Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
Love to just question-beg that incrementalism is how elections are won when she lost her election on an incrementalist platform, but it doesn't count because Biden stayed in the election for too long and that in no manner reflects any further problem with the party.
It's amazing how they coordinated so well to rat-fuck Bernie but then do this against Trump
The DNC fought Zohran and Bernie harder than they ever did Trump
Trump cut their taxes. Under capitlaism that is the ethically correct choice. Why would they do otherwise?
It's amazing how they coordinated so well to rat-fuck Bernie but then do this against Trump
Class solidarity gets them the goods. We need to try it too.
The key to climbing the way to the top is successfully being able to blame every problem on something but yourself while threading the delicate needle axing anyone that gets in your way and sucking up to your betters.
Not taking responsibility for anything in any meaningful way is as obligatory as breathing to them.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder about anything I'm super normal I swear 😶
Doesn't help that Zohran has been in interview after interview giving clear and succint answers with direction and conviction. It makes the incoherent stammering of establishment Democrats look even worse.
Without someone like Zohran, they don't have a reason to do anything but promise to maintain the status quo and be, if nothing else, an existing alternative to the Republican party.
I dont understand the liberals love for failures. Like Harris, and Clinton both failed miserably and yet it's never framed as their fault. They're treated by liberals like people deserving of respect. It's just strange. Has anyone ever asked her why she thinks her opinion on what should be done going forward is valid when she has never won a national election?
Marx wrote about this exact phenomenon over a century and a half ago. Insane how nothing changes.
They do not need to weigh their own resources too critically. They have merely to give the signal and the people, with all its inexhaustible resources, will fall upon the oppressors. Now if in the performance their interests prove to be uninteresting and their potency impotence, then either the fault lies with pernicious sophists, who split the indivisible people into different hostile camps, or the army was too brutalized and blinded to comprehend that the pure aims of democracy are the best thing for it, or the whole thing has been wrecked by a detail in its execution, or else an unforeseen accident has this time spoiled the game. In any case, the democrat comes out of the most disgraceful defeat just as immaculate as he was innocent when he went into it, with the newly won conviction that he is bound to win, not that he himself and his party have to give up the old standpoint, but, on the contrary, that conditions have to ripen to suit him.
From https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch03.htm
Wow that guy should write more
One thing has changed. The "democrat" marx speaks of is even willing to launch a revolt against oppressors. The best that the "democrat" of today seeks is to integrate queer symbolism into the oppressor class ideology.
Liberals will call one party states undemocratic and authoritarian, but get upset when you don’t vote for Democrats because they’re “the only ones capable of defeating fascism” and everyone else is a distraction or op. Of course they also have no intention, rhetorically or politically, to punish or outlaw Republicans and other right wing components of society.
I’m not saying outlawing the right wing makes them go away, but the liberals have actively advocated for Republicans to be in power and have told other Republicans to “wake up” and take back the party from Trump.
Essentially the voters are exhausted, but the party sees this and can’t risk being required to actually work or rock the boat, so it whips the voters back into line.
It has been said that the Republicans are bad cops and the Democrats are good cops. In addition to that, I would also add on that the Democrats are HR for the company of Capital. Whether or not they truly despise their conservative coworkers for being despicable human beings who make the work environment hostile and unsafe, they exist to protect the company, not the employees.
Comparing Dems to HR is perfect.
It has been said that the Republicans are bad cops and the Democrats are good cops.
I prefer it as the Democrats being bad cops, and the Republicans being gibbering eldritch horrors made of graft and howling for blood cops.
The Democrats threaten, the Republicans rampage while stealing everything that's not nailed down.
"Good cops" in that game would be something like socdems, offering a healthcare burger if you fall in line and cooperate with the prison of capitalist society.
I've always viewed the dynamic between Democrats and Republicans as the carrot and the stick. Democrats make their promises to mobilize the masses into voting for them. When people realize they can never actually reach the promieses dangled in front of them and get unruly, the Republicans come into power and whip the country into submission. They cause enough chaos and move the needle backwards just enough to ensure that Democrats never need to make real progress; they just need to fix the things the Republicans broke (and not in a way that they can't be broken again).
kinda feels like misogyny and infantalization of women to me
like they are accepting just absolutely nothing because they're women? cos women can't ACTUALLY be good politicians, i guess?
The western left has a big fetish for failure too, tbf. I think it's a Christian ethic of suffering as a sign of moral purity that permeates so much of western culture. And it produces this aversion to actually grappling with the vicissitudes and complexities of governance.
Rather than be forced to make compromises in the face of material reality, or god forbid, actually make a mistake, it's easier to valorize nobile failures, wax utopian about how you would fix everything if you were in power, and balk at anyone actually trying to wield it.
I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately. Like i see so many people debate for example the USSR. When they do it they almost exclusively talk about morals, and was this or that wrong or right. Which to me is so self defeating. You need to have the pragmatist strategy of Machiavelli, or Sun Tzu, and the Compassionate detachment of Buddha at the same time. You can't just hope good things happen and expect them to, and you can't just be purely strategic and not care about outcomes. It has to be a synthesis. Yet the ability to realize that synthesis seems very lacking in western discourse.
