Yes
Not only because funny But also because true
this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
79 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23006 readers
222 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Ratchet Politics at work. This is the outcome.
So yes. They're just as much to blame. Perhaps moreso because their actions aren't driven by ineptitude or ignorance. They always knew how to win and they chose not to do so.
They had to choose between Bernie and Trump, and they chose the latter.
My take is both yes and no.
The ‘yes’ part is democrats alienating their working class base, refusing to take fascism seriously, and playing into Trump’s martyrdom
The ‘no’ part is that fascists outnumber non-fascists in the US. It’s a settler-colonial nation. Democrats could stand for something but that ‘something’ is too unpopular no matter how correct it is.
Im using these quotes to say yes, broadly liberals (democrats) have had a hand in the fascism of the US; of which has always been fascistic, but as the "left wing of fascism" has put on a smiling face to trick us.
As far as I'm concerned, "liberal" is the most meaningless word in the dictionary. History has shown me that as long as some white middle class people can live high on the hog, take vacations in Europe, send their children to private schools, and reap the benefits of their white skin privileges, then they are "liberals." But when times get hard and money gets tight, they pull of that liberal mask and you're talking to Adolf Hitler. They feel sorry for the so called under privileged just as long as they can maintain their own privileges
Assata Shakur, 1988 from Assata : An Autobiography
There's also that Malcom X quote about liberals being the "smiling foxes."
A quote about George Jackson's politics :
For Jackson, echoing the prison writings of the Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci (an author whose translated writings were found in Jackson’s cell after his death), fascism referred chiefly to state-led economic development and the incorporation of organized labor.
In other words, for Jackson, fascism involved not only racist repression but also national development and reform. In this sense, the U.S. of the 1960s-70s was fertile fascist soil indeed. Such an expansive understanding of political domination may complicate and enrich antifascist sentiments percolating today around the defense of existing, often hard-won political liberties. Jackson forces us to rethink the distinctions between conservative and liberal administrations and to confront the legacies of even the New Deal and Great Society within a longer history of capitalism and U.S. imperialism.
Yes. The GOP could not win if there was anything oposition at all. Like, if the DNC promised to made the superbowl a national holiday they would have the senate and the the executive tied up. By refusing to do even thst they are knowingly facilitating the GOP
I understand the criticisms of the democrats and have often made them myself, but sometimes I worry that the focus on the dems diminishes the agency of the actual Trump supporters.
The dems didn’t conjure up the settler colonial ideology in 2016. The dems didn’t create wholesale a legacy of racism, colonialism and genocide in 2016. White Americans were not some pure innocent race tempted into evil by Hillary Clinton.
The dems’ role in the rise of trump is more of a “just the way it happened to play out.” As capitalism and empire collapse, climate crisis is ramped up, a figure like Trump in the American landscape was an inevitability. The dems have nothing to do with this, at least not any exceptional role. But the fact that it was Trump in 2016 - the fact that it happened how it happened - that’s the dem’s fault. But it wouldn’t have happened at all, even if the dems did everything the same, if the US populace had not been primed for the entire country’s history to embrace fascist rhetoric. The dems should be criticized for the actions they did take, and the dems and liberals in general should continue to be criticized for inaction. But in terms of the rise of trump, I just find the focus on the dems sort of useless, as if shitty electoral strategy allows us to ignore the entirety of settler colonial and fascist ideology that’s baked into the American landscape.
Nah, that letting them set the terms. Yes, if the DNC is not allowed to meaningfully use power than their hands are tied. However, the ontl reason they have that rule is because they want to let the GOP win. So no. That's all fake.
Don’t understand what you’re trying to say
You are wrong. If we assume the DNC is acting in good faith and not lying to you your position makes sense. However we have no reason to assume they are anything other than untrustworthy mass murderers
Sorry, maybe I’m still misunderstanding, but I don’t see how this responds to what I was saying above. Whether or not the dems are lying (I’m assuming lying about being anti-trump and against the current hard right turn) I don’t believe contradicts my point that when explaining the rise of trump settler colonial ideology, the racial landscape of the us, and the collapse of empire are more important than any action by the dems. Things like the pied piper strategy commonly blamed for the rise of trump are important and should be criticized, but the only reason those things had the effect they did is because of the things cited above that are baked into the American landscape. Without Clinton and the dnc’s actions in 2016 we still get a trump-like figure, though maybe not in 2016.
