glomper_stomper posted:someone link to the good parts. i want to see as little of a WHCD as humanly possible
Here's a transcript, but it was probably worth watching just for all the long faces
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/05/01/the-complete-transcript-of-larry-wilmores-2016-white-house-correspondents-dinner-speech/
thirdplace posted:do i have to? i don't really wanna
you can choose not to wonder, but you can't choose not to choose.
And maybe a Klinton Klan rally
drwhat posted:i wish we could just fast forward to the elections. i am not really looking forward to even the three minutes of highlight reel from the clinton vs trump debates. what would the questions even be? "so how many people are you going to kill, and why should we trust you to be the one to hit the highest kills number?"
i forgot they were even going to debate until this post.... damn.... yeah that's going to be awful lol
eccentricdeathmongrel posted:
Can u blame an old man for wanting one final disappointment to rage against in his twilight years
eccentricdeathmongrel posted:
donald is awful
at posting
camera_obscura posted:donald is awful
at posting
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
eccentricdeathmongrel posted:
I guess the Rhizzone Consensus has not been delivered to fellow travelers
if the us is a social democracy, of course that is no guarantee that the imperialism will stop. russia after all, maintained it's involvement in the great war after the tsar was overthrown and social democracy established. however, it means that there is a bit of breathing room. Socialism is no longer a bad word, the government can't publicly make anti-socialist comments or decisions without attracting the ire of their supporters. bernie's democratic socialism isn't really socialism. that's the only reason it hasn't been destroyed or ignored completely.
mass political participation, not just in voting, will increase awareness of Socialism. fascist rallies will mobilize anti-fascists, and disrupting them will increase solidarity and foster ties in shared blood shed. social democracy winning would make socialism more possible, not less.
Red_Canadian posted:i still don't know why you guys are so against him.
first, a period of social democracy isnt just something you get when you vote for a "social democrat", it's something that happens when capital fears radical workers movements enough that it is willing to grant dramatic concessions to certain sections of those movements in order to defuse further development of the class struggle and head off actual socialism. sanders doesnt even have that because he doesnt have a strong, radical workers movement to throw under the bus (at least any more than any other candidate does). also,
getfiscal posted:imagine if sanders won and he was like alright folks time to implement my plan to break up every major financial institution into smaller banks. i'll just pass this bill through congress which shatters wall street.
congress: yes, we will quickly pass this bill. we may not all be fans of yours but we definitely agree we should take on the combined might of US financial institutions.
wall street: well, the bill passed, and i think we learned a valuable lesson. we lost trillions in investments but that's life. fortunately sanders is very much a supporter of main street, so the economy will be fine.
insurance companies: oh now he's socialized health insurance. our entire industry is closing down. we'll have to make the transition as easy as possible for patients, since it's the right thing to do.
doctors: the government directly employs us now, which is fine with us, since we went into this profession to heal people, not clear a million a year tightening the skin on people's necks.
democratic socialists of america: thank you guys so much for being cool about this.
as for c_man's post, that precisely my point. social democracy is a non-starter, there is a reason capitalism dominates our society, and it's not because there needs to be just a couple more laws to restrain their excesses. we know this, but the masses don't. we know this because we are the learned scholar types. even if we arrived there from self-taught whilst scrabbling for a living. most people just scrabble, devote their desire for knowledge to pre-packed harmless tidbits, like the starting offensive line of who the fuck cares. our role is to be hard scrabblers, who also are stalwart and personally courageous advocates for socialism.
Red_Canadian posted:argh lost a post. 8 years is too long to ask people to wait in the current situation.
as for c_man's post, that precisely my point. social democracy is a non-starter, there is a reason capitalism dominates our society, and it's not because there needs to be just a couple more laws to restrain their excesses. we know this, but the masses don't. we know this because we are the learned scholar types. even if we arrived there from self-taught whilst scrabbling for a living. most people just scrabble, devote their desire for knowledge to pre-packed harmless tidbits, like the starting offensive line of who the fuck cares. our role is to be hard scrabblers, who also are stalwart and personally courageous advocates for socialism.
what the hell is this
marimite posted:yeah not like socdems supported ww1 and then murdered the people who opposed them with paramilitaries that would become the base for the nazis. it's called social fascism because it makes socialism less possible, like all fascism.
imo that's giving the man too much credit. i've never seen anything to indicate that sanders is anything other than a progressive liberal, which makes sense given the party he is running to be a candidate of
Social democratism, like Bernie Sanders' campaign, is a politics of class collaboration.
"When social democratic reform leaders are in 'power' they conduct themselves as 'loyal managers of the capitalist regime,' which they have no desire really to 'overthrow,' at least not in deeds, whatever their declarations."
Don't think we need to look any further in recent history than Syriza on that point.
Supporting Bernie Sanders is a dead end and just a capitulation of the working class to the politics of the bourgeois class. Don't do it! It's a Trap!
Red_Canadian posted:i still don't know why you guys are so against him.
then maybe you should start reading our posts
you seem to be staying that ideological correctness is completely necessary for communism, but canada already has in two communist parties, and the american have their equivalents. this just in, they have absolutely failed to increase their support over decades.
it seems like plenty of young people are supporting bernie. i'm saying that is a potential growth area for communism, because he's talking about some of the right things and he's popular. i'm not denying your point. i just can't understand how it means that we should maintain ideological rigidity and correctness when that has been shown to utterly fail in increasing support.
I guess my point could be summed up like this; since there hasn't never been a workers revolution that was successful without an interval of social democracy failing to support the workers interests, therefore we should support a social democratic candidate that we know will fail those interests, because then we can share the betrayal with the other disillusioned folks and further radicalise them.
you seem to be saying the appropriate thing to do is stay aloof, promote the correct line, and support only those movements who have no connection to the masses.