You mean a liberal said something liberal and 50% of hexbear twisted themselves into pretzels to defend it? Word?
Fucking social democrats. They sucked in Lenin’s time and they suck even worse now. He was right about them.
yuuuup. already coopted, or never been. such are demsuccs, you can’t “change the system from the inside, man”
my country is more tolerant of them, and i’ve seen it over and over at this point.
I’ve worked with him for years both in DSA and on his campaigns and these topics have come up before, so it’s extra disappointing knowing that he doesn’t even personally believe this or the liberal Zionist shit he said about Palestine.
Like you just don’t have to answer those questions dawg, and they’ll have no relevance to you as a local politician (albeit a prominent one). Yeah, it’s the optics and the getting elected (which I still think would be an objectively a good thing) but why poison your project’s well when there are such easy ways to answer that by calling into question the American narrative? You are going to be attacked as a socialist no matter what you say man
It’s just validation that electoralism is pointless.
You can believe whatever going in, but as soon as you start to achieve meaningful success the system will force you to conform. “Change from within” is a fool’s errand.
It’s just validation that electoralism is pointless.
There is a difference between the DSA’s tactic of entryism into the Democratic Party as a method of reformism and participation in electoralism under the banner of a workers party practicing Democratic Centralism. They both might be participating in electoralism, but only the workers party is doing so to weaken support for the state and build support for a revolutionary movement.
I 100% agree and would like to see a DSA turn to democratic centralism once the internal contradictions of the org come to fruition. The most active cadre are Marxists by a significant majority, and a fair number of those either believe in democratic centralism or are not opposed to it if that’s the direction the org takes.
At that point in time I would say the stakes of entryism into the Dems would be much higher. At this point in time the stakes of participating in electoralism are more along the lines of socialists being granted the legitimacy that comes inherently to the American public when you are engaged in politics at a somewhat noticeable scale and don’t appear as just some fringe group. It’s not organizing in and of itself, but it’s certainly helpful that people know who you are and that other people out there believe the same things they do. Unfortunately, electoralism is culture to Americans and something they actually pay some attention to. It sucks that it’s a good way to reach people and let them know you exist
To be clear, I don’t believe in electoralism as an actual conduit for changing the system from within, but as a tool for visibility and radicalization.
Then shouldn’t we be running openly as communists and not hiding and obscuring our positions? Shouldn’t we not be tying our reputation to people we know for a fact will betray us and make us look bad, if all we are after is visibility? Isn’t associating socialism with these kinds of chauvinists actively damaging to our “optics”?
This isn’t what you were saying the other day. The other day you were making lesser evil and harm reduction arguments to pressure people to vote for him. So which is it? Visibility or changing the system?
First, I don’t know why you’re carrying beef you have with me over into another thread, I don’t even know who you are. Second, that’s a massive mischaracterization of the argument I was making.
The arguments I made to vote for him were never based around “we can fix the system!” sentiment like you seem to be implying, nor did I say electoralism is the answer. The arguments were always based in materialism and how voting could have an impact on it.
Yes, openly running as socialist is an important step. That’s why I think DSA is worth being part of at this moment in time. The internal debate on electoralism is the main ideological split, with one major chunk believing DSA should continue working alongside the Dems, another not believing DSA should engage in electoralism at all ever, and the second major chunk believing DSA should become an outright socialist party, or at least be a socialist party incubator so that when that when the heightening contradictions within the org reach a boiling point, a nucleation point exists and the party apparatus is ready to hit the ground running.
The things Zohran says he will provide are good, it is good that the title of “socialist” will be very publicly tacked on to rent being frozen for 4 years, free busses, childcare, etc., and the visibility of that is important as a point of radicalization for people who will soon have those improvements in material conditions threatened when vocal non-socialists inevitably try to take them away. There is, unfortunately, very little positive connotation with the term socialist in the popular American public forum. Give the average person an improvement in their material conditions that is intrinsically tied to the label socialist, and they will fight for it. Suddenly it becomes a lot easier for people to identify as socialist and to bring them into your movement when you are more tangible to them than a scary buzzword they’ve been propagandized about for 100 years.
Many paragraphs to endorse liberal electoralism
One sentence to tell me you don’t understand it, and that’s ok.
In reality, one sentence can summarize the entire thing: liberal electoralism heightens contradictions and can radicalize the working class who, whether you like it or not, pay attention to it.
Keep right on misunderstanding what I’m saying if you want, your false sense of superiority across conversations we’ve had is based entirely on a mischaracterization of why I’ve said what I have. While you piss and moan that I’m doing things wrong, I’m busy reaching the working class in one of the places they actually are paying attention to with the opportunity to help direct their attention to the ones that actually matter.