In terms of the furtherance of settler colonial ideology and the maintenance of racial hierarchy, the dems are to blame, but I don’t believe more than any other bourgeois capitalist. I think this this is what you mean when you’re talking about how the dems are lying, like they’re not really against trump and the inaction is deliberate. But they’re a bourgeois party so any action (or inaction) is due to that imo, not anything specific to the dem party. In terms of actions specific to the dem party, there’s still important stuff to criticize there, but to me the focus tends to be skewed when the rise and continuing support of trump is really rooted in things that go far beyond the dem party.
If they were simply little guys doing their best that would be one thing.
They are a fundamental part of our government. They helped create those vibes. They have blood on their hands from the lives spent to enshrine their power over vibes here in the country. They are responsible for creating and they do the most work in defending it. Down to the last intern they deserve the wall for their sins.
I haven’t argued they have no blood on their hands. But their responsibility in creating and sustaining settler ideology and empire is not fundamentally different or greater than any other part of the bourgeois class or the colonial power structure. I take issue with your idea that they somehow do the most work in defending settler ideology. They shouldn’t be treated as an exceptional force in the maintenance of settler ideology and I’m wondering how your statement could even be quantified. I also take issue with the idea that they are responsible for creating something (what it is you don’t say). The Dems are about 200 years old. Settler ideology and the colonial power structure stretch back 500 years. The dems are one expression of that settler ideology, not the other way around.
And specifically we’re talking about the rise of trump and the maga movement. For all we can say about the dems, for all of their fault in helping to unleash that force, at the end of the day it didn’t come from their camp. It came from something with a long history in this country that greatly predates the dems that has been present on the American landscape since the first European settlement. The dems are a part of that force which I think is what you’re saying, but I don’t think the dems can truly be blamed except as one part of a wider condemnation of capitalism, colonialism and empire. To single out the dems in assigning blame for the rise of trump to me just seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
They are the group that made trump happen. They are the most proximal cause. You are right trump would exist without them. He wouldn't be a problem without their support and protection. The current crop of the DNC is still guilty of the old sins those hundres of years ago. They didn't have to join an evil organization for the purpose of profiting off evil but they did. In every meaningful well they are fully culpable of every sin of the empire. More importantly if they were removed the odds of fixing things go up. If the GOP was removed the DNC would just keep on enacting conservative policies with no change at all.
And so I say again trump and the maga movement did not come from the dem party camp. You’re falling into the trap I criticized in my initial comment of denying trump and his supporters agency. The actions of Hillary Clinton and the dnc are widely known at least on this site, but those actions they took in 2016 that allowed trump to seize power did not create trump and the maga movement. Go back to the tea party, the Republican revolution, the moral majority, the southern strategy. The ideological predecessors of the maga movement had been consolidating themselves in the gop throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st. The extent to which the dems are blameful is merely inaction, co-signing the destruction of the left and acting as a bourgeois party supporting these trends, or at least supporting the colonial power structure from which these trends are a natural consequence. Which are serious charges. But the gop is equally blameful in this, why I take issue with your claim that the absence of the dems increases the chances of achieving socialism in this country. And while both parties act as bourgeois parties do, the gop becomes home to the direct predecessors leading to the maga movement.
To say the dems are the group that made trump happen ignores the actual groups who placed him in power and how present his ideas are in the American landscape. Hillary Clinton didn’t force half the country to become fascists and rabid settlers in 2016. Fwiw I don’t think blaming the dems for the rise of trump is wrong per se, I just think the focus is skewed away from the places where trump’s support actually springs from. And it tends to pin larger picture stuff on the dems that is in reality much larger than the dems
Trumps support springs from the DNC. If they weren't so powerfully suppressing the left trump would never have gotten popular. He was originally an outsider to the left on mainstream politics on several issues and people responded positively enough to that to start the ball rolling. Trump is a symptom of a diseases the DNC prevents us from treating. They are the most proximate cause of all this.
