this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
electoralism
22150 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/electoralism! politics isn't just about voting or running for office, but this community is.
Please read the Chapo Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Shitposting in other comms please!
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
my 2 cents: he's right that bernie sanders doesnt correctly address race issues, but it's because bernie is a soc dem who (whether willingly or mistakenly it doesnt really matter) misunderstands and misrepresents class struggle, and that to actually combat capitalism ignoring/downplaying the racial aspect of classes in capitalism is to totally misrepresent reality and thus have no chance of actually achieving real meaningful progress towards socialism.
even though he does mention that this vid was specifically directed toward electoralists, he still took a shot at revolutionary socialists anyways so alongside him totally ignoring bernie sanders other glaring issues (laptog for imperialism etc.) which arise from the same place as his lack of attention to black issues, i think this was among FD Signifier's bad videos
I think a lot of what he had to say was more relevant toward how one should address the black electorate. Whether it's for Bernie, Zohranz or a revolutionary movement, if you want the support of these people, the white left needs to get it's shit together. I think electoral campaigns are good "practice" for doing so.
Also, I think you'll enjoy Signifier going head to head with someone to his left here: https://youtu.be/SPOYP8LnwOU
I went ahead and watched both videos, also watched Deculturation's livestream from last year where he joined forces with a few other people to review the time he called into the Majority Report to call out Sam Seder and the crew for being liberal Zionists. It hit me that what Sam Seder had said, where he generalized the definition of anti-zionism to the point of absurdity and only then did he agree with it^[if you're not familiar, his formulation was "Really I think anti-zionism was invented by the Zionists. Because my belief is just in democracy and equal rights, which apparently is anti-Zionism"], he can't just accept anti-Zionism and support for Palestinian liberation on its own merits, only when it's framed as a Westernized liberal project. But it screwed with me, because this is exactly what Mamdani said on the mayoral debate and he got praise for it: Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights. I brought it up last month when he won that we were giving Mamdani a pass for a liberal zionist take (granted, in a mayoral debate that shouldn't have anything to do with Israel) and I even got some pushback here.
Hey yeah after I linked that video I bounced over to the Seder video and watched part of it as well.
I don't think we need to deep dive on this, because you and I agree on the facts, but I'll throw out a perspective.
I don't think correctly criticising a view and "allowing a pass" are mutually exclusive. It needs to be in context, of course. For Zohran, this compromise can be allowed because he is a democratic socialist candidate running for election in an extremely right wing country; anglo socialists should want to see this guy win, imo. I don't think he is pulling anyone to the right with his take, just doing what he can to placate both sides (such is electoralism). I also don't think his statement reflects his genuine personal view, but that barely matters.
If it were a PSL candidate, I would hate to see any sort of "pass" offered, since the context is different. Sam Seder also doesn't get to deliver any sort of take like that because he has nothing at stake. Not to mention the foreign policy views of a mayoral candidate don't really matter at all.
Historically, revolutionary movements have had (and will have) to do much dirtier and uncomfortable things in order to win. In context, I see Zohran pacing the way for Zohran 3.0 to be fully and clearly anti-Zionist, but I think that it is not a stance he can officially adopt in 2025 and expect to win, he's already far to close to being nuked from orbit.
yes something that (i hope) is implicit in my comment is that these older black voters that are the majority of the black electorate are important in any revolution because they have the most first hand experience of white workers betraying black workers which is something any hopeful revolutionary in the west/the US especially must deal with in its entirety. slight pushback/clarification, i believe white revolutionaries need to learn how to identify which populations are revolutionary and where the most likely betrayals will occur to both try and mitigate those betrayals (i.e. convince as many white workers as possible not to betray for soc dem benefits) and also actually help organize the most populations with the most revolutionary potential (i.e. gain the trust of black workers).
hahaha i bet i would, deculturation is a part of the "decolonial ML" circle of people i used to follow on twitter, thanks for the link comrade!
Well I appreciate the conversation you and Mizu offered in the thread here, even if I didn't have a whole lot to contribute myself! Interested to hear your thoughts if you get around to watching it, I respect FD for engaging
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Thanks for the link, FD really just be showing up in mad podcasts.
Edit: I saw the description, and I completely memory-holed the PF Jung appearance he did previously. I think his criticisms of engaging the Black electorate are valid and are often mistakes even more solidified leftists make, but some of his exclusions as well as general decisions come off as a tactical mix with being soc dem, and I am still unsure of the mix but would lean pretty 40/60, spitballing.
I find the idea of the PF stream gross, but did actually see it in full out of morbid curiosit,y and you can see he's basically being the non-confrontation Black guy with some degree of intention. There is something to be said about appearing on their platform instead of bringing them to yours regarding platforming, but I still generally disliked the move, as frankly, I don't have much faith in anyone who makes spouting the evil rhetoric their job at being misguided. I guess one could argue agitprop of Jung's audience if they wanted to be INSANELY generous.
This is me riffing before starting the stream btw, gonna listen to it for a bit to keep certified video watcher status since I'm discussing it and will return if anything inside changes my thoughts.
I appreciate your thoughts, don't have much to offer from my end. I respect him showing up for the discussion in the link and sort of "taking it on the chin" in their conversation
After watching it, I think the only thing I would really change about my thoughts is the split regarding ideology/tactics leaning a lot more towards tactics. Most of the criticisms levied here were then covered in the podcast.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: