Skip Navigation

Bernie_Sandals

@ Bernie_Sandals @lemmy.world

Posts
1
Comments
267
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Gathered at Camp David, Biden's family tells him to stay in the race and keep fighting

    Jump

  • I'm hardly responsible if the majority of or the leadership of The Party don't align with my views. It is they who have failed us, not the other way around.

    Like I said, you're not responsible for their current policies, that would be the Democratic voter base of 30 years ago, but you're responsible for not trying to vote them out and writing off the entire fucking party as the same.

    Have fun feeling politically nihilistic and irrelevant though, it sure worked for the CPUSA, the SPA, the SWP and every other third partyist of the past 100 years.

  • Gathered at Camp David, Biden's family tells him to stay in the race and keep fighting

    Jump

  • absolutely no say in the matter

    You can keep shoving your head in the sand or research and confirm what I've been saying is the truth, that candidates are nominated by candidate choice, signatures, and then a primary vote. Up to you.

    Your continued support of the familiar means they'll never change.

    Lmfao, yeah? Can I ask how long you've been involved in politics? Or how much you know about American domestic political history?

    The Democratic Party and Klu Klux Klan Venn Diagram a century ago would've been essentially a circle, with some weird progressives like Roosevelt on the sidelines. The past century of American political conflict has been one of the Democrats slowly solidifying around socially left issues and the Republicans doing the opposite, solidifying around the right. Both Parties found an economically left wing New Deal consensus after the squabbling of great depression recovery, which lasted basically until Reagan and the creation of a Neoliberal consensus.

    That's all to say that the Parties have changed massively over the past 100 years, the Democrats completely switched their position on social and economic issues.

    I have been pushing for my part of the Democratic party to be more economically and socially liberal for a decade now, and even in that short time I've noticed immense changes in what the party is willing to accept. A decade ago, rent control advocacy would've had city level Democratic officials criticizing me, and now Biden, a moderate, is advocating for it in debates and in speeches.

    The Overton window of the Democratic Party has never been stagnant. It has trended solidly left on almost everything for a century, and you'd have to be ignorant or bad faith to not recognize that.

  • Gathered at Camp David, Biden's family tells him to stay in the race and keep fighting

    Jump

  • regardless of who puts forth the candidate

    That's the thing, though, no one "puts forth" a candidate except the candidate themselves, parties will sometimes reach out to activists or local party officials for local or state office nominations, but Federal office candidates are almost always decided by candidates themselves getting signatures and putting their name forward.

    You're no more responsible for the failures of the party than party establishment officials at the DNC, and likely quite less responsible, but you are responsible for writing off the party as a whole, and thereby abandoning the about 50% of the party that wants to take it in a progressive/anti-capitalist direction.

  • Gathered at Camp David, Biden's family tells him to stay in the race and keep fighting

    Jump

  • You know registered Democratic voters pick the nominee, not the DNC, correct?

    If you want someone like Bernie to win, you have to fight with the establishment over the Democratic voterbase, and the Bernie campaign never succeeded in winning over the majority of the Democratic voterbase. You can argue this is because the majority of the endorsements and media were on Hillary's side, but that was inevitable, you can't just expect your internal Party opponent to roll over, you have to build up an opposing powerbase within the party and media.

    Seems like a lot of socialists and progressives got too disenchanted from Bernie losing to ever accept that, though.

  • Russia Loses Last Black Sea Missile Ship

    Jump

  • Coup attempt in Bolivia reportedly under way as army and police storm palace

    Jump

  • Haiti already warned of America wanting to use Kenya's military to invade Haiti before they did it.

    What? The government of Haiti literally requested support from Kenya, which was approved by the UN. What you're saying is almost the complete opposite of what actually happened.

    At least 1 month ago I recall seeing articles about it.

    Maybe stop reading articles that are for some reason supportive of the drug and sex trafficking gangs that have caused the most recent collapse of Haiti?

  • Federal judge rules that LGBTQ+ veterans can sue Pentagon over 'don’t ask, don’t tell' discharges

    Jump

  • Isn't that list almost everything though? I can't think of one reform or law we could pass that wouldn't feel like it came too late.

    Doesn't mean they're not worth fighting for, or that we shouldn't celebrate them when they pass.

