You're viewing part of a thread.
Even there, though, even as a president, you can't meaningfully move much without the support of the party. The difference for fascists is that the Republican party legitimately has a ton of actual fascists, so fascist presidents are extremely dangerous. If a Socialist led the DNC, it would be spoiled and wouldn't have much of a chance to move left.
I wasn't talking about the presidency per se.
Neither was I. An activist Socialist can't do much except in local and state levels, at a national level it takes a mass worker party for electoralism to have any real bite.
That's why I call national elections loss prevention, because you can either vote to maintain the status quo, or let marginalized groups be attacked and vilified as fascists gain power.
That’s why I call national elections loss prevention, because you can either vote to maintain the status quo, or let marginalized groups be attacked and vilified as fascists gain power.
The status quo already has marginalized groups being attacked and vilified.
Yes, which is why you have to combine that with grassroots movements. Just voting third party or for Trump gets fascists elected, and voting is therefore just loss prevention. To move to the left and improve things, Unionization, protesting, and organizing from the bottom-up is necessary.
Yes, which is why you have to combine that with grassroots movements. Just voting third party or for Trump gets fascists elected, and voting is therefore just loss prevention.
It's not even loss prevention. It's slightly delaying outright fascism. The Democratic Party has no interest in anything more ambitious.
To move to the left and improve things, Unionization, protesting, and organizing from the bottom-up is necessary.
You're correct. The only major party that keeps insisting that it protects the vulnerable doesn't. I hope unions will do what Democrats refuse to.