I'm not denouncing Mamdani, just trying to align expectations and make it clear that revolution is still necessary in order to begin socialism. I'm cheering for Mamdani, fuck Cuomo. But revolution isn't a pipe dream. Thinking that the system can be reformed from within is the pipe-dream. Mamdani plays a role in helping the proletariat become normalized towards socialism and may represent a decent change in a positive direction for New Yorkers, but his win isn't a requirement for revolution, nor does it get rid of the need for it.
To be clear, all socialism is democratic. "Democratic Socialism" is just for reformist socialism, and I'd argue Mamdani is just to give New Yorkers a taste of what a better world could look like. You can't actually change capitalism by working within it, though, revolution remains necessary. Mamdani could prove beneficial in normalizing socialism.
"Authoritarianism" isn't an ideology, nor does it have a corresponding mode of production. That isn't the argument. The increased despotism in Europe is a consequence of capitalism's decay, it's a very liberal despotism.
Liberalism is not the start of the left. Liberalism is the status quo in capitalist society, it's the ideological component of capitalism. The start of leftism is socialism, the start of rightism is capitalism.
It's a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren't imperialist because there's nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
The truth is that it can't. In economic formations where private property is the principle aspect, you can't really take control of capital and plan it to the necessary extent, those at the top are those priests of capital best suited for endlessly profiting and growing. It isn't "meritocracy," the system needs profit and will destroy anything that doesn't help with that. Only socialism can truly be planned.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation already exists, though all socialism is democratic, it just stands for reformist socialism. PSL is revolutionary, but also runs candidates.
The existing system cannot be fixed, it depends on imperialism and as such has hollowed out industrialization in favor of finance capital. Mamdani is a "boot of the neck" candidate, someone to show a bit of what's possible with a properly run economy, but even electing progressives elsewhere can't bring about socialism. Revolution is still necessary.
They weren't. The Soviet Union never developed the financial capital with which to extract super profits, it had no colonies. Mao was wrong. The Sino-Soviet split was filled with drama, and both sides were right about some things and wrong about others.
NATO is a threat the same way your neighbors that hate you all buying guns and joining together millitarily is a threat. In the event of war, it's right on your doorstep. Encirclement is a known tactic, the US does it in another form, by using aircraft carriers and millitary bases.
I already did. Leftism is about progressing to the next mode of production, it's historically progressive and revolutionary. Rightism is about retaining the current system or trying to go backwards, ie the "good old days." Socialism is left wing, capitalism is right wing. Liberalism is the ideological superstructure of capitalism, ergo it's right wing.
Secondly, you never actually answered me about what it means to be left wing, or why you think capitalism is left wing. You just copied and pastied the first things you googled without engaging with the points made by others here and myself.
Trump will never leave NATO, it's a common pattern for him to threaten to leave things to get a more favorable deal, which largely fails to be fair. As far as being anti-NATO as a Leftist stance, it's an extremely standard take to be against the main millitant arm of western imperialism. It isn't just the Marxists that are against NATO.
None of those claimed liberalism was left wing. Liberalism is the ideological superstructure of capitalism, it supports private property rights above all else. I really think you need to step back for a second and try to see what others are telling you, rather than try to convince people that capitalism is left wing.
Russia was never "imperialist" in the way the west is. They never had an Empire as the Soviet Union. Russia cannot become an empire by invading other countries, imperialism functions by massive financial capital to extract from the global south. Russia doesn't have the capital for that, and is more industrialized than western countries that need it to stay afloat.
As for NATO, it's to ensure western imperialism stays intact. The US is the main beneficiary, but western Europe participates because they also profit from brutal exploitation of the global south.
Ukraine is an interesting case, due to the Euromaidan coup in 2014 leading to the nationalists taking control. Prior to Euromaidan, relations with Russia weren't so bad, actually.
I mentioned the DNC because it seemed like that's what you were going for. It isn't about "ideals," it's about property relations. Capitalism is the status quo, ergo liberalism is right wing.
No, the left want socialism, be it anarchism, marxist socialism, etc. Capitalism is not the "absence of socialism," it's its own thing.
You're confusing people calling right-wing parties like the DNC "left" in the context of USian politics, but that's because the left is fringe, in parties like PSL.
What do you think makes the divide? Why are you so insistent on calling capitalism "left wing?"
Nah, it aint that deep. The left wants socialism, the right wants capitalism. There are differences in views among leftists and right-wingers, but the base is in if the principle aspect of the economy should be public, or private.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
I'm not denouncing Mamdani, just trying to align expectations and make it clear that revolution is still necessary in order to begin socialism. I'm cheering for Mamdani, fuck Cuomo. But revolution isn't a pipe dream. Thinking that the system can be reformed from within is the pipe-dream. Mamdani plays a role in helping the proletariat become normalized towards socialism and may represent a decent change in a positive direction for New Yorkers, but his win isn't a requirement for revolution, nor does it get rid of the need for it.