Relevant rant:
📺 Why the Democratic Party CANNOT and WILL NOT be Reformed
Democrats would rather lose to a Republican, to a conservative, to a fascist, to Trump, than address the material conditions of the American people.
Dumbasses
Is anyone understanding yet that the status quo is that elected officials report to a group of influential people who have selected them because they can be controlled and that is all?
It’s true that the people with the power would rather their controllable opponent win an election than a candidate in their own party who has ideas of their own.
Until that can be remedied, democracy is truly afflicted by ophiocordyceps unilateralis.
Your vote means NOTHING
Your voice means NOTHING
CARRY ON AS DIRECTED
Yes, for centuries. Marxists and anarchists have long known this. That’s why we advocate revolution.
Most of the Democrats are bought off by the same people as the Republicans. All this political theatre is just a show for the illusion of choice. Hopefully more people who can’t be bought off get elected, but I doubt it.
Hopefully more people will realize that bourgeois democracy is working as intended, and that it cannot be reformed; it must be replaced.
now that’s surprising /s
They sure shut the fuck up about " blue no matter who" real fast.
Democrat leadership would choose Trump over Zohran.
They’re lining back up behind Eric Adams, which is functionally the same thing.
The destroyer?
You don’t mess with the Zohran
The Relentless
The man
The fact that liberals refuse to read just 100 pages of State and Revolution while insisting that they are having new ideas or that the political environment has somehow changed is by far the most frustrating thing about Lemmy comment sections. I’m an anarchist, someone smeared by Lenin in that book but at least I read it and understand. My disagreement is with the vision and form of the dictatorship of the proletariat and how we can build a new commune, not the need for revolution or insisting that somehow, some way after 175 years of the same discussion voting for reform will work.
I swear Americans have never read a book that wasn’t Harry Potter in their lives.
I swear Americans have never read a book that wasn’t Harry Potter in their lives.
Nonsense. Some of them have read The Bible.
Many current elected officials also are huge fans of Austrian autobiographies
Also Catcher in the Rye, though maybe that’s a better example for reasons Americans shouldn’t read books. Probably could’ve gotten a few more years out of Lennon.
As a coming-of-age book, particularly for American teenagers, “Catcher in the Rye” resonates for a reason. It does an excellent job of capturing the moment from a sympathetic point of view. And then you read it ten years later, thinking to yourself “Holy shit was I really like this?” only to realize you absolutely were.
Ironically, most of the self described devotees have not.
That’s not true, they’ve also read 1984 and thought all “adult” books are gonna be this fucking dreadful and boring so they don’t read anymore, they just pretend
idiocracy was a documentary1984 is like, so true, manThat’s not true, they’ve also read [the wikipedia article about the plot of] 1984 [while furiously arguing about things on the internet they don’t understand]
ftfy lol
they’ve also read 1984 and thought all “adult” books are gonna be this fucking dreadful and boring
I gotta say, 1984 has a lot wrong with it. But it’s pretty short and punchy as books go. Espionage, sex, torture, murder. Orwell was Tom Clancy before Tom Clancy was cool.
If you’re looking for something that’s endless, dreadful, and boring, you might want a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
It’s short, but not punchy. It’s a
hundred pages of diatribes, some misogyny, a story beat, another fifty pages raving about bureaucracy, a story beat, and 100 pages about brainwashing and how socialism fucking sucks. Then the most half-baked “how do I tie this bad essay together?” ending.It’s Atlas Shrugged for people who do take showers.
It’s a hundred pages of diatribes, some misogyny, a story beat, another fifty pages raving about bureaucracy, a story beat, and 100 pages about brainwashing and how socialism fucking sucks.
The joke of 1984 is that Orwell neatly described the modern capitalist British State virtually to a T. Hell, it wasn’t all that far off from the contemporary British State, given the conditions of paranoia and economic decline the island suffered during the postwar aftermath.
In the era it was written, a lot of the diatribes about the nefarious villains of socialist politics felt like a guy throwing on a big spooky ghost custom with a light under the chin. But in the modern moment… fuck it if cops busting down my door because my elementary-school son was tricked into accusing me of ThoughtCrime during a mandatory Two-Minute Hate doesn’t feel like a thing that could really happen.
Then the most half-baked “how do I tie this bad essay together?” ending.
