thelastaxolotl [he/him]
Slop.US "socialists" be like "Vote for Anticomunism "
https://x.com/MarcoFoster_/status/2102154437141700896
I blame Bernie Sanders for spreading this worthless meme and convincing socdems that it's a good argument, it arises from the same place that convinces libs to try and "out flank" the right-wing in terms of reactionary signaling, except in this case it's somehow worse because the socdems don't even realize they're being reactionary
The problem is it fails at a fundamental level as agitprop and rhetoric, people don't hear the "corporate" part (because the word is politically inert in the eyes of normies) all they hear is the socialism part, and voters are not gonna bother making the mental leaps necessary to figure out "oh he means the capitalists are hypocrites because they love "socialism" for their class, but they don't want us to have it, so actually socialism is cool"
Like how many goddamn leaps of logic would that take an uneducated normie to get to that position, even the people claiming it's anti-socialism are wrong, because this rhetoric does nothing but confuse the average person, and confusion translates to apathy and disinterest among voters, in other words "in one ear, out the other"
In the end who cares, Abdul is popular because of his polices not because he borrows worthless rhetoric from Sanders, but of course some people elevate rhetoric and it's perfection as the highest virtue
I get the idea here, trying to communicate that the state serves the hegemonic class, there’s no fairy tale system in which it is neutral. But this particular framing just muddies the waters and reinforces the “socialism is when state does things” misconception.
" we don't live under capitalism"
opinion safely discarded
no you don’t understand, by voting for anticommunism we will make americans more amenable to the idea of communism
logical end point of rtx bernie, good thing there is no possible constituency amongst capitalists to provide treats, so that amerikkkans will continue eating some amount of shit they dish out into the world.
All this shows is he has absolutely zero understanding of political theory or economics.
dude is selling himself to the people of michigan who largely believe socialism is evil. whether he actually understands the basics of socialism isn't material to that goal.
This is blatant tailism. Conceding to reactionaries undermines your goals long term unless you yourself are a reactionary.
We shouldn't be fucking galvanizing the masses to take brutal action to suppress "socialists".
You can do that without making further political development more difficult. That's why I despise framing welfare as socialism, or tax breaks for capitalists as "socialism for the rich," confusing radicalized liberals inevitably leads to socdem politics as reinforced by bourgeois cultural hegemony.
He's personally never claimed to be a socialist. He has no ties to any movement that would benefit from people wanting socialism. He's just one guy who cares about his career as a senator.
Agreed.
Yeah, you're not about to catch me saying that this isn't a limit of electoralism or it's a good thing. But what it is is an example of someone who has undoubtedly looked at some kind of opinion poll, social media sentiment check (especially as is relates to smears made against you), and recent election messaging response to determine what kind of phrasing moves the needle. More correct != more votes. In my personal experience tying yourself into a knot to be correct and still appealing only serves to confuse your audience who doesn't understand the domain enough to understand what you're being correct about. Socialism is when the government does stuff it the prevailing understanding, socialism is when the government does stuff for corporations is a critique that the GOP can't untangle in the voter's mind because Rogers gets a Gorillian dollars from AIPAC.
That's the way I've been observing the landscape recently.
This is true. The calculus then asks "can he win the race without saying this garbage" and if the answer is yes, then he shouldn't have said it. But seeing as he has no personal investment in the success of socialism, he isn't bothered to ask that question or take the risk of being conscious not to punch left for no reason.
dog you can just say corporatism, that is a word that already means something
This is a take i saw being peddled in like 2013 on reddit. What a loser
He’s going hard for the white boomer crony capitalism understander demographic.
Educating others is not necessarily hard work, it's just steady and tedious. Liberals treating theory like it's fundamentally alien and therefore not worth engaging with is endlessly frustrating, but it's not an unwinnable battle (not that you made it seem that way).
To be fair you need to read like 2-3 books to fully understand the modern concept of socialism fully.
However in this case even reading a wikipedia article would be a massive improvement
What's wrong with explaining it in a couple of sentences, like this?
"We live in a society where capitalists, i.e. people who invest their money in various ventures and collect profits from them for a living, run both the economy and the government. Socialism is just about building a society where instead of capitalists making the decisions everywhere, workers do instead."
We live in a society
I think one can grasp socialism in essence in as little as a pamphlet. "Full understanding" on the other hand takes many, many books and practical experience. The floor is actually pretty low, but the ceiling is very high. Bringing that ceiling down to digestable components to bring people above the floor is a core part of educational praxis.
All we need is some kind of manifesto, to get the ball rolling. Its a shame no one has ever written one
Rest in peace
https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/pamphlets/1933/ch01.htm
But updated with more modern lingo.
Oh, haven't seen that one! And yep, a contemporary, clear, sober analysis of the political movement in the imperial core and an exposition on the basics of capitalism, imperialism, settler-colonialism, the struggle for socialism, and how we move forward would be a fantastic bit of agitprop. I know the various parties have their own pamphlets, but I'm curious if the method of distribution needs to be reconsidered. The core is rapidly changing and we can't fall behind.
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. Do workers control the means of production in the USA? No. So we aren’t living under socialism. That’ll be five bucks.
We don't live in Capitalism! We live in *perfectly describes capitalism*
Did El Sayed ever claim to be a socialist? I thought he was openly like a progressive liberal.
Pretty sure he's outright said he's a capitalist
Dude owns real estate in UAE iirc
What a cool country I live in
lol wait did the local DSA endorse him?
If there hasn't been an endorsement there shouldn't be, but this is getting mad about nothing. He is a left liberal, and i would be surprised if any socialist mistook him as otherwise. These posts feel like yelling at clouds sometimes.
That said, I do think he is principled in his stances (whether I agree or disagree), and in the context of 2026 electoralism I think he is a very useful ally to the DemSoc wing. I have never seen him punch left, but if he started to lean into that at any point I wouldn't have a lot of nice things to say. Being a liberal, he doesn't get any sort of grace from me.
I do not believe so.
I thought he was, im going to change it
[fart noise]
