this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
37 points (93.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8539 readers
260 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

Politicians like Mamdani are the left wing of capital. Full stop. They’ll give you a whole speech about the failures of capitalism, but their solution is always, always just to put a band-aid on a bullet wound and hope you don’t notice the system is still bleeding you dry. It’s a tale as old as time where they co-opt the energy of the masses, promise change from within, and ultimately do nothing but delay the inevitable crisis.

And Mamdani is just the modern day version of Eduard Bernstein. It’s honestly staggering how this playbook hasn’t changed in over a century. Bernstein was a big deal in the SPD, and he’s the guy who looked at Marx’s revolutionary ideas and said, nah, we can just vote our way into socialism. He threw class conflict out the window and argued we could slowly reform capitalism into something nicer. He successfully turned the SPD from a revolutionary party into a mild appendage of liberalism, trading worker power for wage increases and welfare programs that left the capitalist class firmly in charge. Rosa Luxemburg called this out in Reform or Revolution where she said that his strategy sucks the revolutionary soul right out of the working class.

Sound familiar?

Mamdani is doing the exact same thing. He gives great speeches about the 1% and corporate greed, but his entire project is about social democratic reforms within a capitalist framework. These are good things! But they’re treating the symptoms, not the disease.

The real damage is in channelling what could be a millions-strong grassroots movement directly into the graveyard of the Democratic Party. All that energy, all that hope, are funnelled into meaningless action like phone banking and canvassing for a party that is structurally, irrevocably dedicated to preserving capitalism. Instead of building real, independent power through unions, strikes, and community networks, people got a cult of personality around one candidate.

Reforms under capitalism are always conditional and designed to demobilize the masses. Imagine if all that energy had been directed toward unionizing every Amazon warehouse, organizing mass rent strikes, and building community mutual aid networks that create real dual power. Look at movements like MAS in Bolivia to see what’s possible.

And here’s the kicker, the part that should terrify everyone is that the reformist path actively paves the way for fascism. The SPD’s commitment to playing by the bourgeois rules made them utterly unprepared to confront the Nazis. They prioritized legalistic, parliamentary games over mass mobilization and direct action. They disarmed the working class ideologically and organizationally. And when the Nazis started gaining power, the SPD famously refused to support a general strike or armed resistance, clinging to their faith in a system that was already collapsing. They even allied with the Nazis against the communists in the end.

Now look at the “progressive” squad in the Democratic Party. Same playbook. They use leftist rhetoric to absorb grassroots energy, then funnel it back into a party funded by capital. Their watered-down, incrementalist policies fuel mass disillusionment, which the far-right is all too happy to exploit.

The Democrats’ “pragmatic incrementalism” is just managing the decline. It sustains a system that creates the very misery and despair that a Trump capitalizes on. They are the firewall against real change, and their reforms are designed to prevent any sort of structural change. We’re watching the same historical cycle play out in real time.

TLDR: Reformism is a dead end that disarms the working class and ultimately strengthens the far-right. Mamdani is the modern Bernstein, and the Democratic Party is the new SPD.

[–] Fancy_Gecko@lemmy.ml 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

get your fell for it again medals here : 🏅

[–] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

... yea....

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There it is lmao, the AOCIA arc begins

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Glad he did it before the election.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Still held out some hope he'd be the exception that proved the rule

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

Same. No idea why he decided to capitulate AFTER winning the primaries. Everyone knows capitulating to Zionists never works.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Even if Mamdami didn't believe that, it would still be the smart thing to say. Elections are a popularity competition, there's no prize for saying the truth; just ask a climate scientist. The point is to change things.

It's important to get out of the liberalist mindset of thinking electoralism (here and now) should be about honestly stating every policy and correct position. We don't live in a marketplace of ideas where simply being correct is worth anything. If the bulk of the population isn't on board with socialism, then an election seat is either useful for milquetoast mild reform or for propaganda platforming (e.g. Sanders making "socialism" a more approachable idea despite Sanders clearly contradicting socialism in many other statements).

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, it wouldn't be the smart thing. He could have dodged the question, but by affirming the imperialist narrative he supports the Empire's current aggression on Venezuela, and blocks discussion from mainstream leftist discourse.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're right, dodging the question would have been much smarter. I haven't seen the context but I doubt there's any need for the mayor of New York to declare a position on these two leaders, and Mamdami has already famously dodged the Zionist Regime visit question in the primaries debate.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Yep, agreed!

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A right-wing candidate would never condemn Bolsonaro or Melei or Orban. They'd either praise them or attack their enemies.

That's the smart thing to say. Whenever they're cornered by reporters and asked about far right leaders in other countries they never condemn them, because it's a signal to the base that they're True Believers and it helps build coalitions across the right.

When are Democrats going to learn from Republicans? This is a winning strategy that the right has mastered. We can do it too.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I agree that the rhetorical technique is smart and one we should learn about.

Although I think there's a false equivalence there within the mainstream US context, because red scare propaganda wholeheartedly declares Venezuela and Cuba to be undemocratic dictatorships, while Bolsonaro and Melei bare resemblance to Trump themselves by being (seen as) the rightward tip of mainstream electoralism, a little extreme but still still capitalist #democracies.

Sanders has infamously praised Castro and Cuba a few times, I wasn't really paying attention so I don't know how well this was received by the Democrat audience. I remember it was a headline controversy back in 2020, but it certainly didn't ruin Sanders.

As for attacking their enemies... one would have to be very careful attacking America to an audience of mainstream Americans. It's possible to (in bad faith) frame it as criticizing specific governments (Bush, Trump) instead of imperialism, or even possibly framing it as a problem with capitalism, but given their target audience that's a tough leap to make in one go - remember that these leaders are seen by most as "authoritarian dictators" and it's not easy to unravel that much propaganda in a couple of speeches. I don't know how effective it would be to attack those leaders' domestic enemies or historical predecessors (see yellow Parenti snippet on Cuba).

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If your middle of the road beliefs were correct, he wouldn’t have won the primary.

You centrists are a danger to this country. You create the space for fascism to thrive.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am a communist. The liberal electoral system is systemically rigged towards the bourgeoisie and it would be ridiculous to approach it in good faith.

If your middle of the road beliefs were correct, he wouldn’t have won the primary.

What do you mean? Mamdami's primary platform didn't depart from capitalism as far as I saw. Furthermore, the primary has a different voting audience and calls for different tactics (even if using the same strategy) to improve chances of winning that popularity contest.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago

Ah yes. The most critical of positions for New York City Mayor.

I wonder how long he's been pressured to publicly express a stance on foreign governments as a candidate.

[–] azalea_simsii@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 4 days ago

not surprising, but still disappointing lol

[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

i don't think that cuba can be considered a dictatorship. not so much about venezuela but that's none of my business - and for the record, not of the US too.

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 0 points 2 days ago

When Fidel was in charge, it absolutely was a dictatorship. That his brother took over from him is a little clue to that fact. Now I'm less certain. Since the Communist party in Cuba has some actually well meaning people in it, there's a possibility that with the old guard dead or retired they may cease being a dictatorship.