[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / druz / lounge / veganism / vichan / voros ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 21e4cdfa4e2072d⋯.jpg (79.81 KB, 960x585, 64:39, 2020 candidates.jpg)

 No.134053

Which candidate does /leftpol/ think is the most likely to win the Democratic nomination?

Will they beat Trump?

 No.134055

File: 2c2cb18657cc3ce⋯.jpg (76.05 KB, 550x413, 550:413, dontvoteitonlyencourages.jpg)

Who cares? Fuck'em.


 No.134056

>>134053

Bernie is the only one who can beat Trump. They'll probably rig it for someone like Beto or Kamala though.


 No.134060

I doubt Trump will be reelected, has he even filled any of his campaign promises or has he just sat on his ass for the last two years?


 No.134061

>>134060

>has he even filled any of his campaign promises

What president ever has? It's just about what team they are on for most people.


 No.134077

>>134053

It's pretty obvious Bernie is the one who stands the most chances against the orange faggot. Given that the mainstream "left" is comprised of liberals (left leaning ones, though), Bernie is the chosen one.


 No.134080

It really is amazing how delusional the DNC is, it's almost as bad as our "they're going to run Hillary again" jokes:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/03/24/joe-biden-leads-donald-trump-2020-election-matchup-poll-finds/3261265002/

>muh biden

>muh polling numbers

>muh russia

It's like it's still 2016 and nothing changed inside their bubble.

>>134056

This. Bernie or bust.

>>134060

A major electoral factor most "wonks" don't take into account is the public impression of the economy. Not just brainwashed Republican voters, but even inside the DNC establishment, Trump's premise that the economy is "booming", or at least doing well, has been broadly accepted. By doing this, they've arguably conceded the election to Trump.


 No.134088

>>134080

Are they really delusional though, or just working in their class interest? It's not like they really care if Trump wins again, as long as a lefty doesn't.


 No.134089

File: 60d7b313fd431bc⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 270.62 KB, 1024x791, 1024:791, 1548764853810.jpg)

>Which candidate does /leftpol/ think is the most likely to win the Democratic nomination?

Kamala Harris

She is Obama 2.0. Now with new and improved lady parts, to bring in those disaffected Hilary voters.

Cory Booker is like a cheap bootleg of Obama. He isn't even half the orator that Barry was, and while Barrack was on the cutting edge of the emerging social media scene Booker gets basic PR wrong.

>Will they beat Trump?

Nope, because the Dems beat Trump last time with Hillary but look whos prez. All these crypto-liberals on this board like to forget that Hillary got 2 MILLION more votes then Cheato Bad Man but still lost because the electoral college gives votes TO FUCKING LAND.

For Dems to win, their candidate can't just get more votes, they have to SHUT OUT any Republican candidate to overcome the electoral college AND Republican voter suppression. inb4 Dems do it to, sorry it's not nearly to the same degree

I GUARANTEE it's gonna be 4 more years of Trump. This asshole ain't going no where. Dems will probably lose their gains in the House and Senate too.


 No.134090

>>134089

Crap forgot to spoiler, sorry mods :(


 No.134096

>>134094

>No one cares, lib.

Substantiate your claims, because I can prove elections have changed proletariat lives. Heck the very internet we're on is because of legislation opening it up to commodification.

>*Every* candidate, Hilldawg Slaykween included, built - and builds - their campaign around flipping it.

What does this even mean? Please don't use your own words.

>You and all the other faggots are just pissed that your neoliberal kween thought the Rust Belt was a lock because "the algorithms never lie" and didn't even bother campaigning there.

So the electoral college DOESN'T give votes to land. It ISN'T a hold over from the chattel slave days?

Oh no, I'm unhappy that millions of voters got disenfranchised. You're so smart, changing laws have never helped working people right?


 No.134106

>>134104

>Don't act like you'd be crying about this if Hillary won without the popular vote.

>Everyone that I don’t like is a Hillbot.

You gotta be cointelpro. Spitting on all the working class people that did vote for Hillary is just too comically obtuse. You don’t need to worry about the electoral college ever electing a moderate liberal, it never will, and has over turned the popular vote twice in 20 years to elect a proto fash.

>Who cares if it does?

The people that voted for Hillary, and all the people that didn’t vote. Just because they didn’t vote doesn’t men they would have ever voted for anyone like Trump.

>This shit's been around since the founding of the US, yet it's *only* in the time of Cheetoh Hitler that we get dozens of articles crying about the college's "legacy of slavery", "muh disenfrachisement"?

Excuse me plenty of people were pissed when Gore lost due to the electoral college as well. You need to get your news from someplace other than Reddit.

>The United States is a hold over from the chattel slave days bruh.

False equivalency


 No.134108

>Completely ignores Andrew Yang

What? The media is going to blacklist him just for being 'sympathetic' to ALL working class people equally?

We're getting to the point where even being a reformist social democrat for the true working-class of this nation is so taboo that you end up on the fringes. The only way forward is revolution, it seems, and I don't think we're even remotely ready for that.

Also, Yang would beat Trump by virtue of sucking up a lot of his voters. Sanders already burnt every bridge by shilling for Shillary during 2020. I don't even like most of Yang's platform, and UBI is only good in that the money can be pooled into a revolutionary movement or be a band-aid replacement for means-tested welfare.

>>134094

Also, this, but that empty 'land' is actually the 50 States of America, each of which has their own histories and cultures. The Soviet system, ideally, does a similar thing where soviets are the primary block of the federal government, not individuals. Of curse, Stalin removed this, but it's clear that individualist voting systems are inferior to bloc voting except on the local level. Also, the Presidency is gay. We should have no executive head of state or at least only a directorial one like in Switzerland that deals with basic administrative duties and nothing more.


 No.134109

I think they'll go for Kamala since she gets the most identity points. She's also attractive.

"Kamala" is Finnish for horrible, btw.


 No.134110

If it were an actually competent organization and not the Democrats, I would think Trump is losing 2020 automatically. He's pissed off enough conservatives by now and proven that he's just another neoliberal who says retarded shit every now and then, and while the hardcore Trumpers are never giving up on it, Trump won't get the bump from people who think Trump is somehow anti-establishment or a funny joke since he has proven to be neither of those things.

The only problem is that it's the Democrats, so they'll find a way to fuck up and turn off voters with their rabidly terrible policies and open disdain for anyone who isn't a professional class wanker. Libs can't get out of their own way. I wouldn't be surprised if they try Hillary yet again, even.

Bernie has the worst shot of winning because all the centrist turds will happily flip to Trump, and there aren't enough socdems who actually believe in the voting process to counter that. Conservative-leaning "independents" will never vote for the Bern, whatever they may say, because they're dumb and will swallow whatever programming they're given from their thought leaders. If they bought the line that Retard-Man was actually anti-establishment and bought the approved narrative of 2016 hook line and sinker, they'll buy Trump again once the propaganda gets going but with even more backing from the money powers. No one who actually knows what is going on would actually believe socdem is possible today, and certainly not the way Bernie is describing in his campaign (plus, it's easy to attack Bern's massive handouts to the education establishment that he was pushing in 2016, and he's unlikely to turn away from that position).


 No.134111

>>134053

Bernie is the most likely to win in general, but the one who gets the nomination will be whomever the DNC picks.


 No.134112

>>134104

>The only reason anyone cares at all about muh 'lectrikal collich is because Trump's in the White House.

Nah, the EC is shit. Though Hillary knew the rules going into the race, so it's stupid for her and her followers to keep harping on about how she won the popular vote.

>>134109

>She's also attractive.

You blind?


 No.134113

>>134112

>You blind?

You homosexual?


 No.134114

File: 4d721a8766d4a2d⋯.jpg (37.14 KB, 904x509, 904:509, 3-7f9f0e2cd9.jpg)

>>134106

>Spitting on all the working class people that did vote for Hillary

Absolutely, anyone that voted Hillary in the general was a traitor, which is why millions of lifelong Democrat voters stayed home or voted Trump.

>Gore lost due to the electoral college

No, he "lost" due to Dubya's brother and then-governor Guacbowl teaming up with the federal supreme court to unconstitutionally reach down and kill the recount in Broward County, Florida. And then-president of the senate Gore suicidally tabling a motion to block this overreach by the supreme court.

>>134094

>*Every* candidate, Hilldawg Slaykween included, built - and builds - their campaign around flipping it.

>>134112

>Hillary knew the rules going into the race

This. Just like everything else the Trump-deranged screech about (muh voter suppression, muh pootin, muh shutdowns, muh chillunz in cages, etc.) it's been going on forever with nary a peep.

>>134108

>Completely ignores Andrew Yang

Not left enough to poach Sanders voters, not right enough to compete against DNC faves, doomed candidacy. If he were to ostentatiously switch parties and primary Trump? THAT would actually give him a serious chance of winning.

>that empty 'land' is actually the 50 States of America

<unironically supporting rotten borroughs

>The Soviet system, ideally, does a similar thing where soviets are the primary block of the federal government, not individuals.

Electing representatives is bourgeoisie and undemocratic

>>134109

Thoughts on whether candidates presenting themselves as "anti-establishment", like Harris or Warren, might drop out early to endorse Sanders and avoid an ugly race?

>>134110

>Conservative-leaning "independents" will never vote for the Bern, whatever they may say

I refuse to believe this. I think the genuine populist sentiment on the right, buried beneath all those layers of classcuckoldry, reaching back past Tea Party participation in OWS to the Paulbots linking hands with anti-globalists at WTO protests in the 90s, still exists.

>it's easy to attack Bern's massive handouts to the education establishment that he was pushing in 2016

Like a lot of other supposedly partisan issues (labor unions, universal healthcare, taxes on the rich, military nonintervention, anti-immigration, tariffs, etc.), this actually has majority support among all partisan groups, not just Democrats/leftists and independents/centrists, but also Trump voters and registered Republicans:

https://www.freecollegenow.org/poll_free_college_support


 No.134115

>>134114

The education thing isn't a partisan issue though. Conservatives, liberals, and some leftists alike believe in the meme that education is the key to success, education is meritocratic, etc. The minority position doesn't have a public representation in the allowed spectrum of discussion, but it's there, and the education thing was one of the big reasons I couldn't really get behind Bernie, because I know that the schools and university system are so ass-backwards, and throwing money at a system that produces 90% failures is just going to exacerbate the situation. We already did the whole meme where we're all supposed to just go to college and get a good job, and look how that has turned out.

You can pay for everyone to get a PhD if you like, but the way education is set up is to enforce a hierarchy, and if everyone has a PhD they'll just invent a new system of merits so that the same minority has more of them than the rest of us scum, while a substantially sized minority are flat out denied any education whatsoever (which is increasingly the case for young people today, in a school system which has openly given up on anyone who isn't college-bound).

I highly doubt any reform of the education system is going to happen unless it's a reform to make it even worse (and I don't even think a good education system is possible, the best we could do is offer free textbooks and technical training). The status of the educated is predicated on the failure of others in a supposed meritocracy. Without our failure, the meritocracy could only be an illusion.


 No.134116

If it's not Yang or Bernie they're doomed, and doomed exceptionally worse than Hillary ever was, you think Trump winning by electoral college majority was bad in 2016? Wait until 2020 and watch him win the popular vote too because no one even know's who Biden is.


 No.134121

>>134114

>Small states are rotten boroughs, which often had one person or a family voting.

>Implying that small states aren't actually protecting the nation from being completely taken over by big business, who control the large states with a firm grip

Mandated, recallable delegates aren't representatives. Representatives vote freely on laws, delegates vote according to the wishes of their constituencies and function more like diplomats than politicians.

Also, you don't need representatives to have unequal voting numbers. The Roman assemblies had voting by tribe and centuriate, I honestly advocate for voting for laws by blocs of local citizen assemblies as opposed to a single federal referendum to protect the rural population, to make vote-counting easier and less bureaucratic, and to encourage actual deliberation over just voting yes/no in plebiscites. Mandated, recallable delegates are kind of made obsolete by modern communications technology, and all we need are just committees of administrators who are recallable to enforce the laws made by the assemblies.

One man, one vote's problem is assuming that democracy is simply a game of numbers as opposed to being about the participation of citizens in politics. Having everyone's vote be equal in a nation of 300 million people means all power will go to the big population centers and the democracy of the local assemblies would be undermined by nationwide plebscites. This is the difference between democracy and ochlocracy. Ironically, the latter gives all power to whoever will be enforcing the demands of the mob as opposed to the mob itself, as the mob is just a mass of disorganized individuals as opposed to being truly citizens of a democracy.

>>134115

This. Academics have already been democratized to the point where random NEETs on the internet can compete with university-graduates. Information isn't hard to come across. It's actually sifting through the trash that matters the most, and I don't trust universities with their biases at all in that task.

I unironically think that labor unions should take over the job training aspect of education and trade schools should train our workforce.


 No.134131

>>134121

>Implying that small states aren't actually protecting the nation from being completely taken over by big business, who control the large states with a firm grip

What a hilarious fantasy you have constructed.


 No.134132

File: 15b6493d06089af⋯.jpeg (77.1 KB, 830x781, 830:781, D2ZF4dYU0AEN-fj.jpeg)

>Which candidate does /leftpol/ think is the most likely to win the Democratic nomination?

A manager of capital.

>Will they beat Trump?

It doesn't matter, whoever wins in 2020 will continue supporting capitalism and do their best to crush any notable working class power that may grow. Stop being socdems.


 No.134169

>>134132

This so much. You guys ARE the farce that Marx was talking about.


 No.134174

Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.

The DNC doesn't approve other candidates.

I think it's gonna be Harris, since there is a lot of presswork on her already (the black woman who fights against oppression personified in Trump) in my country, and we aren't even the USA.

Since there will be a lot of DNC fuckery involved again, Trump will get his second term, no problem.


 No.134178

File: 9ae2e13e2823845⋯.jpg (332.27 KB, 993x1107, 331:369, zizek on the left.jpg)

>>134132

Your revolutionary purism is your weakness.


 No.134179

>>134174

I don't think Biden has a chance due to his baggage of being a fucking creeper. The general public doesn't really care about corruption, as evidenced by Hillary, but show some videos of Biden nuzzling reluctant children and he will drop like a rock in the polls.


 No.134180

>>134179

This, most of the big independent progressive youtubers have already made big take-down videos of Biden. He's practically a moderate republican.


 No.134197

File: 7ad20993835c411⋯.png (573.78 KB, 880x448, 55:28, cnc.png)

>>134053

I thumb was pic related at first glance, Biden because I hate him the most and he's one of the slimiest establishment autocrats in the pic, and it doesn't fucking matter because the intershit and burgerland are a wasteland and will be even more so after the changing of the sheets. Benus Sandman would beat Annoying Orange tho.


 No.134208

>>134114

>No, he "lost" due to Dubya's brother and then-governor Guacbowl teaming up with the federal supreme court to unconstitutionally reach down and kill the recount in Broward County, Florida.

No he lost, (don't know why you put that in ironic quotes), because of the electoral college. Even if you accept that Bush won Florida by a few hundred votes very contentious Gore still won the popular vote by a quarter million votes. All the electoral college does is give votes to land and the porkies that live on that land.


 No.134209

>>134114

>Absolutely, anyone that voted Hillary in the general was a traitor,

Are you a mind reader? Because landed middle class white women weren't the only people that voted for Hilary. Plenty of poor working class people vote Dem because they feel like they have no alternative. And Porky makes sure the media reinforces that thinking in every waking moment the working class has.


 No.134211

>>134178

Your endless support for liberals and other anti-revolutionary forces are your weakness. The working class is right to not rally behind you, you are nothing more than an edgy democrat.

>>134108

>implying that bourgeois representatives are sympathetic.

You'll buy anything the liberals say

>>134104

This guys seems to get it.

>>134096

>whining about slavery

Socialism is a hold over from capitalism, and so it's a hold over of chattel slavery as well. Chanting slavery at people isn't some trump card you can play on people.

>>134080

>bernie or bust

What the fuck kind of ancom are you?

>>134077

It's not just the mainstream left, it's this thread and dare I say the majority of this board.

>>134060

Nigger have you been watching the news at all? He's building the wall, stopped the war in Syria, lowered taxes, got rid of the individual mandate. He has done more for the working class than any of the cucks in this thread could even dream of.


 No.134212

>>134209

>Plenty of poor working class people vote Dem because they feel like they have no alternative.

What about the people who voted for her in the primary?


 No.134213

>>134211

>He's building the wall, stopped the war in Syria, lowered taxes, got rid of the individual mandate. He has done more for the working class than any of the cucks in this thread could even dream of.

None of that shit helps the working class. Plus those tax cuts are for the rich, and he backtracked on Syria.


