You specifically mentioned policies like “single payer healthcare,” not the establishment of Socialism. How do you get these policies without establishing Socialism? By trying to use the existing system and parties in it, however futile that may be. Hence why Leftists focus on establishing Socialism, and why the Dems and Reps are equally hostile to Leftists.
If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions. The Republicans not only won’t do that, they’ll double down on authoritarianism.
The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don’t care about the institutions at all, they’ll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity. I’d rather fight neoliberals than Christo-fascists, and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t.
But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
So you agree that both are hostile to the left, glad to see you come around.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions
Are meager, nominal concessions enough?
But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
You haven’t explained how they are easier to defeat. The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.
And yet you can’t explain how Dems are easier to overthrow than Reps. You keep saying that you can get minor concessions out of Dems, but that doesn’t mean they treat Leftists any less violently.
The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don’t care about the institutions at all, they’ll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity.
Yes, this is utterly unsupported by historical treatment of leftist movements by dems. The tepid institutionalism comes off when dealing with threats to Capital.
Except for opposing cuts to social services, backing progressive taxation and capital gains tax increases, regulation of financial markets, workers rights, unions, minimum wage increases, etc.
You specifically mentioned policies like “single payer healthcare,” not the establishment of Socialism. How do you get these policies without establishing Socialism? By trying to use the existing system and parties in it, however futile that may be. Hence why Leftists focus on establishing Socialism, and why the Dems and Reps are equally hostile to Leftists.
If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions. The Republicans not only won’t do that, they’ll double down on authoritarianism.
The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don’t care about the institutions at all, they’ll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity. I’d rather fight neoliberals than Christo-fascists, and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t.
But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
So you agree that both are hostile to the left, glad to see you come around.
Are meager, nominal concessions enough?
You haven’t explained how they are easier to defeat. The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.
I didn’t come around, that was always my view. We disagree on relative degree.
Who said anything about “enough”? Again, relative degree. Meager, nominal concessions are better than Christo-fascism.
I never said that. Their gloves are the same, but the Republicans are wearing brass knuckles.
And yet you can’t explain how Dems are easier to overthrow than Reps. You keep saying that you can get minor concessions out of Dems, but that doesn’t mean they treat Leftists any less violently.
Yes, this is utterly unsupported by historical treatment of leftist movements by dems. The tepid institutionalism comes off when dealing with threats to Capital.
Except for opposing cuts to social services, backing progressive taxation and capital gains tax increases, regulation of financial markets, workers rights, unions, minimum wage increases, etc.
So again, conflating tepid social reforms with Leftist movement. You need to go back to the drawing board.