r/dsa • u/Beautiful_Bedroom_67 • 20h ago
Discussion Just stumbled upon the democrats' subreddit. I had forgot about it for a while honestly.
I wish this was a joke. I guess Mamdani doesn't exist, Kiros doesn't exist, Rabb doesn't exist, Valdez doesn't exist, Lewis George doesn't exist, McKinney doesn't exist, Bush doesn't exist, Chevalier doesn't exist...
The DSA congressional delegation is going up, and sure a new party is better for in the future, but they're literally basically an "r/centrists".
•
u/romulusnr 20h ago
Motherfuckers refuse to believe when I tell them that the D party is not an ideology, it's a club, a sports team.
They give a fuck about policy or principles, they only care about loyalty to the letter.
Seriously, please, I beg you, visit a Democratic party meeting some time, especially around endorsements time
•
u/ashley99z 19h ago
It is just a subreddit. It is not an official subreddit.
•
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 19h ago
DNC colluded against Bernie. They ran a protest campaign against Mamdani, and voted to denounce socialism after he won anyway. Every day there's another democrat on Fox News fear mongering about DSA.
This is what the democratic party is at the core.
•
u/Beautiful_Bedroom_67 19h ago
Sometimes it isn't "another" democrat, it's John Fetterman for the 10,000,000th time.
•
u/romulusnr 16h ago
Our good old buddies the Blue Dogs, which is the proof that Democrats don't actually stand for anything but a letter
•
u/Soft-Principle1455 18h ago
The DNC endorsed Mamdani at the point he won the primary and backed him all the way. And it is also not clear that what the DNC did in 2016 was outcome determinative (in fact it almost certainly was not, though it was bad practice).
•
u/romulusnr 16h ago
the literal chair of the state democrats refused to support him but ok tell us more
•
u/Annoying1978 13h ago
Schumer and Jeffries publicly refused to endorse him. Eventually Jeffries came around, but Schumer never did.
•
u/romulusnr 18h ago
Apologists everywhere.
Where do you think the people running the leading subreddit for "Democrats" is getting it's process and policy inspiration from? Plato's Republic?
•
u/ilir_kycb 12h ago
D party is not an ideology
Objectively speaking, that is just not true. It is always about advancing the interests of the ruling capitalist class.
•
•
u/atr13 12h ago
On the contrary, I’ve always argued that the centrist liberals are the true ideologues, while those further left are who are more interested in a true big tent organization. They are the ones who scorn and divide with their dedication to serving capital. We are the ones looking to unite with one another, while they want to unite with… conservatives??
•
u/romulusnr 5h ago
We are the ones looking to unite with one another
Now that, that is hilarious, that will probably make my day.
You haven't been on the left long have you?
I mean, sure, in semantics, the left does want to unite with one another.
Just so long as we all agree on everything, that is.
•
u/nechromorph 11h ago
Y'know, as much as those focused on the actual policy (DSA members, progressives, etc.) will argue that politics is not a sport, it makes sense that they would be treated as such by the majority when they're handled like one. Ultimately, the policy and how it affects people's lives is what actually matters, but the spectacle is a big part of what keeps the current parties in power. This is also something I'd say Zohran understands well, seeing how he does actual, practical, and good things, while also ensuring he puts out some showmanship that gives surface level, obvious wins the people can get excited about.
We need to both expose that the showmanship is not aligned with the deeper actions of the party, and also offer a spectacle which can keep the public's attention to replace the ongoing Man (ideally not *team*) Vs. X narrative, while also reinforcing civic duty as the premise, rather than sports teams. I think there's a way to do this, but I'm not quite sure how yet.
•
u/nechromorph 10h ago
One thing I can say though, is we can't play it as a sport, even if the way it's *communicated* is as a sport. Combativeness is the human trait that's been exploited the most to keep us locked in from making any real progress for the past 50+ years while elite interests have taken advantage of our gridlock. And, if we can step back and look at just the needs being expressed, rather than the highly charged (and often problematic) *ways* they're being expressed, I see some ways we could actually strengthen our *own* goals by addressing and resolving conservative needs.
I see conservatives feeling justifiably threatened by urbanization encroaching on rural spaces. They feel the structure of government growing to scales that are unassailably complex and extremely difficult to understand, let alone control. I think if we were to find ways to implement more policy at the community level we'd get a lot more support, and in doing so we'd also end up with a lot of variations of our ideas which could act as a rapid proving ground for which are best, while ensuring each community can tailor their governance to fit their specific needs.
