This exactly. The only reason it even works at all is because they are building on top of an already functioning imperial system. Fascists are like prions emerging from within and taking over a far more competent - and more subtly evil - host, and making it lash out violently while melting its brain into goo. Even if it is not rooted out it’s still doomed to kill its host and by extension, itself.
Perhaps you should reflect on why you feel the need to play defense for establishment Democrats despite claiming to support the paradigm shift that Zohran Mamdani represents. You have been obsessively commenting all over this thread trying to deflect criticism of the DNC by gaslighting people into believing that the DNC are all supporting Zohran Mamdani and that all these centrists coming out against him are outsiders. Are you secretly a campaign consultant for Biden or something?
I remember when I had been fooled into believing it was.
Mix them in. We need to get out of the mindset that animation is not deserving of the same respect as live action.
Some people are, it’s called antitheism. I confess when I was an edgy 16yo I was like that, but I had just left a religious cult so don’t judge me too harshly.
That doesn’t mean the character of an economy that is dominated by public ownership is capitalist, either, just that it is on the “socialist road,” ie it is socialist, and working its way to higher levels of socialization until communism is achieved.
This is the crux of the disagreement between anarchists and MLs. I would argue that state ownership - if the state does not adequately represent the will of the people - is not public ownership. A hierarchical state with a flawed and bureaucratic democracy that is prone to corruption inevitably creates and maintains a class of bureaucrats with social, political, and economic privilege. The state - in order to preserve itself - maintains a monopoly on collective ownership, preventing workers from organizing on their own terms.
This is what anarchists mean when they call something “state capitalist.” They are arguing that the state itself is a private entity pretending to represent the will of the people.
They’re not the same, but it’s easy to see how people become too jaded and cynical to vote.
I appreciate the well thought out response. My main point of contention is the enforcement mechanism. I agree with point 3 as a strategy, and I have actually participated in groups that follow this general principle, but I have always had the option to simply leave and find another group or form my own. The problem arises when the group is the only permissible form of organization (such as, for example, if it is the one party in a one-party state). You actually see this problem in China, when the state cracks down on workers who attempt to organize on their own terms by forming independent unions. I see this as an unambiguous moral failing of the Chinese state, and is an issue on which I will not budge. Bureaucracy makes determining the will of the majority complicated (no democracy is perfect), but even if it is indeed the will of the majority, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
There are things more important than unity. I do not believe that a better world must necessarily come at the cost of individual autonomy.
It’s still a net positive for candidates like Mamdani to achieve electoral victories. Even if you believe that a true socialist can never make it to a high enough office to establish a socialist government (which I agree is likely correct), making the attempt and achieving some reforms in the face of very public resistance from the bourgeoisie is great for class consciousness. It sends the message “hey, it actually is possible to improve your material conditions, and the rich really don’t want it to happen.” Give people a taste and they will want more, which is why the establishment is so terrified of Zohran Mamdani.
Personally, I think that Democratic Centralism is too strict. I understand the idea behind ensuring the subordination of the minority to the majority, but as the party grows and especially after it seizes state power that subordination becomes enforced, and at that point it becomes oppression. It doesn’t get rid of factions either, it just hides them and fosters resentment towards the majority faction.
Just so we’re clear on what we’re talking about, here are the tenets of Democratic Centralism as I understand them:
- That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.
- That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organization.
- That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
- That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.
I believe that point 3 should be a suggestion, and never enforced. It should be up to the individual whether any given disagreement is enough to warrant going their own way, and an option should be given to “stand aside” in cases where someone would prefer not to participate in an action but otherwise wants to remain with the group.
Point 4 is backwards IMO, and a recipe for authoritarianism. Any sort of elected authority should always be instantly recallable by the electorate, and any “lower” body should always have the autonomy to make their own decisions.
Factionalism is not a bad thing if you embrace it rather than trying to fight it.
Here’s an article from the corporate media about the DNC’s response to Mamdani’s victory, and Here’s an article from independent leftist media about the Islamophobic attacks against him.
I won’t include an article from right-wing media, but I’m sure you can guess how they’re coping with the electoral victory of a Muslim socialist immigrant born in Uganda to Indian parents (not well).
The post we’re commenting under has also included some articles.
Even if it were the case that they didn’t want to be there, “just following orders” is not an acceptable excuse for committing a genocide. The morally correct thing to do if you’re compelled to service in the IDF is to refuse and face the consequences, because they cannot be worse than the moral injury of being tasked with the murder of innocent children.
We’re up against literal fascists today, too, but this time it’s made much more progress before facing adequate resistance.
They’re all maintaining decorum (something they would die before dropping) by congratulating him on his win while denouncing his policies and stopping short of endorsing him. Ever since his victory all the “liberal” corporate media has been praising the “energy” of his campaign while criticizing his policies as dangerous and painting his pro-palestinian views as anti-semitic. Don’t even try to pretend the way the DNC has been responding to this is normal. In nearly every other democratic primary the DNC have been quick to line up behind the victor.
Yes, of course. That must be why they tried ferociously to stop him from winning the primary with Islamophobic smears and are now freaking out that they failed, and why the corporate media (yes, even the “liberal” media) are all crashing out.
That’s just called being a revolutionary, which is practically the purest form of leftist that exists. The left vs right terminology originated during the French revolution, with the left being the revolutionaries and the right being the monarchists. Ever since then the left has meant those with a desire to transform society (typically in an egalitarian direction), now encompassing reformists as well as revolutionaries.
Personally I barely consider folks like you to be leftists. A few tax credits and some minor campaign finance reform can hardly be considered a transformation of society. If anything, you’re the bulwark of the right, always defending the establishment from any major changes while preaching about moderation. You calling yourself a leftist is like sticking your toe in the water and calling yourself a diver.
Tankie is to centrists what woke is to MAGA. They use it simply to demonize people to their left without regard for what it actually means. That’s why finitebanjo pulls it out every time he’s confronted by a progressive of any sort. He’s associated all progressives with authoritarian communists in his head the same way MAGA associates everyone who isn’t a fascist with the most radical leftists they remember from the SJW OWNED compilations they used to watch.
Cuomo begrudgingly congratulating Mamdani after viciously smearing him as an anti-semitic terrorist and leaning into Islamophobia:
*pats self on back I’m such a great upstanding sex pest. How gracious am I! I do very much enjoy the sound of my own voice. That mom-dommy fella sure is something, I wish him the best, even though I insisted he wants to murder jews. Oh well!
Then call for massive, unprecedented, and devastating civil action rather than portending doom. Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.