You should just admit you support liberal entryism then.
the problem I see with this is that every capitulation to imperialism also has the socialist label openly tacked onto it when you run unaccountable Democrats, and that runs the risk of just siphoning the US working class into a “chauvinist social democracy = socialism” form of crude, underdeveloped class consciousness that throws global south proles under the bus. it also runs the risk of alienating portions of the US working class who have been directly impacted by imperialism (e.g. many immigrant workers), not to mention potential international allies of any future American socialist movement.
without a firm line or party apparatus holding these candidates accountable it seems that this kind of thing can just run amok without real consequence. and I’m frankly not sure how interested many DSA rank-and-file are in reigning in these types of chauvinist brainworms and concessions.
I agree with your concern, and I think it’s important that those contradictions within DSA are sorted out by the active membership which are largely marxists ideologically. They certainly have been coming to fruition more and more frequently as the direction DSA breaks more with its liberal/socdem membership and leans into more principled socialist stances.
I think the lib/socdem DSA served an important role in its time and place as a visible org with enough active socialists that it showed those disillusioned or nascent members of the American left that there was a place to go post-Bernie if you were thinking about taking these things even marginally more seriously. Turns out a lot of people took them very seriously, and that’s what brought us to the points of contradiction within DSA that we see today. It continues to serve that purpose, but as affinity for socialism grows in America in combination with the critical mass of Marxists already within DSA, I’m confident some kind of actual socialist party/org can grow out of DSA if it doesn’t grow into one itself.
I’m confident some kind of actual socialist party/org can grow out of DSA if it doesn’t grow into one itself
Or you could all just leave the DSA right now and join an actual socialist party like the PSL.
Oh how dare I try to point out your shifting hypocrisy. You are a mod and you act in bad faith, you push social chauvinism and when finally confronted with the fruits of your labor you shift and lie about what you were arguing for.
This is a small community it’s not that hard to remember names. It’s not some kind of super power
The arguments were always based in materialism.
Voting for democrats materialistly
You brought up a mischaracterization of what I said in another post, one where I repeatedly told you that you could leave the post, disengage with me, or block me.
I didn’t bring up this argument with you, you did. I didn’t even remember you. I don’t know how you could possibly say I’m acting in bad faith. You’re allowed to disagree with me, but please stop being a debatebro and haranguing me about something you don’t care to understand or entertain.
Stop arguing with communists. Turn around. Go confront this chauvinist piece of shit that you supposedly know personally.
You personally vouched for him, he’s making you look like a fucking idiot. Are you going to do anything about it or just take out your anger with more left punching?
it is good that the title of “socialist” will be very publicly tacked on to rent being frozen for 4 years, free busses, childcare, etc.
inb4 he wins and doesn’t do any of that
The rent freeze is very realistic. I don’t see a way it wouldn’t happen unless literally everything we know about him and his history is a lie. It’s a 9 person board that votes on rent raises, and the current balance is 5-4 in favor of raising rent, and one board member is directly appointed by the mayor at will. So that would immediately be 5-4 in favor of a rent freeze.
The rest would require some state/federal funding, but NY State politics at least have establishment dems who may normally oppose funding those programs in hot water, especially coming off a Mamdani win and huge performance in NYC districts.
Complete nonsense, capital has too much control for this to be true.
Then it’s even more crucial to not capitulate like this. Radicalize people by saying Israeli colonialism didn’t start on 10/7/2023, be straight up about the embargo and the aggression against Venezuela happening literally TODAY. To the rest of us who don’t know him personally, it’s giving liberal Zionist imperialist socdem.
That’s absolutely what it’s giving off. It’s pathetic capitulation for zero tangible benefit. If I had to guess it’s putting the cart of governing before the horse. Just zero need to say that unless I guess you are worried people won’t work with you after you were elected to achieve your agenda? But at that point, what was even the purpose?
Questions I wish I could ask him. It’s really hard to square the positive experience you’ve had with him to the half dozen instances of public backtracking/accepting of a traditional imperialist narrative.
Unfortunate he’s out of my orbit now. Maybe a few years ago I might, but a few years ago he wasn’t doing this. Really disappointing but potentially radicalizing for those who haven’t already been
Exactly. It’s much better to lose while principled then win while selling out. One of these days we will win while principled, and that’s when you know shit is on.
The Bolsheviks were able to be principled about opposing war AND supporting the local workers and peasantry because Russia was losing a devastating world war. The conditions for American socialists to do the same likely won’t be present until such a situation arises.