 No.134214

>>134213

>tax cuts are for the rich

You're forgetting that he doubled the standard deduction, which effects everyone.


 No.134215

>>134213

Anti-immigration does help the working class, mass immigration is a tool of capital against labor.

Removing the individual mandate is positive, because it doesn't help the poor to coerce them to buy health insurance they can't afford, or to fine them for doing such.


 No.134216

>>134211

>Socialism is a hold over from capitalism

How?


 No.134217

>>134053

whichever one the jews see fit


 No.134218

>>134217

*irish


 No.134219

>>134214

>You're forgetting that he doubled the standard deduction, which effects everyone.

>You're forgetting about the bone he gave to the working class.


 No.134220

>>134215

>Anti-immigration does help the working class, mass immigration is a tool of capital against labor.

So is wage labor. But you never seem to bring that up, curious.


 No.134221

>>134219

Literally this whole thread is closeted socdems talking about getting bones from the democrats.

I was pointing out that he did carry out policies that he said he would, like tax reform.


 No.134222

>>134220

Do the democrats bring that up? I haven't seen other """leftists""" bring it up in this thread either, they are just licking democrat boots


 No.134223

>>134212

>What about the people who voted for her in the primary?

Irrelevant to the point I'm making.


 No.134224

>>134214

Tax cuts that help "everyone" are pointless. If he wanted to help the middle class he would support something like a 0-10% bottom rate and a 90-100% top rate. That's how you redistribute the wealth from the parasites at the top back to the working class.

>>134215

>mass immigration is a tool of capital against labor

So regulate capital instead of dividing the working class.

>Removing the individual mandate is positive, because it doesn't help the poor to coerce them to buy health insurance they can't afford, or to fine them for doing such.

And yet it doesn't do anything to fix the fundamental problem of health care in this country. Working class people will still go bankrupt and die with or without that shitty plan.


 No.134225

>>134224

If you're going to scour for bones like everyone else in this thread, I'm just pointing out that removing the individual mandate is a better bone than any democrat is going to give you.

>So regulate capital instead of dividing the working class.

Mass immigration is dividing the working class, importing a bunch of scabs helps no one

>Tax cuts are pointless

There is more exploitation in taxes than there is in the wage system at this point.


 No.134226

>>134221

>Literally this whole thread is closeted socdems talking about getting bones from the democrats.

Proofs?

>I was pointing out that he did carry out policies that he said he would, like tax reform.

He said he would cut taxes for the working class, instead he RAISED taxes on most people by eliminating things like being able to write interest payments off on your income taxes.

>>134222

>Do the democrats bring that up?

They do not, do two wrongs make a right?

>I haven't seen other """leftists""" bring it up in this thread either,

Nice cherrypicking, the whole rest of the board talks about class.

>they are just licking democrat boots

How does this absolve Trump and the GOP though.


 No.134227

>>134226

>like being able to write interest payments ON YOUR MORTGAGE off on your income taxes.


 No.134228

>>134225

>I'm just pointing out that removing the individual mandate is a better bone than any democrat is going to give you.

>my bone is better than their bone!


 No.134229

>>134215

We advocate that migrant and immigrant workers be allowed to unionize rather than allow capitalists to set one group of workers against another.

It would buy into the idea that one section of workers ought to regard another section as their foes rather than the capitalist class which tries to set one against the other. Marxists don't seek a "tight labor market," they seek to compel the capitalists and their government to give jobs to the unemployed and prevent the use of wages as a weapon against organized labor.

Compel the capitalist to pay the foreign-born worker as much as he pays the native-born, and protect the foreign-born from the threat of deportation, and that will do far more to better the lot of all workers.

Labor lieutenants of the capitalist class from Gompers onward sought to orient trade unions toward scapegoating and throwing out the foreign-born. It is a policy that serves the interests of the capitalists by dividing workers and scaring American workers into accepting pay cuts by hanging the threat of poorly-paid foreigners over their head.

Even before immigration was an issue, there were plenty who echoed the "warnings" of slaveowners that the abolition of slavery would be ruinous to white workers because newly-emancipated Blacks would compete and drive down wages.


 No.134230

>>134216

Read the Critique of the Gotha Programme

>What we are dealing with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.


 No.134231

>>134229

Emancipation was disastrous to white (and all) workers, it literally drove the southern states into the sharecropping system which was literal feudalism. The idea should be to uplift everyone, not drag people down into equality.


 No.134232

>>134230

That's not what that quote means. It means that communism will have accepts for capitalism for a long time as it emerges from capitalism, in the same way that a newborn will be covered in afterbirth. But said afterbirth is NOT a part of said newborn.


 No.134233

>>134232

>communism will have accepts for capitalism for a long time as it emerges from capitalism

So it's a holdover, just like the electoral college is an accept from bourgeois democracy.


 No.134234

>>134231

That isn't to defend the system, I'm pointing out that there are better ways to end institutions. Nuking a nation into feudalism isn't """progressive""" in any sense.


 No.134235

>>134231

>Emancipation was disastrous to white (and all) workers,

Lol no, it raised white and everyone's ability to sell their labor at a higher price and lowered the bourgeois' ability to take surplus value.

>it literally drove the southern states into the sharecropping system which was literal feudalism.

And? And how is that the fault of the newly freed slaves and not the landowners that instituted sharecropping?

>The idea should be to uplift everyone,

No the idea is for workers to keep their wealth. Slaves don't keep ANY of their wealth.

>not drag people down into equality.

Oh and freeded blacks were responsible for that, and not say the land owners?


 No.134236

>>134229

Also

>just saying that socdem for immigrants too

That will just massively loosen the labor markets, who gives a shit if everyone gets the same welfare? The wages will be low as fuck. You have no basic understanding of how markets operate.


 No.134237

>>134233

>So it's a holdover, just like the electoral college is an accept from bourgeois democracy.

No it's not a holdover. A holdover is something that was from another older form. The electoral college is actually antithetical to bourgeois democracy since it gives political power to land and not capital. Most of the capital in the US is in the Blue states, particularly the coasts. There are some exceptions like Texas.


 No.134240

>>134235

>it raised white and everyone's ability to sell their labor at a higher price

Sharecropping was pretty disastrous, you weren't even paid a wage you just kept a small fraction of the crops you raised, literal feudalism.

>and not the landowners that instituted sharecropping?

It is their fault, I'm just pointing out that sharecropping wouldn't have taken form if emancipation happened on better terms than it did.

>No the idea is for workers to keep their wealth. Slaves don't keep ANY of their wealth.

They kept more of it when sharecropping wasn't a thing. Sharecropping was in every way objectively worse than the system that preceded it. I am anti-sharecropping


 No.134242

>>134237

Socialism is a hold over by that definition of the term.

>antithetical to bourgeois democracy

The US was founded as an agrarian society, most of the capital at the time WAS land.


 No.134245

>>134237

Also while we're on the topics of hold overs from chattel slavery, this whole thread is talking about supporting the democratic party, which *literally is* a hold over from the chattel slavery days. The literal party of slavery. Even the super delegate system was devised to suppress the votes of blacks, but no one here will say that.

They (not sure about you) talk about getting bones, and I point out that the current president is giving them bones, I don't personally care about bones, but they moreso just want bones painted blue instead of red ones; which I'm pointing out is retarded.


 No.134247

File: 37998feeea75b3b⋯.jpg (96.05 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, CORBDEM.jpg)

>>134169

You're a socdem as well bucko.

>>134178

>leftcom for electoralism

By golly.

>revolutionary purism

I'm not opposed to electoralism because it's not revolutionary, I'm opposed because its track record is awful and it takes up a lot of time and resources. If berniefags put in half the effort into organizing in their workplace or neighborhood that they did getting his ass in the primaries then we'd have a radical proletarian movement instead of a loose coalition of unbearable faggots.


 No.134248

>>134245

>muh democrats were the racists ones back in the day!


 No.134249

>>134240

>Sharecropping was pretty disastrous,

So was chattel slavery.

>you weren't even paid a wage you just kept a small fraction of the crops you raised, literal feudalism.

Slaves kept nothing, so it was even worse.

>It is their fault,

I'm glad we agree

>I'm just pointing out that sharecropping wouldn't have taken form if emancipation happened on better terms than it did.

But it's still superior to chattel slavery in terms of workers keeping their wealth. It seems like something else bothers you about the end of slavery. Maybe it has something to do with yoru flag?

>They kept more of it when sharecropping wasn't a thing

No slaves kept nothing. This is the weirdest historical revisionism I've ever encountered.

>Sharecropping was in every way objectively worse than the system that preceded it. I am anti-sharecropping

It was not worse the chattel slavery. Humans were literal property of slaveowner and were raped, murdered, beaten and killed on a whim.

>>134242

>Socialism is a hold over by that definition of the term.

No socialism is the antithesis of capitalism. What Marx meant by "scars" of capitalism is just that, the historical legacy of capitalism imprinted on everything.

>The US was founded as an agrarian society, most of the capital at the time WAS land.

Well it ain't anymore. And the electoral college was made because slaves couldn't vote and slaveowning states were butt mad that their slaves weren't going to be counted in the census.


 No.134250

#manchuriancandidategang


 No.134253

Slaves weren't wage-workers nor were they competitive in industry. Rare attempts by capitalists to employ slaves hardly got anywhere.


 No.134254

>>134245

>this whole thread is talking about supporting the democratic party,

Really, the whole thread? Proofs? Like anywhere?

> Even the super delegate system was devised to suppress the votes of blacks, but no one here will say that.

I've said that, Jimmy Dore has said that. You're just desperate to fight your /pol/ informed strawman of what a leftist is.

>They (not sure about you) talk about getting bones, and I point out that the current president is giving them bones,

Yes I said the tax breaks that Trump gave the working class were bones. He also took away a bunch of tax breaks like mortgage interest writes offs from the working class. So for many he raised taxes on the working class.

>but they moreso just want bones painted blue instead of red ones; which I'm pointing out is retarded.

No you're running cover for Trump. You haven't posted anything critical of Republicans.


 No.134258

>>134248

I pointed that out because he wants to go on and on about the electoral college being a remnant of the slavery days. I pointed out that the democratic party is also just that. He should be consistent if he is to take such a retarded position.

>>134249

>So was chattel slavery.

I agree, but sharecropping was objectively worse.

>But it's still superior to chattel slavery in terms of workers keeping their wealth. It seems like something else bothers you about the end of slavery. Maybe it has something to do with yoru flag?

No it's about the same, in both slavery and sharecropping no one was paid a wage and labor had no upward mobility. It's just with sharecropping you submit all workers to that instead of just blacks. Other states emancipated slaves on their own terms and then didn't have to revert to feudalism, I'm pointing out that sharecropping didn't have to happen.

>Muh flag

Southerners still exist despite your attempt to genocide us, get over it.

>He also took away a bunch of tax breaks like mortgage interest writes offs from the working class.

Sorry but Billy Joe in his trailer park doesn't have a mortgage. They rent trailers, I'm sorry your parent's second summer home got taxed more.

>No you're running cover for Trump. You haven't posted anything critical of Republicans.

He banned bump stocks, that's bullshit. The GOP is totally cucked on social policy, they won't cut taxes nearly enough. It's not cover it's just acting like the democrats who want to raise taxes and war are preferable, they aren't.


 No.134260

>>134258

> It seems like something else bothers you about the end of slavery.

I'm against bullshit that reverts a nation to feudalism. Just like I hate capitalism, but I will side with the merchants if it means that I won't have to live in a neofeudal society.


 No.134261

>>134179

>no Leopold

dropped


 No.134262

File: aa35190829e4d64⋯.jpg (275.51 KB, 1010x960, 101:96, 1448845179983.jpg)

>>134258

>despite your attempt to genocide us


 No.134263

>>134254

And if because I'm not criticizing Trump means I'm his supporter, then everyone else in this thread are democrat supporters, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make.


 No.134265

>>134260

>if it means that I won't have to live in a neofeudal society

You already do.


 No.134270

>>134258

>I agree, but sharecropping was objectively worse.

No it wasn't but regardless, why are you trying to correlate the emancipation of blacks with the rise of share cropping, instead of to the landed porkies that were seeking to continue their exploitative labor practices?

>No it's about the same,

No it not at all. Again slaves were legally beaten, killed raped and murdered all with 100% approval from the state. White sharecroppers, not so much.

>sharecropping no one was paid a wage and labor had no upward mobility.

They could keep some of their surplus labor. Again why do you think EMANCIPATION caused sharecropping instead of you know, the land owners?

>It's just with sharecropping you submit all workers to that instead of just blacks.

Whites were never chattel slavers under Burgerland sharecropping.

>Southerners still exist despite your attempt to genocide us, get over it.

The confederate flag wasn't the flag of the confederacy or the south. Racists claimed it was during the beginning of the Civil rights era.

>Sorry but Billy Joe in his trailer park doesn't have a mortgage.

Sorry, but many do. Regardless, many working class people have mortgages, don't know why you think working class=trailer park.

>They rent trailers,

Trump preserved the mortgage interest tax writes off for "Billy Joe's" landlord. Making "Billy Joe" even more vulnerable to his landlord. HOW did Trump's tax reform help working poor people like "Billy Joe" again?

>I'm sorry your parent's second summer home got taxed more.

But my parents don't have a second summer home….you know what, I don't think you know my parents at all!

>He banned bump stocks, that's bullshit.

Well that's one critique I'll give you that.

The GOP is totally cucked on social policy,

Uh oh, here we go.

>It's not cover it's just acting like the democrats who want to raise taxes and war are preferable, they aren't.

That last two major wars were started by Republicans.


 No.134272

>>134263

>And if because I'm not criticizing Trump means I'm his supporter,

Yeah it does, it means lying by omission.

> then everyone else in this thread are democrat supporters,

Nobody defended Dems against any salient critiques though.


 No.134274

>>134270

>instead of to the landed porkies that were seeking to continue their exploitative labor practices?

Please see where I blamed the proprertied class, however emancipation is what enabled them to do what they did.

>White sharecroppers, not so much.

Not sure if you knew but blacks were beaten well into the 1900s.

>Whites were never chattel slavers under Burgerland sharecropping.

And making them sharecroppers is justice?

>The confederate flag wasn't the flag of the confederacy or the south. Racists claimed it was during the beginning of the Civil rights era.

It was the symbol of the south during that time, it wasn't the flag of the national government which only makes it more of a symbol of southern people because it wasn't co-opted by bureaucrats in the government.

>Regardless, many working class people have mortgages, don't know why you think working class=trailer park.

Not sure how your parent's summer home constitutes working class either.

>That last two major wars were started by Republicans.

Both parties are united on being pro-war, however Trump has been less imperialist than Obama by a long shot. On top of arming the Kurds, he is objectively the better option.

>Yeah it does, it means lying by omission.

They are defending the dems when they literally are saying "Bernie or bust" and similar sentiments. Amazing how you contrive shit that I say into shit I don't mean but you can't see the support for democrats that are blatant in this thread.


 No.134282

>>134115

Fixing the diploma meme is a separate problem from ensuring people won't be enslaved for life by bankruptcy-proof non-dischargable debt (aside from criminal fines, literally the only such debts that are still legal!) as a result of falling for it.

>Implying that small states aren't actually protecting the nation from being completely taken over by big business, who control the large states with a firm grip

Cities are inhuman and the urbanites are demented bug people, but rural voters are overwhelmingly gullible classcucks to an extent unmatched by any other demographic.

>vote-counting easier and less bureaucratic

<still not getting it

The pure ideology, it just doesn't stop! Here, read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

>Having everyone's vote be equal in a nation of 300 million people means all power will go to the big population centers

Why would we necessarily still have big population centers? New tech such as telecommuting could reverse urbanization.

>>134208

>No he lost, (don't know why you put that in ironic quotes), because of the electoral college.

I put it in scarequotes because even if the electoral college didn't exist, outright cheating like the Bushes did would still work.

>>134209

>Plenty of poor working class people vote Dem because they feel like they have no alternative.

Attempting to reward treachery is itself treachery.

>>134211

>What the fuck kind of ancom are you?

The kind that, in addition to other praxes, also participates in electoral reformism, since they are not mutually exclusive.

>He's building the wall

Believe it when I see it

>stopped the war in Syria

Slowing it down, at least. Along with accidental peacemaking with the Koreas, this might be a legit feather in his cap if his Venezuela bullshit fails to materialize.

>lowered taxes

False, net taxes are up except for porky if you include spending adjustments enacted alongside the cuts.

>got rid of the individual mandate.

