Part of it comes from the current mayor of the city, Eric Adams, having significantly played up his victory. Adams was a former cop in the city who then became a pro-cop politician, presenting himself during his run for mayor as a foil to the Black Lives Matter movement and as the opposition to an unpopular fringe left minority. Reality is more complicated of course, but the Democratic Party invented a reality about needing to go rightward with policies like giving police more funding and victories like Adams's were used as justification.

Here's how Adams spoke of his victory when he appeared to have won the Democratic party primary for mayor:

Look at me and you’re seeing the future of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party fails to recognize what we did here in New York, they’re going to have a problem in the midterm elections and they’re going to have a problem in the presidential election.

We have allowed a group to hijack the term progressive. So what I’m saying to the Democratic Party — stop believing a numerical minority is what the numerical majority is.

New Yorkers and Americans want to be safe and they don’t want to exist on programs; they want to exist on possibilities and opportunities. I believe my message is going to cascade across the entire country.

Adams declares himself ‘future of the Democratic party’ ahead of final election results - Politico on June 24, 2021

He claimed this when his Democratic primary victory was much less decisive than Mamdani's: 289,403 voters (30.7%) put him as their first round choice, there was a lower overall voter turnout, and ultimately when all ranked choices eliminations were completed he came out on top with merely 50.4% of non-exhausted ballots.

2021 New York City Democratic mayoral primary - Wikipedia

By contrast, Mamdani garnered 43.51% of voters ranking him as their top choice and with much higher turnout he had 432,305 people put him as their top choice. We don't have the final ranked choice numbers yet for this election, but his final vote tally is expected to also look much more decisive than Adams's was.

2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary - Wikipedia

To me he sounds opportunist with his continual references to expanding the "socialist" market economy (which walks and talks like capitalist commodity production). If he is a Marxist, why is he not openly criticizing these bourgeois economists in China that @[email protected] mentioned and emphasizing a return to broader study of Marxist political economy?

Reform and Opening up Is Always Ongoing and Will Never End

Reform and opening up is a long-term and arduous cause, and people need to work on it generation after generation. We should carry out reform to improve the socialist market economy of China, and adhere to the basic state policy of opening up to the outside world. We must further reform in key sectors with greater political courage and vision, and forge ahead steadily in the direction determined by the Party’s 18th National Congress.

On the Governance of China, p. 87 of the English Translation

The “Invisible Hand” and the “Visible Hand”

We should let the market play the decisive role in allocating resources, while allowing the government to better perform its functions. This is a theoretical and practical issue of great importance. A correct and precise understanding of this issue is very important to further the reform and promote the sound and orderly development of the socialist market economy. We should make good use of the roles of both the market, the “invisible” hand, and the government, the “visible” hand. The market and the government should complement and coordinate with each other to promote sustained and sound social and economic development.

Ibid., p. 134

Revolutionize Energy Production and Consumption

...

Fourth, we must revolutionize the energy market. We will proceed with reform, restore energy’s status as a commodity, build a system of workable competition, and put in place a mechanism in which energy prices are largely driven by the market. In addition, we will change the way that the government supervises the energy industry, and establish and improve the legal framework for energy development.

Ibid., p. 149

(I credit this essay with making me aware of these statements: Against Dengism by The Red Spectre.)

Tbh we need a "Socialism" with Chinese Characteristics struggle session for this site's news community soon. Maybe it will help people here awaken to the fact that they need to help further the class struggle internationally wherever they are instead of just cheerleading on the sidelines and thinking China will on its own return to the cause of international proletarian revolution.

This is idealism.

1. You're trying to place hope just in the "third world" despite the presence of the class struggle throughout the world. The conditions of different countries require different tactics. For example in the US there is ripe ground given the unpopularity of what the government is doing.

2. You need to consider why active Maoists (who in many cases would identify themselves as Marxist-Leninists or Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, not Maoist Third-Worldists) do not have much love for China. The Communist Party of China hasn't just abandoned the cause of international socialism with the victorious capitalist roaders in the party (the bourgeois and petty bourgeois nationalists, as @[email protected] and I discussed here) using the excuse of building up productive forces, but they even will engage in such blatant acts as selling weapons to the government of the Phillipines which are then used to fight the guerillas of the Communist Party of the Phillipines.

Copying over a comment I made in another thread:

I think this article I shared earlier in the week on /c/history is a pretty good piece to send to people, especially those at least sympathetic towards socialism. It outlines how the abolitionists actually managed to achieve lasting change in the United States, despite its 2 party system and powerful slave-owning aristocracy.

Basically it lays out what was done by the abolitionists to achieve a better world. That could help us start a serious discussion on what is to be done in our time.

The Abolitionist Dirty Break by Ben Grove

From the introduction of the piece:

How can a small movement challenge the Leviathan? How can it find strength in its independence? How can it topple a power that seems omnipotent and achieve a revolution?

In 2024, these tasks may seem hopelessly difficult to socialists in the United States. But defying the powerful has never been easy, and we will always have lessons to learn from our predecessors. One of the most important, yet also misunderstood, is the American abolitionist movement.

It’s easy enough to celebrate abolitionists for their righteous principles: activists of every stripe invoke their legacy. Yet abolitionists and their Radical Republican allies were more than just moral idealists. They were also cunning revolutionary strategists. Using principled independent politics, they successfully attacked America’s slaveholding oligarchy and the two-party system that protected it. Their insights and debates have tremendous relevance for modern socialists, because abolitionism helped to ignite the most important revolutionary rupture in U.S. history: the Civil War and the downfall of chattel slavery.

And these were the conditions that their movement built itself in:

By the 1820s, a two-party system of Whigs and Democrats was developing, nurtured by the brilliant New York politician Martin Van Buren. Van Buren’s explicit goal was to use the excitement of party politics to distract the masses from more dangerous conflicts over slavery. Whigs and Democrats would have fiery conflict and genuine power struggles—but both sides suppressed opposition to America’s true ruling class: the planters of the South, the Slave Power.

I think this article I shared earlier in the week on /c/history is a pretty good piece to send to people, especially those at least sympathetic towards socialism. It outlines how the abolitionists actually managed to achieve lasting change in the United States, despite its 2 party system and powerful slave-owning aristocracy.

Basically it lays out what was done by the abolitionists to achieve a better world. That could help us start a serious discussion on what is to be done in our time.

The Abolitionist Dirty Break by Ben Grove

From the introduction of the piece:

How can a small movement challenge the Leviathan? How can it find strength in its independence? How can it topple a power that seems omnipotent and achieve a revolution?

In 2024, these tasks may seem hopelessly difficult to socialists in the United States. But defying the powerful has never been easy, and we will always have lessons to learn from our predecessors. One of the most important, yet also misunderstood, is the American abolitionist movement.

It’s easy enough to celebrate abolitionists for their righteous principles: activists of every stripe invoke their legacy. Yet abolitionists and their Radical Republican allies were more than just moral idealists. They were also cunning revolutionary strategists. Using principled independent politics, they successfully attacked America’s slaveholding oligarchy and the two-party system that protected it. Their insights and debates have tremendous relevance for modern socialists, because abolitionism helped to ignite the most important revolutionary rupture in U.S. history: the Civil War and the downfall of chattel slavery.

And these were the conditions that their movement built itself in:

By the 1820s, a two-party system of Whigs and Democrats was developing, nurtured by the brilliant New York politician Martin Van Buren. Van Buren’s explicit goal was to use the excitement of party politics to distract the masses from more dangerous conflicts over slavery. Whigs and Democrats would have fiery conflict and genuine power struggles—but both sides suppressed opposition to America’s true ruling class: the planters of the South, the Slave Power.

To be clear I'm not singling out this comment by replying to it. A lot of other ones in this thread are saying similar things. This one is just near the top right now so I'm replying to it for visibility.

I don't want anyone in the area getting killed because of incorrect doomposting. There are some services still available to help people evacuate.

From the Pinellas County website: https://pinellas.gov/news/pinellas-county-issues-mandatory-evacuation-orders-for-zones-a-b-c-and-mobile-homes/

Pinellas County has issued mandatory evacuation orders for all residents in evacuation zones A, B and C and all mobile home residents countywide, effective immediately, today, Monday, Oct. 7.

