There are systematic reasons why Bernie (again) wasn’t able become the nominee, and I believe these reasons will apply to anyone with similar views trying to become a Democrat nominee. The party doesn’t want SocDems to be their leader.
I don’t think that’s nihilistic. But it is rejecting the electoralist approach as futile for people who want Bernie’s policies in the USA. We must look at other ways, established ways of moving forward and bringing progressive change. After the past two elections, insisting that Bernie or AOC can win the nomination next time, being in denial of how the Democrat Party works, is not just unhealthy discourse but counter-progressive in practice.
It’s realism, not nihilism. Bernie never had a chance of winning because he was never, ever going to be put into a position where that was an option. Spending time on who is a better candidate makes no difference as long as ‘the people’ continue to vote against their own best interests. The oligarchy controls it all at this point.
Spending time on “Bernie would have won” is just mental masturbation…
Why is it unhealthy to be in touch with reality? If you like tilting at windmills, then be my guest. I prefer to be very sober about what is going on and what it’s going to take to have actual change. Talking about whether Bernie could have won is as useful as talking about Star Trek vs. Star Wars. (Note: I think Bernie would have been an awesome president which is why I voted for him and campaigned for him.)
When I say unhealthy I am not talking about you individually but the impact on the outcome of the discourse. This particular moment isn’t about proving who was right, though there is plenty of other places where that is needed, it is about integrating what we know so we can coalesce.
Hey pal, nihilism is a valid response but please find a healthier space for it.
There are systematic reasons why Bernie (again) wasn’t able become the nominee, and I believe these reasons will apply to anyone with similar views trying to become a Democrat nominee. The party doesn’t want SocDems to be their leader.
I don’t think that’s nihilistic. But it is rejecting the electoralist approach as futile for people who want Bernie’s policies in the USA. We must look at other ways, established ways of moving forward and bringing progressive change. After the past two elections, insisting that Bernie or AOC can win the nomination next time, being in denial of how the Democrat Party works, is not just unhealthy discourse but counter-progressive in practice.
It’s realism, not nihilism. Bernie never had a chance of winning because he was never, ever going to be put into a position where that was an option. Spending time on who is a better candidate makes no difference as long as ‘the people’ continue to vote against their own best interests. The oligarchy controls it all at this point.
Spending time on “Bernie would have won” is just mental masturbation…
If that is not nihilism, then it is unhealthy discourse.
Why is it unhealthy to be in touch with reality? If you like tilting at windmills, then be my guest. I prefer to be very sober about what is going on and what it’s going to take to have actual change. Talking about whether Bernie could have won is as useful as talking about Star Trek vs. Star Wars. (Note: I think Bernie would have been an awesome president which is why I voted for him and campaigned for him.)
When I say unhealthy I am not talking about you individually but the impact on the outcome of the discourse. This particular moment isn’t about proving who was right, though there is plenty of other places where that is needed, it is about integrating what we know so we can coalesce.