chat

What are you having trouble with definitions

I think you mean semantics. Definitions would have made it easier to turn your vagaries into something that means something.

you don't know what the word rupture means or what the two-party duopoly is?

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.

Yeah, duh, and none of them are viable, hence the reason I brought it up

That is why you 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

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.

That's not an argument against electoralism

It's an argument against your logic being consistent.

the left was not defeated because they simply did elections too much like you're implying

You're having a full-fledged debate with someone in your head, not me.

we have far better reasons for why the American left succumbed to the red scares and the Truman coup

I very much doubt your analysis is sound.

No, we have the Fourth Party System of the Progressive era, [...]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Do you think I believe the DSA of all things is gonna to be the party that wins the spoils of the rupture

You are the one spinning extended stories about electoral eventualities. I have pointed out their flaws.

Also I thought you said the SPD was bad because of electoralism

Is that what I said?

but now I'm "insulting" their memory, I thought they were Rosa killers, make up your mind

Uncharitable readings lead even the cleverest of us to forget about linear time.

The death of the Democratic party is insufficient as a good start, really?

"Insufficient" vs "good start", what a hilarious comparison to insert out of nowhere.

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

Oh? What am I larping?

No, I'm really not

You are. You're bridging another chain we are in.