I have been pretty amicable to the DSA and Mamdani as an idea, but my off-ramp was like 2-3 “gaffs” ago. I don’t think you people doing this kind of thing is as dire as others make it out to be. I do not think the current day US is anywhere close to 1903 Russia or 1848 Europe or even 1830s Europe. So whatever entryism or class collaboration you’re going to do, at least be ready for stuff like this. I’m going to assume the DSA hasn’t placed a giant ACME piano above Mamdani’s head? So if he wins in a month and then lies about rent control, then what? If you’re going to do reformism, you eventually should have a plan to enforce reforms.
When/if these other NY seats become available and this is tried again, have a plan to destroy these people if they suddenly become dishonest in the 11th hour. If people in the DSA aren’t okay with that idea, then it’s time for new members or a different org.
Not a gaffe. It’s ideological commitment to liberalism
I agree the situation isn’t that dire historically speaking, but you’d still like to see some more spine when the stakes are pretty low, all things considered. The election looks like a wrap already, so just stick to your guns even if it costs a percent or two. I think the main political calculus there is holding a strong enough lead that it stops Cuomo or Sliwa from dropping out because they see a realistic chance of consolidating the anti-Mamdani vote while he’s weak.
That being said, DSA’s most important role at this point imo is being a highly visible org (but yes, imperfect) that is a tool to help deprogram decades of American anti-socialist propaganda. Given the direction things are going internally with Marxist, it could be an incubator for an actual socialist party some time in the future after overcoming the internal contradictions that divide it right now.
It seems clear to me that he tries not to answer it in the actual podcast, and that he also doesn’t have a way to dance around the subject. He clearly attempts to avoid the topic, but the guy he’s talking to isn’t your run-of-the-mill podcast host chud; he’s a journalist with decades of experience. The guy does not let up, and then the topic is shifted. I get the sense the other co-host (the journalist’s daughter) has more of a soft spot for Mamdani since she doesn’t interject at all during this exchange and then tries to transition out of the awkward conversation, and seems to be (not that I listened all that hard) to want to give him the opportunity to distinguish himself from typical Democrats. The excange starts with her saying this:
Jorge Ramos (17:40): You have the same […][so] ideology is not that important?
Mamdani (17:42):
I think It’s not been the first question that New Yorkers have asked me. But even more than that, I’ve often been asked us to what does it mean when I say that I’m a Democratic socialist.Paola Ramos (17:51):
I think that’s important because Republicans and some Democrats weaponize that term so much. I mean, it’s completely misconstrued. So what’s the most simple way to address a Spanish speaking Latino New Yorker who may want to vote for you, but he’s so scared about that term.Gotta love the mythical “spanish speaking Latino New Yorker” who hates Maduro and Cuba. It ain’t fucking Miami, there are different LatAm countries, different communities, etc. Hell a huge chunk of Spanish speaking New Yorkers are from a place with no democracy and occupation by a hostile government, it is called Puerto Rico
I think you’re onto something because this seems like bad training. Mamdani’s claim is that he’s really good on the everyday issues that affect the people of NY. The problem is he’s probably focused so much on that and nothing else. The journalists have picked up on it over his Israel/Palestine comments and the reaction. Now they can just lob this stuff at him and he can’t do anything. He might be someone who can be Rogan’d into the correct opinion if he spent time with his constituents and more knowledgeable people. Too late now though.
Maybe they should have flipped it around from the start. Go so hard and aggressive into foreign issues these journalists are saying you don’t care about NYC. Then spend the last month correcting them by doing nothing but talking about the city. Recency bias wins and forced the media to go where you wanted.
This is also the first episode of this podcast. I have no idea if these two have massive popularity that brings them a built in audience, that’s probably the case. That said, I don’t think I would be the launching episode of a new podcast if I was campaigning, that’s for sure.
The conspiracy worms in my brain could say something like: The Democrats likely paid this guy to push their opening episode in favor of this one specifically to grill Mamdani on this topic. They didn’t inform him that this was going to be asked specifically to scold and correct him.
But that’s not the the likely scenario.
Unfortunately, he’s probably doing this out of love of the game (anticommunism)
Fuck Jorge Ramos. The average US Latino living in New York doesn’t give a fuck about Castro and Maduro
Let’s be realistic about Mamdani here, because a lot of people expressed their disappointment in him lately:
At this stage in his campaign, he must have realized that if elected, he will be facing a State government and legislature where the establishment Democrats have every incentives to see him fail.
He will be dealing with a hostile Federal government who can threaten to pull millions and millions of funding and grants on a whim.
He will have to face off a fascist police force, the most militarized in the world, who will be eager to send “warnings” to his family, friends and supporters about their safety.
