"We are calling on every member of the incoming 120th Congress to vote against Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker in January 2027 and choose a different candidate."
If you think voters turning out for progressives and people advocating for new congressional leadership is “doing the same thing over and over” then your opinion is worth about as much to me as a roll of toilet paper that got rained on.
But hey, even if we’re condemned to roll the same boulder up the same hill over and over again, well that’s better than letting it roll down over us. You’re welcome to disagree, but in that case go ahead and show us what it looks like so the rest of us can move on
But hey, even if we’re condemned to roll the same boulder up the same hill over and over again,
We’re not. The planet is running out of time.
Since you’re unwilling to learn from those who have made the same mistakes before you, please just pay attention to what happens next.
People made mistakes in the past, yes. That’s no reason not to try again.
We can give up, and the planet will die.
Or we can keep fighting, we can try something new, and we may save it.
Me, personally, I’ll keep fighting until my dying breath if I have to, or until the battle is won and the planet is saved.
You can give up if you want to. But respectfully, stop encouraging others to give up too. Or else I’ll have no choice but to view you as an enemy. And I already have enough of those as it is.
The “trying something new” isn’t to keep falling for the same Democratic party snare over and over again.
The party exists to prevent you from “trying something new”.
You only hear “give up” because your imagination has been constrained to action within bounds that are acceptable to the ruling class. When people tell you “this isn’t going far enough” you somehow hear “do nothing”.
Or we can take the democratic party from within and accomplish the goal through political means.
We already saw maga do it to the republican party. They just happened to be fascists.
The same thing can happen on the left. Left-wing populism can overcome the corpo-establishment centrism in the party. I’ve already been seeing calls for a leftwing teaparty.
Why are you so thirsty for violence that you don’t even want people to try to achieve this without open conflict?
That’s the exact same play the US left has fallen for over and over again.
The fundamental difference is that the tea party takeover was billionaire approved and astroturfed.
Entryism to the Democratic party on the other hand is a no go from the party’s sponsors.
There are squabbling factions within the ruling class, but they are united against us. The overton window they define will always be far to the right of what the masses find acceptable (insofar as they are not stupefied by fascistic dreck and capitalist realism).
As for bloodshed, it’s happening all the time at a scale that makes knowledge of it a moral hazard.
You’re just insulated from it; much of it is omitted from news cycles or hidden behind layers of obfuscation.
Let’s take some “uncontroversial” examples: Tens of thousands of people die in the US each year from denied health care claims. Mass shootings are now so common they almost never make the news. Three quarters of a million people in the US are homeless. Many die of exposure (often after police clear out their camps right before a cold snap). Just because they weren’t stabbed or shot doesn’t mean they aren’t victims of violence.
The Socdems in Germany wanted to avoid bloodshed, too.
[The reformist] admits that the path of “bloody revolution” now becomes inevitable-after fifteen years of suffering, after the maximum strengthening of the class enemy, and therefore now involving far heavier sacrifice and bloodshed, that the so-called “peaceful” path is thus proved to involve in the end, not the avoidance of bloodshed, but the maximum of bloodshed.
And I’m aware of the suffering going on at an incomprehensible scale in the word, both domestically and abroad. Some of us are trying to build the political power to change that, and rhetoric like yours is getting in the way.
Revolution will not solve it, only exacerbate and accelerate it with no guarantee of what comes after.
Why are you framing seeking change outside of the electoral system as “giving up?” If you’re going to fight until your dying breath for change, then why pin it all on a strategy that has never worked, and completely reject what has? Nobody is arguing for giving up.
I don’t reject you because of who you are, I reject you because you have a pattern of using the same rhetoric.
I believe I’ve already explained this. Maybe I haven’t said it directly to you. Perhaps I didn’t expect you to engage with it seriously if I did. But I’ll state it now.
Chaos is not better than order, if it can be avoided. The system has not failed us yet, although it may be hanging on by a thread. There’s still a chance we can use it for the good by working within it. It looks unlikely at times, even hopeless or desperate, yes. But the recent election shows that it’s still possible when people come out to vote and actually use the system the way it’s designed.
I don’t deny that it’s an uphill battle. But violence doesn’t benefit anyone, and things could still be much worse. In the military, there’s a saying. “Things could always be worse.” Even when bullets are whizzing past your head, it could still be worse. One of them could have landed in you. You could be getting shelled. Things could always get worse.