Sure, that's one thing. Weeee…

>>134215

<thinking muh wall will stop illegal aliens, when the vast majority of illegals overstay legal visas and "vanish from the system"

<thinking the only thing that could actually stop illegals, employer penalties, will happen under trump

<thinking illegals matter, compared to legal immigrants

<thinking donald "great big beautiful door" trump will cut legal quotas

>>134229

Your entire post is awful. Killing immigration and unionizing current immigrants aren't mutually exclusive, as proven by the lockstep correlation between rising/falling unionization rates and immigration rates in the 1800s period you're talking about. Mass economic immigration (alongside offshoring) is a weapon used by porky to destroy both 1st & 3rd world labor in a race to the bottom, and has no statistical humanitarian justification for either country involved. Most ridiculous of all, slavery itself competed with wage labor and self-employment to drive down pay, causing many abolitionists to be motivated in part or whole by cold hard economic welfare rather than pure racial justice.

>>134245

>this whole thread is talking about supporting the democratic party

Every post in the thread is shitting on the Democrats and/or praising Sanders (opportunist non-Democrat).


 No.134285

>>134274

>Please see where I blamed the proprertied class,

Oh yeah, only after being pressed, and even then just some single sentence blurb.

>however emancipation is what enabled them to do what they did.

You REALLY want people to blacks on sharecropping don't you. Lol

>Not sure if you knew but blacks were beaten well into the 1900s.

Not sure if knew, but Chattel slavery allowed for this to be institutionalized. Blacks were regularly slaughtered and mass graves of enslaved blacks are still being found to this day with way more expected.

>And making them sharecroppers is justice?

Going back to chattel slavery would stop sharecropping?

>It was the symbol of the south during that time,

It was the "battle flag" of slavers. So you're saying slavery is the cultural heritage of the south?

>Not sure how your parent's summer home constitutes working class either.

Not sure how this made up taunt is relevant to the taxes Trump raised on the working class by getting rid of mortgage interest payment write offs.

>however Trump has been less imperialist than Obama by a long shot.

He's killed more people with Drones, and wants to start a war with Iran and Venezuela. At least Obama ended the Iraq War.

>On top of arming the Kurds

Why is that bad?

>They are defending the dems when they literally are saying "Bernie or bust" and similar sentiments

I means only Bernie can win the presidency for the Dems. Cool your tits you triggered sweatheart.

>Amazing how you contrive shit that I say into shit I don't mean but you can't see the support for democrats that are blatant in this thread.

Amazing how you construe basic political analysis as support for the Dem party.


 No.134286

>>134285

*You REALLY want people to blame blacks for causing sharecropping don't you. Lol

Oh and BTW I live in a pretty racist state and have heard this sob story about how hard sharecroppers had it, and how it was all the black people's fault. Funny how we don't have sharecroppers anymore but have more food then ever. It's almost like that exploitative MoP was never necessary to begin with.


 No.134288

Reminder this >>134089 is the only nigger on the thread that "supported" the democrats, you can recognize the rest of his posts by the way he puts some words in caps, literally one guy that the confederate fag keeps saying represents the entire thread.


 No.134289

>>134282

>Attempting to reward treachery is itself treachery.

>I don't know what the superstructure is.

>Dems don't completely obfuscate the effects of their policies.


 No.134290

>>134288

I don't support Dems though. Just pointed out the simple fact that Hillary DID win by a landslide against Trump by 2 million votes.

I don't know why it triggers you all so much to point that out.


 No.134292

>>134285

>You REALLY want people to blacks on sharecropping don't you. Lol

I am anti anything that will bring sharecropping

>Chattel slavery allowed for this to be institutionalized.

It was institutionalized after emancipation

>It was the "battle flag" of slavers. So you're saying slavery is the cultural heritage of the south?

It's part of the past, yes. It was also a flag carried by starving workers who couldn't even afford shoes.

>On top of arming the Kurds

I was saying that arming the Kurds is a good thing.

>Amazing how you construe basic political analysis as support for the Dem party.

In your own words not criticizing is supporting them

>I don't support Dems though. Just pointed out the simple fact that Hillary DID win by a landslide against Trump by 2 million votes.

Still shilling for the Hilldawg


 No.134295

>>134290

She didn't though. That's not how the game is played. That's like a team claiming they won the World Series or whatever because they got the most homeruns, even if they didn't win the most games.


 No.134296

>>134295

Unruhe also pointed out that Google won them millions of votes through biased searches. Not sure how factual that is but it sounds like something they would do. The election itself was manipulated af for the dems


 No.134298

>>134295

>She didn't though.

She got a lot more votes.

>That's not how the game is played.

It's not, the US is the only 1st world country that has this. Any Gerrymandering also played a huge role as well.

>That's like a team claiming they won the World Series or whatever because they got the most homeruns, even if they didn't win the most games.

It's nothing like that. There's only 1 election dip shit, not multiple "games" like in the World Series. The electoral college give votes to land, period.


 No.134299

>>134292

>It was institutionalized after emancipation

No it wasn't. "White trash" originated as white sharecroppers making up most of the south's "free" white population, and the same system (also originally alongside a parallel one of slavery) extended southward to Mexico's hacienda system and beyond.


 No.134300

>>134298

I'm not defending the EC, but that's the system we have and all the candidates knew that going into the race.


 No.134301

>>134298

>Getting this butthurt that the dems lost

This is why I say the majority of people in this thread are pro-Democrat, the faggot saying they aren't is purposefully being facetious


 No.134303

>>134299

Black people got beat and it wasn't illegal, and the state didn't do anything about it.


 No.134304

>>134301

>the only fag to say hillary should have won said it again, the entire thread is full of pro-dem faggots!


 No.134305

>>134301

Attempting to point out that the Republicans are cheating, voter suppressing, Gerrymandering, porky-funded scum to a far greater extent than the Democrats through no lack of effort, doesn't imply ideological support of the Democrats.


 No.134307

I don't know why anyone thinks Bernie will win shit in a (fair) general election. Americans have already rejected socdem, repeatedly, and your normie Democrat is just about as vile, greedy, and racist as a Trumptard (they just keep quiet about it). American politics isn't really all that ideological - the two parties don't have any defined ideology to speak of, just a vague sense that Democrats are supposed to be populist (but haven't been so since Bill Clinton) and Republicans are the party for rich people and muh taxes. Once the thought leaders set the narrative, the olds, most of the normies, and most of the edgelords will fall into their designated camps. We live in a managed democracy, not an actual democracy. It would be easy to build a narrative against Bernie, but no one really has yet.

As to Bernie himself - if he somehow won, he'd be Gorbachev-tier and way out of his league. I'm throwing him a bone for that reason. I doubt anyone can save American Empire, but Bernie would mean straight up surrender (which is what we should do, everyone else wants to start WW3 and kill us all, and the Empire only makes us poorer for the benefit of profiteering assholes). I don't give a shit about his healthcare policy that is never going to pass and wouldn't work anyway. I don't care about his education cash grab. I just want to see the rich and powerful burn.


 No.134308

>>134307

>Americans have already rejected socdem

I know, FDR only won 4 times.


 No.134309

File: 9a5c781def0ecc7⋯.jpeg (50.23 KB, 750x808, 375:404, DzOUXjLXgAE1dD4.jpeg)

I guess this thread answers the question of what could be dumber than a socdem.


 No.134318

>>134308

Talking about the 1970s and 1980s, when memory of the New Deal was still a thing and boomers and silents turned it down in favor of neoliberalism. The reasons why are complex, but basically the New Deal coalition didn't have an answer to the problems facing America, while the Reaganites were promising hamburgers and SUVs and all of the stables of ugly Americanism we are familiar with today.

Keep in mind that FDR tasked himself with saving capitalism first, and the whole New Deal was a desperate attempt to keep the machine going at all. People weren't asking for Social Security. It was given to them to accomplish a purpose. Of course the recipients aren't going to turn down free money, especially when that money is the only reason they have food to eat, so it's wildly popular. The recipients are held hostage and won't dare think about even meek resistance to the system, since their check can be taken away at the government's whim if they step out of line.


 No.134320

>>134301

>This is why I say the majority of people in this thread are pro-Democrat,

I've been citing facts. Just because some of the circumstances around 2016 show the Democratic party was a victim of election fraud doesn't mean I support them.

It's more likely your a Trump supported triggered by anything that even smells of deference to Dem voters.

> the faggot saying they aren't is purposefully being facetious

Lol, this from the guy trying to blame sharecropping on emancipation. No you dumb fuck Klansman, it was the Southern Bourgeoisie and the fuck rock stupidity of Class cucked southerners like you.


 No.134321

File: 13debef00770ae9⋯.png (81.61 KB, 600x300, 2:1, CAUre-TWwAA8muH.png:large.png)

File: 98353ca2494690e⋯.jpg (51.86 KB, 640x640, 1:1, f50445682d6ed700ffb850de9f….jpg)

>>134308

Hardly a novel parallel

>>134318

The "Old Left" of the FDR coalition broke down because the baton failed to pass from them to the "New Left" during the Culture Wars of the 1960s, in the background of which organized labor was neglected and all its victories undermined, leaving the left to evaporate once the Culture Wars had concluded.

>The recipients are held hostage and won't dare think about even meek resistance to the system

I don't think that's a fair characterization of the era, given the tremendous power wielded by unions at that time, and the rise of more radical figures like Huey Long. FDR's reforms weren't just to keep capitalism from dying, but to mollify the workers enough to prevent WWII from breaking out right here.


 No.134323

>>134321

There was a reason why the baton never passed though (besides the New Left being vain scumbags).


 No.134324

>>134323

Yeah, COINTELPRO


 No.134326

>>134324

cointelpro didn't brainwash the majority of the population, it fucked with the organization of left activists and anyone deemed subversive. the majority of the population isn't secretly leftist and in favor of Communism, and that's really the delusion of the Bernie people. people aren't born with an inherent sense of human brotherhood or values of sharing, and that applies even to many of the people in the labor movement (which is why it was possible to destroy labor from within without too much difficulty, once the government centralized and built the police state to make it so).

i don't think Bernie has anywhere near the base of support Berniecrats think he does. he could win over some people outside his camp for sure, but the coalition Bernie is trying to build is so fractious and its members want contradictory things (environmentalism and labor do NOT get along, for one). add in the generally selfish stance of many Americans who don't want to share their Medicare with the youngs and you have part of the movement that could be turned to Trump or Generic Republican. then you have the "centrists" who are ready to bolt the moment Democrats stop catering to the professional educated class, the demographic the New Left tried to woo away from the GOP with mixed results. they won't say they'll vote for Trump, and maybe they'll delude themselves into believing they won't vote R, but once it become politically and socially acceptable for them to say they will openly, you'll see that segment mobilized and told to vote against "socialism", and unlike the poors or the laborers, they have an actual choice to make.


 No.134329

>>134326

>i don't think Bernie has anywhere near the base of support Berniecrats think he does.

He no doubt lost a huge portion of his following when he bent knee to Clinton and the party. His candidacy is not nearly as exciting as it was before.


 No.134330

>>134326

>i don't think Bernie has anywhere near the base of support Berniecrats think he does.

Are you an American? It doesn't sound like you understand just how bad our political landscape is, and how desperate people are for someone to give them hope. Even a succdem like Bernie is light years ahead of any other choice we've had for decades.


 No.134334

>>134330

Yes, I am American, and what I'm describing is based on my observations of Americans. the Berniecrats have an echo chamber where 99% of the poor and working class are on their side, and that they're going to convert mass numbers of normally conservative voters. It's ludicrous, compared to the number of people who are most definitely going to vote for muh taxes. Democrats are held together by duct tape and promises to the professional class, and Bernie would have to sell out the poor laborers to the professional class to keep the latter on his side - the professional class knows how this game, and their meritocracy, works, and they absolutely HATE the poor with a greater fervor than your racist Limbaugh-quoting uncle. This is the demographic Obama appealed to, kept at the core of his coalition. Like I said, the coalition Bernie is trying to build is too fractious to hold together, and even if he tried his best and did everything right, the professional class can simply say no and start a Democrats for Trump campaign.

Bern would have to pull in lots and LOTS of people who have given up on the political process to overcome most of the professional class bolting to Republicans, or start capitulating and catering to the professional class whose wants are diametrically opposed to lower-class labor and the poor.

>>134329

A good chunk of Bernie's primary vote in 2016 was "Anyone But Clinton" voters who have hated the bitch since the '90s. That was literally the sole reason they were willing to support a "socialist" Jew who they didn't really agree with.

I don't think bending the knee changes a whole lot. It's one of those things you do, the way American politics is set up doesn't allow you to do anything but boost the R or D candidate no matter how much you hate their guts. Ted Cruz elicited gasps when he sorta-didn't endorse Trump at the convention, and in the end he bent the knee and didn't come out and say "Fuck Trump", even though his supporters would have loved to hear it. Nice, polite Bernie refusing to boost Hillary would have been so scandalous that he would be chased out of Washington. Americans do understand how this system works, and why Bernie bent the knee (he even said something to the effect of "I might say some things, but don't believe them" before he conceded the primary).


 No.134337

>>134330

As for the desperation of the people… I think, right now, Americans are being herded towards fascism, as the result of a large and long campaign to renormalize fascism after its massive unpopularity in the '40s. Media has been renormalizing fascism for some time with familiar tropes (science fiction is loaded with fascist ideology, for one). In the 2016 spectacle, it was obvious they were setting up a narrative practically begging white people to vote for Trump, at least during the primary (this was explicitly mentioned in the wikileaks emails). After some false starts in the '60s and '70s, the renormalization of fascism has been basically unopposed, because the left has been neutered. The only opposition New Leftists have towards fascism is that it's mean and doesn't feel good, which is why we have a literal Nazi collaborating family (Bushes) running the country like kings. If things were right, we would be howling for blood and demanding fascists get lynched, not cowering in fear too scared to call these fascists what they are, and too scared to mention what these fascists are doing and why they're doing it. Americans are so scared they can't even bring themselves to talk about "politics" (i.e. anything that is vaguely uncomfortable to talk about), even worse than it would be under a dictatorship.


 No.134338

>>134334

>I don't think bending the knee changes a whole lot. It's one of those things you do,

That is precisely why it does change everything. Bernie's whole outsider shtick was undone when he very clearly toed the party line, and that cost him his base.


 No.134339

>>134338

What would it accomplish though? It might feel good for a while, but it doesn't mean anything. Hillary was going to blame Bernie for losing just the same, but Bernie can point and say "hey, I did everything I could to help you win, you ungrateful bitch". Hillary losing on her own stupidity just demonstrates that no one wants more Clintons, nor wants the New Democrats. Bernie edgelording doesn't mean anything, Bernie playing along lets him claim that he's trying to work with these idiots in the Dem party and gets him not chased out of Washington. No one who actually knows a damn thing about politics would suggest Bernie hold out an endorsement for fucking aesthetics - that's how fascist tards think.


 No.134341

>>134339

>hold out an endorsement for fucking aesthetics

He shouldn't have just held out his endorsement, he should have ran independent of those other two clowns.


 No.134345

>>134339

>It might feel good for a while, but it doesn't mean anything.

That is the tag line for all bourgeois politics.


 No.134349

>>134341

Again, running independently means nothing because Bernie doesn't have the base to actually win against both parties. If he did, this country is in deeper shit than we thought. I don't know why you're engaging in this retarded idea that politics is about feels and aesthetics. When it comes down to it, there just isn't that strong a base for socdem, and even less for the particular plan Bernie wants.

>>134345

Pretty much. Sometimes it is entertaining to watch and dissect what the rulers are trying to tell us from the spectacle, though. It has very little to do with what actually happens, though. If you want to know how American politics really works, follow the money and consider that what you get is usually nothing anyone wanted or asked for (for example, the individual mandate in Obamacare, which is such an obviously terrible idea they had to wait for Great Depression 2 to make it happen just so they could fuck the people in the ass even more). The image and the feels are just for show, like any other consumer product.


 No.134351

>>134349

>Again, running independently means nothing because Bernie doesn't have the base to actually win against both parties.

Nigger half the country doesn't even vote. There are plenty of disenfranchised voters to appeal to.

>If he did, this country is in deeper shit than we thought.

It is.


 No.134356

>>134351

And almost all of those people are never going to vote. Seriously, talk to people who don't vote some time. The vast majority of them don't even believe in democracy and have no discernable belief system to speak of. They're not hidden socialists just waiting to spring forth if you find the correct theory to teach them.

Bernie's base is about what you saw in 2016, minus the Anyone But Clinton contingent that just really, really hated Hillary. It's nowhere near enough. Most people are just going to say that Bernie is full of shit or doesn't even know what he's talking about (and really that is the case - he's talking about a world far removed from our own where schools are actually a good thing, where meritocracy is honest and government officials are honestly trying to do the right thing).

>It is.

If it was, there wouldn't be elections. We'd be in a state of open revolt or civil war. Those are the only conditions where the managed democracy we have would be sufficiently broken to allow for a (non-Porky-scripted) third party run to win, especially now that control is tightened and the media narrative is literal state-run propaganda.