Like what is better a commune that perfectly fits your morals but lasts 6 months because it gets slaughtered by some brownshirts immediately, or a nation that fits 80% of your moral desires, and lasts a century because it ruthlessly defends itself from the forces of reactionary capital? One of those things can give an entire generation a fulfilling life, and one of them is a vacation that ends in disaster.
Has anyone ever asked her why she thinks her opinion on what should be done going forward is valid when she has never won a national election?
TBF, that's true of most people, including all US socialists and communists.
Like, her opinions are not worth listening to because they are the usual neolib bullshit, not because she didn't win the election. If we go by that metric, we should listen to Trump, Nixon and Reagan.
I don't think your understanding me. I'm not talking about her opinions on policy. I'm talking about strategy. You can be trying to implement fascism, or socialism and use the exact same strategy for either. It's like war. There is a difference between what you are fighting for and the methods by which you achieve victory.
I of course don't think a liberals policies are ever worth listening to, but the strategies of your enemies can still be effective. Yet Harris has failed to implement a single successful strategy during any of her presidential runs. So to look to her for advice on how to effectively combat an enemy is just moronic.
What would you even increment towards? Stagnation?
Establishment Dems would need to be incrementally pursuing a democratic workplace, cessation of imperial exploitation, and the dissolution of the violent enforcement of heteronormativity to be an interesting narrative foil to leftists. Hell, pick 2 and suddenly you have a real fight because you might actually argue about great being the enemy of good. Pick 1 and the lib arguments for harm reduction are compelling. Short of that what the fuck are we doing here? The plan is to get more racist as a means to incrementally increase funding to Israel?
incrementally pursuing a democratic workplace
best we can do is intermittently supporting imperialist anticommunist unions
"the trans can have a little recognition, as a treat. But only sometimes"
more trans drone pilots ~~until we lose to another republican~~
Persecution is technically a form of recognition I guess.
Wake up, Jon. Zingers are never gonna get people healthcare. Decades of trying and failing to sass away the republican party should teach you something by now.
Kamala desperate to prove that despite not winning she's a first place loser
I'm not advocating incrementalism
but maybe that is where we are
do the people around her really not understand why voters don't take her seriously?
He looks so sad lol
Punished Jon Stewart arc, let's fucking goooo
That sounds like an Aamon Animations bit lol
Being incremental while your country rushes into ruin leaves you where? You lot aren't incremental doing genocides. How you fight "progressive" harder than you fight trump? Looks like your side is clear 
But no seriously we need to turn Stewart's face into an emote, cause lmao, that's only a face someone makes when their whole conception of the universe falls apart
Don't worry, stewart will be back up tomorrow asking the republicans to finally fund the 9/11 victims fund, appealing to their humanity and whatnot
I despise her so much. If you're not advocating for incrementalism then what the hell are you advocating for? It sounds to me like you are advocating for incrementalism actually.
pretty sure she's advocating for fascism. Atleast thats as much as I've ever seen from her.
The tweet also applies to Stewart lmao
He has a podcast now? And its called "The Weekly Show". That's cute.
...hour and 20 min. Let you know how it goes...
oh hey, she criticizes the old democrat door knocking campaigns, and prescribes one that looks a lot more like what the DSA has done with the New York Mamdani campaign
ooh interesting question:
Stuart: are the reforms that Democrats are talking about not enough? Are they basically tinkering at the edges of a system that is inherently corrupt and not delivering, as opposed to rethinking that system so that it delivers more directly? Lets talk about the ACA. Basically, it's a conservative fix to a healthcare system that is an outlier in the civilized world. It gives people a coupon that allows them, maybe, entrance into this circus that is our healthcare system. So now Democrats are fighting to keep the cost of that coupon slightly less. Are you now trapped in a program that ultimately wasn't the fix that we wanted it to be, to a system that inherently won't function well because of externalities in a straight, capitalist, supply-and-demand way?
Harris: We still have work to do to make America's health system deliver for all the people, and not be a function of how much money you have in your back pocket. And Democrats do come from that place, of believing healthcare should be a right, and not just a privilege of those that can afford it. So how do you get there? Well, part of how you get there immediately on this issue of where we are with the shutdown is to hold firm, as they are doing. Part of it has to be to continue to reform the system. The Affordable Care Act was a significant reform for its time. But there is more work to be done, which includes, for example, the affordability of prescription medication. We pushed for a $35 cap on insulin, which had a huge impact on so many people. We did it for seniors. We wanted to do it for everyone. We couldn't get the support of Republicans in Congress.
Stuart: But again, it speaks to incremental change.
Harris: Which is never satisfying
lol, it's the response quoted in the twitter screenshot except it leaves out the last sentence;
And it's not where we should be. And it should not satisfy us, that we have accomplished incremental change. We should be completely pissed off about that.
We pushed for a $35 cap on insulin, which had a huge impact on so many people.
There is no other country where it's anywhere near that expensive.
she wants to us AI to speed up permitting requests
If I thought the world ended at the borders of this country, if I was completely unaware of international policy, I might say John Stuart is a good interviewer.
There was also a funny bit, where she had to thread the needle of saying Biden was not fit to run a campaign, but was fit to be the sitting president. Very funny, even John was somewhat taken aback by that.
The Affordable Care Act was a significant reform for its time.
How can they say this with a straight face when equivalent nations that literally border the US had full universal in the 80s.
Good 