The execution was a forced ending. But the psychology at the end - this desperate liberalist clinging to an individualized, compartmentalized psychic resistance - absolutely strikes a cord. I know plenty of people (hell, I regularly indict myself) over the reflexive meekness draped atop rebellious fantasy. This growling whipped-dog sentiment, where liberals will say everything in a loud whisper, but duck their heads in terror at the first whiff of authority or consequence… as we move further and further towards fascism. I see it everywhere.
Orwell very neatly diagnoses the failure of the liberal opposition in the personage of Winston Smith and his peers. And it is even further pronounced in the meta-textual narrative, as Orwell himself is an embodiment of Winston. A man who has rewritten history at the behest of his imperialist paymasters (after a career as a fucking Burmese cop and nark, ffs) goes to his grave subsuming the revulsion of his own country with a fear and antipathy towards a distant foreign land.
Not true. Some of them use it as an instruction manual.
Dude what fucking planet are you living on?
I wish it wasn’t the same one as you
What do you mean? The State and Revolution is a phenomenal booklet.
It’s short, it’s incredibly concise, it doesn’t use needless academicisms, and it’s surprisingly very funny. It’s probably the best value-to-volume ratio of any political text imo.
Oh, that’s a tough one! Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is definitely a top contender, but Lenin is clearer. Maybe Foundations of Leninism? Either way, I 100% agree, State and Revolution is a must read.
I’m curious to hear the objections and alteratives. I’m not fully versed in anarchist thought.
Essentially that there is no way that the dictatorship of the proletarian will ever be temporary and that even though he spends time talking about the evils of the bourgeois state and how it must be dismantled this dictatorship with its “vanguard” (which are just new elites) will necessarily form a new state that will also form self-preservation methods and never transfer to a workers run stateless system. Bakunin calls them a red bureaucracy and Emma Goldman writes about how the Bolshevik state simply replaced the old Tsarist state and became reformist and bourgeois in nature losing its revolutionary character in time. The crackdown of the Kronstadt rebellion was the first seeds of this nearly immediately after the October revolution. The anarchist response and alternative to the centralized state that Lenin believes is required is a decentralized system of worker self-management pods in federated councils and communes, not a top-down elite vanguard run dictatorship.
A lot of the disagreement comes from the understanding and lessons learned from the Paris commune. Lenin believes this is a prototype of a worker’s state with recallable delegates, less red tape/bureaucracy and the removal of the existing state but Anarchists don’t believe the lesson here is to just create another state, although I personally would argue a dictatorship of the proletariat is preferable to the dictatorship of capital we currently live in, we want more communes that work together. We don’t believe the revolutionary character of the commune went far enough to actually destroy the existing state and instead tried to recreate it on a smaller scale.
I think you’re erasing the economic component of the Marxist position, as well as conflating the nature of the state, which Marxists and Anarchists somewhat disagree on. Marxist communism, in its stateless form, is still fully centralized and planned, but also classless. It isn’t about “transferring to the workers,” that basis is the means by which to bring about communism. The millitarization of the state is necessary until the world is socialist and all class contradictions have been resolved, but there will still be administrative positions well into communism.
Anarchism is indeed more decentralized, but this is a departure from the Marxist understanding of economic development. The real argument is not based on how to get to the final stage, but what that final stage even looks like to begin with. Full horizontalism a la anarchism, or a one world collectivized and planned a la Marxism.
I do support anarchists generally, certainly over capitalists, but I think a lot of confusion is drawn between anarchists and Marxists due to having different stances on terms and what they look like in practice.
In Lenin’s writing in State and Revolution it is absolutely is about transferring the mechanism of the state to the workers who then form a militarized proletarian “temporary” state to destroy the other classes. That is what the dictatorship of the proletariat is, a transfer of power from the Bourgois and capital class to the working class who then destroy the other classes to create a classless system. I don’t think this is possible and that is the crux of the disagreement.
What you just said isn’t at odds with what I said. The state is a system that resolves class contradictions through class oppression, in socialism that state resolves them in favor of the proletariat. It isn’t a distinct class. The “special bodies of armed men” Lenin speaks of, ie the millitant organizations, are there to protect from invaders and to keep the bourgeoisie, as long as it still exists, in check.
