https://archive.ph/a6YgH

The Democratic Party is once again in the wilderness. Donald Trump won not only the presidential election but the popular vote. The scale of short-term and long-term harm that is about to be unleashed on our communities, our country, and our planet is genuinely difficult to comprehend. To work our way out of this hell, it should be clear that Democrats need to chart a new path.

  • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I always think articles like this are incredibly stupid, honestly. Political parties exist to push a particular ideology, not to win elections. If the communist party abandoned communism and became a neonazi party to win the election, and they did succeed in winning, did the communist party really “win”? Not really. If you have to abandon your ideology to win then you did not win.

    It’s pretty rare for parties to actually abandon their ideology like that. The job of a political party is not to merely win, but to convince the population that their ideology is superior so people will back them. They want to win, yes, but under the conditions that they have won because the people back their message so that they can implement it.

    This is why I always find it incredibly stupid when I see all these articles and progressive political commentators saying that the Democrats are a stupid party for not shifting their rhetoric to be more pro-working class, to be anti-imperialist, etc. THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT A WORKING CLASS PARTY. It would in fact be incredibly stupid for them to shift to be more left because doing so would abandon their values. The Democrats’ values are billionaires, free market capitalism, and imperialism. These are not “stupid” decisions they’re making for supporting these things, THESE ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS OF THE PARTY.

    In normal countries if you dislike a party’s ideology, you support a different party. But Americans have this weird fantasy that Democrats should just be “reasonable” and entirely abandon their core values to back their own values, and so they refuse to ever back a different party because of this ridiculous delusion. Whenever the Democrats fail to adopt working-class values, they run these stupid headlines saying the Democrats are being “unreasonable” or “stupid” or have “bad strategy” or are “incompetents” or whatever and “just don’t want to fight.”

    Literally none of that is true. The Democrats are extremely fierce fighters when it comes to defending imperialism and the freedoms of billionaires. They aren’t fighting for your values because those are not their values, and so you should back a different party.

    • FukDAgop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      go lick windows, the Republican are communists and Democrats Republicans, there is no true Democrats, it’s a lesser of 2 fuckin evil and both should be extinct, fuck your money

  • waterbird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    dems can‘t and won‘t. they serve the ruling class as well. we have to stop pretending they are on our side, and start taking care of ourselves.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    No. Bernie neutering activist energy by re-directing it back into the party is exactly how we got here.

    He’s also advocating for continuing to arm right-wing extremists, and has turned into a warhawk. Fuck Bernie.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      49 minutes ago

      I know he was late to condemning Israel, but I thought he had gotten on board. Or is this about something else?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Bernie is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.

      Bernstein was a leading figure in Germany’s SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPD’s revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernstein’s strategy reduced socialism to a “mild appendage” of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.

      Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernstein’s trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.

      When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movement’s momentum evaporated similarly to how the SPD was integrated into Weimar Germany’s capitalist state. However, even if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDR’s New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.

      A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, his campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.

      Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalism’s relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.

      When the nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.

      The “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPD’s reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns while their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.

      The SPD’s reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. We’re just watching history on repeat here.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It’s not the path (although that could use a change), it’s the candidates. I didn’t have as much of a problem with Harris as the lot of you, but I acknowledge the problems with Harris. They might have been solved if she had a full primary to prove herself out first, but now we’ll never know.

    Democrats need to get past the “next one up” mentality and look for a candidate that will resonate with these voters, even if that person hasn’t put in the time and lines up all the donors as the “next one up”. (Looking at you, Gavin…)

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      If there had been a primary she wouldn’t have had a chance at winning. They didn’t have one specifically because of that fact.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        46 minutes ago

        If there had been a primary, then Bernie might’ve run, and he probably would’ve won the nomination this time. The DNC couldn’t let that happen.