Anonymous OP 22h

“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the [African American’s] great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the White moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.”

10

Anonymous vintage_trampler 22h

Idk if that’s a radical centrist position tho dude. It’s just, like, politics? Hasan and mamdani both make their positions known and act on it in meaningful ways. Yes I agree the police chief has to go, but as mayor you kind of *need* to keep the police on your side. Keeping the chief was an attempt to do that, which of course only sort of worked at best. Hasan meeting with dnc officials tho? Like, okay? Who actually cares. It absolutely doesn’t mean he’s compromised.

6

Anonymous vintage_trampler 22h

Do you think MLK never met with establishment politicians to advocate for reforms?

5

Anonymous vintage_trampler 22h

I’m just a socialist who is practical. Mamdani being able to get good shit done is more important than maintaining total perfection. I care much less for rhetorical purity than getting policies implemented that actually help people.

1

Anonymous OP 21h

why do I have a feeling that you’re a social democrat rather than a socialist also it seems like you ignore the nature of our two party electoral system. This isn’t a parliamentary where multiple parties have a chance at power, it’s systemically rigged for one of two pro-capitalist parties (for that exact reason, the maintenance of capitalism and the limitation of change on that front)

6

Anonymous OP 21h

do you think that is the only way to achieve reform? With all due respect it feels like you’re intentionally misinterpreting the quote

5

Anonymous #3 19h

My point is using this quote in this context (shitting on hasan for meeting with democrats) is misleading and wrong. This is not a conversation about liberals compromising with racists and fascists to maintain stability. It’s instead calling socialists traitors for being willing to work with liberals to achieve better policy outcomes.

4

Anonymous #3 19h

Ah, so you just want to stand at the sidelines and virtue signal instead of doing what we can to achieve better policy outcomes so long as the system exists? Or are you one of those “call for nothing short of revolution and then do absolutely nothing towards that” people. I don’t like the democrats. But I’d rather get some good shit done than do nothing.

0

Anonymous OP 19h

I can get behind that, but as long as that does mean that we inevitably disregard the ultimate goal of addressing and deconstructing capitalism. I mainly took issue with the aligning blame of institutional trends onto individual voters and politicians if that makes sense. it’s not a leftists fault that most neoliberals are vehemently pro-capitalist yk?

3

Anonymous #3 19h

I’d also expand on that to say it’s not the fault of leftists when neoliberals resort to and/or compromise with fascists in order to maintain capitalism itself yk?

3

Anonymous OP 19h

who said that, aside from you? I think the issue is when people delude themselves into believing that change can only come about from within a rigged electoral system. most of us are organizing our communities, building decentralized networks, and trying to deconstruct the reliance we have on our existing institutions in preparation for the inevitable collapse.

2

Anonymous #3 19h

And I’m a democratic socialist, not a social democrat. But I’m practical. I want to achieve a utopian socialist society, but any movement towards that is still better than nothing. Liberalism is better than conservatism. Social democracy is better than American liberalism. Democratic socialism is better than social democracy. If true communism could be achieved I’d say give it a shot but I do not think the state nor all free market systems can be abolished within our current level of technology.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

the issue is liberalism and conservatism work hand in hand. this isn’t even truly an issue with liberalism, but the current state of the American political sphere and federal government. our nation is entirely built upon an oppressive foundation and designed to maintain it. you’re not being practical in all honesty, otherwise you’d recognize the severity of the recent SC decision about the voting rights act in relation to this specific topic; in addition to the compromised nature of said SC.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

this is an instance of preferring gradual change even if it means continued suffering, over the unknown of immediate change. it’s fair, but it’s not practical. all it does is place the safety and security of some over the lives of others yk?

1

Anonymous OP 19h

for example: the entirety of the American government is guilty of genocide, and we’re gearing up for more forms of genocide. it isn’t a matter of utopia, it’s a matter of fighting for what is right.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

Yeah. I just think the most likely and practical way to try to achieve mainstream socialist politics in the USA is the collapse of the Republican Party, followed by a schism within the democrats (who by then hopefully have a larger more socialist aligned component)

1

Anonymous OP 19h

honestly if this was back in 2016, I’d also agree with this; but I fear we’re far past that point. we’re currently going through the equivalent of the 1920s-30s in Germany, when Hitler was rising to power(pre enabling act).

1

Anonymous OP 19h

ultimately we all need to work together in order to repel this fascist uprising though, otherwise we all will suffer far worse than we currently are.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

Right. Which means working with democrats, because leftists don’t have enough support otherwise

1

Anonymous OP 19h

I mean…

5

Anonymous OP 19h

Depends on the Democrat?

5

Anonymous OP 19h

Like I don’t think we need to hitch our saddles to like 99 percent of Democrat politicians. They’re both historically unpopular and also just bad PR in general. Like, if Hasan started being super chummy with chuck Schumer I would in fact have an issue lol

7

Anonymous OP 19h

like 2 said, depending on the Democrat. it’s a matter of whether one is a fascist or not, we need to recognize that party affiliation is not an automatic determinant of that. There are fascists within the Democratic Party, and there are more attempting to join in attempts to solidify their power.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

we need to judge candidates and politicians based on both their policies and actions, not what they say. it’s why I brought up the topic of genocide…

1

Anonymous #3 19h

The original post was saying hasan was a traitor by virtue of meeting with the DNC at all. It wasn’t even him endorsing a democrat.

0

Anonymous OP 19h

Which is why I don’t have any problems with the way Hasan is currently interacting with members of the DNC. Like, I wouldn’t fault a politician for shaking the hand of another politician that they clearly hate. That’s just politics.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

People never present any practical methods of immediate change. It’s always vaguely gesturing at a leftist revolution which will not happen. I prefer something over nothing.

0

Anonymous OP 19h

I didn’t even comment on the hasan stuff, and honestly I agree with 2’s take on that matter; I joined this convo after seeing your additional comment regarding “so many leftists can only support people who have no capacity for meaningful change” i view that as disingenuous, for a variety of reasons; some of which I mentioned in this post.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

you seemingly prefer comfort. you’re projecting your own refusal to consider the topic as somehow indicative of the actual depth of said topic. tell me, does one’s ignorance determine the actual content of what they’re discussing? or, more accurately, does that determine the level of knowledge about said topic that the individual holds?

1

Anonymous #3 19h

I still think that’s true. I think there’s a significant subset of people who are so bought into the (correct) idea of leftism as an opposition force, that once a leftist begins working with someone within the existing system in any manner, that is seen as compromising on revolutionary ideals.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

and it’s not about immediate revolution, it’s about recognizing the inherent flaws and limitations of our electoral system; as well as planning and preparing for change. is there a reason why you’ve avoided the topic of genocide every time I’ve brought it up? it’s quite important to discuss in relation to how much change is actually possible under the existing status quo.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

is it possible that you’re potentially just cherry picking individual takes you’ve seen on the internet, and generalizing those as representative of leftist ideology? there will always be exclusionary people, but 2 made a great point in mentioning how its about the individual Democrat in question. if hasan met with someone like Mamdani, that is good. If he met with someone like Schumer or Pelosi, that is not good. (for clarity: “meeting” is fine, “planning” is my main focus here)

1

Anonymous #3 18h

I don’t get how Israel’s genocide fundamentally changes the conversation. It’s an evil supported by both major parties (same with capitalism) but where one party has more opportunity for internal change.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

let me ask a different question actually: do you think someone is “better” by nature of being a democratic, versus say a republican? to expand on that, do you think party affiliation is important to consider when determining how “good” someone is, or would you rather analyze their policy proposals and past behavior alone?

1

Anonymous OP 18h

but see that’s the issue there, how do you know there is more opportunity for internal change specifically on the topic of genocide? there may be opportunity for internal change for DOMESTIC issues, but that’s why i discuss genocide so severely. Personally, our domestic security does not outweigh bipartisan support for genocide.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

(imo it changes the topic because it displays the hypocrisy. this is expected from the Republican Party sure, but the Democratic Party advertises itself as the party of progressive politics. I view it as practically spitting in our faces)

1

Anonymous #3 18h

Democrats, while very pro-Israel, have a component who is opposed to the genocide, while republicans have none. How else do you think this would change other than forcing internal shifts within the democrats?

1

Anonymous #3 18h

I do not think party affiliation inherently means someone is a better person. But the choice to align with one party over another likely indicates they have different ideals. I think most democrats are better than most republicans. Membership of a party is a likely indicator of their ideals, but it does not determine that.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

let’s accept your assumption that change is only possible through the existing institutions and status quo (which is inherently complacent, but I digress) how long do you think it takes for a major political party to undergo a party-wide shift in policies and ideology? while you think about that, also remember the state of our Supreme Court, being compromised as it is by the fascists attempting to consolidate power as we speak.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

that’s why I said if this was 2016 I’d agree with you. we used to have time to address this through the institution, as much we would’ve been able to; but we are past that point. they have already infiltrated the highest institutions in our country. what do you think sitting back and waiting for the Democratic Party to change will do, aside from provide the necessary time and cover for these fascists to fully cement their consolidation of power into law?

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Like I think that a true honest-to-god libertarian, while possessing an incoherent ideology, has better personal ideals than a fetterman

1

Anonymous #3 18h

keep in mind, this has been going on and planned for since the 80s. the heritage foundation is behind all of this, and they began their infiltration back with Reagan and giving him the first mandate for leadership.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

that’s fair, and I agree for the most part, but it’s great that you brought up fetterman. there is a common occurrence of infiltration within political parties as a method of minimizing their internal cohesion and support. (I actually agree about that last part tho, at this rate most people have better ideals that someone like fetterman)

3

Anonymous #3 18h

Plenty of valid critiques. I just don’t see any of the alternative courses of action as viable. And frankly I think it would be best not to discuss the details of those on a public app in 2026.

4

Anonymous OP 18h

tbh I fully agree, especially about that last portion… the only thing I can see as viable in the current moment is individual attempts at minimizing reliance on our existing institutions, like growing our own food, generating our own power, etc etc ofc we gotta organize our communities, but anything aside from that needs to be done offline with no electronic devices in the room (unless they’re fully custom built by people who know what tf they’re doing, the surveillance state is crazy)

1

Anonymous #3 18h

(ofc that doesn’t actually address the systemic issues at hand, those are only individual actions sadly)

1

Anonymous #3 18h

Fosting cohesive autonomous communities especially regarding food production is something I’m hard in favor of even outside of dire circumstances

1