He must have realized that he will be dealing with the business leaders, the landlord tycoons, the Wall Street bankers, the criminal underworld - all of whom have formed such deep corruption networks with the municipal bureaucracy that all of them are eyeing him as a fresh piece of meat, ready to be squeezed dry, ready to be beaten and tortured into submission.
I would not even be surprised that at this point, his campaign must have received “invitation letters” by many such groups hinting at what role he’s going to have to assume, or else the consequences and the obstructions he will be facing as a mayor.
He has to balance all these forces while keeping the city running. He has to make sure the public services are not disrupted, the public transportations will continue to run, the welfare programs can be adequately financed, the school system will have ample resources, and so on and so forth.
I believe Mamdani is an idealist. He was outraged by the injustices in the world. He wants to change the system. He still believes in democracy. He’s a socialist who probably likes based communist memes on the internet.
But at this point of the campaign, he must have realized that he’s alone in this. He may have supporters and volunteers, but how many of them are willing to take a bullet for him? How many of them are willing to rally behind him to fight the capitalist class to the end? How many of them are ideologically committed enough to sacrifice their own lives to fight for his cause?
Although he’s supported by the DSA, I strongly strongly doubt the DSA has vast infiltration network into the key municipal posts that could deliver Mamdani the results he will need as a mayor. If he does not have the control of the municipal administrative branches, he’s going to be blackmailed by them, or shall we say, the vested interests behind them.
In a way, I feel bad for him. For he has no idea the sick and the twisted of the monstrosity of a system he will be caught into. It must have dawned upon him that he will be facing - alone - a monstrosity that can no longer be reformed. A system that has rotten to the core. A system that has no redeeming value but to be torn down.
But maybe if he plays his role as intended, if he plays his cards right, if he pleases the right people, he could somehow succeed in making some incremental gains, a little bit of progress. That, in his mind, wouldn’t be a bad outcome at all. Perhaps.
Blah blah blah excuses for racism
I feel like this bit is just applying sinophobic Chinese government consipracies to US politics, the language is the same.
Great bit then.
Pretty much. If you read his history, he faced no real political opposition. His “opposition” amounts to facing a Democrat in a state assembly primary once. He didn’t even run against a Republican. This is how un-battle-tested he is. We shouldn’t be surprised someone who lived a comparatively sheltered life and who has never faced real adversity would completely capitulate and fold like a lawn chair at the first sign of struggle. With someone as wholly unprepared for facing real adversity as he is, it doesn’t matter what he truly believes because he will not have the moral courage nor the tenacity of will nor the steadfastness to endure and overcome the forces that will do everything in their power to prevent what he wants from coming to fruition.
You don’t need to read a single leftist text to know that people who have never been punched in the face completely crumble when they get punched in the face for the first time. “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” We’re seeing him getting punched in the face and watching him crumble under the pressure in real time.
I mean isn’t this just another way to explain the failings of entryism in the electoral context? You’re essentially manifesting support using an apparatus that has no desire for you and doesn’t care for you and it either doesn’t work at all, or if you co-opt it to some extent, you’ve now made enemies that see you fall in line and you’ve outpaced the militancy and support needed to prevent that.
It essentially leaves this type of campaign in the domain of opportunists and fools. Which I feel was already what was said about it repeatedly.
My point is that he needs a movement behind him whose energy he can channel and leverage to threaten the political and the capitalist class.
If you look at the history of labor movement throughout history, the capitalist class is afraid because the organized labor unions have actual means to shutdown critical infrastructure and networks in the cities, ones that would force the capitalist class to at least be willing to negotiate.
I do not believe Mamdani commands such force. I do not believe the DSA has such grassroots infiltration that allows them to control key municipal infrastructures that Mamdani can leverage (maybe they have been secretly planning this behind the scene and may surprise us, but I highly doubt it). If he has no leverage, he will be eaten alive. The city is built on more than a century of corruption. It will not yield to a new mayor that easily.
Adding that he will also have to deal with the media and journalists, who will certainly be on a power trip to paint a specific narratives to be propagated about him if he does not stay in his lane. And we all know that the establishment controls the media.
No I get those points. But assuming Mamdani and all of NYC-DSA also understand those points (as I’m very confident they don’t have that level of infiltration) and the nominal Marxist lines much of the DSA claims to be in (though I know many have accused NYC-DSA of having a reformist bent, even within DSA, and other orgs here accuse DSA of being reformist and opportunist in general) they should have seen the same coming ahead of time.