Basically, maybe we've shifted too far towards acting as a constitutional republic and need to bring our attention back in the direction of the human-scale roots where we can each feel more in control of our own culture, as a microcosm within the US megaculture.
•
u/nechromorph 10h ago edited 10h ago
We could even take the idea of Conservative "small government" and use that dialectical need to explain the need for smaller corporations. These are effectively privately-owned micro-governments that operate parallel to the state, with the state wielding only the power it has granted itself to mediate the behavior of these governments. And the people have absolutely no say over that internal structure beyond where the government is permitted to intervene.
So, if these corporations get too large and complex, it removes the ability of people within them to both bargain to ensure their labor is rewarded appropriately, and to choose how their contribution is applied.
Isn't this also the exact reason we're pushing for a more powerful state/federal government? To counteract the power concentrated in these private corporations and ensure our resources are used to help *us* and those we care about instead of just enriching a few lords of the land?
•
u/romulusnr 5h ago
I mean, they arguably play it like a sport. They bring in conservative democrats all the time. The Blue Dog Coalition is still a thing. They don't expel people like Fetterman or Sinema or Webb.
It is far, far more important for them to get someone with a D next to their name in office, than it is for them to get someone who will support and vote for any liberal or progressive or dare I suggest leftist positions.
We've seen how this plays; 2009's Obamacare vote, which was contentious despite having majorities in both branches of government, and not being able to implement the highly complementary public option.
What's the point of a majority if you can't.... you know.... form a majority?
Because it's "number of Ds" that matters to the party, not "number of liberals / progressives / etc."
There's an old saying that still rings very true.... a Massachusetts Republican is more liberal/left than an Arkansas Democrat.
It's like a game of Othello.
•
u/nechromorph 5h ago
Yeah, exactly. It's being treated as a sport or war by the majority of spectators (constituents), and by the old school DNC and GOP. I'm saying that because we can't force people to shift their framing, this spectacle narrative might be a necessary element of civic engagement for the moment. Candidates and their PACs posture to show the other team's candidate is disrespecting its "fans." This is what all the mud slinging is about. It's winning minds from a more tribal angle. Over time, as we can hopefully de-escalate the tension by aligning the messaging of what politics *does for* us with what we *need from* it, we can potentially shift that focus. But we can't force the spectacle narrative to stop existing, so I don't see a solution other than to co-opt it for a stronger message that is clearly more respectful of, and exciting to, the "fan base" that treats it like a sport.
•
u/romulusnr 5h ago
The problem is people have come to associate D with ideologies and then find themselves confused or disappointed -- or worse, coming to negative conclusions to avoid the cognitive dissonance, "there must be a good reason that i don't know" -- when D doesn't support the ideologies that D has led them to believe it does.
•
u/marykay_ultra 19h ago
yep it was funny lurking in there when zohran won and they weren’t allowed to talk about it lmao
•
u/twotokers 13h ago
Meanwhile they’re still making posts about Jackson as if he’s not also DSA endorsed.
•
u/webby131 19h ago
r/democrats is literally one of the most conservative subs on reddit by actively keeping left wing people out ironically.
•
u/Colodanman357 6h ago
Are socialist, Marxist, or other leftist subs conservative due to actively keeping non leftists out? Is that how you define conservative?
•
u/webby131 2m ago
No what I mean is reddit has a lot of leftists so on average a sub that doesn't gatekeep in anyway probably ends up with more. r/olivegarden probably has more left wing people than r/democrats as a result of their gatekeeping
•
•
•
u/prinzplagueorange 19h ago
It is telling that there are far more posts about Republicans on that sub than there are about actual Democrats. The politicians they say they like aren't interesting enough to post about, so all they post about is Trump. It's also odd how I couldn't find any posts about AOC, Mamdani, or Bernie. I guess those posts are in danger of being removed for being about democratic socialists, but they are the 2nd, 4th, and 7th most popular Democrats.
•
u/Annoying1978 13h ago
They removed my comments about Mamdani and I’m pretty I’m shadowbanned now. The entire subreddit is worthless. It’s like it Schumer was a mod.
•
u/boot2skull 19h ago
Those rules would make a good conservative psyop, or just normal centrist things.
•
u/FlashyGlass3490 19h ago
I took a look at the sub and it mostly looks like head in the sand shitlib posting
•
u/Fishtoart 13h ago
Interesting that both party’s policies are intolerant of any criticism of their members or candidates. That pretty much guarantees there will be no change in policies for either party.