To support evacuations, the County has announced the opening of six emergency shelters, including shelters for people with special needs and pet-friendly shelters (see full list below).

...

The County previously announced mandatory evacuation orders for long-term care facilities, assisted living facilities and hospitals, and special needs residents in evacuation zones A, B and C. The County is also recommending that special needs residents in evacuation zones D and E evacuate due to the potential loss of electricity and water.

PSTA is offering free rides to the shelters 24/7, effective from now until conditions become unsafe for buses to be on the road. Pets are allowed on the bus: dogs and cats in a crate, large dogs on a muzzle leash. For the latest information on PSTA bus service, call the InfoLine at (727) 540-1900.

Residents who don’t know their evacuation zone can check it here.

Barrier islands info

The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office will be patrolling the barrier islands from Sand Key south to Pass-a-Grille and announcing the mandatory evacuation. PSTA will provide free transportation on regular bus routes or for anyone who is able to signal a passing bus or trolley.

I checked and the other two counties on Tampa Bay have similar services for transporting people to shelters:

• Hillborough County: https://www.gohart.org/Pages/maps-emergency-evac.aspx
  • The busses are on routes to help people evacuate, but for those unable to get to those locations "On-demand zone service is available by calling at (813) 254-4278 for transportation to the nearest transit center, where you can transfer to a route that connects to a meeting point if needed."
• Manatee County: https://extreme-weather-dashboard-manateegis.hub.arcgis.com/pages/emergency-evacuations-and-shelters
  • "Please contact 311 for shelter transportation needs."

Edit:

I've created a thread to gather Hurricane Milton resources to help people: https://hexbear.net/post/3632288

And for completeness here's evacuation transportation assistance info for the other county expecting 10-15 feet of storm surge:

• Sarasota County: https://www.scgov.net/government/emergency-services/emergency-management/evacuation-centers
  • They are transporting people from rally points to evacuation centers.
    • "Bring a face mask and be prepared to wear it on the bus."
    • "If you cannot drive to a rally point: Please call 941-861-8856 or 941-861-8857."

Is he really making a mistake? It seems to me like he's engaging in immanent critique of The Atlantic.

He's showing how what it does contradicts and differs from what it says it does.

What do you mean by the Marxist conception? Marx himself sometimes uses the term middle class.

Here's a few examples.

The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1:

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Chapter 1:

The bourgeois monarchy of Louis Philippe can be followed only by a bourgeois republic; that is to say, whereas a limited section of the bourgeoisie ruled in the name of the king, the whole of the bourgeoisie will now rule in the name of the people. The demands of the Paris proletariat are utopian nonsense, to which an end must be put. To this declaration of the Constituent National Assembly the Paris proletariat replied with the June insurrection, the most colossal event in the history of European civil wars. The bourgeois republic triumphed. On its side stood the aristocracy of finance, the industrial bourgeoisie, the middle class, the petty bourgeois, the army, the lumpen proletariat organized as the Mobile Guard, the intellectual lights, the clergy, and the rural population. On the side of the Paris proletariat stood none but itself.

Capital Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4:

Pauperism is the hospital of the active labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army. Its production is included in that of the relative surplus population, its necessity in theirs; along with the surplus population, pauperism forms a condition of capitalist production, and of the capitalist development of wealth. It enters into the faux frais of capitalist production; but capital knows how to throw these, for the most part, from its own shoulders on to those of the working class and the lower middle class.

There is no place yet in America for a third party, I believe. The divergence of interests even in the same class group is so great in that tremendous area that wholly different groups and interests are represented in each of the two big parties, depending on the locality, and almost each particular section of the possessing class has its representatives in each of the two parties to a very large degree, though today big industry forms the core of the Republicans on the whole, just as the big landowners of the South form that of the Democrats. The apparent haphazardness of this jumbling together is what provides the splendid soil for the corruption and the plundering of the government that flourish there so beautifully. Only when the land — the public lands — is completely in the hands of the speculators, and settlement on the land thus becomes more and more difficult or falls prey to gouging — only then, I think, will the time come, with peaceful development, for a third party. Land is the basis of speculation, and the American speculative mania and speculative opportunity are the chief levers that hold the native-born worker in bondage to the bourgeoisie. Only when there is a generation of native-born workers that cannot expect anything from speculation any more will we have a solid foothold in America. But, of course, who can count on peaceful development in America! There are economic jumps over there, like the political ones in France — to be sure, they produce the same momentary retrogressions.