If we’re assuming some degree of competency, which I think is fair considering even the most baby leftists here know we have a strong lack of militancy, and assuming the Mamdani campaign didn’t know this would be assuming they are stupid, they would have been able to foresee that in such conditions, Mamdani would be forced into a position of capitulation. I’ve talked to people who seem to think the NYC DSA is involved in the capitulation, or are even leading it. Even if that isn’t the case, it means they let Mamdani’s idealism lead themselves into a pit. Thus, from the beginning, they should have known this was a difficulty they would face. Mamdani is not a single actor. And, from my understanding has done these capitulations with either the approval or at the behest of NYC DSA, and has done some of them after consultation with other parts of DSA. This was a campaign done with the understanding that such a force can’t be commanded, and dozens, if not hundreds, have had some degree of oversight for these issues.
I understand that he’s being put in the fire without the gear to protect himself, but all indicators I’ve seen indicates him and those that back him (in the NYC DSA) should have been able to foresee this, including what I’ve heard from others in DSA both here and IRL.
It’s easy for me to say, but if this is the real situation for him, then he should already be expecting failure for all of his stated goals, and instead work toward agitation and spreading class consciousness by demonstrating that reality to the people of New York. By staying quiet about it and adopting a concessionary line, he’s working against his own beliefs.
okay I earned this one
can we hang out?Yep I’ll admit it I deserve one
“breaks silence” what the hell is a mayor talking about foreign countries for?
Eric Adams has finally settled the debate: Turkey invented baklava, not Greece
Astoria has voted to leave NYC and be annexed by NJ
Cuba and Venezuela are both legitimately more democratic than the USA.
Reason I hoped he might be different: looking at whom he upset (Zionists, landlords.
I thought surely someone who manages to get close to a correct stance on Palestine despite how overwhelming the propaganda is can see clearly and has his head screwed on straight when it comes to other countries.
I need a better litmus test and more and more it looks like that litmus test has to be: will they call themselves the C word and refuse to demonize any of the US’s official enemies?
the litmus test is ukraine. it’s easy to be right on palestine. It’s a lot more difficult to be right about Syria or Ukriane
and to clarify, because I know somebody in bad faith is gonna come in here and give the ‘muh optics’ argument - I’m not saying they have to be pro-russia or have been pro-assad. They just need to oppose arming and funding Ukraine and call for an end of the proxy war, and opposed funding and arming FSA/Al-Nusra/ISIS/Al Qaeda.
At this pace, we are about two weeks away from “Israel has a right to defend itself”
Well the fucker has already done an “I believe Israel has a right to exist!” i.e. “Its a good thing to ethnically cleanse and genocide Palestinians to steal their land!”
That’s a misrepresentation. He said it has a right to exist “as a state with equal rights,” i.e. it has no right to do apartheid and genocide and the political project of ethnostates must be abolished.
i think it’s pretty fair to mock him for breaking from the line. why do succs always try to redefine terms and make up new slogans like “humanitarian pauses” and “Israel has a right to exist as a non-apartheid state”? We already have debated this for decades, the international left has already come to a consensus that Israel has no right to exist. Why does he feel he’s above the international line? That he’s more “mature” and “pragmatic” than the “loony left” that he supposedly emerged from and that makes up his base? What gives him the right to play with slogans and water down principled positions for his own benefit?
Why does he get to ride high on “globalize the intifiada” and “defund the police” and “abolish ICE” and then once he’s taken advantage of the leftists who believe in that and stepped on their shoulders, he gets to change it and back away from all of it? It’s so obviously cowardice and opportunism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawabit
These are the red lines. Mamdani plays with them like it’s his to toy with. DNC focus groups running roughshod over millions of activists and martyrs
States have no right to exist at all, so I don’t see what your point is. If Israel is not an apartheid state, that’s the end of the entire project because it being an ethnostate is the most core thing that it’s founded on. If you call that piece of land Israel or Palestine, it’s immaterial if the state has equal rights, right of return for the displaced, etc.
If you call that piece of land Israel or Palestine, it’s immaterial if the state has equal rights, right of return for the displaced, etc.
It is very chauvinistic to speak of “that piece of land” in this way. The only people who can decide what “that piece of land” is called are the indigenous people of Palestine. The perspective of the “you” used in that sentence is irrelevant in all other cases.
And they have happened to call their beautiful country Palestine, it is not up for debate in any way shape or form. Their will is sovereign as the rightful owners of the land and they have the right to self-determination, like any other indigenous population.
Most of that is chest-puffing that ranges from vacuous to reactionary in a way that radlibs call progressive, but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere trying to discuss it.