As the economy grows and develops, the class contradictions must be resolved. The job of the state in socialism is to keep the proletariat in power, and gradually sublimate private property until it’s fully centralized, globally, at which point there is no bourgeosie nor proletariat. Administration doesn’t cease to exist, but millitant policing and armies that retain state power have no reason to exist when there’s no class conflict to be reconciled.
Bukharin explains the difference between the Marxist and anarchist position here, though do be warned, it’s highly sectarian (as this matter inevitably becomes, as it’s the core argument between Marxists and anarchists):
Communist society is stateless. But if true - and most certainly it is - what really is the difference between anarchists and Marxist communists? Does this difference no longer exist, at least on the question of the future society and the “ultimate goal”?
Of course it exists, but is altogether different. It can be briefly defined as the difference between large centralized production and small decentralized production.
We communists on the other hand believe that the future society must not only rid us of the exploitation of man by man, but also allow man more independence from nature by reducing “necessary working time” and maximizing socialized productive forces and the productivity of socialized labor. That is why our ideal is large-scale centralized, organized and planned production, tending towards the organization of the entire world economy. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a wholly different type of organization: their ideal is small communes - unsuited to large-scale production by the very nature of their structure - which conclude “agreements” between themselves and are connected in a network of voluntary contractual relationships. Clearly such a production scheme is reactionary from an economic standpoint. It will not and cannot give space to the development of productive forces; from an economic standpoint, it is more like the communes of the Middle Ages than the society that will replace capitalism. This scheme is not only reactionary but utopian par excellence. Future society will not be born of “nothing”, will not be delivered from the sky by a stork. It grows within the old world and the relationships created by the giant machinery of financial capital. It is clear that the future development of productive forces (any future society is only viable and possible if it develops the productive forces of the already outdated society) can only be achieved by continuing the tendency towards the centralization of the production process, and the improved organization of the “direction of things” replacing the former “direction of men”.
But anarchists will reply that the essence of the state is precisely centralization; “By maintaining centralization of production, you will thus maintain the state apparatus, its power, violence”, and “authoritarian relations”.
This fallacious argument is based on a purely childish and unscientific notion of the state. As with capital, the state is not “a thing”, but a relationship between individuals - between classes to be more precise. It is a relationship of class, domination and oppression - that’s the essence of the state. Otherwise the state does not exist. To consider centralization as the characteristic and main feature of the state is like considering capital as a means of production. The means of production becomes capital only when monopolized by one class and used for the wage exploitation of another, i.e. when these means of production express the social relations of class oppression and class economic exploitation. On the other hand, they are a good thing in themselves - the instrument of man’s struggle against nature. That is why they will not disappear in future society and will have a deserved a place there.
So, in essence, the Marxist conception of communism is founded on centralization and organization, while the anarchist conception is based on decentralization and the elimination of any and all hierarchy. I am sympathetic to the anarchist position in that I used to be one, but over time have come to become a Marxist-Leninist. As a consequence, I find a lot of conflict between Marxists and anarchists is largely due to differences in analysis of what the state even consists of, and righting those misconceptions of the other helps productive dialogue on the left.
The state is a system that reconciles class contradictions, in socialism that state resolves them in favor of the proletariat. It isn’t a distinct class.
This is wrong, Lenin in State and Revolution precisely points out that this was Kautsky view of the state. The state is not a reconciliatory tool, it is a tool for a class to dominate the others. When we talk about a dictatorship of the proletariat we talk about seizing the state and use it to oppress the capitalist class not to reconciliate. Make the capitalist serve their historical mission of organizing and developing the productive forces but strip them off all political power.
Another thing i would like to point out is about the withering of the state. It should be understood that the state as a tool for organizing production, is not going away, but the state as a tool of class oppression is what is going to wither away.
I’ll be honest, I completely fucked up the wording there. Rather than “reconcile,” I meant resolve, as in when the bourgeoisie comes into conflict with the proletariat, the state will resolve it in favor of the proletariat through class oppression, hence why I said it would resolve them in favor of the proletariat. Thanks for pointing it out, I’m not a Kaustkyite I assure you.
As far as your second paragraph, I’m in full agreement. What Engels calls the “Administration of Things” cannot be anything but an organized society, and that implies government, but with private property sublimated it will no longer have any class character and the state as such will no longer exist, as it cannot resolve class contradictions that no longer exist.
I’ll correct my wording!