  • Removed

    i shall simply remain illiterate

    Jump

  • Which government are you talking about? Most land owned by the government in the U.S. is either worthless desert, contracted out to the private sector, or the small bit leftover that's actually used by the federal government.

  • Prosecutors say Alec Baldwin was ‘engaged in horseplay’ with gun before fatal shooting

    Jump

  • Yeah the recoil is much weaker on those and there's no muzzle flash, and certain cinematic shots just can't be done with them like they could with an actual gun.

  • Ousted Republican Santos debuts new OnlyFans account: 'Moment you've all been waiting for'

    Jump

  • The moment who is waiting for exactly?

  • Removed

    We Remember Noam Chomsky, the Intellectual and Moral Giant

    Jump

  • He's not actually dead.

  • Israeli Protesters Mass in Jerusalem to Call for Elections

    Jump

  • The election is almost guaranteed to happen though, all they're protesting over is the timing.

    Netanyahu is claiming he wants to wait till the war is over. The protestors are saying that he's just using that to keep himself out of jail.

    The longest Netanyahu can draw this struggle out is October 2026. Another election is guaranteed, Netanyahu isn't going to suddenly make himself dictator with his tiny popularity.

  • Israeli Protesters Mass in Jerusalem to Call for Elections

    Jump

  • I mean it is though, (unless you count Iraq and Turkey), that's why this protest against the war and for an election is even allowed to happen.

  • A Christian writer attacked Dolly Parton for being pro-LGBTQ+. It didn't end well for the writer.

    Jump

  • Oh definitely, I'm not blaming Dolly, just saying that as one of the largest draws in the area, (along with the National Park) that she basically is the local economy, which does have its negatives along with its positives.

    The area became a tourist destination long before her too. The tourism industry really started after F.D.R. came to town and established the national park.

  • A Christian writer attacked Dolly Parton for being pro-LGBTQ+. It didn't end well for the writer.

    Jump

  • I've lived within driving distance of it almost my entire life.

    It's in her hometown and brings in quite a bit of money for the rural area, however the tourism has changed the town/towns massively, almost like the redneck/hillbilly version of gentrification.

    For example, in that county, there's 10 times more hotels, cabins, Air B&B's, for tourists, than their are houses on the market and apartments to rent for locals (I actually have written a few college essays about this). Which has effectively priced out most long-term generational residents, to the point where almost 50% of the county's labor force comes from outside the county and can't afford to live inside it.

  • Just the little things

    Jump

  • It's imperative to understand that non-internationalist worker movements that don't care about imperialism are the actual bourgeois concessions that you mentioned earlier.

    Certainly, but the left wing of the Labor party and the Communist Party in France were the ones to advocate for and eventually succeed in gaining decolonization, instead of endless campaigns of repression.

    Excuse me, which demsoc movements have control in the so-called "democratic world"?

    Lula in Brazil, Luis Arce in Bolivia, Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico, and Gabriel Boric in Chile to name a few.

    Speaking of Cuba, I bring another source: a book by Pedro Ross called "how the worker's parliaments saved the cuban revolution

    I'll have to read it, I've been meaning to do more research on Cuba.

    Anyhow, how's your statement that as soon as they have multi-party systems you'll consider them successful, consistent with your claim that you measure success on the material conditions of the working class?

    I believe the main abuses of the Communist parties were caused by their complete control over power with no recourse. When the party became repressive, the leaders/bureaucrats making the decisions couldn't be voted out, not even by average party members. I also just thoroughly have an issue with the party dictating to the working class what it's priorities are, and not the reverse. I'm not arguing they'd even have to start having multi-party elections, but at least have multiple people within the part contest the same seat in the politburo/central committee/legislature, argue for separate sets of ideas or plans (that adhere to party ideology), and let the party members decide which should be deciding the future of the party and country. That'd be enough for me, currently I see the political selection process in communist states to be controlled from above, usually by the highest organs of power, such as the Organization Department of the Chinese Communist Party, which controls the party and state bureaucracy, and the Politburo, which controls the process in China.

  • Just the little things

    Jump

  • I think there's just a different measure of success. I think the socialist movement that built up the NHS in England with Bevan, the movement that built the Workers Coucils in France, the socialists that wons the 8 hour day globally, the Zapitistas, the PKK/YPG, and the rest of the socialist movements that built the modern welfare state could be considered successful.

