Too bad it already did. Henry Cuellar won his party primary in May, and he’s on the November general ballot. So the only options are vote for him, or give it to a Republican.
This is pure Republican PR. They included a poison pill in the resolution so that Democrats would vote against it, and then they can associate those Democrats with socialism. The reality is that far more than 8 Democrats would have voted in favor of the resolution of it hadn't included that.
So the idiotic democratic politicians prefer to vote with republicans than be associated with socialism when dems will learn to stop getting preoccupied about what the republicans fascists think of them
Yep. And therefore at least in the current political climate of the US an excellent thing for Congress to spin their wheels on. With the current composition they certainly won't even attempt to tackle any real issues.
Ha. One of them is Henry Cuellar. Party leadership supported him in the primary the last time he had a progressive challenger, and it was because of votes like this.
They claimed it was because he was the incumbent. But Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were both incumbents, only they weren't singlemindedly genocidal like every last centrist at all times, so they got no protection.
And Ken Martin hasn't fixed shit. He is currently presiding over the party's push against the non-genocidal wing.
Public sectors of capitalist economies are not socialist. Since they are owned by a capitalist state, the state is ultimately bought in to having the public sector facilitate the expansion of capital.
My argument is that socialism requires workers to hold power over the state and the commanding heights of the economy. Public and private sectors are not independent of each other, and as a consequence the class that dominates society shapes and molds both sectors to serve their interests.
I actually agree with you - by definition of socialism, that's true, and very often we label things "socialism" when it's just "publicly funded services". In Canada we have single-payer health care - it's not true socialism because only some workers only hold power, but that's if they have a union (nurses).
But there's two points to be made:
Nothing about postal service, road maintenance, or trash collection bars them from being actual socialist programs - they could all be owned and operated by the workers, so the OP comment kind of stands, kind of.
I'm of the opinion that the meaning of words can change over time, especially as they get used more commonly in their derivation than their original definition. I think Socialism might be one of those things that is changing meaning. Even though we don't have true socialism, does a tax based government ever achieve "socialism"? We as tax payers will never own or control the thing being funded - the government does. They're just a middleman between us and services (private and public), and we'll never really have true socialism.
So you have the right attacking social services as "socialism bad", you have the left defending social services as "socialism good", and then you have others saying "none of that is socialism" and pulling their hair out. We're at this point where when someone says "socialism", it's actually talking about social services provided by the government, even if it's, by definition, incorrect.
Edit: we, as tax payers, should object to funding social programs that are just funding private businesses. I've seen local governments end their self-run trash collectors and instead contract out private businesses that do a horrendous job - they cut every corner possible, and it's pure corruption by politicians to funnel tax money to private companies.
The biggest problem is that you are removing the state from the class struggle. The state operates in the interests of the ruling class of a given society, be it capitalists or workers. Tax-funded programs in socialism aren't not socialist because a worker government is still socialist. It isn't about "true socialism," it's about understanding how the class struggle actually operates.
A useful comparison is the inverse of welfare under capitalism, which is private ownership under socialism. China is a good example, which has private ownership for non-critical secondary industries. It uses this marketization to help build up the productive forces to a level where planned economy can more effectively take over. This isn't a "capitalist sector" in the truest sense, it exists explicitly to build up higher forms of socialism.
You cannot cut a part of a whole system out and individually judge it in a vacuum. The necessary context that it exists in must be understood.
I actually haven't had the time to look this up. Are there any good examples of Dems that lose their seats over this kind of behavior? The party is pretty infamously anti-socialist even though it appropriates much of the social justice rhetoric that people associate with socialism
revolution? "Revolution!?!" Just as I have pointed out elsewhere, as soon as the primaries are over -voters that were previously bad-mouthing these congress-people will fall in line and vote them back into office just for the letter next to their name. There will be no revolution when voters refuse to even hold their own representatives accountable.
Well, then why don't we start planning it? If someone with the know-how to setup and host an actually secure platform for us to plan, I would pitch in to the best of my ability.