I’m not interested in “Israel” continuing to exist and I think, in even liberal-democratic conditions, it would rapidly cease to exist even in name (we can point to many other former colonies where this happened), but you’ve completely lost the plot if you think that people are dying for what a piece of land is named rather than how the people who are on it (or those who have been wrongfully denied a place on it) are treated, in no small part because people can and already do call it different things anyway, and will continue to, but you can’t merely speak in different words to not be starving. My point in saying this is that what people are fighting for is an end to the blockades, apartheid, genocide, military occupation, and so on, and Zohran has been very clear in opposing those things. I’d rather him take a different line, given the option, but ultimately I think that he correctly identified what’s important and is focusing on that.
Like, we can point to ways in which the end of South Africa’s apartheid was inadequate, but I don’t think it’s a major factor at all that we aren’t now calling it Mzansi or Azania. From what I can tell, many South Africans do themselves call it Mzansi, and it’s consistent as an isiZulu version of an abbreviation of the legal name in the isiXhosa version of the Constitution, “uRhulumente waseMzantsi Afrika,” but not directly the slightly-bulkier corresponding isiZulu term for south, “Ningizimu”. It’s a little confusing to me because there are several languages involved, the Constitution being printed in about 11 of them.
Anyway, if you want to attack Zohran specifically for being a lib on Palestine, you might have a better time by investigating what he said about a one or two state solution, though I don’t remember if he addressed that issue directly.
Most of that is chest-puffing that ranges from vacuous to reactionary in a way that radlibs call progressive, but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere trying to discuss it.
*You wont get anywhere trying to discuss it because you have made a blatant mistake and want to avoid it.
How is pointing out an example of blatant chauvinism that is borderline zionism, i.e. dismissing the fact that the “piece of land” you refer to is actually a truly beautiful sovereign nation whose indigenous inhabitants have decided to call Palestine? Like its not up for anyone else to debate, “that piece of land” is called Palestine. Its kind of disturbing how you think it is “vacuous” or “reactionary” to respect the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Thinking the name of “that piece of land” is up for debate already concedes to a zionist framing of the invasion and genocide. The land is already a country called Palestine and it is being invaded by zionists who want to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population via murder and expulsion. This is a fact and it is unacceptable to say otherwise.
but you’ve completely lost the plot if you think that people are dying for what a piece of land is named rather than how the people who are on it (or those who have been wrongfully denied a place on it) are treated
Strawman argument. Palestinians are dying because the zionist entity is killing them in a genocide. They are fighting to expel a settler colonial entity and its invaders from their land so they can live in peace. The “piece of land” is already a sovereign country called “Palestine”, why would they be fighting for what it is named when it is already called “Palestine”?
because people can and already do call it different things anyway
- Zionists aren’t people. 2) There are some people who think black people aren’t human, similarly, there are some zionists who think that the country of Palestine doesn’t exist. They can think whatever they want but at the end of the day they are deluded and their opinions are rubbish.
Zohran has been very clear in opposing those things
Accepting “israel has a right to exist” renders the rest moot because you’ve already conceded that an invading cancer that has stolen the land of a sovereign nation through a genocide of its indigenous population should continue to exist on said stolen land. That is already a military occupation, an act of genocide, and apartheid. A big concession to a zionist framing of the genocide which does not recognize Palestinian self-determination, a hallmark of liberal zionism. Furthermore the zionist concept of “israel” itself is fundamentally and inextricably a settler-colonial jewish-supremacist ethnostate. You can’t say “<ethnostate> has a right to exist but I’m fully against the idea of ethnostates!”.
This is already enough to point out how he is a filthy liberal zionist.
Literally not one pro-palestine person before Mamdani ever said “Israel has a right to exist as a non-apartheid state!”. This is non-committal word game mumbo jumbo done specifically to be obscure. Stop playing games with us, stop being obscure, stop concealing our views like they’re something to be ashamed of.
He’s not representing a movement, he’s doing focus tested sloganeering that is triangulated to offend nobody and mean nothing. I ask again, why are succs completely unable to hold to a line?
But a state can have “equal rights” and still be an illegitimate settler state. If one-state israel formally democratized, but didn’t redistribute wealth and political power, thus maintaining Jewish dominance over Palestinians in economics and politics in a nominally liberal democracy, would that be sufficient to fulfill Palestinian liberation? Is “Israel but nice and good” what we want the final outcome of the Palestinian struggle to look like? More importantly, would Palestinians be satisfied with that arrangement?
That line of thinking is paradoxical. The zionist entity is a jewish-supremacist settler colony whose existence itself is predicated on the type of genocide required to steal the land of an indigenous population. The existence of the zionist entity is inextricably and fundamentally linked to the violent ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide of the Palestinian people.