 No.134357

>>134356

In my experience people who don't vote are either apolitical or centrists.


 No.134358

>>134357

There's no such thing as an actual "centrist". "centrists" in America are typically Republicans trying to hide their Republican leaning.


 No.134359

>>134358

An actual centrist in America would be left of both parties.


 No.134360

>>134359

No one actually believes they are somewhere in the middle of two contradictory positions (liberalism/conservatism or liberalism/socialism). That's some bullshit centrists say to justify their bullshit dithering in public.

The only way to hold those beliefs is to engage in doublethink (possible) or to have no genuine idea what you are talking about (which would make you effectively apolitical).


 No.134372

File: 23308db43865b90⋯.png (92.26 KB, 824x469, 824:469, on8CCUv.png)

>>134341

An independent run would've been pointless (Stein already filled that role). What Sanders (or at least his supporters) should've done is dedicate a great huge chunk of his warchest to aggressively pursuing legal charges against election officials for rampant, blatant cheating and collusion with establishment candidates.

As of now, these lawsuits are pursued by only a handful of people, and winding slowly through the courts have produced no convictions or injunctions:

https://ivn.us/2018/01/11/court-order-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-continue/


 No.134376

>>134371

Just wait for the next big clusterfuck some time in the 2020s. We're closer to actual fascism - not "Trump is rayciss" hand-wringing - than you think.

It helps if you understand what fascism actually is, instead of thinking "fascism is when you do racist and mean things". It's quite possible to offer fascism with a smiling face and queer rainbow flag, and that is where we are heading. Fascism is perfectly capable of absorbing multiculturalism and sexual "liberation" into its ideology while maintaining the core of fascism, corporatism and the elevation of biological imperatives and the nation-as-superorganism concept. It's quite possible that the Trumptard yahoos won't even figure into the formulation of fascism, except as temporary shock troops to be turned against socialists (because they're so fucking dumb and so fucking cowardly that they'll cuck themselves to anyone who knows how to manipulate them, which is pathetically easy).

>>134372

Yeah, the dirty secret is that "democracy" isn't really democracy. That's what most of the non-voters already figured out, which is why they don't believe in democracy in any form, having seen how easy it is to rig such a system. The blatant cheating is just a message to the plebs that the rulers can and will do whatever they like, and the people are powerless to do shitall about it. They will never, ever allow legal charges to pass through, just like they didn't challenge Bush's shenanigans to steal Florida's vote in 2000. What else can you expect from a family of literal Nazi collaborators?


 No.134378

Motherfucking Eric Fast & Furious Holden is running?

Nigger, it's like they want to lose.


 No.134382

File: 7c899f715d29052⋯.jpg (31.46 KB, 480x400, 6:5, 7c899f715d2905277669d0880d….jpg)

>>134379

>this whole post


 No.134384

>>134379

>Nations" are based on an exclusive ethnic/religious/linguistic/cultural heritage that's ultimately incompatible with "national identity as as whatever legal documents you possess".

Not really.

Quite a few nations have been imposed in areas where there is (or used to be) cultural/ genetic/ dialect continuum. Many northern Germans are objectively closer to the Dutch, but because of the 'German nation' they feel closer to Bavarians. And because that imposition, the creation of standard German etc. they do feel closer to and every day speak more similarily to them.

Then there are 'the Chinese' with a zillion ethnicities, cultures, and mutually unintelligible languages, yet we are convinced that they have 'the Chinese culture' and speak 'the Chinese language'. And further yet, there are the New World 'nations' plus Australia etc. where a completely made up mix of cultures and ethnicities make up an Anglo-ish or Iberian-ish 'nation'.


 No.134391

>>134096

>So the electoral college DOESN'T give votes to land. It ISN'T a hold over from the chattel slave days?

That “land” is where most of America’s industry, natural resources, and agriculture is located, which is what props up the costal service sector. Under socialism the electoral collage should be abolished, but not until the coasts industrializes and produce shit of value. Also the rustbelt is by far the best part of the country.


 No.134393

File: d86742bbb2c4803⋯.png (77.48 KB, 900x675, 4:3, calag.png)

>>134391

>That “land” is where most of America’s industry, natural resources, and agriculture is located

No, America's industry, natural resources, and agriculture, America's economy, isn't composed of land, those are merely inputs. It is composed of the transformative force of labor by its people, i.e.: Voters.

>not until the coasts industrializes and produce shit of value.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article8334159.html

>California still has the nation's largest manufacturing sector

>http://stuffaboutstates.com/california/agriculture.htm

>As you can see from the table below, California ranks 1st among the states for total agricultural production and for total crop production. Only Texas surpasses California in the production of livestock and livestock products.


 No.134394

>>134391

How are things in 1955, Doc?


 No.134401

>>134379

You do realize you're implying that there's actual meaning to the alt-right spookiness regarding "the nation" and "the race"? You're making the assumption that fascism is about muh race-science when it has little to do with that. That was the Nazis' particular autism.

Actually read the foundational texts of fascism, and what fascist states actually did, instead of repeating the liberal sop that fascism is when people are meanies. The world is fucking corporatist now and we are all subordinated to the national security state in a way that Mussolini could scarcely imagine. It's all fascism now. We truly do live in a Nazified world.

I highly doubt socialists are going to amount to shit. There is only going to be a one-sided slaughter of anyone who isn't fash. I don't see anyone possessing the bloodlust necessary to fight this fascism.


 No.134406

>>134247

Honestly you're right I am mad conflicted about electoralism.


 No.134408

>>134401

This is all just semantics. What is "fascism?"


 No.134430

>>134428

>National-Socialism is when international corporations do stuff with money and governments

this tbh


 No.134431

>>134408

Government by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.


 No.134437

>>134393

>California leads in industry

not per capita. Most people in LA and NYC work is fucking HR and insurance, which less valuable than a mudpie.


 No.134438

>>134408

Like I said, read the foundational texts of fascism by Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini, etc. Straight from the horse's mouth. Otherwise you're just talking about a bogeyman without any connection to what is actually happening, which is what liberals and some socialists wind up doing (and why they absolutely fail at countering fascism).

In short, fascism is the subordination of humanity to biological imperatives, and to the mechanics of political economy, which is the exact opposite of what we would want. Such views are common today and taken for granted. The national security states which exist today explicitly resemble fascist states, but nation-states as a political unit have given way to large empires run by a few superpowers (for example, most of Europe today is little more than an extension of the United States Empire, rather than an actually independent thing). Internally, the national security states common to the world today generall adhere to fascist principles. Nation-states that don't have a national security state are inevitably vassals of some entity which does utilize a national security state. By necessity, these national security states subordinate themselves to the centers of capital, rather than national capitals. The "American" Empire isn't quintessentially American, but rather it is the Empire of the West, and its political centers are the centers of Capital in the West (New York, London, Paris, etc.). The Empire essentially functions as a de facto superstate over the national security states, and as a "nation" in its own right, with a clear line of demarcation between its "citizens" and varying tiers of non-citizens. What you have to understand is that the nation-state, such as it is, is no longer a viable political unit the way it was in the early 20th century, and so fascism would have to evolve to accomodate that reality. There is no "America" that can be said to act in an "American" national interest, or Britain, France, etc. That isn't because of internationalists corrupting the idea of a nation state, but rather because the "nation" actually comprises the whole of the American and European continents that are under the Empire's dominion. The nation-states that are drawn on the map are more like provincial borders than actual nation-states that can be said to act in any genuine "national interest". There is no doubt that the overall Empire is following a single plan from a guiding authority, and constitutes a national security state in its own right (the intelligence agencies of the West all work together, obviously).


 No.134440

>>134435

>Franco's Spain

>Peron's Argentina

>Pinochet's Chile

>KMT Taiwan

>1st-5th South Korean Republics

>Singapore

Etc., etc. What neolibs hate is hardly fascism, it's insurgency.

>>134438

>subordination of humanity to biological imperatives

<class collaborationism is hooman naytur


 No.134441

File: 44d596c8821206a⋯.jpg (845.67 KB, 3638x1308, 1819:654, NaziCapitalism.jpg)

>>134435

>implying


 No.134445

>>134442

Not this shit again, we are not fucking antifa you nigger.


 No.134446

>>134437

By dollar value of production, I'm pretty sure California leads even per capita. But by even bringing up per-capita figures, doesn't that undermine the justification for rotten borroughs?

>>134442

>implying i approve of "antifa" as it most commonly exists here

>implying neofash in most countries including burgerstan aren't fringe to the point of near total harmlessness

>implying both of them aren't just two clown schools of the same street circus to distract the people from class war and offer a pretext for clampdowns by the establishment


 No.134449

File: 672a62bde79920c⋯.jpg (322.94 KB, 1600x1004, 400:251, 1480137079041.jpg)

>>134372

>An independent run would've been pointless (Stein already filled that role).

He could of ran on the Green party ticket. Stein said she would step aside and let him be on the Green party ticket.

You anarchists are spooked by your ideology. You've determined that elections are fiat so you use this tortured deterministic logic to show that elects never changed anything for anyone ever, no way no how.

If Bernie had gone independent he almost certainly would have won. Clinton was stealing money from Bernie's Campaign not the other way around.

Even by some miracle he lost to Trump, the least electable candidate since freaking Goldwater, he would have built up an incredible momentum behind his progressive movement that would have changed a lot of things, and hobbled Trump's power a lot more than it is now.


 No.134451

>>134443

>"Fascism is when the government reads your emails"

I didn't say that, you fucking piece of shit.

We live in an era where eugenics is the ruling ideology to such a point where it literally cannot be questioned in any serious way. There is literally no one going after eugenics with actual fighting words. The closest comes from conservatives, and now you're asking yourself why the people won't embrace socialism when socialists are too fucking afraid to even call eugenics what it is. If you're not going to fight eugenics in any meaningful capacity, your movement deserves to die, and I won't be surprised that it has and that it will continue to be beat down. But whatever. Go on being a jackass. It's just my life that has to suffer because of your stupidity, not yours. I'm not going to expect anything to change any time soon.


 No.134453

>>134449

>If Bernie had gone independent he almost certainly would have won.

You're silly. If a cuckservative had taken advantage of Bernie fighting Clinton in the general to run against Trump (or the RNC had ejected him somehow), making it a 4-way race? Sure, but a 3-way race with only the Democrats split would've been a lock for Trump, just like Perot's devastating effect on Bush in the 90s.


 No.134457

>>134456

Yes, we oppose fascism. Guess that makes every single non-fascist antifa.

>>134455

>that's like saying the USA is a National-Socialist country because it has soldiers who shoot at people for capitalist interests… you niggers are so fucking clueless.

not socialism is a meaningless term anyway considering it wasn't socialism, just fascism.


 No.134458

>>134440

The governments of the world today are not explicitly fascist, but the will of the people has been directed towards fascist ideology, people are inculcated with fascist memes, and an overtly fascist super-government is an inevitability in the West at this point. Liberals are racing to capitulate to fascists and set themselves up as straw men to be knocked down with the whole identity politics thing and hand-wringing about how their opponents are racist and etc. It's like the whole thing is planned and we'll see some theater where an overt fascist will be enabled by bourgeois parliaments, instituting sweeping reforms to target the poor and enforce eugenics strictly. A significant part of the millennial generation has been empowered to carry out eugenics as its highest priority, and another part has been so indoctrinated they can be unleashed against any target with a simple propaganda command, like Pavlovian dogs. We're all fucked, and socialists are stuck trying to LARP as Lenin instead of responding to the reality of the situation today.

I hate to say it but the Nazi is right here. Neoliberals like Pinochet are not fascism, they're neoliberalism doing neoliberal things. We are, however, arranged in national security states which borrow their organizational principles from fascism, which deliberately inculcate the cultural and philsophical values of fascism in a part of the populace in order to engineer society to their liking. The inevitable outcome, then, is a fascist super-state that will be stronger than anything the nitwits in Italy or Germany put together, and I don't believe there will be any end to that fascist state the way things are going now. It's pretty hard when even the left basically agrees with fascist eugenism and the ideological precepts of fascism at an unconscious level (such is the extent of how far Westerners have been brainwashed).

We're fucked, plain and simple. There is literally no current of thought with great currency that doesn't capitulate to fascism and the religious belief in the biological imperative as an end unto itself. Religion has been thoroughly repurposed for the ideological aims of fascism. Socialism has been neutered and turned into a movement of limp-wristed asses who aren't going to fight for even meager concessions. All I know is that, moving forward, I am dead. There is no future for me. I won't miss this world when I depart this mortal coil.


 No.134459

>>134458

>people are inculcated with fascist memes

Imagine thinking this is real. The internet is only good at organizing people, real life is where you get recruited, your ideology it's your daily life.


 No.134461

File: 9d333d8f4495355⋯.png (66.89 KB, 500x328, 125:82, vladimir-makarov-alexander….png)

>>134455

>Franco was against neo-liberalism

The technocrats that spearheaded the reconstruction of Spain's economy under Franco were literally called neoliberals, tightly aligned with South American dictators that sheltered Axis diaspora and ended up as a testing ground for neolibs' legal/economic experiments.

>the others are not National-Socialist or Fascist countries

Many in those regimes disagreed with your estimation, either claiming to be fascist, or to be third-positionists strongly inspired by fascism.

>>134458

>A significant part of the millennial generation has been empowered to carry out eugenics as its highest priority

>Religion has been thoroughly repurposed for the ideological aims of fascism

<believing the nazbol memes hard enough to think NRx is real


 No.134463

>>134462

By privatising the economy, purging all the "left-leaning" elements of the NSDAP, persecuting socialists, invading and attempting to destroy the Soviet Union and "Jewish Bolshevism"? what kind of "socialism" is that? only in name, nothing the Nazis did was socialist in nature. And don't give me that "socialism but not marxism" bullshit, you can't just steal the term socialism, get rid of everything that makes it socialist, then claim that it's yours (or that you're the "real socialists" like i see a lot of not socialists do).


 No.134465

fags


 No.134466

>>134464

>joke filters to embarrass newfags and spammers are censorship


 No.134467

>>134462

And see, guys, this is why it's important to know what fascism is. If you reduce fascism to some meme ideology of racists, you fail to understand what you are up against, and that is a surefire way to fail if you are worried about the proles converting to or meekly accepting fascism.

Yes, Nazi is being 'tarded now, but you guys set yourself up for this by not knowing what you are fighting.

When you actually talk to normal people and ask them what they think about politics, and you somehow get an honest answer, you'd find that a lot of them are passively accepting of figures like Hitler (minus the autism about race, and sometimes they even believe in that stuff in more politically correct terms). The socialists have largely conceded the field of public opinion for a lot of reasons, and failed to offer a meaningful critique of fascism.

I feel the core of the fascist ideology is associated with eugenics, and instead of howling for the blood of eugenicists, socialists offer meek platitudes about how eugenics is mean (if they even offer that), and tend to support population control measures promoted by liberals and even literal fascists. A socialism that stood firmly against eugenics would win big support - it's out there, and there are people desperate for such a thing, even if they can't exactly articulate what is going on and wind up blaming "liberals", "socialism", or "fascism" for the particular evils of the eugenics movement. I have to spend a great deal of time trying to tell people that socialists aren't trying to control your population or tell people who gets to breed, but socialists themselves take such an ass-backward stance on eugenics and the population control issue that they shoot themselves in the foot.


 No.134468

>>134467

>minus the autism about race

>I feel the core of the fascist ideology is associated with eugenics

Don't toke before you talk, bro.


 No.134470

>>134468

Eugenics does not necessarily imply Hitler's blood and soil cultural retardation.


 No.134471

>>134470

So you mean stuff like the chinese babies born with an AIDS resistence?


 No.134472

>>134471

Not really. More like the move to force population control on people (this was a big thing in the 1970s and really triggered a lot of people who felt they were being persecuted by the state), and the pressure to mark children as mental defectives for slipping once in the school system and being targeted as someone to be ridiculed and destroyed in order to enforce the hierarchy of the school system. That's the real heart of eugenics. Genetic engineering in of itself wouldn't be the pertinent issue, but basing social merit and rank on heredity would be - that is, there must be an explicitly defined hierarchy in order for eugenics to be a valid ideology, and it doesn't work if you were to assume that people weere politically equal. Just engineering an AIDS resistance wouldn't be eugenics. Nor would it even be necessarily eugenics for someone to abort a child with defects, if it wasn't coerced as part of a social order (it would be quite impossible for state policy to not coerce abortions in this case, and the reasons for doing so are explicitly eugenicist). Eugenics, in short, is enforced social hierarchy which requires placing the biological imperative above all else in consideration, above human freedom even. This goes hand in hand with fascist ideology of the nation as superorganism (as I said, today the nation-state isn't a unit with political currency that matters, so fascism would be implemented on the Empire-wide level across America and Europe, which for all intents and purposes functions as a single quasi-nation).


