• Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Local politicians > work way into DNC primary machine

    Sounds very cloak-and-dagger. Aren’t these systems largely democratic? If so, why aren’t they caught in the same trap, they have to give their votes to the least worst candidate?

    There’s not enough of us yet.

    “Yet”? From when? The beginning of the socialist movement? Is there a point in time you begin to question this slow-and-steady policy? 100 years? 1000?

    Is there some threshold at which you might begin to look at the utter failure of such a process, it’s total and utter net support for the status quo and start to question who really benefits?

    Because if that day ever comes, you might take a glance at the media promoting such a view and the degree to which their owners and sources of revenue benefit from exactly the outcome this policy results in.

    But I’m not holding my breath. Experience has taught me that people these days seems quite happy to believe that when powerful forces get exactly the results which benefit them most, it’s most likely to be a completely fortuitous coincide and anything else is just conspiracy theory.

    • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Cloak and dagger? It’s literally just applying for positions of lower power to help influence systems to open the gates for higher levels of power. It’s… normal everyday shit.

      If there were “enough” socialists we’d either have a valid third party or we’d be able to democratically take over DNC primaries. So far that hasn’t materialized.

      Given there are other countries, like the Nordic countries, that have achieved greater quality of life for their people through democratic socialist means… yeah I’d much prefer that approach than a full on revolution led by some vanguard and the horrendous amount of risk that entails.

      • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        You’ve studiously avoided the question no one seems willing to address.

        Why would anyone move their policies an inch to the left if they are assured of the votes anyway?

        Doesn’t matter if they’re in the primaries, the presidential election or the bloody village mayor. No one will shift to meet the policies of a group whose votes they are guaranteed to get anyway.

        Given there are other countries, like the Nordic countries, that have achieved greater quality of life for their people…

        Ahh. The Nordics. You mean the countries famous for their coalitions where people vote even for the smaller candidates who suit their preferences to form small elements in a mixed government… Those Nordic countries?

        Incidentally, the same Nordic countries that are now facing the same rise in racist populism that evey other country is facing across the globe?

        It’s almost as if the problem were systemic and nothing to do with a bunch of leftists not wanting to vote in favour of genocide…

        • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          43 minutes ago

          Biden and soon Harris are, to my understanding, the most progressive presidents we’ve had in the US. Why are they moving (slowly) left over time?

          And yes, those Nordics. To my understanding it’s not just social culture forming those coalitions, but an actual government system that allows for such coalition building. I would like the same or similar systems, sure.

          Fascism and racism are systemic, nobody is disagreeing with you about that?

          Anyway, that’s as much energy as I’m willing to spend on someone who does not converse in good faith. Stay safe out there.