• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Bernie would not have established Socialism either. Even if the DNC was in lock-step with Bernie, Bernie would have established a Social Democracy. Far better for the American people, but it would be a temporary solution just like FDR’s Social Democracy eroded over time.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        just like FDR’s Social Democracy eroded over time.

        Unlike Lenin’s communism which was immune to capitalist propaganda and still exists today.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I can explain what went right and what went wrong with the USSR, including the events leading to its dissolution and their material basis and what would be similar and what would be different if the US went Socialist, if you want, but the short response is that the Material Conditions of 2024 US Empire are fundamentally and entirely different to 1917 Tsarist Russia, and to compare them 1 to 1 is false.

      • ContriteErudite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is just my personal experience, but I think it reflects a larger issue. Younger people were not ‘too inconvenienced to actually go out and vote’; they wanted to support the party that they felt aligned most with their values, only to be ignored and betrayed in favor of the DNC’s neoliberal matriarch.

        Back in 2016, a group of us, mostly young people, caucused for Bernie Sanders. We had a strong turnout, with more people in our group than for any other candidate. The next largest group was for Hillary Clinton.

        The people running the caucus seemed to have their own agenda. They told those supporting other candidates that their choice was “nonviable” and that they needed to switch to a “viable” candidate. Then, they physically ushered them to stand with the Hillary group while they [the staffers] “figured things out”. Many of the attendees were first-time caucus-goers, so they didn’t know any better and assumed the staffers were just being helpful by directing them.

        For those of us who had caucused before, it was clear what was happening: the staffers were trying to inflate Hillary’s numbers. When we tried to speak up, we were told not to interfere or risk being removed.

        It was obvious to us that the DNC was working against Bernie, ensuring the nomination went to their chosen candidate. Even Trump acknowledged that Bernie would have been a tougher opponent to run against.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        There are plenty of reasons young voters don’t vote as often beyond laziness. Frequent moving, inexperience with the process, lack of knowledge of when primaries happen, ignored by campaigns because they don’t have a history of voting, etc.

        But yeah let’s just call the kids lazy. I bet they should get off your lawn and stop smoking pot, too.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      What happened?

      The Left failed to get out and support him 100%. Pete Buttigieg, Warren, and a dozen other candidates split the vote and the regular Dem establishment got the most middle of the road candidate they could.

      Which gets back to my original point. Instead of sitting around reading books and arguing about the Third International the Left should be a machine that can get people elected.