 No.134474

Probably Sanders. His base is loyalist as fuck and the DNC has no competition. Hillary was a juggernaut and she still struggled against him. Biden is the Jeb Bush of DNC, and Beto is their Marco Rubio. Worthless shit. I'm actually kind of excited to watch this trash helplessly flail around in the debates.

Only competition I see is Warren if the DNC flat-out buys her, or Andrew Yang. I think Yang has a genuine shot to grow big but it's way too early to make any predictions. I think he'd crush in debates though.

Trump just got a huge as fuck boost from Mueller so he has good chances. I honestly can't tell how cuckservatives / centrists feel about him these days. I keep hearing different stories. Either he's lost the trust and support of his base, or he's more popular than ever.

Sanders has historically done well against him though. He's fucking terrible at politics though, this debiliated skeleton is not capable of pointing out all the promises Trump has broken and how he hasn't helped the middle man because he's too busy ranting about healthcare for the 549054th time (not that it isn't a winning topic for him but you can be policy substantive and play good rhetoric at the same time). Yang I would trust more to do that because he actually directly addresses this angle.


 No.134478

>>134472

In short, fascism necessarily followed from the eugenics movement of the 19th century (which many, many educated people believed in, including liberals and many socialists). If one accepts eugenics, then it necessarily follows that fascism becomes the only form of government and the only kind of ideology with any long-term viability. This is why liberalism today is constantly on the defensive (or feigning defeat while liberals convert to fascism), and why fascist ideas and fascist functions hold great currency in the world. Fascism and eugenics are inseperable, and under an order where eugenics is the primary aim of ideology and the states that exist, fascism is the only inevitable outcome. Liberalism today is on life-support and liberals barely even pretend to believe in the concept of political equality, or even a bare minimum of political freedom for all people. Everywhere we are constantly subordinated to the state in various forms, to the corporations which elect the state, to institutions which perpetuate their own power, to a vague sense of "humanity" which is curiously aligned with only the interest of a particular class of humanity. Part of this subordination is to capitalism, but the ideology of fascism is not just capitalism writ large - it is a movement itself with its own particular aims within the capitalist framework. I don't believe a critique of capitalism explains everything that happens in the world today, and much of what we see is the particular legacy of fascism and eugenics. It would be perfectly possible to imagine a mode of production beyond capitalism where fascism reigns (and indeed, may be soldified as the ONLY possible social system). National "socialism" wouldn't be socialism by any meaningful definition of the word, but I do believe that if Nazism developed, it could have borne something that was genuinely divergent from the capitalism Marx described. (And indeed, I don't think the capitalism we live under today exactly resembles the monopoly capitalism Marx and Lenin were familiar with, and we are in the middle of a transition from capitalism to… something else, not socialism but not a system with the same contradictions as capitalism either.)


 No.134481

>>134472

>>134478

>genetics isn't eugenicist

>meritocracy is fascist


 No.134483

>>134481

Eugenics is explicitly a system of social hierarchy. It wouldn'tt make sense as anything else. There is no way to claim that such-and-such people are genetically inferior and should be limited in freedom, and still maintain a belief in political equality. Eugenics, necessarily, is contrary to the idea of political equality, or even political tolerance of populations who would be the target of eugenic policies. Nor is there such a thing as "positive eugenics" - all eugenics necessarily implies a group of the population to be oppressed, without which the power of the "positive" group is meaningless.


 No.134485

>>134481

Also, yes, "meritocracy" as it is commonly practiced IS fascist, and claims of meritocratic virtue are really just coded language for an embrace of fascist ideology. "Meritocracy" isn't actually a meritocracy, but the vanity of the middle and upper classes being exercised in a wanking contest. They're more interested in credentials and posturing than actually doing something useful and virtuous to demonstrate their merit. It is no surprise that the educated class, as a rule, is almost universally receptive to eugenics, and supportive of fascist measures (even when they feign support for dead liberalism, or call themselves socialists of a champange variety). The educated class doesn't see the uneducated as people, and they never can. I know this full well.


 No.134487

>>134483

>>134485

Eugenics, as a word, referred to selective breeding for certain traits. Eugenicism as a movement ended up debunked as pseudoscience not on the basis of selective breeding not working, but on the basis of the traits it was supposedly selecting for being difficult or impossible to define or measure. If you want to coin a new term for the Brave New World permanent caste system you're describing, you can do that, though.

This tendency to avoid dispassionate measurements that actually are consistently measurable in given contexts, such as academic or professional performance, is precisely what always allows nepotism and rigidly brittle hierarchy to endure, suppressing meritocracy.


 No.134493

File: fa048d35f2dbbcd⋯.png (59.37 KB, 1790x2912, 895:1456, lol.png)

>>134490


 No.134496

>>134487

The nepotism and hierarchy are what "meritocracy" inevitably becomes, because it will always be possible to cheat any given system and it will always be easier to present the illusion of merit (and kick down those who attempt honesty) than to build something genuinely virtuous. Meritocracy inevitably degenerates into a giant pissing contest of one-upmanship and glad-handing. That's how politics works, generally speaking, but in meritocracy it extends to proportions which become ridiculous without some sobering influence like dire necessity. We see today, in a society where dire survival isn't really a concern for most educated people, how vanity and bullshit trumps anything that is genuinely useful, even when it is obvious the intellectual labor of society could solve (at least solve the intellectual part of) many of the problems we face quite easily if it were directed properly, but we wind up more interested in building systems which actively oppress people and exacerbate the very problems people are facing (for example, a dogged refusal to solve the problems of power generation when abandoning fossil fuels, because the agenda of the population control/eugenics movement has always been forced austerity from the start).

The eugenics movement, from its inception, could only make sense if selective breeding were intended for certain political goals. In practice, it meant that those who were unfit had to be subjected to political persecution, which is exactly what has happened and continues to happen to this day. There you go again, presenting the lie that there is such a thing as "positive eugenics". The very idea of eugenics requires actively suppressing the populations which have undesired traits; "positive eugenics" just assumes that those populations will be competitively destroyed by those who are bred with good traits, and inevitably once those undesired persons don't die naturally, forcible persecution is the only option remaining.

Tell me this, if eugenics has been debunked, why do the Nazis' "niggers have 60 IQ" posts hold so much currency, and why are they effective at influencing the debate? Why is "retarded" a word that has the impact that it does, if not for the fact that retards are explicitly the targets of political discrimination and intense social shaming? Retards, by the nature of their being, are physically near-powerless, yet the mainstream of society will tell you that retards are this mortal threat that absolutely must be contained, for some spooky reason. Eugenics, the ideology, is still very much alive. Forcible practices were just moved underground for the time being, in part because a target population for public humiliations is useful for conditioning the middle class and the educated to embrace eugeno-fascism as an ideology, and the absence of retards at this early stage would lead to questioning about whether a eugeno-fascist order with a clear ruling clique is even necessary. We still have (or at least we had, during the late 20th century) small bits of democracy and the potential for, if not socialism, at least something better than the eugenist hellhole we were heading towards. It was not until quite recently, when the millennial generation reached full adulthood, that it was confirmed that the youth of the West were sufficiently adapted to eugeno-fascism that there would be absolutely no resistance to a fascist putsch. We are at this point now, and there is no longer a significant living memory of anything other than eugenics as an absolutely dominant ideology, one which cannot even be questioned without facing physical punishment. (If I dared to say this in the wrong place, I am liable to be locked in an institution, or beaten publicly in courts - meaningful protest against eugenism means the violation of any supposed "rights" I have.)


 No.134504

>>134456

We're not rainbow haired SJWs if that's what you're implying. I know it's difficult for /pol/ to grasp left and right from any angle other than idpol.


 No.134515

>>134496

>why are they effective at influencing the debate?

They do not influence debate. The just hide debate under piles of stupid shit. It's noise pollution.


 No.134520

>>134515

It's noise pollution that works for a reason, because there is a commonly held belief in eugenics which is acted upon, and no one really questions the notion that society should be organized on eugenic principles (whether they call it that or not). The only arguments against eugenics in this society are half-hearted sops to convince stupid people that everyone's a winner.

If there was a proper answer to eugenics, the boosters of said ideology would be running for their lives, and we'd be howling for their blood. Anything short of that is not a meaningful response, because eugenics is premised on overwhelming suppression of anyone deemed unfit to live. Unless you're one of the very elect in society, eugenism inevitably means you will be pushed down under some kind of oppression, how much depends on what class you are placed into. The only way to mentally justify eugenics if you are not one of the elites is to pretend that you're in a better position than you are, and to kick down the people below you on the ladder. That is the dominant pattern of behavior that is inculcated in people today, and it's no surprise then that the rightists present a peculiar version of that pathetic ideology. Eugenism necessarily leads to the kind of right-wing retardation we see today.


 No.134543

>>134053

>Will they beat Trump?

Do they appeal to the Midwest? The reason the Dems lost 2016 is that they lost the Midwest. Whoever wins the Midwest wins the election.


 No.134569

>>134053

Joe "Shrillery doesn't need your vote, stay troled muh lenny alls" Bin Laden Biden

Poor Man's Stein

Kamala Harris, who has no idea how many of her job applications went straight nito the trash

Kirsten "I <3 SOPA-PIPA" Gillibrand, Arch-Roastie

Benis Sandals, the only maybe-not-awful one

An Assistant Principal's driver's license photo

Incontinentia Steve Buttocks

Cory Booger

Mitch "Nepotism" Landau

Sherrod DeHippo Brown


 No.134670

>>134121

>Implying that small states aren't actually protecting the nation from being completely taken over by big business, who control the large states with a firm grip

I live in Wyoming and all three of our congressional delegates are out of touch corporate cocksuckers of the highest order who refuse to even show up to town hall meetings.


 No.134681

>>134670

Also Dick Cheney.


 No.134691

File: 303defb482c8f65⋯.jpg (30.45 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 303defb482c8f65d74fe4624b4….jpg)

>>134442


 No.134692

File: 971bc173204943e⋯.png (521.46 KB, 705x717, 235:239, losing.png)

Wut about Hillary?

Im still with her.


 No.134693

>>134692

Just vote Trump then, no difference.


 No.134694

>>134089

Only feminist dykes and college students would vote for Kamala Harris in the national election, and Bernie is favored by those same college students for primaries.


 No.134695

File: 12ed2d8f2e9bcf9⋯.jpg (15.62 KB, 255x210, 17:14, 9840b0d3ca3d1a746f6fc2c733….jpg)

>>134692

I

I BELIEVE

I believe THAT

I believe that SHE

I believe that she CAN

I believe that she can WIN

I believe that she can WIN

I believe that she can WIN

Chant along with me everyone.


 No.134698

>>134681

And his daughter who wasn't even a Wyoming resident but decided to come here for election, throw a bunch of corporate cash at opponents, and then pretend to give a fuck about anything Wyoming residents care about.


 No.134717

File: b1487544e659a09⋯.jpg (18.91 KB, 600x346, 300:173, b1487544e659a092d85f3d4b3c….jpg)

>>134695

MFW nobody chants.


 No.134744

File: 18a56aef4151be5⋯.gif (2.47 MB, 480x279, 160:93, serveimage.gif)


 No.135893

>>134077

Bernie will die in office before anything actually gets done. Yang is hopeful, maybe Gabbard at a stretch but anyone except Chlamydia Harris.

all of them are anti-weapons so its kind of a hard bargain. there's too many "what ifs". Yang is who I'm hoping will win but I dunno.


 No.135894

>>134543

the only way anyone Democrat can win the midwest is if they stop with the stupid identity race to the bottom and just be about economics and working class ethics, full stop. though that's like trying to wrestle with a Tiger shark not expecting to get your limps gnawed off.


 No.135895

>>134467

I think most of the issue of eugenics is mostly to get rid of people like me, instead of going after feminism and gay idpol like they should. someone having some weird disorder mentally is not something to actually get mad over. channeling Foucault here.


 No.139289

>>134060

He got some stuff done like withdrawing from NAFTA. But your right a lot of his stuff got blocked even by his own party like the wall.


 No.140252

>>134543

God everyone in this thread is shilling the democrats hard as fuck as if this should be a relevant conversation for the left. You are all edgy democrats and enemies of the working class. You are all content with free shit and social democracy. The idea that the left is a faction who sides with labor against capital is a farce, and hasn't been true for over 50 years.


 No.140253

>>139289

NO the petty bourgeois leftists in this thread don't care about pulling out of NAFTA, cause it's not internationalist to do so. They want open borders and free trade, they push neoliberal policies without even knowing it. The upper middle class interests in this thread are clear as day and anyone who doesn't see it is selling something


 No.140257

File: 9744853ae553e75⋯.png (45.09 KB, 763x425, 763:425, demprimarypoll.png)

File: 9744853ae553e75⋯.png (45.09 KB, 763x425, 763:425, demprimarypoll.png)

File: 9744853ae553e75⋯.png (45.09 KB, 763x425, 763:425, demprimarypoll.png)

File: 9744853ae553e75⋯.png (45.09 KB, 763x425, 763:425, demprimarypoll.png)

File: 9744853ae553e75⋯.png (45.09 KB, 763x425, 763:425, demprimarypoll.png)


 No.140737

Fascism can best bedescribed as “corporatism,” if you will. Mussolini described fascism as the merging of the state and corporate power. It’s right wing reactionism at its absolute most cracked out. Just look at famous fascists of the time. Oswald Mosley was a wealthy establishment bourg and friend of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s. If you have any doubts about the current state of US fascism, look at every single position in Trump’s cabinet. Sec of energy- rick fucking perry. Sec of ed- betsy fucking devos. Treasury- Steve Mnuchin, ex wall street hedgefund manager. All bureaucrats. Every single one of them. Fascism is whoring out to porky


 No.140741

File: 9eb6edb83d7b94f⋯.jpeg (8.5 KB, 225x225, 1:1, Unknown-2.jpeg)

Dont vote


 No.140743

File: 07fc99b431d9c73⋯.jpg (13.24 KB, 640x394, 320:197, 9c20CXx_d.jpg)


 No.140776

File: b0efdff3fd3f939⋯.png (1.05 MB, 1100x947, 1100:947, smh white people.png)


 No.140779

>>140776

Holy shit you really are a negative Autism Level retard, devoid of all critical thinking and research. You really think I didn’t do my research unlike yourself? There’s a reason I said merger of state and CORPORATE POWER and not simply “corporations.” Of course you would drop a wikipedia link and a snopes link without even fully reading into it. God, retards like you only care about autistically throwing a fit to feel right than to actually know right from wrong. Mussolini did in fact describe fascism as merger of the state and CORPORATE POWER. Although it was mistranslated to state and corporation full stop. Actual research and nuance would be way too far beyond You, however. Holy fucking autism. Here’s another wiki article for you you lazy asshole

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benito_Mussolini


 No.140782

>>140776

Your research is bad, your evidence is bad, and you should feel bad

>read corporatism v corapartivism


 No.140787

>>140252

>>140253

This guy gets it.

Bernie isn't going to help the working class at all. If anything, he's designated controlled opposition meant specifically to attract edgy liberals and socdems into supporting him all the while saying """"real"""" socialism isn't violent and bourgeois democracy totally works guise!

Also I don't get this "muh immigrants" bullshit. If you have universal healthcare and allow mass immigration your hospitals are going to be flooded by cheap labor, simultaneously both subsidizing it and allowing the capitalists to say "See? We TOLD you universal healthcare is bad! Private is better!111"

>>140741

Pretty damn sure this is anprim faggotry. What little I can read seems to be a generic diatribe against technology, and also it's pretty obvious he cannot into technology due to image size.


 No.141643

File: 618550ddafd3c16⋯.jpg (50.8 KB, 841x560, 841:560, 1414873461446.jpg)

>>140779

>>140782

I love how the link you gave me, which I had given you first, proves me right 100%.

I like how you didn't even read the link you gave me, where they debunk that Mussolini ever said that.

>There’s a reason I said merger of state and CORPORATE POWER and not simply “corporations.”

I know you said that. And it's precisely because you said that that makes it wrong. Read the link you gave me and you'll understand. You don't need to apologize. I know how shit you'll feel once you realize how pathetic and wrong you are.


 No.141728

File: 20621a8821ee94c⋯.jpg (49.77 KB, 800x450, 16:9, not having a good time.jpg)

don't vote, buy a gun


 No.141730

File: 7c39620e7ab61a0⋯.jpg (87.55 KB, 750x600, 5:4, zxftM.jpg)


 No.141746

>>141730

Ironic coming from one of the most oppressed nations on Earth.