Combat is not glorious, and I take serious issue with anyone who tries to romanticize it. It won’t solve your problems. You’ll fucking lose anyway. You’re neither equipped, trained, nor organized to take on the MIC. And if you try, you’ll only give them a firmer foothold on power.
They would love to implement martial law. They’ve threatened to, they’ve tried to, but they can’t. Don’t give them the pretext. Not as long as the electoral results are respected, and the duly-elected governments are seated as mandated by the constitution.
If that ever fails, the country is already gone. So at that point, do whatever the fuck you want. But until that day, don’t fire the first shot. Because you will lose. You wouldn’t last a week.
We have never not been able to use the system the way its designed. The problem is that the way its designed is as a selection for which wing of the capitalist class gets to dominate society, not a way for the working class to direct society. The fact that the working class is not in control has not been challenged by the recent midterms.
There’s still a chance we can use it for the good by working within it.
I do not see why you believe this. Every time socialism has been implemented through largely peaceful means, such as Allende in Chile, the capitalist class oversteps the boundaries of legality to directly sieze the state, because they already own the economy and can do so at will. How do you grapple with this without revolution?
And no, revolution isn’t something you just do, it requires an organized working class, a mass socialist revolutionary party of trained cadre, and a crisis in the capitalist class. That’s how you make a revolution, by advancing the former while awaiting the latter, which is made inevitable by capitalism.
They would love to implement martial law. They’ve threatened to, they’ve tried to, but they can’t. Don’t give them the pretext. Not as long as the electoral results are respected, and the duly-elected governments are seated as mandated by the constitution.
They absolutely can implement martial law at any time. They do not need pretext to do so, that just helps them save face. The state is not a neutral body, it’s something that co-evolves along with the mode of production, and therefore rests upon the property relations therein.
If it’s in response to the capitalist class overstepping the boundaries of legality, then it’s not revolution. It’s counter-revolution. Which is precisely what I stated is the one contingency in which it would be justified.
If they could implement martial law any time they want, they would have already done so. They’ve even tried and it’s been shut down, because the system is still working in some ways, even while it fails in others.
The only thing it will take to put control in the hands of the working class is for the progressive caucus to overcome the establishment Dems, place progressives in the congressional leadership positions, and for the people to elect a progressive president. Then they only need to deliver.
We’re working on those things, and we’re closer than we’ve ever been before. In two years, we may just do it. But rhetoric like yours is only throwing stumbling blocks in our way.
If you think voters turning out for progressives and people advocating for new congressional leadership is “doing the same thing over and over” then your opinion is worth about as much to me as a roll of toilet paper that got rained on.
But hey, even if we’re condemned to roll the same boulder up the same hill over and over again, well that’s better than letting it roll down over us. You’re welcome to disagree, but in that case go ahead and show us what it looks like so the rest of us can move on
We’re not. The planet is running out of time.
Since you’re unwilling to learn from those who have made the same mistakes before you, please just pay attention to what happens next.
You’re the one unwilling to learn.
People made mistakes in the past, yes. That’s no reason not to try again.
We can give up, and the planet will die.
Or we can keep fighting, we can try something new, and we may save it.
Me, personally, I’ll keep fighting until my dying breath if I have to, or until the battle is won and the planet is saved.
You can give up if you want to. But respectfully, stop encouraging others to give up too. Or else I’ll have no choice but to view you as an enemy. And I already have enough of those as it is.
The “trying something new” isn’t to keep falling for the same Democratic party snare over and over again.
The party exists to prevent you from “trying something new”.
You only hear “give up” because your imagination has been constrained to action within bounds that are acceptable to the ruling class. When people tell you “this isn’t going far enough” you somehow hear “do nothing”.
Your mind is shackled by crimestop.
Building power outside of the Democratic party is one of the barest prerequisites to getting things moving in the right direction.
Or we can take the democratic party from within and accomplish the goal through political means.
We already saw maga do it to the republican party. They just happened to be fascists.
The same thing can happen on the left. Left-wing populism can overcome the corpo-establishment centrism in the party. I’ve already been seeing calls for a leftwing teaparty.
Why are you so thirsty for violence that you don’t even want people to try to achieve this without open conflict?
That’s the exact same play the US left has fallen for over and over again.
The fundamental difference is that the tea party takeover was billionaire approved and astroturfed.
Entryism to the Democratic party on the other hand is a no go from the party’s sponsors.
