archomrade [he/him] @ archomrade @midwest.social

Posts

15

Comments

1,616

Joined

2 yr. ago

If your goal is to not let the Republicans win?

A. The goal should be to achieve progress, not win elections

B. That involves making the case for that progress, not capitulating to popular opinion that's been fabricated by conservative media

But that's only if you're not operating on a dialectical-materialist political analysis, because if you were you'd understand that real progress can't be made through simple electoral victories. Abandoning minority protections in exchange for electoral power is how America has operated since its founding.

"Politics is when we capitulate to the most bigoted perspectives if they happen to be held by an important electoral demographic"

Well fuck, if it's considered woke I guess there's nothing we can do 🤷‍♂️

Like how Biden has been taking action on it while he's been in office..?

There's zero evidence Harris will do anything she hasn't voiced support for once she's in office, and she has no actual motivation to do so once the election is over.

"We just need to win" is literally just that.

'Destroying' the 'most progressive' party?

In what way is anyone destroying the democratic party, and in what way are the democrats making progress?

Compare what, exactly?

I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection

Not a single swing state, you'll notice

Maybe you're not one of the people on here constantly complaining about negative Democrat coverage, but the overwhelming response to anything that might damage the reputation of democrats at the expense of losing to republicans is met with constant whining.

Educating people why we need anything involves repeatedly raising the issue and presenting the evidence that's most alarming, and making the case that we need to address it. When someone says "Democrats are materially supporting genocide", liberals on .world get all up in arms, screaming that it's 'not the democrat's fault' and that blaming them for something they're doing (but helpless to stop doing) is only going to allow someone worse do that thing.

It's the same with FPTP. Legislatures in a swing state aren't going to propose switching to FPTP because neither party can afford to loose any votes to third party candidates. They'll capitulate just enough to say they're addressing it, but stop short of sacrificing their advantage and then rake activists over the coals and sic the riot police on them for pushing too hard for it.

Reminds me of a quote from Frederick Douglass:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Liberals who use electoralism as an excuse to defer taking action will never be swayed into it, because they've already made the calculation that it isn't worth sacrificing their privileged position. You have to make the cost of abdication so severe that they cannot excuse themselves from the responsibility.

Lol, idk why so many people think that our foreign policy is a result of defense contractor kickbacks.

I'm just imagining Washington or Lincoln being taken out to a swanky dinner being wined and dined with a musket industry lobbyist, being persuaded into war for defense kickbacks.

Like, no, America didn't genocide the natives because they benefited from taking their territory, they did it because horse breeders and gunpowder manufacturers offered Jackson a lucrative cut from defense contracts lol

I don't want to alarm you, but 'getting ranked choice' will also face resistance from the parties, and will also involve damaging the democrat's electoral chances.

I'd argue the real problem is a lack of class consciousness and complacency from liberals, but I have a feeling you probably disagree.

That reaction does not inspire confidence.

I think we're in agreement. "Kamala leads a 4.5 gagillion dollars in private investment in central america" might as well read "American companies exploit central-American destabilization by securing their cheap labor"

It's not a policy we should be celebrating as a success.

as evidenced by socialist uprisings in Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela

What a crazy coincidence that the policy in question specifically excluded Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela lol

This is how moderates end up on the wrong side of fascism.

She doesn’t have to welcome conservative perspectives.

Well then why is she doing it, then? If cracking down on immigration and strengthening the military aren't conservative perspectives I'm not sure what they are because they certainly aren't from the left.

Well it's a good thing that Reagan and Nixon didn't cause any lasting damage, then.

Which is evidence of good strategy

Idk, if the goal is more progressive governance I don't think welcoming conservative perspectives is a good strategy.

If the goal is simply to win..... sure. But still a cynical turn away from the left. Maybe they should have asked if she planned on appointing any progressive or pro-palestinian people on her cabinet, that's a question I'd be curious to hear her response to.

Oh, if they proposed something like the Marshall Plan I'd be fucking pleased.

This is just convincing US companies to take advantage of the cheap labor, as if they really needed that much convincing.

I understand why you're saying it's normal, i'm questioning why 'it's normal' is being used as if it's a defense.

Her appointing a republican could be fine, sure, but it could also be exactly as bad is people are interpreting it. The way the question was posed in the context of working and compromising with republicans certainly seems to favor the latter interpretation, and the way she responded certainly doesn't dispel the concern over it.

She could have said, "I'll select the best people for the job that are aligned with our administration's goals, regardless of party affiliation", but instead she laughed about it and dangled it like a carrot. That's not a comforting response.