It failed because it lacked a vanguard. It was ideologically incoherent and had everyone from frustrated radlibs to weird libertarians and some of the loosely organized left. It could not have succeeded because there was no cohesive ideology holding the movement together. It was an infarction point of the working class and they had no framework to succeed. Our job is to make sure that the next time it happens we can guide that energy and concentrate it into a revolutionary mass.

[–] alyqz@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It also scared the Epstein class and they brought out the counter terrorism units. I've started wondering if this scared them into astroturfing the alt right.

[–] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 5 points 23 hours ago

Tea party were the ur chuds who went insane seeing a dark skinned man in the white house

[–] Juice@midwest.social 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was very individualistic. Its also incredible to me that it took 5 years to mount a vaguely recognizable movement to take action after the economy crashed and the bankers got huge bonuses for crashing it. That's one of the signs that we are further along as a movement, although we def have a long way to go.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

Chalk another one up for the Marxist-Leninists being right. I still remain an anarchist at heart but I take very seriously the "by any means necessary" part in my pfp

[–] happybadger@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Were you there when they presented that poster to Obama? That's the 1905 battleship moment.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

Like physically? No lol. I just remember when it first appeared. I just assumed it was something from his campaign team. Also what is this about 1905? What does the Potemkin have to do with this lol?