There are squabbling factions within the ruling class, but they are united against us. The overton window they define will always be far to the right of what the masses find acceptable (insofar as they are not stupefied by fascistic dreck and capitalist realism).
As for bloodshed, it’s happening all the time at a scale that makes knowledge of it a moral hazard.
You’re just insulated from it; much of it is omitted from news cycles or hidden behind layers of obfuscation.
Let’s take some “uncontroversial” examples: Tens of thousands of people die in the US each year from denied health care claims. Mass shootings are now so common they almost never make the news. Three quarters of a million people in the US are homeless. Many die of exposure (often after police clear out their camps right before a cold snap). Just because they weren’t stabbed or shot doesn’t mean they aren’t victims of violence.
The Socdems in Germany wanted to avoid bloodshed, too.
You just watch. You may well eat those words.
And I’m aware of the suffering going on at an incomprehensible scale in the word, both domestically and abroad. Some of us are trying to build the political power to change that, and rhetoric like yours is getting in the way.
Revolution will not solve it, only exacerbate and accelerate it with no guarantee of what comes after.
Why are you framing seeking change outside of the electoral system as “giving up?” If you’re going to fight until your dying breath for change, then why pin it all on a strategy that has never worked, and completely reject what has? Nobody is arguing for giving up.
Cowbee gonna cowbee, tsk tsk
You’re fully capable of answering that question without rejecting me because of who I am.
I don’t reject you because of who you are, I reject you because you have a pattern of using the same rhetoric.
I believe I’ve already explained this. Maybe I haven’t said it directly to you. Perhaps I didn’t expect you to engage with it seriously if I did. But I’ll state it now.
Chaos is not better than order, if it can be avoided. The system has not failed us yet, although it may be hanging on by a thread. There’s still a chance we can use it for the good by working within it. It looks unlikely at times, even hopeless or desperate, yes. But the recent election shows that it’s still possible when people come out to vote and actually use the system the way it’s designed.
I don’t deny that it’s an uphill battle. But violence doesn’t benefit anyone, and things could still be much worse. In the military, there’s a saying. “Things could always be worse.” Even when bullets are whizzing past your head, it could still be worse. One of them could have landed in you. You could be getting shelled. Things could always get worse.
Combat is not glorious, and I take serious issue with anyone who tries to romanticize it. It won’t solve your problems. You’ll fucking lose anyway. You’re neither equipped, trained, nor organized to take on the MIC. And if you try, you’ll only give them a firmer foothold on power.
They would love to implement martial law. They’ve threatened to, they’ve tried to, but they can’t. Don’t give them the pretext. Not as long as the electoral results are respected, and the duly-elected governments are seated as mandated by the constitution.
If that ever fails, the country is already gone. So at that point, do whatever the fuck you want. But until that day, don’t fire the first shot. Because you will lose. You wouldn’t last a week.
We have never not been able to use the system the way its designed. The problem is that the way its designed is as a selection for which wing of the capitalist class gets to dominate society, not a way for the working class to direct society. The fact that the working class is not in control has not been challenged by the recent midterms.
I do not see why you believe this. Every time socialism has been implemented through largely peaceful means, such as Allende in Chile, the capitalist class oversteps the boundaries of legality to directly sieze the state, because they already own the economy and can do so at will. How do you grapple with this without revolution?
And no, revolution isn’t something you just do, it requires an organized working class, a mass socialist revolutionary party of trained cadre, and a crisis in the capitalist class. That’s how you make a revolution, by advancing the former while awaiting the latter, which is made inevitable by capitalism.
They absolutely can implement martial law at any time. They do not need pretext to do so, that just helps them save face. The state is not a neutral body, it’s something that co-evolves along with the mode of production, and therefore rests upon the property relations therein.
If it’s in response to the capitalist class overstepping the boundaries of legality, then it’s not revolution. It’s counter-revolution. Which is precisely what I stated is the one contingency in which it would be justified.
If they could implement martial law any time they want, they would have already done so. They’ve even tried and it’s been shut down, because the system is still working in some ways, even while it fails in others.
The only thing it will take to put control in the hands of the working class is for the progressive caucus to overcome the establishment Dems, place progressives in the congressional leadership positions, and for the people to elect a progressive president. Then they only need to deliver.
We’re working on those things, and we’re closer than we’ve ever been before. In two years, we may just do it. But rhetoric like yours is only throwing stumbling blocks in our way.