Intentions are irrelevant, the phrase “the zionist entity has a right to exist” functionally means whoever says it gives their ok to the fact that a bunch of settlers got together in the 1940s to murder enough people en masse in Palestine so that they could steal and occupy their land. Furthermore “israel” itself is fundamentally an ethnostate, if it was not an ethnostate it would not exist, very simple.
Settler colonies in whatever form require genocide and apartheid to exist so if they stopped the genocide and apartheid they would cease to exist. Without the ethnic cleansing, theft, and genocide of the Palestinian people, the zionist entity would simply not be.
I believe that the paradox is exactly the point, because he is extremely focused on the substance of the issue and is very insistent when people try to get him to say “has a right to exist as a Jewish state” that he says “has a right to exist as a state with equal rights,” i.e. that its right to exist (something that I don’t believe any state has, but that’s not especially relevant) is predicated on having equal rights, and that the right of any state to exist is so-predicated.
It’s exactly the point of why he is saying it this way that there is no Israel without apartheid, because based on his strategy he only has a brief period to deal with the most bad-faith people in existence who have a thousand rhetorical traps for him, and he seeks to redirect any such conversation to the statement “Apartheid and genocide must end,” because taking the argument on the terms of the zionist is just going to end in confusion and smears, while focusing on “Apartheid and genocide must end” will not give them the space to do anything except either concede or explicitly defend apartheid and genocide, and we know this because when they have tried to fight it they have looked completely ridiculous to the public, such as at the primary debate.
That there can be no Israel without apartheid is the point. That Israel having only the right to exist if it is an equal state and therefore not having a right to exist at all is the point.
because he is extremely focused on the substance of the issue
The substance of the issue is that the sovereign country of Palestine has been invaded by fascist ethnonationalists (zionists) who have committed a genocide against the indigenous Palestinians to steal their land and establish a settler colonial entity. To say “israel has the right to exist” basically signals to everyone that you are fundamentally ok with the settler colonial invasion and genocide. Its simple.
That there can be no Israel without apartheid is the point. That Israel having only the right to exist if it is an equal state and therefore not having a right to exist at all is the point.
You would already be pro-genocide by using this paradox because this is exactly the type of flawed doublethink that liberal zionists use to justify the zionist entity’s continued existence as a settler colony. “Israeli” liberal zionists themselves say this (“we should still exist but Palestinians need equal rights!”) while happily living in someone’s stolen home and serving in the SS.
Furthermore this is just a rationalization for some liberal zionist accepting a liberal zionist framing of an invasion and genocide. You can skip this whole set of mental gymnastics and just say “no I dont believe in settler colonial ethnostates so israel does not have a right to exist” or something similar and then go off on their genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people before the copers start playing the “antisemetism” card.
Sometimes you need to have a backbone otherwise you just legitimize and manufacture consent for genocide on live television. But to be clear at this point the guy is a liberal zionist who doesn’t really care so its not really a problem of having a backbone.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Is it more likely that he’s actually a based commie doing 5D chess to outsmart everyone and hide his power levels, or that he’s just a milquetoast social chauvinist who makes watered down social chauvinist statements?
If you pay attention to what he says about this issue, since he has spoken a lot about Palestine, it is clear that he opposes Israel. This isn’t 5D chess, it’s a simple rhetorical refocusing that is similar to how he handles almost everything because, even outside of “Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?” people are constantly throwing insipid gotchas at him that he tries to redirect to cost of living, listening to the expressed needs of New Yorkers, etc.
iirc he said something worse and more libzionist on one of the talk shows
Point me to it
i couldn’t find the thread, maybe it was colbert?
Following on from my previous comment in the other thread about this, I can now confirm this has miraculously not worsened DSA’s standing with our allies in Cuba, whom our delegation is meeting in two weeks.
All glory to my comrades in DSA’s international working group, and all glory to me as I once again morph into an NYC DSA hater I mean seriously the fuck are y’all doing just shut the fuck up
The IC is great and what DSA could actually look like organization-wide if it continues down the trajectory it’s on. I know “that’s entryism” and DSA as it stands isn’t the answer, but it’s clearly the org most well positioned for a leftist to either turn into an actual leftist organization, or for one to grow out of it. The most active cadre are all Marxists, and they control almost every important committee (IC for example)
If you want DSA to leave it’s electoral democrat campaigning phase behind, why have you been making actively pro-electoralist arguments for the past weeks to make the case that the DSA should continue this strategy? Why are you making the pro-NYC DSA faction case instead of the opposite?
