I wouldn’t even call it purity testing, they’re just testing. I’ve seen obsession over purity taken to a counterproductive extent, and I maintain that it can be a problem when dealing with a complex unideal reality, but what BadEmpanada is talking about here is fine. That’s a healthy level of testing, and important in preventing recuperation or sanewashing. Democrats are a bourgeois-controlled party and don’t share our class interests.
To give an example of the kind that is counterproductive, I know of a (small) socialist organisation in my country which has been banned from worker strikes after counterprotesting one, insisting that since industrial unions are bureaucratic, the workers should all just boycott the strike and make their own union. This group claims all other socialist organisations are impure and pseudo-leftist whenever they compromise with material reality and present conditions.
And, obviously, that’s a whole other world of purity testing to what you’re talking about. The problems are when it reaches no-true-Scotsman levels.
Look if the Democrats were interested in shifting to the left they would have done it by now. They know progressive policies are popular. They know progressive policies get people excited. They’re not interested in being progressive. They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and if stepping on you is necessary to do that, they’ll happily do it. Some of them will make a somber face on the news about it before gleefully stepping on you again.
know progressive policies get people excited. They’re not interested in being progressive. They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and if stepping on you is necessary to do that, they’ll happily do it. Some of them will make a somber face on
All fine and dandy, but voting 3rd without the 3rd being actually viable is just voting 1st for the other side.
What makes the third viable is voting for it. But that aside, making the Democrats lose with a clear auditable trail of votes to the left makes it clear they have to move left (and take the third party’s positions) or be destroyed. This is how the party system in the US has always worked, from the Whigs to the FDR coalition. The modern GOP almost did this, but was so sidelined by the FDR coalition and failures of Nixon that their right wing didn’t even have to leave under Reagan to take over.
That’s an idiotic hot take that gives the Democrats in power a lot of undeserved confidence in their seats and is exactly why Kamala failed to excite voters.
In a very small handful of very vulnerable seats, sure, that might be true. For literally every other race in the country, that’s not only bullshit it’s problematic.
“I don’t have to try, x number of people will vote for me no matter what.” That’s not conjecture, it’s literally part of the calculation campaign managers do for every single election. X voters will always vote for D/R candidate, and Y voters never will. If X is greater than half of the number of votes in the last election, campaign to your donors.
Democrats will not change their tune until they start seeing some risk. Safe and leans D seats need to start shifting away from them. They need to lose votes they once thought were guaranteed and a sizable portion of those votes need to be for non viable progressives.
I’m going to take this opportunity to link this video by Richard Medhurst
This is not infighting, this is the great Un-Masking
I will also take this oppotunity to link this video about Why Leftist Purity Tests are good.
Never stop Purity Testing, Comrades, Never.
I wouldn’t even call it purity testing, they’re just testing. I’ve seen obsession over purity taken to a counterproductive extent, and I maintain that it can be a problem when dealing with a complex unideal reality, but what BadEmpanada is talking about here is fine. That’s a healthy level of testing, and important in preventing recuperation or sanewashing. Democrats are a bourgeois-controlled party and don’t share our class interests.
To give an example of the kind that is counterproductive, I know of a (small) socialist organisation in my country which has been banned from worker strikes after counterprotesting one, insisting that since industrial unions are bureaucratic, the workers should all just boycott the strike and make their own union. This group claims all other socialist organisations are impure and pseudo-leftist whenever they compromise with material reality and present conditions.
And, obviously, that’s a whole other world of purity testing to what you’re talking about. The problems are when it reaches no-true-Scotsman levels.
hmm, so the US citizens trying to get the Democrats to stop aligning with the Republicans should just stop because they’re indistinguishable. Got it.
Look if the Democrats were interested in shifting to the left they would have done it by now. They know progressive policies are popular. They know progressive policies get people excited. They’re not interested in being progressive. They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and if stepping on you is necessary to do that, they’ll happily do it. Some of them will make a somber face on the news about it before gleefully stepping on you again.
Redditors have no concept of what the democrats are: a controlled opposition party in a one-party capitalist empire.
All fine and dandy, but voting 3rd without the 3rd being actually viable is just voting 1st for the other side.
It literally is not.
What makes the third viable is voting for it. But that aside, making the Democrats lose with a clear auditable trail of votes to the left makes it clear they have to move left (and take the third party’s positions) or be destroyed. This is how the party system in the US has always worked, from the Whigs to the FDR coalition. The modern GOP almost did this, but was so sidelined by the FDR coalition and failures of Nixon that their right wing didn’t even have to leave under Reagan to take over.
That’s an idiotic hot take that gives the Democrats in power a lot of undeserved confidence in their seats and is exactly why Kamala failed to excite voters.
In a very small handful of very vulnerable seats, sure, that might be true. For literally every other race in the country, that’s not only bullshit it’s problematic.
“I don’t have to try, x number of people will vote for me no matter what.” That’s not conjecture, it’s literally part of the calculation campaign managers do for every single election. X voters will always vote for D/R candidate, and Y voters never will. If X is greater than half of the number of votes in the last election, campaign to your donors.
Democrats will not change their tune until they start seeing some risk. Safe and leans D seats need to start shifting away from them. They need to lose votes they once thought were guaranteed and a sizable portion of those votes need to be for non viable progressives.
Removed by mod
You are just desperate not to get it aren’t you?
Removed by mod
Keep trolling, maybe it’ll work for you sometime.
It’s about as productive as trying to turn a lion vegetarian.