I’ve gone the other way with my thinking from pretty hard line Maoist to Anarchist in my middle age. I think your response is good for anarchists who are stuck in the theory of people who are long dead but not really my personal thinking and understanding, including living through a war, which I added towards the end.
I don’t believe that the goals dictatorship of the proletariat is actually possible. I don’t think that it will ever work and exists firmly in the imagination of thinkers from 100 years ago. I’m not an anarchist in the Bukharin sense, I’m an anarchist in the sense that I desire a way of life for all animals, including humans, that is anti hierarchical but simply do not believe these contradictions are resolvable in a knowable way. I believe that the future classless government-less system is desirable but that the pathway is not clear without Leto II-esque prescience thinking. If we get there from a MLM sense or some other sense matters not to me.
Honestly, I see a lot of overlap between Maoism and anarchism, so that’s not that big of a stretch if you ask me. I also am not opposed to hierarchy or government, humanity’s strengths lie in its ability to organize, and the progressive elements of capitalism like the socialization of production should be mastered so that we can have a more just, scientifically driven society based on common ownership and planning.
As far as the here and now, I think the PRC is doing it best, and is charting that course at the forefront. It has a long way to go before we can reach communism, but the path forward already exists.
Anarchy and Scientific Communism, sorry!
100% when the Democrats have full control it’s all ‘golly gee willikers’ but the second the Republicans have full control it’s like ‘everyone loves steak now. EAT IT’
Damn, if you posted this six months ago, people would have tried to ban you for it.
Oh yeah, I’ve posted it before now and it makes some people really angry. It seems to be a very common idea that third party voters are somehow worse than Trump voters, as though the Democratic Party somehow have a right to all non-fascist votes.
Well, I’m glad Mamdani won in NYC and zionist liberals can finally put to rest the need to vote straight ticket Democrat.
It is an actual concept??!?!
I have been calling it the ratchet effect for years (because it is a ratchet).
Just happy to see someone else calling it that.
Yep, I keep this picture to share anytime people want to talk about how Democrats are the good guys.
wow i’ve never seen this strategy before!
Ah yes the Corbyn technique.
Corbyn technique
whats that? i didnt find conclusive answers on google?
15 hours later and no answer.
::eye twitches in need to know more::
JFC the more I learn about humanity, the more I wish to no longer participate in the experiment.
Ugh, I just looked it up and also couldn’t find anything. The first hit on DDG is about weather. The rest of the results are equally irrelevant.
I don’t know if this will work, but I know I’ve seen people “@” each other on here before, so… I’ll try a shot in the dark - @[email protected] , curious minds need resources!
(Sorry Davel, if I pinged you. I saw you refer to the technique too and typed your username instead of the thread’s OP.)
Thank you homie!
They tried the Corbyn technique in the primaries. It didn’t stick, and that’s why they’re freaking out right now.
I pray for his victory. The establishment centrists and their Zionist allies replaced Corbyn with a neoliberal empty suit. It has been a catastrophe for the left and killed any hope of radical change.
Any hope of radical change through elections.
At least you didn’t get PP. He’d be deporting Native Americans in a show of support to the orange menace.
The Democrats are afraid Democratic Socialism as it is the anti MAGA—and they should be, the sellouts.
democrats as in dnc elites don’t give a fig about democracy, socialism or maga. they are freaking out because their employers (superpacs and israel) have shoved a rod up their ass for allowing this to happen. they know if he gets elected then the lobbyists will kick them out and bring in new more shameless hacks. they are grifters who have been riding the two-party lesser evil gravy train for decades now.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Your grammar is atrocious but your point is excellent. Why???
Why ??
It’s likely an aggregate effect of just waking up and rushing it to as I had to get ready for work.
not so much grammar as e. e. cummings orthography.
To be clear, all socialism is democratic. “Democratic Socialism” is just for reformist socialism, and I’d argue Mamdani is just to give New Yorkers a taste of what a better world could look like. You can’t actually change capitalism by working within it, though, revolution remains necessary. Mamdani could prove beneficial in normalizing socialism.
Traditionally yes, but the Democratic Socialists of America, as an organization (and of which Mamdani is a member), has a wide array of internal ideological factions within, that include Reformist Socialists, but also more revolutionary factions like Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, etc.
Sure, and I’d say this fracturing and factionalism works against its effectiveness. Democratic Centralism works.
