They've had multiple majority governments and you guys still pay an arm and a leg for diabetes medication.
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
75 points (80.0% liked)
Asklemmy
46588 readers
714 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They literally have a donkey (jackass) as mascot.
Without electoral reform, there's no functional reason to. The lesser evil of the current system is Democrats. If you want to enact change, push support for the progressive wing of the party and push for electoral reform.
Democrats destroyed it when Chuck Shumer sided with Republicans. It is Joever.
I posted this and to my utter amazement both the comments and votes went completely opposed to my expectations:
We need progressive primary challengers, and we need PARTICIPATION in the primaries. Primary voter turnout is like 15% or something equally pathetic last I checked.
That's more because Primary candidates are all pre-selected and don't stand to change the system. Voter apathy is high bevause voter will isn't represented by the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them."
I attribute the quote wrong all the time, but today the internet says it's from Julius Nyerere, who was a prime minister in Africa back in the 1960s.
I've seen a lot of similar comments lately. People wanting to start 3rd parties etc, because the Democrats suck so bad.
Yes, it's true. They suck, but if you're going to beat the Republicans, you'll need to look at what Trump did. He didn't start a 3rd party. No, he took the existing party and changed it into whatever the fuck it is now.
You need to change the democratic party from within too, because 3rd parties will always lose because of the first past the post. 3rd parties also have a tendency to branch out, because quite frankly, not being Democrat or Republican isn't enough of a politic in itself, and you guys don't get along well on anything else. The Republicans had this issue for a long time until Trump came along providing them with something that united their voters more than the previous politic of simply being not Democrats.
The democratic party already has a framework for running politics and they actually have some kind of democracy within that allows people to change it. Yeah, it will require a lot of work to get enough people engaged in politics to make the change, but it is absolutely much less than what is required to start a successful 3rd party.
The difference with the Republican party's changes with Trump and the idea of performing entryism in the Democrats to make it a worker party is that Trump's changes to the GOP are already in line with what the Bourgeoisie wants. The DNC cannot be entered and changed into a working class party because they too get their base from the bourgeoisie.
This is why revolution is necessary to gain real change in favor of the working class.
So..if that's your only option.. when are you going to start a revolution?
When the working class is organized enough for that to happen. I suggest joining a party or organization near you so that you can assist with that, wherever you live.
The DNC cannot be entered and changed into a working class party because they too get their base from the bourgeoisie.
I think this is too pessimistic, especially in light of how bad all other options are for the left. Party bases change -- Democrats used to be a lot closer to the working class, and (decades ago) delivered major policy improvements. With a lot of jobs re-proletarianizing, who's to say the party base can't shift back?
The biggest barrier to such a change is campaign donations, of course. But Bernie showed you can fund even a major presidential campaign through small donors, and we're also at the point where corporate Dems have more money than they can effectively use (see the Harris campaign).
I haven't really seen any evidence of this being possible. I maintain optimism, just in the revolutionary direction, not electorally.
Stop re-electing these ancient incumbents who are WAY too comfortable being Republican-lite. Vote for younger candidates, preferably someone who was born AFTER the Battle of the Bulge.
I don't think that makes a difference. Ben Shapiro is young and is alt-right
I think it makes a huge difference- Shapiro is just one person. And to prove the point, look how much influence he, a young guy, is having on our political landscape. Not that they're the perfect politicians, but look at how much support people like AOC and Tulsi Gabbard drum up. We need people that are energized and that can energize others.
This is quote from their former member, Huey Long:
"They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen"
โ Huey Long, campaign speech for the re-election of Senator Hattie Caraway (D-AR), 1932 (Williams p. 589)
Your title should have read "How do you destroy the notion that Republicans are the good guys?"
There are far too many Americans that support the far right. They've been convinced that conservatism will protect their interests, even while it blatantly destroys them. It is a morally greater objective to turn these people around, and more practically achievable, than undermining its opponent.
Yes, we know. You think liberalism is an ally of conservatism, not an opponent. We're all very impressed with your extensive knowledge, bravo. You've shown nuanced and deep understanding of the political landscape by criticizing the contender of the enemy.
I think most people who criticize the left are like you. More interested in stroking their egos than actually solving a problem. You're trying to demonstrate mastery of a subject by being critical of it, not because you want it to change but because you want people to be impressed with you.
If you actually wanted things to get better you'd be teaching people to undermine conservatism, which is the greater threat.
Be better.
It is a morally greater objective to turn these people around, and more practically achievable, than undermining its opponent.
The task is to build a mass movement to the left of Democrats. Are you going to have better luck building that out of the many Democrats who are disillusioned by the ineffectiveness of their party? Or is it going to be easier to bring in the folks cheering seig heils at Republican events?
Conservativism is a wing of liberalism, though. They are based in the same general underlying understanding of economics and methods of solving social problems. Right here you accuse OP of wanting to stroke their ego more than solve a problem, but I don't believe that's the case at all. You believing in a different solution does not mean they aren't also trying to solve problems, this is more of a character assassination than anything else.
Conservativism cannot truly be undermined without also undermining liberalism. Leftists must organize, millitant labor organizing remains the most effective means of combatting conservativism, and is held outside the realm of liberal problem solving, usually. In my opinion, we cannot effectively combat conservativism without also addressing liberalism.
Barring whatever other insanity is in this thread, you're left with the problem that OP is asking how to destroy democrats. If it were "how do we destroy republicans? Also I'm chill if democrats are also destroyed" that would be a different message. But the message was how do I destroy democrats.
That's not the issue being discussed, though. In the US, there is the notion among the Working Class that just backing the Democrats harder will solve the ails of society. This isn't true, though, the answer lies in millitant labor organizing.
Moreover, without erasing the foundations for why there's a Republican party in the first place, you can't truly "destroy" it. Another far-right party will continue to take its place, be that the Democrats or a new party. Asking how to destroy a party isn't the problem, here, the problem is in moving away from using the Democrats to push for change, which historically is a strategic failure, and instead push for millitant labor organizing.
Not sure what you mean by "insanity" in this thread, either.
How do you destroy the notion that Democrats are the good guys?
Seems like the issue being discussed. Or do you think that once the democrats are seen as the bad guys by everyone they will stick around?
Destroying the notion of the Democrats being the good guys is a separate concept from destroying the Democrats. The reasoning of Communists for abandoning the DNC is because it cannot and never will support the Working Class, ergo it isn't a viable strategy.
view more: next โบ