/siberia/ - Off-topic

Ok cool

you must be a baby leftist

>>701994
gooning
sex

>>701994
>The less and less left leaning the left wing party is the more and more right the right wing party will be.
Why is this a bad thing? Let the Democrats die. Let something better take their place.

I wonder how well the US Labor party would do if it were brought back to life. Since both the Democrat and republican party have extremely low approval right now, it would seem like a third party would be more viable. But I'm not sure, since 99% of americans are hopeless treatlers that are incapable of voting for their own interests.

The Democrat Party was founded by a racist slaveowner whom willfully displaced nations of native Americans.

Also, there's nothing about that party that was left wing in the slightest.

>>702009

>Why is this a bad thing? Let the Democrats die. Let something better take their place.

That will never happen. The current parties in power will fight tooth and nail to keep the duopoly in power so the only way forward is to radicalize the democrats because they seem more salvageable.

>>702024
This mentality is why leftism always loses.
Democrat Party is not "salvageable" for the left.
They're liberals with softcore right wing policies.

They would all turn on you in an instant

>>701994
>there is a socialist wave in the Democratic Party spear headed by Zohran Mamdani
boring b8

i hate democracy :)

>>702024
i love u, thinker poster(💖💖💖💖💖), but the idea that the Republican party wants a duopoly rather than a monopoly is silly. They're actively doing everything they can to destroy democracy, which is conclusive evidence that they don't want a duopoly, but to be the only ones in power. And Democrats couldn't care less, and would rather concede everything to the GOP than lose their zionist and billionaire donor money. Even AOC and Bernie are getting their spirits broken and starting to fall in line. I know this is counter-productive to be black-pilled, but I find it nearly impossible to have any hope for the future of the US, even with the rise of MAOmdani. I just can't see any path for good things happening in the US via either democracy or revolution; everything seems to be fucked beyond hope in the US.

>>702024
>…the only way forward is to radicalize the democrats because they seem more salvageable.
I'm going to be nice and pretend that you're new at this and this is why you're still talking about "pushing the Dems" left in 2025. They made it very clear how "salvagable" they are a year ago when they decided that dead Palestinian children were an acceptable sacrifice for the Open Society.
>>702053
>Even AOC and Bernie are getting their spirits broken and starting to fall in line.
Bernie and AOC don't need to be broken because they were always snakes.

>>701994
CracKKKers in Control

>>702053
>They're actively doing everything they can to destroy democracy
BASED. FUCK democracy
>>702024
>democrats more salvagable
HAa no. read picrel.

>>704294
>BASED. FUCK democracy
Why? What's wrong with democracy?

>>704294
were the two men members of the democratic national committee or something?

>>704294
Is your entire world-view based on headlines? How retarded do you have to be to think this is persuasive to anyone but the most mentally ill incels?

>>704574
>whats wrong with democracy when the demos today can only be the bourgeois
gee idk, i dont treat democracy like an ideal but analyze as it currently exists for starters

>>704583
I hate this weird doublespeak people here use, where they confuse Engels' linguistic contextualism for linguistic anarchy and misunderstand evading idealism to mean evading abstract thought.

When most people say "democracy", they're referring to the broad-strokes category of "doing things based on a vote". What that specifically means depends on the context, but I can assure you that most people aren't thinking "democracy specifically means a system that is apparently driven by the will of the people but is actually controlled by the bourgeois to perpetuate the illusion of freedom".

And I know you're going to say
>We should focus on analyzing material reality!
To which I say, what the fuck do you think the point of an abstraction is? Scientists and mathematicians don't work with the general because they think it's cute, they work with the general because the general logically applies to the specific.

>>704604
oh cool the "lets go by dictionary definition" argument, amazing

>what the fuck do you think the point of an abstraction is? Scientists and mathematicians don't work with the general because they think it's cute, they work with the general because the general logically applies to the specific.
jfc once again demonstrated that analogies are for utter retards. philosophical babble that obfuscates material reality has nothing to do with proper analysis and critique

>>704604
also im not one of the morons who thinks bourgeois can only mean le 1% or that current democracy is "fake" (my post was literally stating the opposite) or w/e retardation you interpreted from my one sentence post lol

>>704606
>>704607
>oh cool the "lets go by dictionary definition" argument, amazing
I believe in linguistic descriptivism; the idea that a word means whatever people understand it to mean. When you say "BASED. FUCK democracy", the majority of people aren't going to take it to mean "BASED. FUCK electoral systems where the representatives are all members of the bourgeois". No, they're going to hear "BASED. FUCK political systems based on voting".

>philosophical babble
If any of what I said seemed like "philosophical babble" to you, you're braindamaged.

While I'm on my soap box, let me also say that it's goddamn infuriating that people here seem to think that having an idea of what you're working towards is "idealistic". Hey retard, how do you measure the success of your movement if you don't even know what success looks like?