Personally, I think that Democratic Centralism is too strict. I understand the idea behind ensuring the subordination of the minority to the majority, but as the party grows and especially after it seizes state power that subordination becomes enforced, and at that point it becomes oppression. It doesn’t get rid of factions either, it just hides them and fosters resentment towards the majority faction.
Just so we’re clear on what we’re talking about, here are the tenets of Democratic Centralism as I understand them:
- That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.
- That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organization.
- That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
- That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.
I believe that point 3 should be a suggestion, and never enforced. It should be up to the individual whether any given disagreement is enough to warrant going their own way, and an option should be given to “stand aside” in cases where someone would prefer not to participate in an action but otherwise wants to remain with the group.
Point 4 is backwards IMO, and a recipe for authoritarianism. Any sort of elected authority should always be instantly recallable by the electorate, and any “lower” body should always have the autonomy to make their own decisions.
Factionalism is not a bad thing if you embrace it rather than trying to fight it.
Democratic Centralism is the result of communist parties figuring out what works best through practice. It’s at the core of the fast response times, stability, and popular support of socialist systems. Each point is developed and proven in importance through practice.
Point 3 is just basic democracy. If a group comes to a vote, what’s the point if the minority just refuses to follow? Unity in action is the strength of the working class, it’s what turns the sheer numbers into a mighty sword to fight the bourgeoisie, without unity you have a directionless and mushy form. Further, you can have revotes on decisions if necessary down the line.
Point 4 is not as scary as you think. Recall elections are a core aspect of the electoral system in demcent countries and parties if needed. The lower rungs get to elect the higher rungs, the top is only there because they have won elections, and if they lose the trust of the people they can be ousted.
As for factionalism, it’s a recipe for instability and this is where capitalism thrives. A competent, unified, democratic body is far superior than competing private interests at achieving the goals of the people. It’s part of why China’s government, as an example, has over 90% approval rates, while the US as a two-party system has less than 50% approval rates consistently. Having a single party is not anti-democratic, it means everyone is on the same team and is willing to work together.
Overall, I think you need to actually see the success of demcent orgs like PSL vs how a party like the DSA functions. PSL, with fewer party members, gets pound for pound more done. The DSA is highly divided, its biggest strength is its size, but it can’t weild it properly. Meanwhile, PSL is growing rapidly, and is at the forefront of the No Kings and pro-Palestinian protest movements in the US.
I appreciate the well thought out response. My main point of contention is the enforcement mechanism. I agree with point 3 as a strategy, and I have actually participated in groups that follow this general principle, but I have always had the option to simply leave and find another group or form my own. The problem arises when the group is the only permissible form of organization (such as, for example, if it is the one party in a one-party state). You actually see this problem in China, when the state cracks down on workers who attempt to organize on their own terms by forming independent unions. I see this as an unambiguous moral failing of the Chinese state, and is an issue on which I will not budge. Bureaucracy makes determining the will of the majority complicated (no democracy is perfect), but even if it is indeed the will of the majority, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
There are things more important than unity. I do not believe that a better world must necessarily come at the cost of individual autonomy.
Labor unions are promoted and are permissible, just as long as they don’t work against the socialist system. It isn’t a moral failing to value unity, especially when disunity is what has been historically used by the west to topple governments it doesn’t like. Further, again, over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their system, and a similar quantity believe it to be genuinely democratic.
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s worth recognizing that when we talk about the DSA, that it is, for better or worse more than just a reformist org.
When people speak of Democratic Socialism, they usually are referring to the ideological position, not just the USian party, for what it’s worth. That’s my point, I’m aware of Red Star caucus and whatnot.
The left threatens power. MAGA doesn’t.
Which is why we need a Democrat socialist party. Unfortunately, voters are incapable of voting for anything other than red or blue.
It’s not the voters fault. If you split the Democratic vote, you will only get a permanent Republican government. And that doesn’t help anyone.
Politicians like Mamdani are the only way forward. We need more people like him to run for local government like this, and move their way up from there…making way for more like them to take their places, as they go. You can’t change things at the top, without laying the foundation for that change, first.
You can’t really change the system from within into a fundamentally opposed one. That’s why revolution is still necessary.