 No.141748

>>141746

one of the more politically unconscious and servile, maybe

if the guns were for overthrowing a tyrannical government then it would have been toppled a few times over already


 No.141753

File: f3dd8e8a5b4d4f9⋯.jpg (109.15 KB, 1478x1182, 739:591, standing army.jpg)

File: a200d6dd9ec0360⋯.png (95.49 KB, 1508x663, 116:51, US_military_personnel_and_….png)

>>141730

>>141748

Let's not forget the other purpose of the 2nd amendment, aside from giving citizens a better offensive threat of winning a civil war, was to serve as an international defensive alternative to the maintenance of a perpetual standing military, thus further tipping the scales of any threatened civil war by eliminating the default loyalist force.

Sadly, that seems to have collapsed as well.


 No.142585

>>141746

Are you talking about the US? America is one of the only countries on Earth where citizens still have freedom of speech. In most other Western nations, the government can throw you on jail over hurt feels


 No.142587

>>142585

LMAO.

Yeah, a place where the cops can and often kill people for no good reason at all, a place with the privatized prisons where you can go to jail for literally nothing because it's profitable to the people in charge of justice and prisons and so on and so on.

But I guess none of this matters because you can call the president dumdum and have a big shinning riffle as a replacement for your small dick ami rite?


 No.142588

>>142585

>America is one of the only countries on Earth where citizens still have freedom of speech.

Lel, no it's not. Freedom of speech is a myth.


 No.142589

>>142585

I mean economically oppressed.


 No.142620

>>141753

lol that graph has gotta be hilariously out of date now. Pentagon is embezzling over a trillion dollars every year.


 No.142622

Meh, the only electable candidate is Tulsi.


 No.142623

>>134089

>Hillary got 2 million more votes

<implying the US is a direct democracy

<implying that the US wasn't set up to purposely be a mixture between district representation and popular representation (Connecticut compromise)

<implying the US is a legitimate state at all

<implying that the sanctity democracy is worth giving a shit about in the first place

>>134282

>>134229

The loudest anti-immigrant voices have historically come from the left. Increasing the supply of labor drives down wages and hurts the native working class. Shipping jobs overseas also hurts the native working class. tbh I only see american leftists pushing this freedom of movement stuff, european leftists are more nationalistic: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/11/denmark-election-matte-frederiksen-leftwing-immigration?fbclid=IwAR0Qs7-l_Onir637XRKajN6-r-fzaGFHLQVIo7xNbsz3MHaZnhITjg5MtV4


 No.142625

>>142623

>only succdems exist

Please commit sudoku.


 No.142629

>>142587

Good point about the cops. Lots of people been killed or seriously injured for talking shit to the cops or about the cops. The government ain't going to kill you because they know the average joe blow is no threat and besides it's better to discredit you and use you as a living testament then to martyr you.


 No.142664

File: b3ddc3b0a285415⋯.png (403.41 KB, 467x471, 467:471, ClipboardImage.png)

BRIBING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IS GOOD ACTUALLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR8UcnwLH24&t=1h27m22s


 No.142668

>Plutocratic nomination?

Sheldon Adelson


 No.142669

File: 012f7dbfac89826⋯.png (61.04 KB, 541x474, 541:474, woketard.PNG)

Getting results means negotiations and compromises. If a further-left candidate is gaining popularity in the polls, that does mean more leftwing economic policies put into place. Cynicism aside, the differences between US economic policy and most european economy policy are numerous, and Europe is much better off as a result. Bettering the living standards means pushing economically left ideas in the public space, the american population is not nearly as spooked about "muh socialism muh communism" as it was just a decade ago. More or less the democratic party is doomed because it has no way to challenge Trump who is seen as the populist avatar of workers' anxiety. There are genuine leftleaning democrats who are trying to get nominated (like Gabbard) but the DNC is working overtime to keep them out. Only woke candidates will be tolerated, which inherently keeps out leftists who aren't woketards. There's also the issue of blaming whites (especially working whites) for every problem the world ever had

</pol/yp detected

There are large amounts of working class whites who are going without healthcare, without homes, without decent incomes, yet they remain the punching bag of the democrats. Over and over liberals will blame flyover rednecks for all the nation's problems, and then are astounded those 'flyover rednecks' don't like them and don't want to vote for them. This is the conundrum for the modern democrats, they must have this boogeyman of white privilege to fight back against evil DRUMPF, but then they push away huge swathes of workers to vote for them. Any left candidate who doesn't push the woke racial stuff is ousted (see Bernie in 2016). It's difficult to understate just how much damage liberalism has done to the left. I'll have to find the image again but it explains how the CIA used wokeness to infiltrate and destroy leftism, specifically the occupy movement.

There's also the issue of reactionaries creating bait that liberal retards can't help but take. "It's ok to be white" is a good example of leftists(liberals) not being able to identify an ideological trap, and even if they do, they still fall in because they're still liberal retards. Take pic related, even though this youtuber accurately identified how the bait worked, he still took the bait. He should have just denied the altright the propaganda they were looking for but he couldn't help himself. This pushes normal people away from the left, because they see the left as woke youtubers who have disdain for whites, oops why is Trump getting elected now? Why did the Rustbelt elect Trump when they voted for Obama twice not 8 years ago? Why is white nationalism on the rise? Big mystery.

I try to reiterate this whenever I talk to others online, irl dialogue is extremely helpful for converting people. Having a grass roots effort can really radicalize people within 5 years, that's what the right did. Talk to a buddy, don't be a sperg, and hopefully he'll convert someone else. And then you and your buddy convert others, the people you convert start converting others, etc. There's a lot of anticapitalist rhetoric in the blossoming reactionaries, those people are ripe for turning into anticapitalist radicals.


 No.142710

>>142669

People care too much about being right to be concerned about the consequences of what they say.


 No.142772

File: ae8115226a52b92⋯.jpg (927.84 KB, 1568x2146, 784:1073, cointelpro occupy.jpg)

>>142669

found the picture

>>142710

ya what kills me is that he saw the bear trap, identified the bear trap, then stuck his foot in it lol


 No.142773

>>142710

>P-p-p-people don’t by my historical materialist revisionism, t-t-they’re spooked.

Whitetarian detected.

>>142772

>the progressive stack was cointelpro infiltration.

>attempting to include underrepresented minorities into activism hurt white people feelings so it’s responsible for Occupy’s failure

Good gravy could you two whitetarians feel any sorrier for yourself.


 No.142776

>>142773

>attempting to include underrepresented minorities into activism hurt white people feelings so it’s responsible for Occupy’s failure

You don't do it by subverting basic democratic processes. You do it bring bringing those people in to those processes.


 No.142777

>>142776

*by bringing them in


 No.142780

File: 98827ff5b7bdb00⋯.gif (497.99 KB, 300x300, 1:1, RETARD ALERT.gif)

>>142773

>>attempting to include underrepresented minorities into activism hurt white people feelings so it’s responsible for Occupy’s failure

There's a difference between including someone and giving them top priority.

The actual effect of the progressive stack is to give the most influence to people who are wrapped up the most in identity. Not just people who are part of a minority group, but the more you're a part of (and the more you actively identify with) the more influence you are granted. The more time someone spends absorbed in identity issues, the less time they can spend on class and capitalism.


 No.142781

>>142776

>You’re free to compete, even if others have more social and economic capital and no considerations are made to address this.

Spooked liberal detected.


 No.142782

>>142780

>There's a difference between including someone and giving them top priority.

Oh no! They let black people cut in front of white people even though said minorities are far less likely to believe activism can help them. T-t-t-this is a subversion of democracy! Hahahaha nigga do you even know what democracy is, it’s not voting for who gets to speak at a podium at a rally watched by a handful of people lol.


 No.142783

>>142781

Broader culture and the culture within a lefty org are not one and the same. You can build an org culture that's equally considerate to everyone irrespective of what the general culture is like. You don't have to invert the outside hierarchy to do that, and in fact that's counterproductive.


 No.142784

>>142782

I didn't say anything about "democracy" you fucking liberal.


 No.142785

>>142780

>The actual effect of the progressive stack is to give the most influence to people who are wrapped up the most in identity.

>It’s minorities that actually have more influence! Not landed whitetarians that have defined the material conditions of ethnic minorities for several hundred years.

Holy shit, could you be anymore of a broke dick cuck. Doing things that give the opportunity for introverted voices to be heard help organizations. Extroverted more powerful people are forced to be more succinct and the majority is forced to listen to minorities. Read up on cybernetics,


 No.142786

>>142781

>spooked liberal

Sure that's not you? Here's a nice article for you to read:

https://blackagendareport.com/liberals-opportunists-and-the-green-party


 No.142787

Note the Democratic Cops of America use this identity "caucus" shit too. It's the party equivalent of the progressive stack.


 No.142788

>>142784

>I didn't say anything about "democracy" you fucking liberal.

>>142776

>You don't do it by subverting basic democratic processes.

The only liberals here are you with your “you’re free to compete” bullshit, and your white butt buddy literally citing democratic subversion as a reason for the failure of Occupy,


 No.142790

File: 9dc711c14a1f949⋯.jpg (273.12 KB, 1571x1000, 1571:1000, 9dc711c14a1f9490c01b4de705….jpg)

>>142773

>whitetarians

wat


 No.142791

>>142788

>you’re free to compete

You keep straw manning this but that's not what anyone has been saying. You're free to have as much power in decision-making processes as everyone else around you. That's called democracy. Anything other than that breeds opportunism.


 No.142792

>>142786

The Green Party has an actual anti-capitalist plank. And is the only 3rd party that’s on the ballot in all 50 states. They spooked the Democrats to accept their 2016 “Green New Deal” into their platform.

They’ve done a millions more for the average prole than your dumbass still crying about Occupy, and how if we didn’t have to give concessions to niggers we’d all be living in FALC right now.


 No.142793

>>142788

>you have to answer for other people's arguments

neck yourself tbhfam


 No.142794

>>142790

>muh Tublrina strawman of progressives.

Whitetarians is a phrase for Sakai writer of “Settlers”. It’s a combination of white and proletariat. It explains why white people are consistently anti revolutionary. Long story short it’s because they became landed via racist colonialism in burgerland.


 No.142795

>>142793

Make me faggot.


 No.142796

>>142792

The US Green Party also has a lot of internal problems. It is chronically dysfunctional due to a consensus-based approach and is internally not very democratic (as that article pointed out) and leaders have low accountability to the Green base. A friend of the writer of that article is running in the Green presidential primary this year to re-organize the Greens into a dues-supported, base-anchored mass party of labor, something it should have always been.

>They spooked the Democrats to accept their 2016 “Green New Deal” into their platform.

Sadly, no they didn't. They got some Democrats to accept a completely watered-down version of the Greens' GND that just happens to go by the same name, and also happens to currently include within it a provision that would harm third party organizing.


 No.142799

>>142796

>It is chronically dysfunctional due to a consensus-based approach and is internally not very democratic (as that article pointed out) and leaders have low accountability to the Green base.

Proofs? Let me guess, the proof is their relative political impotence? That’s not why they are weak, the political system literally sabotages 3rd parties at every step.

You think Greens are the only people to every come up with the idea of forming a 3rd party? They’re so dysfunctional yet their the only eft wing 3rd party of any sort of prominence. All other parties are distant 4th place runners.

>A friend of the writer of that article is running in the Green presidential primary this year to re-organize the Greens into a dues-supported, base-anchored mass party of labor, something it should have always been.

They’ve accomplished things no other party has with their current organization. If they become more hierarchical they will most likely become as irrelevant as all the other left wing parties. You know what asymmetric warfare? When you’re weaker you don’t compete on the same terms as the enemy. You do and go where the enemy is unwilling to go and do.

>They got some Democrats to accept a completely watered-down version of the Greens'

Which is a tremendous change, they also proved gross voter suppression in Michigan, brought attention to pipeline protests, and force a leftward shift in many local elections.


 No.142801

>>142796

>A friend of the writer of that article is running in the Green presidential primary this year to re-organize the Greens into a dues-supported, base-anchored mass party of labor, something it should have always been.

>Grossly dig a card game.

>Get Green Party to play

>Somehow they still miraculously win a few hands.

>Hehe looks lije your strategy isn’t working, better copy the model of the other parties that have literally never won a hand.


 No.142802

>>142801

*Grossly rig a card game.

*Hehe looks like your strategy


 No.142803

>>142801

>better copy the model of the other parties that have literally never won a hand.

So which dues-supported, base-anchored mas parties of labor in the US might those be? The Labour Party in UK seems to be doing pretty well under Corbyn.

The Democrats and Republicans are doing pretty well, I guess we we should give up on member finance, invent superdelegates, and get all our money from rich donors too!


 No.142804

>>142803

>So which dues-supported, base-anchored mas parties of labor in the US might those be?

So where are all these successful dues-supported, base-anchored parties then? Are you telling no one ever tried the dues-supported, base-anchored model. Aren’t most ML parties set up that way?

Regardless if you think the model is so great setup your own party. Lol, no instead you’re trying to ride the coattails of a model that actually works.

>The Labour Party in UK seems to be doing pretty well under Corbyn.

>UK election laws = burgerland election laws.

Haha haha you BTFO’d yourself here. The UK has laws foster 3rd parties, therefore they have lots of 3rd parties. US election laws actively frustrate the formation of 3rd parties, which is why there de facto aren’t any. You think the US doesn’t have 3rd parties because burgers are stupid. What a spooked whiteartian.


 No.142805

>>142803

>The Democrats and Republicans are doing pretty well, I guess we we should give up on member finance, invent superdelegates, and get all our money from rich donors too!

Haha what butthurt, the Green Party limits the size of donnations, doesn’t accept PAC money, and I have my own recipients proving they accept donations from members. You’re just butt flustered that no one is uncritically accepting that the Green Party should change it’s flat power sharing model.


 No.142806

>>142804

>>142805

>US election laws actively frustrate the formation of 3rd parties, which is why there de facto aren’t any.

That certainly exacerbates the situation but that's not the main reason. The real source is the voting method and lack of proportional representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

I actually find your anger at Green Party criticism kind of baffling. Don't you want them to be a more consistently funded party? One that can, for instance, fully fund ballot access signature gatherers that can get them on ballots in difficult states without relying on volunteer petitioners who regularly fail due to high requirements? I've been a delegate to national conventions a few times coming from a small state and we something get a mandatory 4 votes (out of something like 150) at conventions, the same as Hawaii, despite the fact that our tiny little state party has no more than maybe ~30 regular "members"/associates and even less who actually donate anything. Is that democracy? In all honesty, my state party doesn't really deserve a seat at the national decision-making table. Not until we actually build a base large enough to back up those votes.


 No.142807

>>142806

>Don't you want them to be a more consistently funded party?

Prove that this would happen, cite something beside your feelings and irrelevant case studies in countries with completely different laws and politics.

>One that can, for instance, fully fund ballot access signature gatherers that can get them on ballots in difficult states without relying on volunteer petitioners who regularly fail due to high requirements?

Again those impediments are due to laws, not the party itself.

>I've been a delegate to national conventions a few times coming from a small state and we something get a mandatory 4 votes (out of something like 150) at conventions, the same as Hawaii, despite the fact that our tiny little state party has no more than maybe ~30 regular "members"/associates and even less who actually donate anything. Is that democracy?

Who cares if that's democracy. Again read up on cybernetics. By giving considerations to people that have historically been marginalized you widen the appeal of the party, foster solidarity and make the parties platform more politically potent.

Look at the Green parties platform. There's literally nothing on it that doesn't have majority support among the public.

And again, the proof is in the pudding. The Green party is literally the largest most powerful anti-capitalist party.

>In all honesty, my state party doesn't really deserve a seat at the national decision-making table. Not until we actually build a base large enough to back up those votes.

>Let me drag you into the weeds of party bylaws to win my point.

Nigga I have no idea of your particular problem is legit or not. But it doesn't prove that the entire progressive model of organizing is dysfunctional. It literally proves the opposite. This ain't 1917, we have the internet and communication tech that facilitates flat power structures.


 No.142809

File: ee64db48d28b388⋯.webm (2.58 MB, 1136x640, 71:40, introspective cat.webm)

>>142788

>>142773

>>142794

>whites are consistently anti-revolution

>white buttbuddies

>whitetarians

Ya I'm not going to fall for this divide-and-conquer lies you're spouting. The Occupy movement was how the ruling class was fucking over the entire world, that was it. And, to restate, it turned out to be true that the US government infiltrated occupy from inside and destroyed it with dissension tactics, namely, oppression olympics. A movement that was just about capitalism suddenly became women vs. trans vs. minorities, bye bye left unity.