    I measure success more on the material conditions of the working class, rather than if the party has complete control over a country. Currently the democratic socialist movements have more control in the Democratic world, global South and global North, than the Leninists do.

    The very second that China, Vietnam, Cuba, or Laos actually allows for free elections between multiple socialist factions, and not just the control of society by a party elite, that's the second I'll consider those leninists more successful than the Democratic Socialists.

  • Just the little things

    Jump

  • I would also like to note because my other reply ran out of space, I wouldn't consider myself an anti-communist, but rather pro-democracy.

    There's plenty of communists, even leninists, that I look up to for inspiration, people and movements such as Allende, Sankhara, Che, Hu Yaobang, and the French and Italian communist parties being some examples, and I don't think the actions of Lenin or even Stalin are universally bad, just that their authoritarian actions allowed for abuses that never should've happened in the name of socialism, and that there's also plenty of inspiration in non-Leninist democratic socialists such as Goldman, Luxemburg, Haywood, Bevan, and Meidner.

  • Just the little things

    Jump

  • Thanks comrade. A good marxist would know that everything is propaganda.

    Hence me saying that and then requesting sources for even better propaganda.

    Won't be citing Wikipedia here, western Wikipedia sadly has an anti-soviet bias due to the literature available in the west as a consequence of anti-communism.

    While it's definitely true wikipedia has biased pages around the Russian Revolution, specifically around not showing the proper criticisms of the anarchists like Mahkno during that period, however I believe it's still the best (free and accessible) source available for the "Steel manned" criticism of the Bolsheviks during the revolution. If I was criticizing the actions of the anarchists or mensheviks I would definitely have to pull from actual books however.

    I know the coup attempt took place before October. But that doesn't point you to other possible coup attempts? You don't see a coup fail and go "oh thank god that's over" and keep doing the same, right?

    No of course not, but it showed that the socialist parties had the ability to work together to counter the reactionary threat when needed. In my humble opinion as a college student I believe the Russian socialists would've been better off to keep cooperating with eachother against the Kadets and Whites rather than succumbing to infighting. However it's questionable whether the mensheviks or Right-SR's would have done so, but the anarchists, and Left SR's definitely would have.

    It's not me saying that. There were terrorist attempts on Lenin, and even some successful ones against prominent Bolsheviks.

    I'm aware of the assassination attempts on Lenin and other bolsheviks, but I don't think that should've condemned the entirety of the other socialist parties to being purged, especially since I've never seen evidence of these assassination attempts being planned by the leadership of any of the socialist parties.

    Bolsheviks were right! You CAN establish socialism without a previous phase of capitalism. In the USSR, class relations disappeared, and the exploitation was no more.

    I don't think that's exactly what happened, I'd say it was far more than the class relations changed from lord and peasant to party official and worker, though that's my Trotskyist sympathies and it's a topic that's been well debated and I'm sure you're aware of that.

    Saying that they were conveyors for instructions from the top down is nonsensical, especially seeing how union membership amounted to tens of millions of workers while being totally voluntary.

    While the unions functioned very much like you say as the means through which the government gave certain benefits such as vacations at the sanitariums, they also had the ability to punish workers for non-loyalty and for stepping outside of party line, the ability for the party to influence the union and not the other way around is what I have problems with. And while technically being voluntary, it's hard to measure how much participation in any organization is voluntary in an authoritarian environment like the Stalin and Brezhnev periods of the USSR.

    "Eventually"? Really? Again, you're just spouting anti-communist propaganda. You can complain about repression but saying that the USSR "eventually" instituted progressive welfare is crazy, it's one of the earliest things the USSR did.

    I said eventually because while the subsidies and reforms put in place during War Communism did help the urban class, they also lead to shortages of food in the countryside. In my opinion it's only later after the end if War Communism and the beginning of the NEP that true welfare reforms were put in place, not just redistributory policies that redistributed resources from the rural to urban class. (I'm aware that some of the redistributions came from Kulaks and not peasants, however grain seizures did not happen only to Kulaks)

    There's no exploitation, so there's nothing to concede.

    That was the party line, but my Trotsky/Bernstein/Luxemburg inspired self would probably say otherwise.

