Failure? Pretty sure the oligarchy is getting exactly what they want.
They’ve been able to effectively convince the k-hive that it wasn’t their failure; that it was the failure of voters. Those convinced of this narrative are the biggest threat to being able to stop fascism using electoral or other tools.
For decades, we’ve always heard from them it’s someone else’s fault when we fail.
Democratic socialista need to change their name to the labor party and start championing Bernie’s message of the past 40 years. Appealing to people on the right and left
What failure? They’ve done their job perfectly as controlled opposition. The real failure is people expecting anything else from them.
You have a party that is desperate to go back to a past utopia that never existed and another that is determined to maintain a status quo that absolutely failed.
One thing that really sucks about today’s world is that everything seems too big to fail.
Shitty car dealers? Sorry can’t remove them. Shitty banks? Sorry too powerful. Shitty cable? Sorry it’s the only option. Shitty cellular? Sorry only service. Shitty political party? Sorry other option is worse.
Capitalism has a way of squeezing everything into a few hands where we are basically fucked once it reaches the end stage.
The problem is that during the run up you seem to get better service / value as it’s fighting for the top spot, but once there you are totally fucked.
In my long study of history there is always a tipping point. 1789, 1840, 1905, 1917 - people just took power back, or made a serious effort to do the same. Not that it was perfect either. The history of humanity is one of struggle against the elites.
In the case of the US, corporations being recognised as actual living, breathing human beings only made revolution a certainty. The only question is when? I’m an old fart, so I hopefully won’t be around to see the inevitable chaos.
There have only been a few places in history where the people actually took back control temporarily with Haiti being one of them. Of course now they have one of the most extreme wealth gaps around.
If the history of the world has been a struggle against the ruling class, that struggle has amounted to a wet fart.
I don’t know about that? France, the United States, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Philippines, Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania, the fall of the Romanovs in Russia were all a thing.
Besides which, I think that you are missing my point. Success isn’t guaranteed in Revolution, that’s why I included 1905. I was talking about tipping points that lead to revolution. What happens next can go either way.
The wet fart bit is that you just used Hati to disprove a point that I never made in the first place.
Sorry, I am not counting revolutions that amounted to trading one aristocracy for another.
I never said you made that point, I was just talking. I simply don’t believe your revolutions were that revolutionary. I gave an example of a truly revolutionary movement that has amounted to one of the largest wealth gaps in the world.
This is teaching us a bigger lesson, one that so many glaze over.
I take that point. I also make the point that at the beginning of most revolutions the outcome is unknown. Entrenchment of a new regime can only be understood once the outcome has been decided. To make your argument you are permitted to accept or discount revolutions according to your whim.
My entire point was about historical tipping points. In this very simple concept I have been misunderstood. One person accused me of encouraging revolt. You seem to think that my argument doesn’t work because a great many revolutions fail. You are right. A great many do. But I’m not advocating for revolts nor suggesting that they always work. I’m saying that when conditions reach a certain point, they are almost inevitable. Not always even then. North Korea is a case in point.
I totally get what you are saying but I will reserve the right to judge revolutions based upon who started them and their actual results.
I have often had a thought experiment just what it would take for US citizens to rebel. Things are pretty bleak for a lot of people already. The US government has been waging a slow walk genocide with the War on Drugs since before I was born. Millions of families destroyed.
Clearly gun violence, overdoses, excessive incarceration, systemic sexism/racism, and environmental degredation has taken an incredible toll on the US population. The reality is most people don’t even realize this and probably never will. So I am a bit dubious that there will be any sort of cultural revolution soon.
Now if by revolution you mean the US descending into some sort of techno feudalist/fascist hellscape then I would probably say it looks like we are already here.
Weird that AIPAC isn’t mentioned at all in the comments.
Democrats win by failing. For their corporate bankrollers.
Whoa… Big news. They’re determined about something.
Are people still pretending they don’t understand it was written by a single freelancer?
That the people now running the DNC, didn’t run it during 2024?
Because I legitimately don’t understand how anyone who only knew those two facts, would still be blaming the people running the DNC since 2025 for what this report says was done wrong in 2024…
So it seems like the safe assumption, is people don’t understand at least one of those two things. Most likely both.
Especially when they repeat “Democrats won’t learn their lesson” literally half a term deep into the DNCs pivot away from neoliberalism. To think they haven’t learned the lesson yet, just means that person hasn’t paid attention since Biden lost the election.
It’s still bad that the most generous interpretation is the DNC is being fleeced by incompetent freelancers.
It also implies that the DNC has little interest in understanding why they lost. No mention of Biden’s age, even if to say it had no effect. No mention of Gaza, even if to say it had no effect.
If they have a better post-mordem, that does explore these topics I’d love to see it.
It makes it seem like they weren’t that serious about beating Trump if they’re still willing to hire incompetent people that avoid tough analysis.
Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are still the House and Senate leader for the dems. Jefferies is Pelosi’s handpicked successor.
What part of the leadership do you believe has changed? What are their names?
It also implies that the DNC has little interest in understanding why they lost
Th voting members knew why they lost immediately, that’s why they elected Marin instead of another neoliberal…
What part of the leadership do you believe has changed?
