If my hypothesis from yesterday — that Democrats best way to win elections and regain political power is to engage in class warfare against the GOP and the billionaires that fund it — the immediate question is, “How?”The last century has seen two presidents engage in class warfare in a big and direc...
    • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      11·
      16 days ago

      No but their money base is corporate lobbyists. They don’t care if they lose so long as they keep getting those donation checks. Right now they’re just a controlled opposition, exemplifying the ratchet effect whenever they’re actually in charge.Their leadership needs to be replaced with people who reflect Bernie Sanders’ ideals of messaging and governance and ditch this pathetic pandering to Republicans.

      • Pyrin@kbin.melroy.org
        3·
        16 days ago

        The time is now something something they can’t get away with this and that maybe something something and we’re tired of it yadda yadda.

        It’s really hard to get motivated in revolution when almost nobody wants to do it (for the right reasons anyways) and nobody is completely organized to do it.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    252·
    16 days ago

    The Democrats aren’t just averse to class war, they’re also averse to learning anything useful.

    Roger Ailes created the FOX News alternate news ecosystem to try to prevent a situation like Nixon being impeached ever happening again. It worked, like gangbusters.

    The Democrats are still living in the 90s, trying to do everything through an old, dying media format.

    They tried to build their own alternate ecosystem with stuff like MSNBC, but the world has moved on, the digital social media landscape is where it’s at now, and the right-wing media ecosystem moved in quickly.

    If Democrats want to create a media ecosystem of their own, they’re making a losing proposition by moving to the corporate owned Bluesky instead of turning to Mastodon to truly create their own media ecosystem free from corporate control.

    Otherwise Democrats will always be beholden to what makes money, and helping people doesn’t make money. They have to escape a media ecosystem driven by money and build something outside of the corporate sphere. The tools are there, and the Democratic party could be using its war chest on helping develop Mastodon instead of pissing it away on cable TV commercials only half dead people see.

    The Democrats have a lot of catchup to do in terms of media literacy and using modern media to their advantage, and they’re always going to have to cede corporate control if they keep choosing the corporate options. Didn’t Musk prove that without a shadow of a doubt, that you can’t trust a corporate-owned entity to not eventually try to fuck you over, or that if their goals don’t align with yours they will silence you. They need their own servers that they can control, and that can only be done with Mastodon (or something similarly open source), because Bluesky isn’t actually decentralized or federated.

    I don’t see the Democrats seeing the writing on the wall with this. Even the smart Democrats are moving to Bluesky (AOC first to a million followers) instead of charging down the path that Roger Ailes showed them fucking works.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      17·
      16 days ago

      In general, hard conservative media is free to consume, light conservative (aka ‘liberal’) media is locked behind a paywall.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      82·
      16 days ago

      The problem is that the new media is being bought by billionaires and their personal interests. There is no one who will fund the “tax people like me broadcast company” for the left. All major media, whether new or legacy, whether right or “left” are a cudgel to beat the working class in the class war. The left/right descriptor is applied in reference to their stances on social issues that don’t cost anything but nice cheap words, like whether transgender people should have rights.

      This is asymmetrical warfare. The billionaire class have all the means to propagandize and we have to rely on having some really good individuals hopefully get popular enough to spread naturally.

      While the issues of marginalized peoples are very important, as you can see from the exit polling most people of all stripes are concerned about economic issues (the class war) and no media will properly address that as it doesn’t suit their desires (fabulously wealthy newscasters) or their owners.

  • underwire212@lemm.ee
    15·
    15 days ago

    They’re going to try and pump out shit like this to manufacture the idea that a peaceful revolution is possible with voting lmao.

    Let’s ride this wave of class solidarity. I only eat two things: cheesecake and rich people. I’m hungry, and I’m all out of cheesecake.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    9·
    16 days ago

    If progressives want to actually play with the big kids (GOP and DNC) then they need to quickly start to promote a truly left leaning fire brand candidate. Someone that will fire up not just the base but a large portion of the American voting public.

    The murder of a insurance CEO shows that there are common frustrations within the population at large and I feel that if there was one person that would address this in a way that is exciting and motivating they would do well. Bernie is an example of this but he can’t be the only one.

    Someone that is smart and has experience in debating the bullshit makers in the media and on podcasts. Someone that is willing to take the abuse and name calling that will come from the establishment and use it to their advantage. I genuinely believe that they would a least push the DNC away from the center - but it is something that needs to be started in the next 12 months to work.

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    5·
    15 days ago

    So, based on the article, there’s only one way to defeat them using the electoral system and the existing parties.

    In other words, there’s more than one way.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      5·
      16 days ago

      I started to read the pdf but stopped. Just a little bit in and it struck me as complicated, and that’s as someone familiar with ranked choice voting, proportional voting, etc. Not that complexity is inherently bad, but when it comes to group decision making, elegant solutions will encourage many people to participate. Complicated solutions will favor people with lots of time or money.

      I also don’t think weighing systems so that certain people have more of a say than others is ideal. It’s true that experts know more than lay people. But there are challenges in identifying and labeling experts, deciding what being an expert in a given subject should mean in terms of more power/influence, and in doing so creating mechanisms for gaming the system.