believe the DSA of all things is gonna to be the party that wins the spoils of the rupture, no it'll be something completely new and out of nowhere that takes advantage of the rupture, like Zohran, old outside entryist parties will be pushed to the side, in a similar way Bernie and AOC are playing second fiddle to Zohran right now
Also I thought you said the SPD was bad because of electoralism, but now I'm "insulting" their memory, I thought they were Rosa killers, make up your mind
The death of the Democratic party is insufficient as a good start, really? Thanks for that, sometimes when you're in the middle of a dogpile you start to wonder, "am I in the wrong" and then I'm hit with a sentence like that and I realize, no, I'm just talking to larpers
No, I'm really not, if you can't see how that quote can apply to the electoral opportunity during a dealignment, then I guess you'll never get it
I think you mean semantics. Definitions would have made it easier to turn your vagaries into something that means something.
It doesn't mean anything without some kind of concrete claim of what rupture looks like to you. I can't read your mind, this just sounds like DSA speak where they speak unclearly but with positive vibes to make it sound like they are accomplishing things that they actually aren't.
But you could always just say what you mean instead of making people guess.
That is why you brought it up?
Now we're talking about realignments, lol. Is the plan not to displace the party with a split? You're saying you want to actually just literally take over the Dems? Because that is completely incompatible with the basic power structures that maintain it, even internally. See, I keep having to guess about what you are talking about because it is too vague. I might not even be right in what I'm trying to guess at. But I'm not going to try and help you by guessing, pretty soon. You'll be on your own having to write coherent statements with sufficient context.
It's an argument against your logic being consistent.
You're having a full-fledged debate with someone in your head, not me.
I very much doubt your analysis is sound.
The bar was a party being displaced and none of these are that. So this is not a reply to what I said, but instead, again, what you wish I said.
Oh, that's my dream? Show me saying something like that. You're so far down your own invented rabbit hole that you are arguing with phantoms.
PS you didn't clarify anything, that sentence still makes no sense.
Because that is the central entryist project targeted at Democrats and you may want to check the title of this post and the comments you replied to. Have you been thinking of some other org this whole time?
You are the one spinning extended stories about electoral eventualities. I have pointed out their flaws.
Is that what I said?
Uncharitable readings lead even the cleverest of us to forget about linear time.
"Insufficient" vs "good start", what a hilarious comparison to insert out of nowhere.
Oh? What am I larping?
You are. You're bridging another chain we are in.