From Friedrich Engels's 6th of January 1892 letter to Friedrich Adolph Sorge

On 12 January 1971, the federal government indicted Philip Berrigan and other East Coast antiwar activists on felony charges of plotting to impede the Vietnam War through violent action. The activists' agenda supposedly included blowing up underground heating pipes in Washington to shut down government buildings, kidnapping presidential adviser Henry Kissinger to ransom him for concessions on the war and raiding draft boards to destroy records and slow down the draft.

The Justice Department prosecutors chose to hold the conspiracy trial in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a conservative area where a randomly chosen jury would be heavily against the defendants. However, before the jury was selected at what came to be known as the Harrisburg-7 trial, a group of left-leaning social scientists supporting the defendants interviewed a large number of registered voters in the area to try to figure out how to get a sympathetic jury there. They discovered, among other things that college-educated people were more likely than others to be conservative and to trust the government. Thus, in court, during the three weeks that it took to examine 465 potential jurors and pick a panel of 12, lawyers for the defense quietly favored skilled blue-collar workers and white-collar workers without a lot of formal educations—nonprofessionals, although the sociologists and lawyers apparently never used that term.

The lawyers were uneasy doing this, however, because it went against their intuition. The notion of closed-minded hard hats and open-minded intellectuals is widespread and is reinforced by mass-media characters like loading-dock worker Archie Bunker and his college-student son-in-law, "pinko" Mike. In fact, All in the Family made its television debut the very day of the Harrisburg indictments, 12 January 1971; by the time the trial and jury selection started, it had been on the air for a year.

Ignoring these false stereotypes paid off. The government put on a month-long, $2 million extravaganza featuring 64 witnesses, including 21 FBI agents and 9 police officers. The defense called no one to the witness stand. After seven days of deliberation, the jury was not able to reach a unanimous decision, and the judge declared a mistrial; but with 10 of the 12 carefully selected jurors arguing for a not-guilty verdict, the government dropped the case.^2^

Blue-collar skeptics? Loyal intellectuals? Was the Harrisburg survey a regional fluke? Look at what the nationwide polls showed at the time. On 15 February 1970 the New York Times reported the results of a Gallup poll on the war in Vietnam.^3^ Gallup had found that the number of people in sharp disagreement with the government over the war had increased but still constituted a minority. While this increase in opposition was important news, what were particularly interesting were the data on the opinions of subgroups of the population. These numbers announced with striking clarity that those with the most schooling were the most reluctant to criticize the government's stand in Vietnam. There was a simple correlation (although only in part a cause-and-effect relationship): The further people had gone before leaving school, the less likely they were to break with the government over the war. (See note 3 for the results of the poll.)

2. New York Times, 13 January 1971, p. 1. Jay Schulman, Phillip Shaver, Robert Colman, Barbara Emrich, Richard Christie, "Recipe for a Jury," Psychology Today. May 1973, pp.37-44, 77-84; reprinted in Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Saul M. Kassin, Cynthia E. Willis, editors, In the Jury Box, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif. (1987), pp. 13-47. Jack Nelson, Ronald J. Ostrow, The FBI and the Berrigans, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, New York (1972). William O'Rourke, The Harrisburg 7 and the New Catholic Left, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York (1972).

3. New York Times, 15 February 1970, sec. 1, p. 4; or George Horace Gallup, The Gallup Poll, vol. 3, Random House, New York (1972), pp. 2237-2238. The question was worded as follows "Some U.S. senators are saying that we should withdraw all our troops from Vietnam immediately. Would you favor or oppose this?"

                        Favor   Oppose  No opinion

National average        35      55      10

By age group
21-29 years             39      57       4
31-49 years             36      56       8
50 and over             33      53      14

By extent of education
College                 29      64       7
High school             34      58       8
Grade school            44      41      15

From Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives by Jeff Schmidt, Chapter 1 "Timid Professionals"

Bold emphasis is mine.