Revolutions are generally not planed just like the way and when you will die. The more the country, is devided ideologically and the lives of a big part of the population is terrible the highest the chance of a revolution will happen
Henry Ceullar is a Republican in every way that counts. He had his chief advisor set up a dark money operation that funneled money from Mexico and Azerbaijan to support his campaigns against progressive primary challengers in return for political favors.
Public sectors of capitalist economies are not socialist. Since they are owned by a capitalist state, the state is ultimately bought in to having the public sector facilitate the expansion of capital.
Genuinely curious, are you trying to say the abolition of the US military would be a bad thing? The number one polluting entity in the entire world, and the main mechanism for enforcing US imperialism?
idk, I think I might have responded to the wrong comment actually the parent makes no sense to my comment that I can see.
As to your question, there is 0 chance of the most powerful military disbanding. And if they did some other dickheads would take their place. I am against almost every thing the military has done in my life yes. We have bad leadership.
I'm more hopeful, the US military will likely dissolve within a human lifetime. The US Empire is in clear decay, and maintaining such a huge military presence is enormously expensive. It only makes sense as long as it regularly ensures superprofits from imperialism, but with the rise of China and south-south trade, Statesian profits are shrinking. AI is becoming an all-in bet by the frightened and desparate capitalist class of the US, but this is headed for a similar crash like the .com bubble. With high expenses and a drop in profits, the military becomes unsustainable. We are already seeing the impact of this in the Iran war. Meanwhile, there is nobody with both the means and the drive to replace the US Empire.
I wish. My rep is on there and we had 2 progressive challengers, but near as I can tell, no real support and the result was him winning with like 70%+ of the vote.
This is the kind of place where people will shoot themselves in the foot before they vote for anyone who might raise taxes or stop bombing brown people.
The capitalist state isn't socialist in any capacity. Public ownership and publicly run industry under capitalism supports the extension and expansion of capital alone. Taxation isn't socialism either. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution at a societal level, where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes dominate the state.
Wait, 8? Out of two 214? So that means 206 democrats didn't do that knowing how much it's actually terrible politically? That's a pretty good result, I wonder why nobody is talking about how good it is, huh?
Marie Gluzencamp Perez is 100% a maga republican she votes with them basically always and misrepresents her self at every opportunity to the point I knew she would be ok this list
67 Comments
waltersf@bookwyr.me · 48 pts · 1d
Red Scare 4 folks.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 21 pts · 1d
NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 19h
that one stings. too soon.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 47 pts · 1d
My DEMOCRATIC Congressman is on that list, of course. His office gets a call from me tomorrow. He's such a smarmy loser. I fucking HATE that guy.
waltersf@bookwyr.me · 10 pts · 1d
Why call?
Show him who is the actual boss.
NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 19h
Sure, but when the primaries end, most of the people bad-mouthing him will fall in line and vote for him anyways because of a letter next to his name.
ramble81@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 7h
Too bad it already did. Henry Cuellar won his party primary in May, and he’s on the November general ballot. So the only options are vote for him, or give it to a Republican.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 1d
Now do fascism.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 1d
They're already doing it
Major_Tsiom@fedia.io · 32 pts · 1d
What a good use of time! This really goes a long way towards dispelling the notion that the government is corrupt and incompetent! /s
Objection@lemmy.ml · 26 pts · 1d
What this is actually about:
This is pure Republican PR. They included a poison pill in the resolution so that Democrats would vote against it, and then they can associate those Democrats with socialism. The reality is that far more than 8 Democrats would have voted in favor of the resolution of it hadn't included that.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 10h
So democrats hate their left flank so much, they're happy to assist their best buddy trump in killing democracy.
Complicit. All the time.
mrdown@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 17h
So the idiotic democratic politicians prefer to vote with republicans than be associated with socialism when dems will learn to stop getting preoccupied about what the republicans fascists think of them
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 7h
If the DSA were pro-genocide, centrists wouldn't be siding with trump yet again.
mycodesucks@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1d
What a funny coincidence... Both of my middle fingers unanimously voted to condemn Congress in all its forms.
psycho_driver@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1d
Lets see what shockingly small number of the nays can actually explain what socialism is.
Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
Is this as useless as a "strongly worded letter"? I think this is pandering more than anything else
COASTER1921@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
Yep. And therefore at least in the current political climate of the US an excellent thing for Congress to spin their wheels on. With the current composition they certainly won't even attempt to tackle any real issues.
Armand1@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
Well, now you clearly know who to vote out come the primaries.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Ha. One of them is Henry Cuellar. Party leadership supported him in the primary the last time he had a progressive challenger, and it was because of votes like this.
They claimed it was because he was the incumbent. But Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were both incumbents, only they weren't singlemindedly genocidal like every last centrist at all times, so they got no protection.
And Ken Martin hasn't fixed shit. He is currently presiding over the party's push against the non-genocidal wing.
ramble81@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 7h
Except the Primary (for Cuellar) was back in May and be won it. November is the general election against a Republican.
Shea@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
So no more postal service, no more roads, no more trash collectors, right
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 1d
-Carl Marks
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
Public sectors of capitalist economies are not socialist. Since they are owned by a capitalist state, the state is ultimately bought in to having the public sector facilitate the expansion of capital.
Lulzagna@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
"it's not socialism unless it comes from the Sociale region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling state capitalism"
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
My argument is that socialism requires workers to hold power over the state and the commanding heights of the economy. Public and private sectors are not independent of each other, and as a consequence the class that dominates society shapes and molds both sectors to serve their interests.
Lulzagna@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I actually agree with you - by definition of socialism, that's true, and very often we label things "socialism" when it's just "publicly funded services". In Canada we have single-payer health care - it's not true socialism because only some workers only hold power, but that's if they have a union (nurses).
But there's two points to be made:
So you have the right attacking social services as "socialism bad", you have the left defending social services as "socialism good", and then you have others saying "none of that is socialism" and pulling their hair out. We're at this point where when someone says "socialism", it's actually talking about social services provided by the government, even if it's, by definition, incorrect.
Edit: we, as tax payers, should object to funding social programs that are just funding private businesses. I've seen local governments end their self-run trash collectors and instead contract out private businesses that do a horrendous job - they cut every corner possible, and it's pure corruption by politicians to funnel tax money to private companies.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
The biggest problem is that you are removing the state from the class struggle. The state operates in the interests of the ruling class of a given society, be it capitalists or workers. Tax-funded programs in socialism aren't not socialist because a worker government is still socialist. It isn't about "true socialism," it's about understanding how the class struggle actually operates.
A useful comparison is the inverse of welfare under capitalism, which is private ownership under socialism. China is a good example, which has private ownership for non-critical secondary industries. It uses this marketization to help build up the productive forces to a level where planned economy can more effectively take over. This isn't a "capitalist sector" in the truest sense, it exists explicitly to build up higher forms of socialism.
You cannot cut a part of a whole system out and individually judge it in a vacuum. The necessary context that it exists in must be understood.
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 17h
That just tells us who needs to go next.
orioler25@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 16h
I actually haven't had the time to look this up. Are there any good examples of Dems that lose their seats over this kind of behavior? The party is pretty infamously anti-socialist even though it appropriates much of the social justice rhetoric that people associate with socialism
HubertManne@piefed.social · 11 pts · 1d
new mexico is the most disapointing. That one says I though so really 7. still.
thenextguy@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
8D + 1I
HubertManne@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
ugh your right. and two abstentions.
cenzorrll@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 1d
Vasquez represents a typically pretty conservative area. It's disappointing, but it's better than the alternative.
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 1d
Remember those names if a revolution ever comes. They'll try to claim they're on your side, only to backstab and sell you out.
NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 19h
revolution? "Revolution!?!" Just as I have pointed out elsewhere, as soon as the primaries are over -voters that were previously bad-mouthing these congress-people will fall in line and vote them back into office just for the letter next to their name. There will be no revolution when voters refuse to even hold their own representatives accountable.
