[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by The Man

Tulsi Gabbard was flat-out lying about a lot of Harris' record

When Kamala Was a Top Cop

Harris’s office didn’t merely fight to keep a man in prison after he’d demonstrated his innocence to the satisfaction of the Innocence Project, a judge, and an appeals court. After losing, it fought to keep the newly released man from being compensated for the decade that he spent wrongfully imprisoned.

Originally Posted by The Man

...learn to use some fucking paragraph breaks once in a while.

Good advice!

Originally Posted by The Man

No less a source than Noam Chomsky emphasizes again and again that it's necessary for radicals to engage with actually existing power structures in order to change them, rather than simply disengage from the system entirely.

Two key points: what Noam Chomsky is arguing and what Adam L. Silverman is arguing are two different things. Adam Silverman is specifically arguing that the Democrats must avail themselves of dark money, large donations, corporate donors to win. That's what you linked to. Here's Chomsky:

The concentration of wealth and enhancement of corporate power translate automatically to decline of democracy. Research in academic political science has revealed that a large majority of voters are literally disenfranchised, in that their own representatives pay no attention to their wishes but listen to the voices of the donor class. It is furthermore well established that elections are pretty much bought: electability, hence policy, is predictable with remarkable precision from the single variable of campaign spending, both for the executive and Congress. ...>snip<...
It’s hard to see how some form of civil conflict can be avoided unless the Democrats reverse course sharply and become a political party that doesn’t simply abandon the working class to its bitter class enemy, as they have done for 40 years.

You can't suck at the corporate teat and reverse corporate capture of the party.

Second key point:

Originally Posted by The Man

... it's necessary for radicals to engage with actually existing power structures in order to change them, rather than simply disengage from the system entirely.

Disengaging from the system entirely is not a position anyone is taking in this conversation, nor the point of my previous post. Electoral politics are part of politics, and one can choose to not avail themselves of rich donors AND participate in electoral politics, despite the grave warnings of the rich donor class and Centrist Democrats and the army of people who make money off of this system.

Originally Posted by The Man

If you were paying enough attention, perhaps you wouldn't be writing lengthy bad-faith attacks on people you are ostensibly allied with.

You say bad faith and straw man a lot, but I don't think you're using either term well.

Originally Posted by The Man

So what's your alternative solution? Revolution? Good luck with that.

See? Now that's how you start a straw man.

Originally Posted by The Man

You probably won't get it to happen when people are as desperate as many of them currently are, anyway. People tend not to revolt when they're too worried about where their next meal is going to come from. Contrary to common belief, most revolutionaries tend to be from the middle and upper classes.

And that's how you finish a straw man, by rebutting an argument I never made.

Armed struggle against the government- if that's what you mean by revolution- is not viable and suicidal. Not effective. See Chomsky on the subject.

What is effective is building mass movements around worker power, class war, and social justice that organize for general strike power and civil disobedience, and create enough social pressure on politicians to change policies.

That's how you counter the senate, filibuster, procedural folderol, and how you counter intractable and entrenched interests. See Chomsky on the subject here:

the professor said that if young people and activists revived a strong labour movement, which could overcome racial conflict like it did in the 1930s, then the workers’ favour could be won back.

Originally Posted by The Man

Without a revolution (which is not going to happen) or a second constitutional convention (which would not go well for us), we're stuck with the levers of power where they are in this shitty timeline we're in. Refusing to engage with them because we don't like them won't win us any elections.

We are essentially in an undeclared civil war. Our opponents certainly aren't going to stop taking every advantage they can. It would be fucking imbecilic for us to cede advantages because we don't feel ~comfortable~ taking them.

Just to be clear, the specific advantage you're talking about here, that would be foolish to ignore in your opinion, are large corporate donors, dark money, and large donations from elites whose interests are 100% against changing the status quo.

Originally Posted by The Man

In short, fuck off until you're actually willing to engage with what I write.

I like your passion.