this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
360 points (98.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8244 readers
595 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which is why we need a Democrat socialist party. Unfortunately, voters are incapable of voting for anything other than red or blue.
Democratic Party of America
That's the party Zorhan is from. Look for a local chapter and join, they are lively and worth it.
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.
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.
What about when democrats are the ones splitting the ticket?
Then their losses are on them...not the voters.
Yep, I agree
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?
They didn't have a single populist in the beginning. They just had "Tea Party Republicans". Unfortunately, this new "flavor" of conservative was even more racist and unintelligent than the original recipe.
Their voters immediately gravitated towards them, because they were seen as relatable outsiders, whose biggest policy position was to do whatever it took to hurt "the left", and/or anyone who even suggested the idea of "working together" with them. (ie. RINOs)
Trump just eventually took advantage of this movement and declared himself its leader. But when it first started, he still considered himself a Democrat.
that's the approach that democrats advocate; but it's clearly not working well... or at all.
The biggest problem is, that progressives are fighting against the money. Tea Party Republicans didn't have that problem, since most of their socio-political ideology aligns with Libertarian policies. No taxes, no regulations, no corporate accountability. That draws a lot of support from the kinds of people who were already dissatisfied with the compromise Democrats and Republicans had struck between the elites making more money, and the consumers they use to make it.
The Tea Party and later MAGA are all in on fucking us all over to benefit the ruling class. Most of their voters are just too gullible to realize that. They think they're somehow "sticking it to the elites", by giving them everything they could have ever hoped for.
In many ways, it was never a real grassroots movement. It was always just an astroturfed effort. But it demonstrates how you can fundamentally change the entire direction of a party in US politics. One seat at a time...until the new majority votes the way you want them to.
that certainly is a problem; but the biggest problem is the oniony and entrenched layers of propaganda that each american must put a lot of never-ending effort into overcoming; it's the entire reason why there are so few american progressives in power to prevent political parties from catering to the oligarchies.
That catch-22 works both ways. Once there are more progressives in power, the effect will begin to reverse. I'm old enough to see it already happening. It's just a slow shift.
The MAGA movement is not opposed to the present system of capitalism. The US is not, and has never been, a democracy.
It's a representative democracy...which means you need to flip seats in Congress in order to take over a party. That's all. It's a gradual process, but one that is entirely possible within the current system. We the people, have the power to do this, just by voting.
No, it is not entirely possible. The system is designed to aopear that way, but in reality those in power will use everything they can to prevent workers from taking from them.
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.