I'm suspicious of these posters being either useful idiots or unironic federal shills. Trying to divide races up against each other is the perfect way of preventing workers from organizing. Progressive liberals like you and reactionaries just feed off each other, using one another to justify your own existence.


 No.142811

>>142809

>I'm suspicious of these posters being either useful idiots or unironic federal shills

Well yeah, are SJWs anything except either of those?


 No.142815

>>142809

>Progressive liberals like you and reactionaries just feed off each other, using one another to justify your own existence.

Well put. Divide et impera.


 No.142816

>>142809

>oppression olympics

LMAO, more butt hurt whitetarian tears. And yes, white people have consistently been anti-revolutionary and anti-worker. The reforms they got after the Great Depression were de facto restricted to white people.

Now a days white people are restricting property to themselves. The average white household as $100,000 in equity, while blacks have $4000. And now, class alone doesn't explain the entire difference.

Pretty much only whites have homes, and those homes have been exploding in value for 40 years at least. Why do you think wages have been frozen since the Regan administration, productivity has exploded, but there hasn't been a mass movement for wage increases? The minimum wage is at $7 for chirstsakes.

Because WHITE people, who are the MAJORITY and therefore can effectively suppress any proletariat uprising of minorities, HAVE been getting increased wages, in the form of appreciation of their homes.

And the reason why white people are landed now, is because of racist state polices of the past.

Oh and it's not a coincidence that Occupy rose around the 2008 economic class, when white people in mass were seriously looking at the possibility of losing all their property. The issues that Occupy looked to address were always there.

Any I'm loving all the whitetarian tears I'm causing to be shed. Keep calling cointelpro, all while laying the blame for the collapse of Occupy on "the progressive stack" and other minute concession given to people that have been economically oppressed for generations.

(stop)

 No.142817

>>142815

>>142811

>blames the fact that black people got to talk before white people for the collapse of Occupy.

>Y-y-y-y-y-you're cointelpro.


 No.142818

>>142809

>Trying to divide races up against each other is the perfect way of preventing workers from organizing.

Continuing to bury your head in the sand at the very different material conditions of race, and the historical legacy of indigenous genocide and chattle slavery is the perfect way to keep proletariat organizing impotent.


 No.142820

>>142816

*Oh and it's not a coincidence that Occupy rose around the 2008 economic collapse.


 No.142825

File: 07242eaf57472da⋯.png (59.71 KB, 528x246, 88:41, bill kristol.PNG)

File: 114909118911cf4⋯.png (1.23 MB, 1192x897, 1192:897, chapotard.PNG)

>>142816

>>142818

>muh fucking white male privilege!

<implying you didn't just suggest a racewar as a solution

<implying you're not completely in line with neoliberal war mongerers

let me guess, you support mass immigration and overthrowing Assad too? Totally not a woke neoliberal though.

>>>/chapo/


 No.142834

File: 6215c20b86dfdb3⋯.jpg (2.12 MB, 1500x3400, 15:34, 6215c20b86dfdb3eb581dff46f….jpg)

File: b806ec61f0e26ea⋯.jpg (80.6 KB, 739x518, 739:518, b806ec61f0e26ea29ec667448f….jpg)

File: 345b4ce9f2fc3bb⋯.jpg (83.03 KB, 765x488, 765:488, 345b4ce9f2fc3bb79b2887505c….jpg)

File: 0418cf4b1ad0186⋯.jpeg (309.25 KB, 1424x1100, 356:275, 526f590c9cf0e18e0e780b5ac….jpeg)

File: 53c97eb09150420⋯.png (118.39 KB, 1195x1655, 239:331, 53c97eb091504202523e15de71….png)

>>142816

Fuck off back to leddit you fucking radlib retard. This is an actual socialist board.


 No.142838

>>142825

>implying you didn't just suggest a racewar as a solution

>criticizing white people = race war

>White people sitting on the revolutionary potential of other minority proles and perpetuating poverty isn't violent in of it self.

Hahahaha this is going on /r/fragileredditor.

>Stop pointing out histmat surrounding white people. It hurts my feelings.

Nigga you and Chapo are both apologists for this structural racist bullshit.

>>142834

>Same tired ass Occupy story that was probably made up by a /pol/ up

>Muh /leftypol/ class reductionism.

Do propertied proles have different material conditions or not? You continue to throw a tantraum tryying your hardest to answer that question.


 No.142839

File: 2b1027eee7a9c2e⋯.jpg (197.65 KB, 960x961, 960:961, 2b1027eee7a9c2ea7a29cc6a56….jpg)

>>142838

>class reductionism


 No.142840

>>142818

>very different material conditions of race

The only "material conditions of race" are shit like lactose intolerance, susceptibility to malaria, relative efficiency of alchohol dehydrogenase, etc.


 No.142841

>>142838

You don't belong here.


 No.142855

File: f0b006a20186677⋯.jpg (76.05 KB, 601x508, 601:508, crying wojak.jpg)

>>142838

>Hahahaha

pic related. Implying you didn't sperg out in >>142816 after I correctly called you a useful idiot.

We got sidetracked from discussing democrat candidates, but since you mentioned Settlers by Sakai it's worth deconstructing his third-worldism (aka fascism but for nonwhites). Third-worldism is correct when it claims richer countries will use labor from poorer countries to gain resources/consumer goods, and that richer countries use their military to enforce said relationships. It's also true that 1st world banks will give out predatory loans to poorer countries and turn them into debt slaves. The main issue with maoism is that it conflates the people of a country with the actions of the ruling class of that country. A white coalminer may purchase a shirt made by a poorer pakistani, but it does not change the fact that the white worker is struggling to pay his medical bills for his blacklung. How is the white worker benefiting from IMF predatory loaning if you can't afford to treat his blacklung? I never see people from the third world advocating for maoism, it's always bourgeois americans who drank the neoliberal kool-aid of social justice.

>stop pointing out histmat of white people

Oh like the historical materialism of the imperialist japanese? They killed, conquered and raped everyone in their way, until they met an a bigger bully in 1942. Does that mean every japanese person is part of the labor aristocracy now?

What about the Han Chinese who wiped out all the other ethnicities in China, do they have any fault for their murderous imperialism?

And what about the Bantu Africans who enslaved Pygmies? Guess Bantu Africans can never be part of the working class ever again.

I would use this to sum up the other major flaw of maoism, how countries can gain wealth and become the oppressors.

History is very clear, a bully punches everyone else until someone bigger comes along and makes them the bitch. Just look at what China is doing to Africa right now, China is a world super power with quite a bit of wealth, and it's taking the resources from Africa again. Somehow, all spaniards are guilty of what conquistadors did 400 years ago, but every last han chinese is 100% guiltfree. The reality is, if you are a worker, *you are a worker.* There are poor chinese factory workers breathing poisonous air, and there are poor white coalminers breathing poisonous air. Both of these people exist in the lower class of capitalism, even if they somewhat benefit from an ever lower class. Japanese workers are techinically bourgeois compared to other workers, that doesn't change the fact that they have to work 80-hour work weeks with not even getting paid for the overtime. It's like you saw a couple trustfund babies at college and based your whole worldview around that.

>same tired ass occupy story

You didn't just drink the neoliberal kool-aid, you did a kegstand of it. The derpy wokespeak really seals it.


 No.142856

>>142855

>Japanese workers are techinically bourgeois compared to other workers, that doesn't change the fact that they have to work 80-hour work weeks with not even getting paid for the overtime

Bourgeois is not a comparative metric. It's whether you own means of production and don't have to work for a wage.


 No.142858

File: 7a26246f1daf11c⋯.png (186.15 KB, 823x1000, 823:1000, elections-piege-a-cons-d00….png)

>>134053

Eurofag here, don't vote, even for Bernie, we had "socialist" governements here for decades, everytime they got in power, they were neoliberal and destroyed worker's rights and social services. And why would communists and anarchists take any interests in who is administrating the capitalist State?


 No.142859

>>142858

what do then


 No.142860

>>142816

>Now a days white people are restricting property to themselves. The average white household as $100,000 in equity, while blacks have $4000. And now, class alone doesn't explain the entire difference.

Good job everyone else napalming this snowflake, but this "statistic" deserves special attention.

First off, it's an average, instead of a median or other decile, so it's practically worthless to begin with. Second, it completely ignores absolute numbers in preference to relative ones. For instance, see here:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/recent-trends-in-wealth-holding-by-race-and-ethnicity-evidence-from-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20170927.htm

that in 2017 19% of black and 9% of white households have $0 or negative net worth, and here (Table HH-2):

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/households.html

that there were ~16k black and ~99k white families.

That means there are 3179 black households, versus 8946 white, with $0 or negative net worth. The same trends are true of everything else minorities are disproportionally oppressed by, such as police misconduct, crime, low income, unemployment, etc.

In other words, poor whites have more in common with blacks, than with other whites.

The only enforcable (also by far the most politically viable) way to attack these problems is in an identity-blind fashion. Not only because it will help the evil huwite male cis devils the most in absolute numbers, but because the disproportionate nature of these problems mean it will also disproportionately help minorities the most in relative numbers.


 No.142862

>>142859

You organize the working class into an independant political force for autonomous struggle, in other word, you build a communist party


 No.142870

>>142860

>First off, it's an average, instead of a median or other decile,

It means that difference is probably even greater between blacks and whites, since there's more whites they are skewing the number down even considering that the really rich are white bourgeoisie.

And black bourgeoisie are skewing the average number up, since their wealth is being factored into a much smaller pool.

>In other words, poor whites have more in common with blacks, than with other whites.

Economically yes, and Sakai recognizes these white expectations like the whites that live in the Appalachia mountains. But you completely ignore the superstructure, the vast majority of poor whites simply see themselves as temporarily embarrassed future homeowners.

The only successfully leftist social movements of note have recognized racism (mostly from whites) and that it's the number one impediment to worker solidarity.

This laughable idealist notion that racism comes from people hating white people, and not white people materially benefiting from structural racism is just white leftists broke dick way of keeping their fragile egos from being bruised.

Look at the faggoty excuses for why Occupy failed in this very thread.

>T-t-t-t-t-t-t the progressive stack made white people wait to speak.

Meanwhile, the Civil Rights movement, the last real worker movement in burgerland, had their supporters gunned downed, hanged, spied on, and arrested and they still prevailed.

Occupy failed because white people are still landed. It was a performative movement from the jump. It didn't challenge power in the least. As soon Obama started economic stimulus and avoided a depression, white people once again took this low ball deal and went right back to being anti-revolutionary.


 No.142873

>>142855

>Does that mean every japanese person is part of the labor aristocracy now?

Yes, did the Japanese yield every bit of wealth they stole during WWII? Or did the Japanese bourgeoisie use it to actually come out of WWII much stronger than before?

Is Japan the most anti-worker 1st country on the planet. Oh, b-b-b-b-b-but none of that is because of WWII and their imperialism right, it's like a videogame and their score was cleared when they surrendered.

>History is very clear, a bully punches everyone else until someone bigger comes along and makes them the bitch. Just look at what China is doing to Africa right now,

Holy shit you worthless brainlet, what China is doing to Africa isn't anything like Japanese Imperialism.

>The reality is, if you are a worker,

No idiot, some workers have property. Said property appreciates, so they actually gain upward mobility as the porky does and the over all economy does better. So they have a vested interest in making sure capitalism continues to oppress propertyless proles. Why the fuck do you think all those white workers voted for Trump, along with voting for the Southern Strategy form 60 fucking years now.

>>same tired ass occupy story

>You didn't just drink the neoliberal kool-aid, you did a kegstand of it. The derpy wokespeak really seals it.

I know shitting on that stupid Occupy story hurt your pussy feelings. You sure that wojack you posted isn't a self portrait?


 No.142875

>>142816

>Keep calling cointelpro, all while laying the blame for the collapse of Occupy on "the progressive stack" and other minute concession given to people that have been economically oppressed for generations.

"I'm from a low-income demographic so by virtue of that nothing is ever my fault" is exactly the sort of narcissistic reasoning why SJW's are incapable of learning from their mistakes.


 No.142877

>>142870

>It means that difference is probably even greater between blacks and whites

If you'd read my link, you'd have seen exactly the opposite is true, with the median net worth of all ethnicities far lower than their average. Aside from the median (5th decile), however, there were no less coarse slicings of the data.

>the vast majority of poor whites simply see themselves as temporarily embarrassed future homeowners

Just like the vast majority of poor blacks see themselves as oppressed by poor whites.

>T-t-t-t-t-t-t the progressive stack made white people wait to speak.

No, what it did was force out any class conscious leftists and our agenda, and force in only the absolute most idpol deranged SJWs and their agenda, at the level of baked in rules. It is the exact perfect thing for LEO moles and wreckers to take over and nullify left activism.

>the Civil Rights movement, the last real worker movement in burgerland, had their supporters gunned downed, hanged, spied on, and arrested and they still prevailed.

And were built out of the class conscious left, with MLK & Huey Newton both well versed in socialist theory. Moreover, remember that what ultimately got MLK assassinated wasn't the civil rights movement he shifted his weight from following its success, but his race-blind followup Poor People's Campaign. This allowed the "new left" behind the 1960s culture war campaigns to fully cleave from organized labor, destroying any serious activism on the left.

>>142873

>what China is doing to Africa isn't anything like Japanese Imperialism.

<funding proxies to install pliable warlords for resource extraction is okay when we do it

>No idiot, some workers have property.

Very, very few do. In fact, the majority of those without property are the white devils you're bitching about. And nearly none of those with property own enough to meaningfully supplement their income. This is wholly different from the capitalist class, who derive most or all of their income from the exploitation of private property.


 No.142892

File: 9026e50f759c888⋯.png (3.48 MB, 1704x900, 142:75, pinhead-and-baby.png)

>>142862

it is not clear to me whether you support achieving communism through a third party or through a revolutionary vanguard, but both appear to me equally ridiculous prospects.

a third party that can compete in electoral politics is literally impossible given the confines of the two party system and the tiny percentage of americans that are actually interested in a future for the far left. i am from an area of the south where the only "leftist" organizations are literally 50% LGBTQ idpol retards with almost no rhetoric centered around class struggle. the third parties that have gotten any support at all are based on libertarianism or 'green' politics. how do you expect us to organize around these powerless retards?

the prospect of a revolutionary vanguard is equally ridiculous. the US military would absolutely crush whatever popular uprising would take place. this is not even considering the near total lack of support in the present day for these organizations or the rest of the citizen body that will certainly still be firmly planted on the right or center (most of which will be armed).

i admit that the prospect of a sanders presidency is not excellent. republicans will make it very difficult to get any of his policies enacted, and dems and lib media will turn on sanders however his presidency would go. there will likely be a recession. even my some miracle some of his policies get implemented, it is clear they are not socialist policies despite his insistence on being a democratic socialist.

with that said, he is the only person that has had a sizable chance to be the american president that has had a rhetoric centered around class struggle in modern history. we have already seen how his loss in the dem primary made the mainstream of the party consider policies that were once unspeakable. a sanders presidency would thus push the overton window for the democrats further to the left or at least vividly indicate to his supporters the systematic barriers preventing the left from having a place in electoral politics. this appears to me a much more appealing future than literally ignoring the electoral process so that trump can have a second term or letting obama 2.0 pave the way for the 'left' in our country to appear as the "progressive side" of our politics despite being nothing of the sort. this is literally how the vast majority of americans think whether you like it or not. this is why /pol/tards, despite being more educated and informed than the rest of the right, literally still can't tell the difference between a leftist and a liberal.

or of course we can let this last chance to have a socdem president slip by, and then we will literally have nobody to turn to within electoral politics for at least a decade but probably longer. the younger generations will not understand climate change as a result of capital accumulation, and if we're lucky we can have french-style austerity from some zoomer president in 50 years or so.

I have a suspicious feeling that I will come to /left(y)pol/ or wherever the constituency of this board will have migrated to in 10 or 20 years and still see this sort of LARPing going on despite extremely marginal or regressive steps towards either of these goals. please convince me otherwise


 No.142897

File: 8e37a7b1836f69e⋯.png (418.49 KB, 925x512, 925:512, pinochet and friedman.PNG)

>>142870

>>142873

>what China is doing to Africa isn't anything like Japanese imperialism

Correct, it's like American imperialism. Get your own guys into power, have military presence, and establish a footholding of the international market there to extract resources. Sound familiar?

Returning to the original point of the thread, genuine leftists will be smothered in the DNC for not being sufficiently woke. FOX viewers unironically have higher polling with Bernie than MSNBC viewers do. Biden, on the other hand, appeals to the woke crowd and has said sexual assaults are "the white man's culture". Wow, all rapes and molestations are just part of whiteness, this totally won't alienate a massive part of the country! This goes back to what I said about reactionaries and woketards feeding off each other. You give golden propaganda to rightwingers, it goes like this:

Woke slam poet: Whites are responsible for everything that's ever gone wrong, we must dismantle white supremacy and structural systemic whiteness. Even poor whites struggling to get by are inherently oppressors.

