At this point I would accept a kinda-sorta-organized opposition party over stalwart Dems who have simply upgraded the "strategy" to Strongly-Worded Thoughts and Prayers as they "back the blue".
Look I would rather 100 of my voters get beaten by police, kidnapped and illegally renditioned to a foreign torture camp than accidentally support one anarchist who melted a shopping cart. That's democracy
I mostly agree, but it would be a big move if a congressional member showed up and told them to let people speak. Several and it'd look like an active suppression of government.
Still though, people speaking up shows communal support/will and does make a bigger statement.
if only we had some kind of socialist organization with democratically elected leaders that could organize and support such a movement, like some kind of union or communist party. unfortunately we just have clones of trotsky in 18 different hats selling newspapers. oh well!
It really is. Why can’t a few of the voices that ARE TRYING create a group and talk to us on a regular basis? Kinda round table talking. Even with with some differences of opinion?
And don’t throw old fucks at us! Or la-la kumbaya pontificators!! Or congressional MAGA supporters!!!
The next time someone shows me why a broad, shallow resistance movement should be the domain of 1 of 2 parties in a 2 party system, will be the first time I understand it.
It’s tough to succeed in mass movement building in states that require a multiparty coalition to govern. I can’t see the math?
@kenmartin.bsky.social this is your legacy you weak Blue Maga sellout. Post after post stating how awful, weak, duplicitous, and facist adjacent the party is under your steerage.
Unfortunately we’ve been in the age of leaderless social movements since Occupy - no one to pick battles, set rules of engagement, define boundaries or wins. Leaderless movements are not effective or sustainable.
leaders tend to be able to galvanize more people but theyre targets and its ultimately counterproductive to base the success of a movement on the success of an individual
Yes and: leaders need not be, I’d even say ought not be, Democratic electeds.
Just as strikes make unions (not the other way around), movement organizers can become successful candidates (see Barack Obama) but elected officials are not the best organizers for a mass movement. Which is what we need.
100% disagree. First, leaderless doesn’t mean out of control, it means that control is distributed. And secondly, there is a reason it’s the dominant form and it’s that leaderless movements are the most accessible and most resistant to suppression and co-optation.
And, like, there have been plenty of people setting up nonprofits the entire time. There is a reason none of them became a mass social movement. Vanguardism will not work, & top-down control kills a movement. The thing you want doesn’t exist because it cannot exist.
Comments
Would make such a difference.
But there is only a party that mostly advocates politeness protests snd strongly worded letters.
Still though, people speaking up shows communal support/will and does make a bigger statement.
This is why everything has been going downhill for so long.
We know who they are. Mostly Representatives with some Senators. We see them orating and organizing with grassroots
Why aren’t more of us collaborating effectively?
And don’t throw old fucks at us! Or la-la kumbaya pontificators!! Or congressional MAGA supporters!!!
It’s tough to succeed in mass movement building in states that require a multiparty coalition to govern. I can’t see the math?
Just as strikes make unions (not the other way around), movement organizers can become successful candidates (see Barack Obama) but elected officials are not the best organizers for a mass movement. Which is what we need.
P.s., Obama was not known to be this in Chicago. Perhaps somewhere else.
Seriously asking here..