Yeah this is exactly the perspective I’m against so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. To argue that without the dnc the USA would somehow develop into some socialist utopia is a perspective completely at odds with the entirety of US and global history. Without the dnc the bourgeois class still exists and this is the fundamental roadblock to socialism. The Marxist contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, not one liberal political party and another group which actually is mostly just another liberal political party and includes mostly liberals and much of the bourgeois class. I don’t argue with you on the basis that the dnc has nothing to answer for wrt the rise of trump, I argue with the idea that the dnc represents some sort of exceptional force in us politics that is uniquely responsible for the rise of trump and the maga movement. You’re doing great man history just replacing great man with the great party.
I also don’t know what you mean when you say trump was an outsider on the left since he was never on the left. He attacked Hillary from both her right and left, but he was never on the left.
The party system is a big part of the government. It's like a 5th estate. The DNC is the mechanism theough which the owning classes opress the natural and strong revolutionary leftist tendencies among the US people. Without a controlled opposition the American people have a clear preference for socialist policy. Trump campaigned to the left of the DNC originally. He was also incoherrently rascist but so is the DNC so to most people that isn't a deal breaker
“natural and strong revolutionary leftist tendencies among the US people” have you met the US people? Have you read about US history? You are doing exactly what I accused your perspective of doing in my original comment, casting white Americans as some sort of pure innocent group that has been deluded and tempted into evil by Hillary Clinton and the dnc. What is this clear preference for socialist policy? Californians rejecting an anti-slavery amendment? Floridians deciding not to expand abortion access? Voting in a guy twice explicitly campaigning on mass deportations of workers?
Trump never campaigned to the left of the dnc. Trump used some left wing talking points to seize upon most people’s dissatisfaction with neoliberalism, but being against neoliberalism isn’t by nature left wing. There have always been right wing critics of neoliberalism, and trump only ever espoused economic nationalism, America first policy and the continuation and growth of empire. His platform was for the members of the bourgeoisie hurt by neoliberalism and globalization, never for the working class.
Yes. The US people are strongly ideologically incoherent. We like policy's from the far left and far right We want to shoot guns at the government for being oppressive and to also opress people. When ever it is offered people respond hugely positively to socialist policy. It simply isn't offered enough for that preference to be meaningfully measured. Look at the 70s. Or the recent blm. Trump using some left wing talking points is infact campaigning to the left of the DNC. He didn't government that way but if you are a low engagement type of voter you can get that vibe. The DNC is far enough to the right that most fascist parties are too the left of them.
The recent conservative turn in this country is in many ways due to the reaction to blm. The entire history of the 70s is right wing reaction to civil rights and the great sixties social movements, and as the decade progresses the neoliberal consensus more and more takes shape until finally coming to ascendancy under Reagan who is given more of a popular mandate than trump has ever had. More than half the time the “oppression” we want to shoot the government for is “I’m being taxed as a small business owner” or “I the vaunted small business owner am being asked to comply with regulations put in place to benefit the working class.” Hardly a revolutionary outlook. For every great example of revolutionary politics in this country, you can find like 100x as many examples of Americans expressing the violent colonial settler ideology upon which the country was founded. I’m not arguing that Americans are irredeemable, but many of the popular movements in this country were in reality not as popular as we want to believe. There was always popular support for the opposition to these movements, and it’s that opposition from which trump emerges.
Trump threw out crumbs to the left in 2016, but he didn’t campaign as a left wing candidate. He also campaigned to the right of the dnc and his most vocal support always came from the far right. Lifting a couple Bernie sanders-esque talking points doesn’t make one a left wing candidate when you’re also making statements far to the right of any other candidate in the field. Why focus in on the couple vaguely left wing statements when you have more right wing talking points and your political platform is right-wing?
Agreed
yes
No but they should have played hardbal when they had the chance. They had the numbers; they could have passed laws to prevent a stanky ass old fascist from fucking this country up.