    So little power that they could kickstart a 2-year-long civil war in which many Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries joined them, and in which more than a million and a half people died on the Bolshevik side. I'm sure independent unions controlling the industry separately would have fought much better against the White armies.

    Again that civil war started only after the revolution in October, had the socialists presented a more united front then I doubt the Tsarists would've had the opening to grab political control, they were vastly less popular than the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SRs. And while the need for a strong central plan during the war is justification for the War Communism, but not for the lack of control the workers and unions had on planning after the war during the NEP period and after for the rest of Soviet history.

    Blaming the russian civil war on Bolsheviks instead of the actual, literal monarchic fascists that wanted to restore the Russian Empire.

    Had the Black Hundreds started the conflict I would completely agree with you. But in my view, the widespread violence/conflict didn't actually start until after the start of violence between socialists in October. I only blame the bolsheviks for starting the conflict, I blame the mensheviks for working with people like Wrangel, Denikin, and the other white officers for perpetuating it and not bringing it to a quick close or trying to find agreement with the bolsheviks. But I don't think the Mensheviks/Right SR's would've ever stooped to working with people like Wrangel had the bolsheviks not started hostilities.

    We're talking of the first Socialist experiment ever.

    I'm extremely sympathetic to this argument, however my only problem is that the socialists of that time were doing exactly what socialists today do, fighting and hating eachothing more than they fought the capitalists. After the 1917 election effectively, the entire government was controlled by socialists, the Kadets and Whites would've only had whatever power the socialists let them. I feel like if I was participating in the first socialist revolution I would put much more care into ensuring the movement as a whole stayed united and in power, instead of one particular section of it, however here I am engaging in leftist infighting so who knows.

    That doesn't discredit the entire revolution, its ideals, and its achievements, at least it doesn't to me, whereas it clearly does for anti-communists like you.

    I don't think it discredits the revolution actually, hence me putting effort into learning about Soviet history post-revolution as well. I do however think it discredits some of the ideals of Leninism, just because of how easy they were for Stalin to abuse. Primarily the concept of the Vanguard party meant that the Bolsheviks could justify to themselves the repression of other socialists movements and in my view it had an inherently patriarchal view of the working class needing to be "guided" by a party instead of the party being guided by the working class. In my view the ban on factionalism also allowed whatever faction was in power to crush any competition and basically allowed it to not have to listen to the working class. If a broad swath of the population began to support Trotsky or any other faction leader, the ruling faction could simply say that those Trotskyists were counter-revolutionary and repress them.

    which ironically led to the demise of the country once the higher ups decided it was time to "liberalize" the economy and the politics, aka Glasnost and Perestroika. But refusing to do material analysis of the circumstances, and reducing everything to "Lenin bad", is counterproductive.

    The Gorbachev period is actually why I blame Lenin. In my view Gorbachev was just the leader of one of the two major factions of the USSR during that time. But in my view, because of the ban on factions that started with Lenin, and the collection of power around the Politburo that started with Lenin, the internal political conflicts of the party were decided more by who had connections and political maneuvering abilities far more than who the working class preferred. Had the working class been able to vote specifically for which faction they wanted more in the Gorbachev era and before, I don't think the scheming that lead to the August Coup and dissolution of the union by the Liberals ever would've happened.

    Funnily enough, nobody on the left talks or complains about the excesses of violence carried out by the antifascist side during the civil war, such as burning churches with priests alive inside, or raping nuns, or execution of fascist prisoners, or even infighting among the leftist parties. You know why? Because it failed, and failed leftist movements aren't criticised but idealised by people like you.

    I do actually criticize the infighting between liberals, anarchists, and leninists during the Spanish Civil War, however it's a topic that doesn't come up often in American political discourse so I don't often get the chance to. I've read far less about the Spanish War than the Russian one, however from what I've read the fighting between the Leninists and Anarchists and the schemes of the Liberals directly contributed to their loss. I don't think the Leninists seizing power over the socialist movement in Spain would've exact been the answer, with it likely leading to infighting within the left like during the Russian war, I think the answer probably would've been deeper negotiation and agreement between socialists for a more united Popular Front, however you'd know more than me on if that was feasible.

    Can I ask where you're majoring in Soviet history? I'm interested.

    University of Chapel Hill at North Carolina, unfortunately the best I can afford at the moment for a secondary major.