The chair is a dictator and can do whatever they want with zero accountability…
So when the chair changes, it’s like a new president, they can set their “admin” however they want.
2 years ago they elected Ken Martin, who spent a decade running Minnesota and turned it from purple to one of the most progressive politicians of any state.
It’s honestly not hard to look into him, but unless you understand the basics of the DNC (what I’ve said here is enough) it doesn’t seem like a huge change.
But people have fought 30 years (arguably 50) trying to get us to where we are now.
It’s not done, but billionaires want us to give up and check out already
Are people still pretending they don’t understand it was written by a single freelancer?
That the people now running the DNC, didn’t run it during 2024?
Perhaps, but the article does say
Martin’s first misstep was arguably appointing his consultant friend Paul Rivera to head the task
So it doesn’t seem like your pal Martin is at all blameless here.
Buddy…
What do you want?
On Thursday, Martin apologized.
“When I was elected DNC chair, I commissioned an after action review of the 2024 election that I wanted to be honest and transparent, and with actionable and specific takeaways for the future of the Democratic Party,” Martin said. “When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime — not even close — and because no source material was provided, it would have meant starting over.”
Martin went on: “I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the report that was produced. After last November’s massive Democratic wins, I didn’t want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize.”
“For full transparency,” Martin continued, “I am releasing the report as we received it, in its entirety, unedited and unabridged. It does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.”
Hours later, Martin told DNC members on a call that Paul Rivera, the report author, no longer “is with or advises the DNC in any capacity,” according to a source on the call.
“I apologize. Being a leader at any level means you own every single mistake — those of your creation and frankly those not of your creation,” Martin said. “This was a major mistake. I own it, and now it’s time for us to move forward at the DNC, and I hope that you’ll move forward with me.”
What are you actually upset about here?
I’m not upset. I’m not who down voted you.
Hell, I’ll up vote you to restore balance to the force.But since Martin commissioned the report from his buddy, that seems like a significant lapse in judgement. Not fatal, but concerning.
And your constant simping for the man is just a tiny bit grating. I hope you’re right, but it’s alway you, and only you, making those points. Again concerning.
I think you’re confused still…
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or…
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
Edit:
And since you care enough about votes to bring it up, I downvoted you for “glazing”. And completely deriding the conversation.
What about this are you actually upset about?
You said “I’m not upset”…
But I think it’s because you don’t understand the words you’re seeing…
Sigh, so that’s who you are. Whatever. The glimmer of hope you’ve been furiously peddling just got that bit dimmer.
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or…
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
The problem is with who was tasked with making the report. If it had been commissioned before your Big Daddy took power, and he had to deal with a sub-standard report and what to do with it, yeah, bad day at the office. But he commissioned it from this friend of his and that is concerning.
That means he’s not just someone having to clean up the mess, he’s part of the reason there is a mess in the first place.
Like I said, not fatal, but concerning.
Wait, are you Martin? I have a hard time seeing why anyone else would simp for him quite this hard. And do so entirely alone.
If
So…
You still haven’t looked into what actually happened?
You’re just super sure the billionaires have a valid reason to put you against the DNC?
I quoted the article. I’d love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin’s predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn’t “a friend of his”.
Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.
They know. They just insist that their ideology is all that matters and everyone should just “shut up and follow” and somehow it will all work out. This is what established politicians (read as in this case: establishment democrats/career politicians) standby. We know this doesn’t work.
This is why people need to start voting for actual progressives. Look at what they say versus what they vote for. Compared to who is challenging them.
Then match it with the outcomes of those voted on policies. Is it so hard? Because I know a good amount of people can’t seem to even bother.
Add in the bit of, “how do you know the challenger will actually be faithful on their promises?”. Well, clearly the status quo (aka, the same person you elect in) isn’t going to make the change you want, so why keep them?
As a European trying to work out the policy differences between Republicans and Democrats, they don’t seem to be significant. Mainly how elements are interpreted /expressed during campaigns or counter campaigns.
Question for our American cousins: Is this because it’s (overall) what the US population wants to buy into with votes or would a less Ultracapitalism stance not have enough interest?
If a less capitalist party magically appeared with the capital to compete it would sweep the democrats and republicans out of office. The economic grind for no apparent gain is consistently one of the top issues in elections. It just turns out that 100 million dollars of ads can absolutely convince people that this year the politicians will actually help them.
It is incredibly difficult if not impossible to start a new party. You need grassroots campaigns in every state and district just to even get on the ballot. It’s intentionally hard to form a new party because the constitution was designed in such a way to discourage group think and parties.
The Constitution has been pretty well subverted in that matter. It actually made small parties pretty easy because the representation ratio was small enough that Jeb the farmhand could get elected by drinking with enough people in different taverns. That’s been exploded by the refusal to add any new seats to Congress since the 1940’s. So now nobody is getting elected without millions in personal or PAC money. The easiest way to access that money is the DNC and RNC.
The idea that Senators and Representatives would act autonomously in the interests of their constituents was disproven almost immediately. Parties formed in Washington’s lifetime.
Some context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Why start now?
Oh. Great.