Knowing that senile old Nazi was getting the office back, I feel like the Dems had a DUTY to push thru as many guardrail laws as possible. Biden should have announced felons cannot run for president if they can't even vote.
Ofc we've seen what king shithead thinks about all these rules--- apparently they don't apply to him...
Biden should have announced felons cannot run for president if they can't even vote.
Nah, this ain't it.
You could've also said ”yes, Democrats are to blame” because that's what your post really amounted to.
Of course not. They did everything in their power to stop his rise.
They didn't promote his 2016 primary run because they thought it would make the election a shoo-in for Hillary if he won the nomination.
They didn't ratfuck the only candidate who paid even lip-service to addressing the economic contradictions inherent to capitalism which immiserate the populace. They didn't choose to run a corporate-owned, deeply unpopular warmonger instead. They ran a strong candidate who was universally beloved by Americans, someone who is so radiant and pure of heart that she is light itself.
They didn't play into every provocation from Trump to act as part of his PR machine a la the Streisand effect.
They didn't bungle governance for 4 years so badly that people were eager for a change.
They didn't handle Covid worse than Trump and get far more people killed and disabled by it with their grand reopening.
They didn't doggedly commit to genocide even knowing it would cost them votes in key battleground states.
The Democrats did nothing to help Trump rise to power and did everything they could to stop his rise, but Trump was too much of a political mastermind and he was willing to break rules to win. He's only won because he lies and cheats, which the Democrats never do.
Frankly, it is concerning and problematic of you to even ask that question because everyone knows the answer is obviously "No". Would you ask other questions where the answer is obviously no, such as "Does a bear not shit in the woods?", "Did NATO expansion trigger Putin's invasion of Ukraine?", "should the US stop funding and arming Israel?"
I'm getting really strong Russian bot vibes from this poster. Mods, where are you? Why haven't you banned this propagandist yet?
Just you wait, "/u/Dirt_Owl", if that's your real name -- or should I say грязная сова -- I've summoned the mods and they'll soon deport you back to RuZZia. 
Who else to blame? They had power. Their usage of the power led them to this.
The Democrats deserve blame in a “men make their own history but they do not make it as they please” sort of way. The bourgeois state can allow tolerate a certain range of options. And that range only narrows and neoliberalism enters its death spiral and the rate of profit falls without an obvious way out. The Democrats could try to actually become a party of the working class, but the capitalists would try to destroy them. Or if they succeeded, I genuinely believe you’d see a coup a la Chile in 1973.
That doesn’t excuse the Democrats, though. They are fully leaning into this.
If 
didn't make the stupid joke at correspondence dinner Trump might still be a Democratic party donor
The bombing people one? No judgment if that was the line, just curious how that tipped you over the edge?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Entirely? No. The contribution they made was pretty staggering tho
If Democrats hadn't cheated in 2016, Bernie would have won in 2016 and 2020.
If Democrats hadn't cheated in 2020, Bernie would have won in 2020 and 2024.
Simple as
I don't think Bernie would've had two terms, he would've face constant attack from the media and both parties, and literally 0 of his planned "make the boot of capital stomp slightly less hard" strategies would've actually been passed, and the media would be calling him a failure nonstop and saying "this is what happens when you elect a socialist."
Alternatively, Bernie being malleable imperialist succdem would do what every succdem ever do when elected and he would be a second coming of Obama.
I guess it depends heavily on how quickly he folds. He would either pay lip service to social policy (and be vilified) or abandon it entirely and lose popular support even as the media praises him for "reaching across the aisle"
Yeah, in case such like this i remember Roosevelt New Deal that was aimed at saving capitalism, but the capitalist hated him so much they tried to coup him. So obligatory reminder that ruling class is not monolithic and not entirely rational even in case of their class interests (as the election of Trump also clearly shows!).
"I saved them and they never forgiven me for this" (to paraphrase Zhukov famous saying)
when the history books are written, they will bear at least 49% of the blame for all of this.. personally, I would say it's more
1000%
only in the most direct and literal senses.
view more: next ›