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 17h
Well, then why don't we start planning it? If someone with the know-how to setup and host an actually secure platform for us to plan, I would pitch in to the best of my ability.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 10h
If you live in the US, you likely live near a PSL branch. You can check out their party program and see if it aligns with your views!
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 9h
Totally schway. Thanks for the info.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 9h
No problem!
Godric@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
Waiting for "the revolution" is like waiting for the rapture. Nice to dream about, shit to rely on.
Much better to remember bastards during my favorite season: primary season!
mrdown@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Revolutions are generally not planed just like the way and when you will die. The more the country, is devided ideologically and the lives of a big part of the population is terrible the highest the chance of a revolution will happen
johnefrancis@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 1d
tear up the roads
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 8h
I bet, among all democrats, those 8 are a lot richer now than they were when they first entered the lucrative career of politics.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4h
Henry Ceullar is a Republican in every way that counts. He had his chief advisor set up a dark money operation that funneled money from Mexico and Azerbaijan to support his campaigns against progressive primary challengers in return for political favors.
mrdown@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
I thought Hakim was in the list
humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 1d
And fetterman. POS.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 1d
Fetterman's not in the house.
Lulzagna@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Didn't they already do exactly this in Trump's first presidency?
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 1d
Great so the U.S. military is no longer?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
Public sectors of capitalist economies are not socialist. Since they are owned by a capitalist state, the state is ultimately bought in to having the public sector facilitate the expansion of capital.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 23h
Don't give them any ideas.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 7h
Genuinely curious, are you trying to say the abolition of the US military would be a bad thing? The number one polluting entity in the entire world, and the main mechanism for enforcing US imperialism?
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 5h
idk, I think I might have responded to the wrong comment actually the parent makes no sense to my comment that I can see.
As to your question, there is 0 chance of the most powerful military disbanding. And if they did some other dickheads would take their place. I am against almost every thing the military has done in my life yes. We have bad leadership.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 5h
I'm more hopeful, the US military will likely dissolve within a human lifetime. The US Empire is in clear decay, and maintaining such a huge military presence is enormously expensive. It only makes sense as long as it regularly ensures superprofits from imperialism, but with the rise of China and south-south trade, Statesian profits are shrinking. AI is becoming an all-in bet by the frightened and desparate capitalist class of the US, but this is headed for a similar crash like the .com bubble. With high expenses and a drop in profits, the military becomes unsustainable. We are already seeing the impact of this in the Iran war. Meanwhile, there is nobody with both the means and the drive to replace the US Empire.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 4h
Oh yeah, the US is building on a default on it's obligations, which will trigger a collapse. We've long known this.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4h
Agreed!
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Guess those Democrats In Name Only faced or are facing primaries against Socialist Democrats?
darthelmet@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
I wish. My rep is on there and we had 2 progressive challengers, but near as I can tell, no real support and the result was him winning with like 70%+ of the vote.
This is the kind of place where people will shoot themselves in the foot before they vote for anyone who might raise taxes or stop bombing brown people.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 1d
Kevin Kiley is not an independent. He just stopped putting R next to his name to confuse CA voters who largely hate the Republican Party.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 8h
A bunch of people whose jobs exist because of the socialist practice of combining taxes to pay for government services, have condemned socialism.
Morons.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 8h
The capitalist state isn't socialist in any capacity. Public ownership and publicly run industry under capitalism supports the extension and expansion of capital alone. Taxation isn't socialism either. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution at a societal level, where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes dominate the state.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 5 pts · 1d
They really have nothing better to do, that they are "allowed" to do by their parties do they?
Pathetic.
Nalivai@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1h
Wait, 8? Out of two 214? So that means 206 democrats didn't do that knowing how much it's actually terrible politically? That's a pretty good result, I wonder why nobody is talking about how good it is, huh?
CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1h
Marie Gluzencamp Perez is 100% a maga republican she votes with them basically always and misrepresents her self at every opportunity to the point I knew she would be ok this list
Malica@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 1h
Hopefully this will be enough to make it crystal clear that these people are on the same side, the side of the Epstein class.
btsax@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 1d
Maybe they're all anarchists?