Elite born with silver spoon in mouth Richard Spencer: Hey whites these brown, black, and yellow communists just want to rob you. They don't care about your values, they have no sympathy for you. Fuck them, support a white capitalist state.

Real leftist: Workers should form their own party and have leaders that will fight for them against capitalist industries. Sectarianism based on idpol divides working peoples.

slam poet: oof yikes who hurt you incel

Spencer: lmao what a lowclass faggot *sips whiskey while wearing suit and $1000 haircut*


 No.142900

>>142892

>a third party that can compete in electoral politics is literally impossible given the confines of the two party system

Did you know that there's another option instead of giving up like a bitch? You could work to change your state's voting method to effectively eliminate the two-party system.


 No.142901

File: 9a67da7efd98f09⋯.jpeg (916.07 KB, 1711x2560, 1711:2560, the long depression.jpeg)

>>142870

>and avoided a depression

According to whom exactly?


 No.142902

>>142816

>people that have been economically oppressed for generations

People that have been economically oppressed for generations are dead. Try as you might to quantify the suffering of the dead, there is nothing you can do in the present to ever make amends for it. Why don't you focus instead on the people who are living now?


 No.142911

>>142900

there is literally no impetus in american politics to do so. the republican party has some its highest approval ratings for a party presidency of all time. the democratic party is more divided, but it appears that it will either retain its centrist disposition or take on a vaguely social democratic platform in the years to come. the only major change to the american electoral process that has any steam behind it is the removal of the electoral college. and as i've said, the only third parties with any significant support thus far are not on the left. in contrast, changing the political agenda of the democratic party now is more plausible than it's ever been.


 No.142913

File: 835872368e9ae25⋯.png (30.9 KB, 720x372, 60:31, Gallop independents.png)

File: 91f12b542926e6b⋯.png (35.93 KB, 720x400, 9:5, Gallop third party demand.png)

>>142911

>there is literally no impetus in american politics to do so

Actually there is. Democrats and Republicans do not represent anywhere near a majority of political opinion among eligible voters and in fact a staunch plurality of the country hates them both. Nobody likes these assholes. They get away with the illusion of broad support because they've turned so much of the rest of the electorate off of voting.


 No.142914

>>142911

>changing the political agenda of the democratic party now is more plausible than it's ever been.

Jesus talk about beating a dead horse. When are you gonna learn already?


 No.142919

>>142913

it's pretty self-explanatory that an independent voter would want a major third party, right? the problem is that they're a total minority in america. i will say that the second graph you provided does indicate more support than i anticipated.

i agree that something closer to proportional representation would be better for the american left. with that said, i'm still not really convinced that such a change will happen or that it will yield a competitive anti-capitalist third party.

>They get away with the illusion of broad support because they've turned so much of the rest of the electorate off of voting.

then why not actively support the only competitive candidate that has effectively (but of course not totally) posed an alternative to capitalism in recent american history? again, i agree that bernie is a socdem, but we have to start somewhere.

>>142914

read my original post and then respond to that. i'm new here, convince me otherwise.


 No.142922

File: 6e78c8e6502c66c⋯.png (32.38 KB, 720x372, 60:31, Gallup independent identif….png)

>>142919

>the problem is that they're a total minority in america

People who identify as independents are a plurality of all eligible voters. Democrats and Republicans have been minorities for a long time.


 No.142925

File: 80b8e38ea30d0e0⋯.png (142.19 KB, 678x414, 113:69, voting systems comparison.png)

>>142919

>i agree that something closer to proportional representation would be better for the american left. with that said, i'm still not really convinced that such a change will happen or that it will yield a competitive anti-capitalist third party.

Proportional representation reform is increasingly more difficult to get as you move up the government hierarchy due to constitutional descriptions of legislative bodies, and still cannot resolve Duverger's Law at the highest levels of single-winner executive offices. It should be noted that proportional representation has in the past been almost instantaneously successful at attaining representation for the Left. Right after New York passed proportional representation in the '20 or '30s they got two Communist Party members elected to their city council.

But there is another way to overcome Duverger's Law that affects all offices at once, whether they're multi-winner or single-winner. Changing the voting method to more expressive, less tactical methods can allow third parties to become competitive in elections without proportional representation.

Here's a good example of how changing the voting method can dramatically alter election results and stop the feedback effect of people giving up on third parties because third parties can't get anywhere.

https://rangevoting.org/PsEl04.html


 No.142932

>>142925

this is interesting and pretty convincing, thanks. still voting for bernie but i'll have to reconsider the prospects of a third party winning an election.


 No.142933

>>142922

The problem is a bit more complicated than that though. It's not like we have an impartial body running our elections, it's all one big establishment circlejerk. The ways that they crush third parties are numerous; the media, the debates, the electoral college, the voting machines, etc.


 No.142936

File: 426ef8cf4ab92ed⋯.png (31.47 KB, 561x556, 561:556, politicalpartynumberrangev….png)

>>142933

That's certainly true, but even if all of those other obstacles were to be broken down, we would still have a two-party system due to the self-reinforcing feedback mechanics of tactical plurality voting and single-winner elections. Some of those mechanics feed into the other systems of suppression as well.


 No.142938

File: 3c042a83637a2a4⋯.jpg (142.95 KB, 839x626, 839:626, Initiative-referendum-map.jpg)

>>142900

>>142913

>>142925

This this this!

Nearly everything in the constitution about the appointment of politicians and conduct of elections, even for federal positions, is left up to the states,. So strict party-list PR could be imposed on federal house elections, range voting on senators and the president, as well as the entire structure of state/local government turned into practically anything, one state at a time, without touching the federal constitution.

Most importantly, there are 18 states (including the national bellwethers of California and Florida) where all that's needed is signatures for a ballot measure and winning 2/3 of the vote on a yes/no question to arbitrarily rewrite their constitutions, completely bypassing establishment politics. This would provide the inertia needed to steamroll other states, build deep-rooted nationwide multiparty interests, and destroy the two-party system at the federal level.

It also can't be overemphasized this wouldn't be an explicitly leftist issue, but a trojan horse appealling to every 3rd-party/independent grievance interest (greens, lolberts, christards, etc.).


 No.142939

File: 59f3d09e1f1df24⋯.jpg (71.06 KB, 564x840, 47:70, australia howtovote card.jpg)

>>142938

Two other important points however:

Third parties need to actually pick a voting system good enough to empower them. Instant Runoff Voting, which the Greens have been pushing for ages and recently got passed in Maine, is one of the worst of all ranking voting methods and completely inadequate for getting third parties elected. Australia has used it for some 80 years and it's still completely dominated by two parties in its single-winner elections. Third parties have got to pick a good enough system, such as Approval or Score voting, in order to get themselves elected. Interestingly, the US Libertarian party has had support for approval voting in its platform for some time.

Another point is that although some states on paper allow for referenda such as Maine's, in practice their legislatures have make the petition signature requirements high enough that they are effectively impossible to meet. In Wyoming for instance there is usually some sort of ballot initiative petition every two years and not a single one has gathered enough signatures to actually get on the ballot in over 20 years. People need strong coordinated campaigns with lots of funds to make this happen. Third parties should be forming massive coalitions together for the sole purpose of changing voting systems–if they actually ever want to get elected to office.


 No.142944

File: 7045c611af928dd⋯.png (79.73 KB, 800x600, 4:3, AV a vote.png)

>>142939

>Two other important points however:

>Third parties need to actually pick a voting system good enough to empower them.

Yeah, this isn't really something that can be fought out among the general public, or even the rank-and-file of most 3rd parties, because it's an extremely technical and arcane issue. Our only hope is that prominent leaders and experts offer a united front of support, and avoid confusing normalfags by describing the pluses & minuses of various suboptimal systems. At least, unlike single-winner electoral systems, the benefits of PR (both for vote waste, and Gerrymandering) are pretty easy to shill in succinct propaganda.

>Third parties should be forming massive coalitions together for the sole purpose of changing voting systems

<IRL red-brown nazbol PACs of convenience could save burger politics in your lifetime

Wild ride can't stop won't stop


 No.142956

File: 5e5ef8cab74e85e⋯.jpg (82.81 KB, 460x500, 23:25, 1441939142534.jpg)

>>142939

>>142944

>>142938

>>142936

>>142933

>>142932

>>142925

>>142922

>>142919

>>142913

>>142911

You nerds do realize that the voting machines can just be hacked, right? They have backdoors built into them, and historically there are plenty of cases of votes just not being counted, on top of all the other voter suppression that goes on.


 No.142958

>>142956

Yup, that too is a problem. The question is really whether or not electoral organizing is a means to an end or not. Doesn't help when craven cowards like Bernie Sanders refuse to demand recounts though.


 No.142960

>>142958

When it visibly fails it's a means to the end of showing people that it's ineffective, otherwise it's a placebo.


 No.142962

>>142960

When it fails due to issues like this there's always a whataboutthis in the back of people's minds though. What if we had a counting system we could trust? What if there wasn't voter suppression? What if we had a voting method that could get third parties elected? Electoral strategies are more effective in countries with functioning election systems where they can get representatives they identify with elected to power and watch them either get stonewalled by capitalist power or outright betray them while in office. We don't even have the courtesy of a trustworthy election system in the US, which is why this is an important question to ask ourselves.


 No.142964

>>142962

Think this is worth making a new thread over,

>>142963


 No.142968

>>142962

Yeah but nobody ever asks why. They just get caught up in minutiae that nobody understands much less cares about. Which is the point. There's a reason the problems with the US electoral system are all arcane bullshit. That's how it was designed.

I mean shit, man. If we somehow got a functioning electoral system and people elected politicians who acted in the people's interests, what the fuck do you think would even happen? Is porky just going to lie down and die while legislation takes away profits to fund social programs? The more you strip away the abstractions the closer you get to the truth that all politics is violence. The only reason porky's particularly averse to overt authoritarian violence in the imperial core is that it tends to inspire revolution and if the core falls they'll have more trouble falling back elsewhere than when a revolution in the third world rolls back their influence just a bit.

But the thing is there's just so much bullshit to deal with in the US electoral system that it would take forever to even get to the hypothetical ideal, even if new problems don't spring up just as fast. It makes far more sense to simply cut the Gordian Knot here and bypass electoralism altogether, using resources that would otherwise be wasted to build dual power or something, anything productive.


 No.142970

>>142956

>one problem existing means we shouldn't try to fix another

I respectfully disagree


 No.142971

>>142968

>That's how it was designed.

I don't think some of its designers could have really anticipated some things like Duverger's Law.


 No.143043

>>142971

The design process happened over the history of the country. More problems have been added over time.

>>142970

It's whack-a-mole. They keep making new problems. It's far less effort for them to make new ones than for the people to solve them, and the people are also at the disadvantage of these issues being arcane and unfamiliar.


 No.143049

>>143043

>whack-a-mole

how so?

>creates new problems

Such as? Has anybody got a chart/brief rundown for theorylets like me?


 No.143111

>>134053

Andrew Yang with the freedom dividend would be pretty interesting, I know UBI is controversial but 100 comrades can go start a nice little commune somewhere with 1.2 million dollars a year of collective income on top of whatever they produce.

A very nice way to get you own little slice of classless utopia with little likelihood of dying in an armed conflict, although very violent riots would probably be needed to get Congress to pass UBI


 No.143116

>>143111

>although very violent riots would probably be needed to get Congress to pass UBI

That's the real problem with UBI of the progressive form that people actually want (rather than the neofeudalism-enabling porky form): by the time you've built a political constituency necessary to make it possible, you might as well just have your socialist revolution.


 No.143117

>>143111

>wanting another porky anywhere near the white house


 No.143119

>>143116

Yeah a chapofag socialist revolution where they arrest and reeducate me and my anprim tribe of comrades because we aren't teaching our children about the existence and struggle of trannies.


 No.143120

File: 290573ccd5a9fb7⋯.png (234.33 KB, 466x500, 233:250, Ippo sipping.png)

>>143119

What did he mean by this?


 No.143145

>>143120

There are a lot of leftist factions I dont really trust so a revolution and power vacuum is not in my best interest if there's an alternative. Dont get me wrong tho I'd be fighting on the right side if it came to it


 No.143203

>>143119

trannies are a product of free enterprise that uses a marxist practice of "each according to their ability to each according to their need". if such a need arises, therefore, someone is there to start a business to help with transitions. its opportunist.


 No.143204

>>134296

what, manipulated to lose? last time they had Hillary now they're trying to push Biden and Harris for another 4 years of Trump. they're specifically trying to self-harm, something trannies also do.


 No.143214

File: f07d5d7c7cdbc20⋯.gif (3.03 MB, 250x163, 250:163, trumptears.gif)

In other words, who will be the butt of the joke that loses to Trump in 2020.


 No.143268

>>134053

I'm willing to vote for Bernie, Warren, Tulsi, Gillibrand, Harris, and Hickenlooper, pretty much in that order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwuiMCsIXo

If I had to make a prediction, though, I'd guess the Democratic establishment will push for Joe Biden to be their candidate, and if he is then I predict Trump will win and he'll effectively do what Hillary did in 2016. It's also possible they'll push for Harris, though, and she might stand a chance.


 No.143269

File: 2143b14b67dcf68⋯.webm (2.86 MB, 640x360, 16:9, console players.webm)

File: 4208b5e10458ad3⋯.webm (3.76 MB, 702x370, 351:185, pop pop pickle.webm)

File: 8d76ddcfbd8bfc9⋯.webm (2.97 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, you are now defending.webm)

>>143214

2016 really was a fantastic year for memes


 No.143275

>>143268

>Harris

You are not a leftist.


 No.143304

>>143275

I don't agree with Harris. I just know she's far less destructive than Trump. You're dumb.


 No.143306

>>143275

Do you think black people would vote for a black female cop apologist? Honestly I dont. She cant win probably


 No.143308

Only Sanders has any real chance against Trump, and only if he's paired with someone like Bel Edwards or Webb. Dems need to pull out their southern strategy again and lean hard on it if they can't win the midwest.

However, the DNC is not capable of that. We'll get a middling, moderate neoliberal candidacy that checks all the boxes and will promptly end in a loss. Democrats will probably hang onto Congress and all the candidates will move on like nothing happened, since they can claim to have "fought" Trump.

The only good lasting thing from the election is the general realization that America needs an industrial policy - moreso than present. This works well with Trump's trade war with China and the unionization of Mexico. But these forces will be shaped by Congress as they have, not the White House.


 No.143338

Peter Buttgieg is a glownigger. Who would have a Beavis & Butthead punchline for a name AND literally BE gay?


 No.143351

>>143268

>Gilibrand

Don't she tried to kill the internet with SOPA-PIPA


 No.143359

>>143306

>Do you think black people would vote for a black female cop apologist?

Who the fuck else will they vote for lol


 No.143362

>>143359

Black voter turnout determines wether or not a Democrat wins the general election


 No.143363

>>143304

>I just know she's far less destructive than Trump

>muh lesser of two evils

She and all the other neolibs are the same as Trump, there is hardly any difference.


 No.143371

>>143363

>She and all the other neolibs are the same as Trump, there is hardly any difference.

Trump at least sometimes shit talks neoliberalism, and some of his base are becoming dissatisfied with his failure to live up to that rhetoric. All of his rivals aside from Sanders are proud open neolibs, their supporters want nothing but more neoliberalism, and a victory by them would see all populism purged from both parties.


 No.143375

>>143362

If superpredators didn't tank Hillary's black support, I don't see why that would tank Harris' support. As I've said elsewhere I've already seen articles from "black public intellectuals" essentially copeposting that she was the best person in a bad situation, with the implication that a white prosecutor in her stead would've been much more vicious. I'm interested in seeing how she fares against Biden though


 No.143376

>>143375

>"black public intellectuals"

The black misleadership class anyway. People like Adolf Reed Jr, Cornell West, and everyone from blackagendareport hate that bitch.


 No.143410

>>143375

It's not about support though, its about turnout. Black people liked Obama and Hillary, but they liked Obama enough to go to the polls and vote in unprecedented numbers. Hillary, being the most unexciting more of the same candidate ever, had near the same support as Obama in polls but the voter turnout was much much lower


 No.143506

>>143410

Tulsi would be a woman id vote for, not some bitch whose demographic I have to deal with daily.


 No.143564

>>143410

>Hillary, being the most unexciting more of the same candidate ever, had near the same support as Obama in polls but the voter turnout was much much lower

Because Obama was black lol.


 No.143588

bumpellini




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / druz / lounge / veganism / vichan / voros ]