Oh right yeah that's why you'll find that people on the online left get pretty agitated pretty quickly when it comes to Democrats. We know from theory and history that it is impossible to do truly revolutionary activity on our own, and we need an organized movement in order yo find any success.

Many theory nerds will point out that the most succesful revolutions that succeeded in overthrowing capitalism (the Soviet Union and China being prominent examples) were organized by a vanguard party. One may disagree or be uncomfortable with certain tactics used to get there, or with policies enacted after the revolution, but these are worth investigating and contending with because the success isn't really deniable. If everything went 100% right for us, we hope we are faced with similar decisions, and if we put in the work, we hope we will make even better decisions.

That said, people with similar values often will run for office in a futile attempt to make things better without a true revolution (rememeber, Democrats are a pro-capitalism party). Many on the online left have no patience for this engagement, because almost every instance of this happening has resulted in these politicians capitulating to the party machine around them.

In the Hasan+Kat case, he is explicitly doing "lesser evilism" to chip away at AIPAC influence, even though Kat has an even worse than expected foreign policy. Good news is that she is just 26 (couldn't say I was better at that age), bad news is that if she wins, it is less likely that she will develop on that front (but I'd be very happy to be wrong).

[–] MayoPete@hexbear.net 3 points 11 hours ago

It's also really, really hard to keep waiting for some Vanguard party to emerge when it hasn't happened since the last century. I can see people turning to elections to try and do something beyond the nebulous "organize" that amounts to a lot of wheel spinning.