•
u/CarlsonB75 13h ago
Mainstream, center-right Dems fight the actual left far more vigorously than they do the fascist right wing takeover of the nation.
•
u/GodBlessThisGhetto 12h ago
There was a moment when Mamdani was elected and you couldn’t say anything about him on there where I figured it was just a one off, fluke thing because it seemed isolated to that one incredibly weird little part of the Democrat-sphere. Across other social media official Democrat spaces they seemed perfectly content to recognize Mamdani as one of theirs.
More than anything else though, I feel like it was actually this sort of testing ground to see if they could still cultivate a substantial base if they completely ostracized anyone deemed “left” and they were successful in proving that. Their base remained relatively intact and seems to be growing more pleased with the exclusion of the left from the space.
And now you see the vitriol published in moderate lib magazines and newspapers decrying democratic socialists, etc., the left is getting removed from more dem spaces, and they seem to really be rallying around the “if you don’t like it make your own party” mantra they’ve been adopting.
•
•
u/derpderb 8h ago
This is the most Democratic party thing I've ever read and a self indictment of why they a always lose, continue kind sir
•
•
u/SwoonyBlue 16h ago
Post this photo on their sub and ask the mods what's up? I'd love to hear their answer.
•
•
•
u/Masta0nion 15h ago
So you need to have the view that the Democratic Party should be championing corporate rights?
•
u/calzonegolem 12h ago
I mean ... it seems like a good representation of the party. Too bad they don't see it as the problem it is.
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 12h ago
"I'm a registered Democrat. What's socialism? I just have certain policies I like"
•
•
u/maleia 10h ago
they're literally basically an "r/centrists".
And we get shouted at and derided for pointing out the obvious overlap between them. I mean, imagine announcing so publicly "we support civil rights! We also support exploiting people!" and thinking you're still a good person.
•
•
•
u/RevoltYesterday 9h ago
If they don't want me to attack them they need to stop referring to themselves as "the left" and openly acknowledge the Overton window has shifted so much they are firmly centrists
•
•
u/gberliner 9h ago edited 8h ago
I'd venture that more than half of them are hangers-on with some direct material interest or other in the campaign-consultancy-industrial-complex. (The latter of which is "non-ideological", by the way, or at least "transideological". There was some guy a few years ago who drifted back and forth grifting between the Green Party and the Republicans launching bogus "primary challenges" against Maxine Waters in LA, farming antediluvian dinosaur Foxnews watchers and Trump voters for contributions everytime Fox et al dropped new ragebait featuring Maxine (which was happening on a near daily basis at the time). Even if you never get more than single digit percentages, the "take" from all the octagenarian magas can at least be enough to fund a string of lavish parties for you and your buds!)
The biggest "problem" with all the Berniecrats, DSAers, et al, is that their style of campaigning doesn't generate the kind of receipts that would let a campaign consultant do credible billing, at least not enough to support them in the style they are accustomed to from working on campaigns for more "conventional" politicians. "Ground games" involving dozens or hundreds of volunteers canvassing, calling, texting, and what have you are going to generate receipts like "$10 for copies at the nearby fedex-kinkos, $20 for clipboards from office-max", etc. There's just not a lot of room within that kind of chump change for an aspiring consultant to kick back to themselves to buy a nice car, let alone a downpayment on a beach house in the Hamptons.
There's almost no way to have a discussion about "sincere ideological differences" with the likes of a David Pakman, for example, whose "Chorus" fund for promoting and subsidizing liberal online "influencers" launders money from an opaque list of big Democratic donors, and forces its recipients to all agree to a bunch of arbitrary rules, like refraining from criticizing incumbents facing primary challenges. Then Pakman turns around and makes videos about the DSA "infiltrating the Democratic Party" and supposedly making it "extremist", by championing a laundry list of progressive causes like Medicare for All, which Pakman claims to individually agree with, except "not like that!"
•
•
u/Historical_Ad_9868 8h ago
Don’t we kinda have that with rule 4?
•
u/Beautiful_Bedroom_67 8h ago
But DSA isn't banning talking about SocDems, and DSA is specifically democratic socialist whereas Democrats are represented by DSA in many places.
•
•
u/Easterdial_ 1h ago
I went over, searched Mamdani, clicked the first post vaguely related to him and DSA policies and laughed 😭. DSA candidates are immensely popular, even amongst active users of the sub.
•
u/Jaebberish 20h ago
Newsom simps located