this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
6 points (100.0% liked)

Anarchism

3275 readers
85 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We’ve been hearing a lot of panicky warnings lately after Democratic primary voters chose socialists and other leftists instead of “moderates” in several major elections. The alarm bells got louder this month after Michigan’s progressive Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed defeated Rep. Haley Stevens – who was, the New York Times reported, “the moderate establishment-backed candidate.”

The soothing “moderate” label routinely goes to candidates like Stevens who’ve supported continual arming of Israel. She “benefited from about $62 million in advertising spending from half a dozen outside groups,” the Times noted. “Over half of that sum came from the super PAC arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the country’s most influential pro-Israel group.”

What’s so “moderate” about supporting genocide?

Politicians are also routinely dubbed “moderate” when they’re running interference for extreme income inequality and deadly healthcare inequities – helping to block popular policy options like tax hikes on the rich and Medicare for All, which is supported by three-quarters of Democrats.

The Democratic base is fed up with a system that gives inordinate power to the wealthy and to large corporations. In the real world, the so-called “moderates” are aligned with a status quo that continues to inflict widespread suffering and preventable death at home and abroad.

To hear timeworn party strategists like James Carville and Paul Begala tell it, leftwing candidates are duping the Democratic electorate. As this month began, Carville threatened to leave the party. Begala made headlines by declaring, “I don’t like the socialists. I can’t stand them.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So your point? We both want something better. And only you had thought that I was talking about the Chinese govt and not the Chinese people.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So your point? We both want something better. And only you had thought that I was talking about the Chinese govt and not the Chinese people.

You came into an anarchist space and started advocating for the dead opposite of anarchism. Replacing State with Other State is not advancing anarchism. It's not "something better". The Chinese People are not taking actions towards supplanting the US hegemony in any capacity that does not include their government, so whether you mention them or not would be irrelevant at best, or complete BS at worst (if, for instance, you were to try to imply they could or would act independent of their government's wishes if they wanted).

But I see you’re just a liberal l.

Yes, just throw that at anyone who doesn't fall in line with your "US bad therefore China good" fallacy. I'm sure that will be very persuasive in an Anarchist space bro.

[–] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Hm, no I'm wasn't even talking about a state, but yes currently those people are under an state so my bad I guess.

And many people in db0 are progressist with extra steps, not anarchist. Not your case. I'll edit the comment in good faith.