That’s why you pull a reverse Sinema. Lie your ass off and pretend to be the most corporate corpodem that ever sold out. You’ll only have to fight one major party instead of both of them to get elected, then you can move as far to the left as you want, so long as you avoid small aircraft.
Even there, though, even as a president, you can’t meaningfully move much without the support of the party. The difference for fascists is that the Republican party legitimately has a ton of actual fascists, so fascist presidents are extremely dangerous. If a Socialist led the DNC, it would be spoiled and wouldn’t have much of a chance to move left.
Neither was I. An activist Socialist can’t do much except in local and state levels, at a national level it takes a mass worker party for electoralism to have any real bite.
That’s why I call national elections loss prevention, because you can either vote to maintain the status quo, or let marginalized groups be attacked and vilified as fascists gain power.
That’s why I call national elections loss prevention, because you can either vote to maintain the status quo, or let marginalized groups be attacked and vilified as fascists gain power.
The status quo already has marginalized groups being attacked and vilified.
Yes, which is why you have to combine that with grassroots movements. Just voting third party or for Trump gets fascists elected, and voting is therefore just loss prevention. To move to the left and improve things, Unionization, protesting, and organizing from the bottom-up is necessary.
Yes, which is why you have to combine that with grassroots movements. Just voting third party or for Trump gets fascists elected, and voting is therefore just loss prevention.
It’s not even loss prevention. It’s slightly delaying outright fascism. The Democratic Party has no interest in anything more ambitious.
To move to the left and improve things, Unionization, protesting, and organizing from the bottom-up is necessary.
You’re correct. The only major party that keeps insisting that it protects the vulnerable doesn’t. I hope unions will do what Democrats refuse to.
Can’t do much without a mass party to back you up. It takes a lot of people.
That’s why you pull a reverse Sinema. Lie your ass off and pretend to be the most corporate corpodem that ever sold out. You’ll only have to fight one major party instead of both of them to get elected, then you can move as far to the left as you want, so long as you avoid small aircraft.
Even there, though, even as a president, you can’t meaningfully move much without the support of the party. The difference for fascists is that the Republican party legitimately has a ton of actual fascists, so fascist presidents are extremely dangerous. If a Socialist led the DNC, it would be spoiled and wouldn’t have much of a chance to move left.
I wasn’t talking about the presidency per se.
Neither was I. An activist Socialist can’t do much except in local and state levels, at a national level it takes a mass worker party for electoralism to have any real bite.
That’s why I call national elections loss prevention, because you can either vote to maintain the status quo, or let marginalized groups be attacked and vilified as fascists gain power.
The status quo already has marginalized groups being attacked and vilified.
Yes, which is why you have to combine that with grassroots movements. Just voting third party or for Trump gets fascists elected, and voting is therefore just loss prevention. To move to the left and improve things, Unionization, protesting, and organizing from the bottom-up is necessary.
It’s not even loss prevention. It’s slightly delaying outright fascism. The Democratic Party has no interest in anything more ambitious.
You’re correct. The only major party that keeps insisting that it protects the vulnerable doesn’t. I hope unions will do what Democrats refuse to.
Yes, that do be how voting works…
He’s not talking about voting. He’s talking about getting elected.
https://streetcivics.com/9-textbook-examples-of-grassroots-activism/