161
The Hasanabian Dialectic (thelemmy.club)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by to c/bestofhexbear@hexbear.net
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was the last one to incite a debate about Hasan on this site, and this was the comment that reframed my thinking positively.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Has Hasan ever supported "vote blue no matter who"? Generally he has supported DSA-aligned candidates like Zohran who in some capacity are trying to push democrats towards a proletarian party. It's also about pushing the entire left in America so the bare minimum is no genocide, anti-war, pro M4A. And he's uncompromising on these things! It's not like he's supporting freaks who support "medicare for all who want it."

I'm listening to him now, and he's literally arguing "more than half of the Democrats in the caucus are also on board with this initiative [to attack Iran]". How is this supporting "Democrats" in the abstract? Specific candidates with left policies within the party are worth supporting, but that's the extent of his support! He didn't even support Kamala as some sort of squishy harm reduction shit because he's uncompromising on the things that matter!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Generally he has supported DSA-aligned candidates like Zohran

    Supporting Zohran "homeless sweeps and bending the knee to Israel are good" Mamdani is effectively what I am talking about.

    who in some capacity are trying to push democrats towards a proletarian party.

    I hope you mean democratic voters because entryism is a dead end.

    I didn't say he was blue no matter who, but pushing people to vote for "some democrats" is still channeling people away from the left. The other half of democrats who didn't "support attacking Iran" are still a part of the democrats, who funded genocide in Israel and promised to fund them even more. They will still go along with the war in Iran. They're still the problem. They are still a bourgeois party supporting the white supremacist, genocidal project that is the United states.

    Specific candidates with left policies within the party are worth supporting

    No the fuck they are not, because they are all literally on board with genocide. That's what joining the democratic party IS. These are people who are explicitly choosing to align themself with an organisation that has the explicit, stated goal of supporting and funding the genocide in Gaza, among many other unforgivable crimes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    Are you an accelerationist? If so that's fine but I really don't see what the "left" is at a statewide or national level in America. Should we all vote PSL even when they're polling at 1%? I'm not going to say that there's not a time and place to do this (there is), but if you're an electoralist or interested in something other than accelerationism then sometimes voting for a dem (who as a candidate refuses to support genocide or war and supports m4a) can ever so slightly remove the boot of fascism from ppl to help with organizing.

    I think it's interesting you ignore the real material gains of zohran (I mentioned this in a diff post, sorry I didn't mention it here earlier). Would a mayor that didn't bother to get their constituent freed from gestapo custody be better for "the left"? Seriously interested in what you think about this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent