HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » forjusticethunders » Journal
Page: 1

forjusticethunders

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Washington, DC
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Jan 28, 2016, 04:01 PM
Number of posts: 1,151

Journal Archives

Here's a rundown of how it went wrong

and how history is being repeated:

http://socialistreview.org.uk/378/lessons-of-defeat

At the very time when the crisis of capitalism was destroying the lives of millions and Hitler's Nazis were making huge electoral gains (rising from 2.6 percent of the vote in 1928 to 37.4 percent in 1932) the KPD concentrated its attention on attacking another part of the left. It made preposterous accusations against the socialists, accusing them of being "social fascists" and "1,000 times worse than an open fascist dictatorship" (emphasis mine).


This article will not dwell on the theory of the Third Period itself. The notion that either the leaders, or the mass of workers who made up the base of the Socialist Party were "1,000 times worse" than Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels or Göring, was preposterous. That approach is so thoroughly discredited that no sensible person would draw a direct comparison between the Labour Party and the BNP or conclude that the former was more of a fascist threat. However, the nature of the mistake itself is worth discussing. (emphasis mine)


Vote your preferred candidate in the primary, support either of them against Trump or Cruz. Period. There is NO other ethical standpoint.
Posted by forjusticethunders | Wed Mar 30, 2016, 09:55 AM (1 replies)

There is no other response to Sarandon's comments other than horror and disgust.

The idea that allowing the fascist candidate win in order to "bring the revolution" is revolting on its face, and should be verboten among ANYONE considering themselves on the left, no matter who you support.

Again this is the mindset that allowed Hitler to take power in Germany - the Communists refused to throw their support behind the Social Democrats because they felt the Social Democrats were sellouts (which was true, the SPD were sellouts to capital, but they weren't fascists).

The idea that it would be preferable to have Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz) for that matter as President over Hillary Clinton is absolutely unacceptable. If you oppose Hillary, I understand, I'm not voting for her in the primary either. But saying there's no difference between her and Trump (like the KPD thought there was no difference between the SPD and the Nazis, at least until the Nazis started throwing the Communists in concentration camps) is ridiculous.

Absolutely indefensible comment.
Posted by forjusticethunders | Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:25 PM (1 replies)

I feel like many supporters of both candidates aren't really listening.

Many Clinton supporters call real issues of wealth, economic security and basic rights "puppies and rainbows" and use right-wing framing in order to condescend to people who are struggling economically and feel like the current system is letting them down (even suggesting that they're not working hard enough or are lazy, which is pure GOP-style framing)

Many Sanders supporters act in a very paternalistic and condescending manner wrt social justice issues, get visibly angry when oppressed groups express doubts or criticisms about his message, and are more comfortable with telling these groups what they should want instead of asking what these groups want.

Posted by forjusticethunders | Wed Mar 23, 2016, 04:06 PM (13 replies)

Time to make people mad: The modern left sucks and this primary proves it.

Oh not the ideas; I'm probably to the left of 95% of everyone on this forum. In my ideal Overton Window, Bernie would be running as the Republican and his current stances would be closer to the right-wing of the Republicans. Social democracy and democratic socialism are awesome, if not expansive enough for my tastes. But I have had to face the fact that the left fucking sucks at bottom-up organizing and is always dormant waiting for a savior like Bernie or Obama to do the work they refuse to do. They sit at their well paid CounterPunch or AlterNet posts bitching about how shitty things are while the centrists are in the streets organizing and reaching out to people to win votes and political power. The old labor organizers and Communists were literally fighting in the streets to build a mass movement, often facing real life gunfire to do it, and we're sitting here saying all is lost or trying to unskew the polls because one leftist candidate is losing. The irony is that Bernie understands this which is why he talked about changing Congress, trying to build a movement for progressive ideas, whether he wins the nomination or not, trying to get more progressive candidates and campaigners in the system (though his execution has been flawed). But the left is refusing to have it, they don't realize that Bernie is losing because they didn't spend years organizing on the ground, reaching out to core groups and moving them leftward. Hillary isn't as good as Obama at organizing, but at least she's trying.

The American left should have spent every year after 2000 grooming candidates to run at the local/state level, organizing on the ground level in conjunction with minorities, African Americans, and other key groups, and creating a critical mass that would not only push mainstream candidates left, but keep the pressure on even in defeat. But instead the Left expects people to vote and act purely on ideology, without having done the ground work of outreach (or even worse, you take Reddit hype as actual outreach) Look at the Right and how they've done it. They've managed to push public policy far right in the face of TWO Democratic wave elections and the election of Obama. They've effectively repealed Roe in many states, and are now successfully assaulting LBG (and ESPECIALLY T) rights in several states. If only the Right could take it's ball and go home the way the left does.

You don't have to like Hillary or vote for her in the primary. I don't. But you can give her critical support (as in, support her because she's not a fascist, and exert pressure on her to force her to triangulate left, not right, unless you don't believe people power can overcome corporate power). I'd love to elect someone who's truly for progressive values, but if it doesn't happen, then you can still make it happen by not taking your ball and going home. I mean, bottom up progressive activism got the entire Democratic Party to flip on such topics as Civil Rights (while getting a Southern racist from Texas named Lyndon Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act), gay rights, and drug laws.

If the political revolution can't go forward even if Bernie loses, then it was doomed from the start.
Posted by forjusticethunders | Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:56 AM (67 replies)

Tell me why me and almost everyone else in my age group should trust Hillary.

Why should I believe that Hillary is the best candidate for progressive change, since you all want to gloat so badly. Why should I believe that she believes in leftist ideals as opposed to "saying whatever will get me through an election"
Posted by forjusticethunders | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:15 PM (76 replies)

I think we need to face facts regarding Bernie as a candidate

I believe Bernie is a superior candidate on policy to Hillary Clinton. I believe his economic platform has a broad appeal to every single working-class American. I think America needs to move to the left and fast (people don't realize how right-wing our political scene until you start looking overseas).

But elections are about winning, and winning is, not just about policy (sadly), but about tone, communication, packaging and messaging. Bernie Sanders is terrible at this stuff. It's his policy and platform that is driving the enthusiasm, not the candidate himself. Run Obama with Bernie's platform and he'd be unstoppable because Obama is a communicator and Bernie is not. I'm not a voter who is really concerned with tone but even I'm having a weekly cringe moment every week from his campaign. He's just not ready for a national campaign, and there's honestly no excuse.

I honestly think he has a bunch of advisors who are from the Reddit crowd who bitch about "identity politics" and "SJWs" and think he doesn't have to specifically talk to demographic groups because his economic message will carry the day (Tad Devine just seems like the kind of guy who's posting on Reddit about how SJWs are oppressing him). And hey, you can think that, I think class is the big driver of everything wrong in American society, but that doesn't mean you don't have to speak to the specific concerns of groups, talk to them in their communities, learn about them. I think stuff like representation is sometimes overblown, but it does matter, and even when Bernie looked strong on these issues, it was always reactive, not proactive. Either way, he's not communicating well, and he's either not tweaking his message or he's flailing while trying to tweak it.

I hope future progressive campaigns learn from this. You can sell a progressive economic platform, but not the way Bernie has done. I still hope he wins, but his severe shortcomings as a candidate have become more and more apparent as the process has gone along.

Posted by forjusticethunders | Mon Mar 7, 2016, 05:28 PM (103 replies)
Go to Page: 1