I genuinely believe Tucker fucking Carlson would actually give a better answer that this. It’s honestly mind numbing how leftists are just immune to learning from the right with regards to rhetoric. You know what Nick Fuentes says when they ask him about Hitler? “Uhmmm, he had some good ideas, but did you know Stalin and Mao killed a gazillion people, and are actually worse than him. Funny how the jew controlled mainstream media never talks about this smh.”
Like, JUST DEFLECT THE QUESTION AND POINT TO AMERICAN CRIMES IN THE REGION. And unlike nazis, you would actually be correct in doing so, because they’re literally the cause of the situation anyway!
you mean to tell me the guy who issued a personal apology to the NYPD for having called them racist once is a massive lib?
Wait, do you have the source of this?
See that one I can at least understand as “The NYPD murders people and I like being alive”
anybody in NYC municipal politics who isn’t struggling against the NYPD isn’t doing anything meaningful at all. That is their battle to fight, and Mamdani seems to not even want to engage and wants to surrender before he’s even begun the struggle
what if he’s just saying this to get elected?
smart money is on
but just wondering. wouldnt you basically have to act like a lib to get elected? does he lose more voters calling cuba a dictatorship or by praising communism?that argument holds no water for complete self-owns like this one. It has no bearing on the race or the job he wants to do or the policies he promised. He either truly believes this shit or someone (the democrats) has a gun pointed at him or his family.
I mean it’s probably just a cynical ploy to win votes from Cuban and Venezuelan immigrants to NYC, no position he has ever held nor the position he is running for has any influence in foreign policy
it’s a cynical ploy with dangerous ripple effects though. if Bernie Dems like Zohran are what the average working person thinks of when they think “socialism,” then their vision of socialism (and their potential participation in it) is one where imperialism continues to operate unabated. he also didn’t need to do this whatsoever, even from a cowardly electoral optics perspective - he’s on track to win basically no matter what.
extra grotesque when you consider the very real currently ongoing escalations toward Venezuela from the Trump admin and the brutality that could lead to for their people. there’s no justifying this whatsoever.
100% agree
yeah i can’t imagine the polling or demographics work out where “i’m running for mayor” isn’t the best answer to any question about foreign countries or even other US states
acting is being. If you’re “acting” like a lib in politics, you are being a lib in politics
well, i guess since he’s a state rep already then he’s “in politics”. if he were not elected to any position yet it might be different. i forgot he’s already elected. sigh
politicians always get worse and sell out and move right once they’re in office. While they’re running and campaigning they’re at the most “radical”. It’s only downhill from here
what if he’s just saying this to get elected?
that’s just describing one of the processes by which the dem machine consumes people, IMO. I don’t think it’s a meaningful distinction.
Like, it doesn’t matter if Zohran is the greatest dude ever in his personal life & the sentiments of his heart are Super Communist and he’s just hiding his power level. if the pressure from the dem machine forces him to take a public position & actions that are aligned with imperialism, then he’s just being an imperialist. extra perplexing/spineless in this case since he’s slated to win handily.
He was already leading the polls and pretty much guaranteed to win with a more revolutionary rhetoric
following Sanders position that Hugo Chavez was just another Communist dictator, just another Amerikkkan SucDem.
edit: I haven’t followed this guy much (because I already got the feeling early that he was just another Sanders/AOC), he’s DSA right? This is the same DSA that once sent a delegation to Cuba and instead of meeting the Cuban government and showing solidarity, they lectured Cuba about “DEMOCCRAACCCYYY”. DSA sucks ass.
That was a segment of the delegation that went rogue doing their shitlib theatrics while the majority of the delegation did actually meet with the government.
yet they didn’t punish, censure or remove those people from DSA iirc
Yeah and that’s fucked, but it’s also not what the person I was responding to said
which means DSA as an organization approves of this behavior tacitly, and will allow it going forward
Right, but that’s still not what the comment said
This is the same DSA that once sent a delegation to Cuba and instead of meeting the Cuban government and showing solidarity, they lectured Cuba about “DEMOCCRAACCCYYY”. DSA sucks ass.
This is objectively correct and what happened. Actually even worse, they met with CIA funded gusano “journalists” while ghosting Diaz-Canel. DSA allowed it, didn’t punish them or remove them and will do it again because they fundamentally suck the ass
It distresses me that people can literally just fucking lie and get upvoted. No, the delegation did meet with Diaz-Canel, a splinter of it went and did their liberal bullshit. Saying that the delegation did not meet with Diaz-Canel is simply a lie.
Wow that’s crazy. If only there was a long historical record of socdems using revolutionary language and aesthetics only to get into power and further reinforce capitalism. Since there isn’t, I don’t blame anyone who is shocked.
How could you fall for it again when it has never happened?
I’m very clumsy so I’m falling all the time