Of course you can. Just look at how the MAGA movement has taken over the Republican party. It started during Obama’s term, with the Tea Party movement. One-by-one, they primaried the old-school moderate Republicans, and eventually held majority control over their party’s policy decisions. Once they had that, the remaining moderates either chose to fall in line, or were forced to retire.
That’s how democracy works. Revolution is just an excuse to kill people for their political beliefs, when you’re too lazy to convince them to change their minds.
You’re suggesting the extreme in the opposite direction. Rs did it with a populist. Is that the only way?
The MAGA movement is not opposed to the present system of capitalism. The US is not, and has never been, a democracy.
that’s the approach that democrats advocate; but it’s clearly not working well… or at all.
It’s still a net positive for candidates like Mamdani to achieve electoral victories. Even if you believe that a true socialist can never make it to a high enough office to establish a socialist government (which I agree is likely correct), making the attempt and achieving some reforms in the face of very public resistance from the bourgeoisie is great for class consciousness. It sends the message “hey, it actually is possible to improve your material conditions, and the rich really don’t want it to happen.” Give people a taste and they will want more, which is why the establishment is so terrified of Zohran Mamdani.
I agree that Mamdani is a positive candidate, and the fact that he beat Cuomo in the primary is a massive indicator of the real opinions held by the working class. I elaborated more elsewhere on why I support Mamdani. I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said here, my overall point is that Mamdani isn’t a substitute for revolution and it’s important to keep that in mind while we celebrate openly anti-Zionist, pro-socialist victories over establishment ghouls.
What about when democrats are the ones splitting the ticket?
Then their losses are on them…not the voters.
Yep, I agree
The Party for Socialism and Liberation already exists, though all socialism is democratic, it just stands for reformist socialism. PSL is revolutionary, but also runs candidates.
Do they run candidates? I’m curious where. I know they do presidential campaigns but how many local races do they really run in?
See the elections section. It obviously isn’t a big focus, but it does happen.
That’s the party Zorhan is from. Look for a local chapter and join, they are lively and worth it.
I think I was wrong. I think both sides maybe are the same…
This is evidence that the US political system does not function.
There are two paths forward;
- Burn down the entire thing (which Trump and frenemies are currently doing).
- rebuild and reform the existing system (which can happen by voters voting for progressive centralist candidates in local and state representatives en-mass (like in NYC).
I would not call Zohran Mandani a socialist. I would call him a progressive rational centralist.
I would not call Zohran Mandani a socialist. I would call him a progressive rational centralist.
I agree with you. We shouldn’t present it as “left politics”. We should present it as “politics for the people”. That way, it makes it compatible with more people.
You wouldn’t believe how many americans have a deep fear of the word “left”. We should call it centrist instead, even if it is left.
Maybe, let’s use the phrase “socialism is to listen to the heart of the people, and the heart sits in the center of people, so it’s centralist politics” or something.
wouldn’t believe how many americans have a deep fear of the word “left”. We should call it centrist instead, even if it is left
Which is just dumb as hell
I strongly disageee. Historical experience of communists and socialists proves that hiding your actual views is a way to earn deep distrust from the people. Honesty, and a focus on the Mass Line, are what has brought the most unity and most success.
I would not call Zohran Mandani a socialist.
He literally said, “The end goal is seizing the means of production”
Zohran Mamdani is a Socialist.
The existing system cannot be fixed, it depends on imperialism and as such has hollowed out industrialization in favor of finance capital. Mamdani is a “boot of the neck” candidate, someone to show a bit of what’s possible with a properly run economy, but even electing progressives elsewhere can’t bring about socialism. Revolution is still necessary.
The only path to freedom is to kill innocents by the thousands and then force the survivors to be free at gunpoint.
?
I’m in your space so it would be rude to call you pie eyed, but that’s some pipe dream, never good enough mentality. Do you scold a baby taking it’s first steps on its 5k time? No, you cheer them on.
I’m not denouncing Mamdani, just trying to align expectations and make it clear that revolution is still necessary in order to begin socialism. I’m cheering for Mamdani, fuck Cuomo. But revolution isn’t a pipe dream. Thinking that the system can be reformed from within is the pipe-dream. Mamdani plays a role in helping the proletariat become normalized towards socialism and may represent a decent change in a positive direction for New Yorkers, but his win isn’t a requirement for revolution, nor does it get rid of the need for it.
Counter point, the system is functioning as intended
