TIL Socialism is about which countries you like, not your actual polices
mamdami is not a socialist, he’s a red liberal.
History proves that anyone punching left is not a socialist
His actual policies aren’t socialist. Welfare Capitalism isn’t socialism, it’s just exporting some of the suffering to poorer places.
Zohran is a member of the reformist Groundwork faction within DSA he has not interest in revolutionary politics. Reforms along the way to revolution is good because it enables more people to materially engage but it cannot be the endgoal otherwise you are just subservient to capital.
Will Zohran do good stuff for people? Yeah. Is that all we should be happy with? Fuck no.
Reforms along the way to revolution is good because it enables more people to materially engage
I invite you to expand on your thoughts more here. It seems to me that we tried this shit with Bernie Sanders after Occupy Wallstreet. Bernie took our righteous indignation at corporate bailouts and funneled it back into support for the Democratic Party. I’m glad Mamdani is actually doing his job, but we can not reform the Democratic Party. And while we try to take over the party from within, we are giving fascism, at the behest of the capitalist ruling class that funds both parties, more time to develop and cement itself.
People don’t need to be told a watered down version of socialism and then corrected later: we need to tell people that the worsening conditions they experience is a direct result of the capitalist mode of production. We can’t even vote our way into maternity leave, universal healthcare, and wages that track productivity–there is zero chance we can vote our way out of capitalism.
In no way am I suggesting any of what you are suggesting and taking a lighter “more palatable” path to a socialist revolution. But many people cannot engage due to their material conditions and part of our work in agitating, educating, and organizing people is using the power we gain along the way to improve the conditions so we can repeat that cycle with more people in society at large.
Ah, I see now what you mean by “enables”. You’re suggesting that people are struggling so much that they can’t afford to be politically active.
Correct. Many people are struggling to even makes ends meet and don’t have the capacity to be politically involved even if they want to be. They are working several jobs, raising a family, etc etc.
deleted by creator
Brain dead post
Then I’m sure you can rebut the point it’s making easily, yeah? So why don’t you? Is it because deep down you know it’s true and that makes you deeply uncomfortable?
What is blud on ab ^^
I am a socialist and i like being free without cctv :)
Okay so the us has put out a load of anti comunist propeganda? Big wow thanks for eductating me i geuss :) i was already aware of this sadly and my critisisms come from a way different side i am simply anti autorytarian and i think shit like a strong state with a strong survalance network is bad for democrecy so id like to avoid that end yk (sorey for bad spelling im not the best at english ^^)
think shit like a strong state with a strong survalance network is bad for democrecy
It’s only bad for democracy if your idea of democracy is choosing between two puppets of your actual rulers every few years.
Thats only the case if you would asume i like capitalism or the state at all which i stated i dont :/ if there is a group of power they can and will control elections using enprisonment media control and economic factors if there are non thats way harder to do :)