Well yes, any socialist who runs with the democrats is compromised, I don't think that's particularly controversial. As I say, the Dems won't let you run on their ticket if you're planning anything cool. I'm not talking about what's in anyone's heart because it's totally irrelevant. If I had to speculate I would in fact say that I think Mamdani is probably entirely sincere in his political beliefs. I don't think he's a Bad Man who is doing what the cops say because of some internal moral failing. But his actions are compromising. A theoretical candidate who ran with DSA or as an independent or whatever who capitulated due to a gun to their head is also compromised. It's the action that matters. All I am getting at is that if someone is running as a democrat it shouldn't be surprising when they are compromised, because the democrats are a bourgeois political party. One of the reasons it exists is to stymie socialist efforts.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And what I'm getting at is it's not actually the specific party that is the problem, it's the material conditions of being occupied by the largest paramilitary in the world. It would be the same no matter what party he ran under, which tell me that being a Democrat isn't actually noteworthy.

Until any socialist electeds, DSA or otherwise, engage with the non-electoral terrain they will always be forced into compromise by these material conditions.

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay. Again, I've specified I am talking about this one particular situation and not more generally:

Keep in mind I am talking about Zohran Mamdani, who is running with the Dems, and not making a broader point about running as a democrat.

That I am not saying there's anything particularly noteworthy about running as a democrat:

All I am getting at is that if someone is running as a democrat it shouldn't be surprising when they are compromised, because the democrats are a bourgeois political party.

And indeed that there are other things a politician would need to do to defy the liberal ptb:

could have been part of building a worker's party but has been convinced by liberals that actually the defectors can change the character of the party rather than vise versa

"Building a worker's party" would (I think obviously) also entail building whatever organisations are required to make that worker's party effective. That would include a paramilitary and historically it has.

At no point have I been saying that it's anything other than material conditions. In fact my first comment said as much:

I thought that here of all places we understood that idealism is a dead fucking end.

I also implicitly acknowledged the role of state violence in a later reply:

I don't think he's a Bad Man who is doing what the cops say because of some internal moral failing. But his actions are compromising. A theoretical candidate who ran with DSA or as an independent or whatever who capitulated due to a gun to their head is also compromised.

Now I realise I didn't say it word for word but I thought that made it pretty clear that I know he's capitulating due to the threat of violence. Mamdani is running as a democrat precisely because he is not being a good materialist and isn't working in line with a material analysis, which is the same reason that he wasn't prepared to deal with threats from the police. It is, as I have acknowledged repeatedly, a symptom of his circumstances, not the cause of his behaviour. The only way in which it is "noteworthy" that he was elected on a democratic ticket is that anyone running as a democrat definitely hasn't done the work required to defy the NYPD. Just because anyone else who hadn't done that work would also cave doesn't mean the fact he ran as a democrat tells us nothing. It does. It's a symptom of the same problem that leaves him vulnerable to the NYPD.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I must be too stupid to communicate with you.

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 1 points 6 days ago

Nah it's probably me