If the Republicans could nazify their voting base then its time for Democrats to move further to the left.
I mean, we could have like 10 or 20 parties. That would be so nice. Imagine various parties forming a coalition instead of just having two choices of fucking shit. That would be something else. We can dream.
I'm not sure I believe it's that high.
But I hope it is.
Is bart the conservatives or the democrats or the centrists?
As the old german saying goes and is lovely sung: WER HAT UNS VERRATEN, SOZIAL DEMOKRATEN! (WHO BETRAILED US? SOCIAL DEMOCRATS!)
That is meant figurtifly and real. They voted for ww1, after the workers overthrew the monarchy, they shot the revoltees and sabotaged any effort for real peoples democracy and even today they are throwing the workers under the bus!
ysk social democrats and democratic socialists are two different groups of people that disagree with each other on fundamental levels, this post is refering to the later.
Unless you are a fascist bootlicker there is no reason to be upset by this.
Wait, am I meant to feel upset that people are embracing the moniker of socialist?
I think Bart is supposed to be the* DNC / establishment dems, and Homer is DSA / progressives
The taboo on the word is still pretty strong in several areas of the country so, many people would like you to feel upset by it. Progress and education are two of the only nonviolent ways to change this
Most of those guys are aging out. That's what the stats show on generational polling.
I think it's prime time to take the word back. Memes like Fox listing out all the things the "socialists" want and.... for the most part, it's stuff we actually do want and people in general want… yeah, let's take that word back. We need social safety nets.
For most Americans- Marxism=communism=socialism=authoritarianism.
Those same morons pine to return to the 40's, 50's and 60's where we had FDRs socialist policies.
There are a lot of eastern Europeans and Slavs who also have this problem.
What McCarthyism does to a mf
Maybe they shouldn't have labelled anything the government does which helps its people as socialism if they don't want the people to be pro-socialism.
Oh wow, that took a long time to federate. 2 days later and I’ve only just seen your comment. Wonder if it’s my instance being slow, the distance, or your instance being slow
Is Bart supposed to be the establishment dems? If so, fuck them, no sympathy. Poor use of a meme, but I still upvote it because reasons.
I might not be socialist but ten years of maga has definitely made me more sympathetic to democratic socialists.
I might not be socialist...
Why not?
The infighting and dogmatism is pretty off puting. Even if multiple studies show that a police doesn't work, ie rent freezes, they still blindly push for it.
The studies can be biased. But you are absolutely right on the main point. Leftists are just as susceptible to group thinking as anyone. However, nobody else in a collective group is any different.
You're talking about how a particular party or group within a party behaves. Presumably you're talking about the DSA. That's fine.
Being socialist just means being an advocate for policies which put society above the individual.
Being socialist just means that you agree that those a good goals. It doesn't say anything about how you think they should be achieved.
Also, putting society above the individual is not quite right. It is recognition that you should put the majority of individuals above the minority, instead of protecting an individual's absolute rights above the interests of the majority. It's not like society isn't made up of individuals, after all.
I still find the DSA a little sketchy, though Mamadani is cool enough, but I've proudly endorsed democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all of my adult life.
Why do you find them sketchy?
Abolishing the police for one. Abolishing the senate. These are bizarre platform positions
what does the senate do other than give extra votes to empty fields
It's fine to muse about stuff like this online. In theory, the senate serves to shield the government from tidal shifts that happen too fast. Obviously, they are not doing their job now. But to put this as a main core tenet of your platforms is bat shit insane. The average American that is struggling to put food on the table doesn't have the mental load to evaluate these things and just looks at it and goes "what the fuck are you all on??!" and votes red. Goddam Subaru socialists out of touch with reality
The senate serves the same function as the house of lords in the uk. The problem, though, is that we don't have lords, so why the hell do we need a chamber to make sure their voice is heard? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a second, equally democratic chamber instead of the "states must be represented, even though that doesn't actually have any meaning any more since the people just elect them too, now" chamber?
Abolishing police is just good politics. No one needs gun toting fascists running around murdering folks for no reason.
I can tell when people are Subaru socialists when they say stupid insane shit like "abolish the police is good policy". That is so insane and out of touch with reality I don't even know where to begin. It's fine to muse about the police state and Marxist leninist theory online, but this is how we get stupid shit like a Vance term
Admitedly some of their stated platform goals are a bit weird and extreme, such as abolishing presidential elections.
Well, the president claims most of his power from the fact he's elected by the people, but I think many would agree that no one man should hold the power of the president. It's too open to abuse.
The actual stated powers of the president aren't. The real problem is the other branches refusing to do their job.
Yep, but the problem is still there, and abolishing the presidency (or, let's be real, changing it to a largely ceremonial and symbolic role, like the Queen of England) is one good way to solve the problem.
Why? Making a prime minister seems like a pretty reasonable position. The fact that we elect a defacto king every four years is the weird thing.
For about a century, many many similar groups have popped up only to later be revealed as a communist dictatorship psyop meant to create division ultimately leading to conservative leaders getting elected instead. After being revealed their funding dries up and they go limp, rinse and repeat. Example: CPUSA, despite being the oldest example was also recently active as they went from 5k members to 20k members after 2016, but have since lost half as it became clear they're soviet-style fascists. In 1993, expats from the library of congress participated in a sharing of historical documents with Moscow and revealed the group was even directly involved in infiltrating African American and sharecropper groups in an attempt to spread violent ideology. Similarly were the New Communist Movement of the 70s and 80s including the Maoist International Movement.
The entire basis for splintering the DNC party is the notion that the current DNC platform isn't progressive, which I think is just false.
But if it somehow wins elections, sure, let's do it.
DNC isn't being splintered. DSA is specifically running candidates in primaries, not generals.
Which is why I don't oppose the DSA, but there is a lot of dialogue trying to frame it as a big split or schism in the DNC.
So it's sketchy because of other organizations that don't function like it or are shaped like it?
Got it. Some paranoia can be good, but don't let it destroy you. Keep an eye out, but also trust is a two-way street.
It's sketchy because it results in shaming of the DNC, but it's not problematic yet because they might possibly help remove Republicans from power (yet to be seen). And their chosen moniker is one that has been applied to other much worse organizations in the past.
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals
