"Incremental change" is a Third Way lie.

[F4lconF16]

133. It certainly is.

I was in 8th grade when Obama was elected, so I can't really say I was paying that much attention then. I remember watching the inauguration, and that was cool. But that really was about my involvement in politics until 2012. I have, however, seen people place their hopes in Warren this last year, and those hopes appear to have moved to Sanders. It is an unfortunate situation, as most of them will be disappointed. Sanders is not nearly as radical or even as liberal as most believe--his record is far better than almost anyone else in Congress, but at this point, that isn't a particularly high bar.

What I find most sad about this situation is the excitement for his presidency--yes, he would make a significantly better president than any of the other candidates, and he would make more use of the bully pulpit than our current or past few Democratic presidents have. However, that is about the extent of the change I expect to see.

When he inevitably cannot change the power structure in place for the last 200+ years, the people we see in places like Reddit, the youth who are getting excited to vote for the first time, the people who he has re-energized--they will all be crushed. Their involvement in his campaign will be huge, and when they realize that Sanders will be forced to accede to the demands of the elite, they will withdraw from the political arena yet again. The last thing we need is more "disillusionment" without an effort to change things in a different way. I think the two of us would consider ourselves disillusioned with politics, but in an entirely different manner--we are still working to change, because we believe change is possible (though our manner of implementing it may be different). Most of the people invested in Sanders will take the wrong lesson from this whole process, and simply give up.

In a way, I almost want Clinton to win the primary. As bad of a president as I think she might be, she wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. And it would be about time we finally had a woman in the presidency. If Sanders does not make it through the primary, those elements dissatisfied with the Democratic Party may radicalize further, which would be a very good thing. If Sanders wins, all of that anger with the party and the system may dissipate into a general withdrawal from politics rather than heavier involvement in a more radical manner.

I can understand your frustration with being called a DLC-er. I think your perspective is much, much more nuanced than most people see it, and that's regrettable. I don't agree with some of your conclusions, but I think you see things more clearly than most here. If possible, try to avoid getting sucked into the little arguments--there are better, less painful ways to spend your time on this site. I don't use them myself, but I've heard ignore and trash thread does wonders for your site experience. Maybe stop in the socialist-progressive group on occasion--I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the things posted in there.

I entirely agree that we can trace back the influence of capital and wealth back to the founding of this country. I'd even go so far as to say we can see the origins of some of our country's power and economic structures back in the 1300s and the emergence of the capitalist system in Europe.

"Liberalism was the political corollary of capitalism, and the US constitution is the quintessential liberal, and hence capitalist, document."

This is something that people here would do well to remember. Liberalism and capitalism have never been anything but hand-in-hand.

I think...you have a very good point about where this country would head if we were to have some sort of massive uprising in this country. I don't believe our organization and influence on the radical left is anywhere near large enough to have a significant effect on the outcome of such an uprising--yet. I will get back to the idea of a revolution.

The US is impressively stable. Other than at the end of the Gilded Age and the 20s/30s, we have never been seriously threatened by revolution or massive popular change. (That's arguable, but I think it's true. More on that another time.) Our system was revolutionary back in the 1700s not because it's fundamentally different than so many other capitalist political/economic systems, but because it is so stable. I don't know of any other "democratic" country that has survived without some sort of change to the basic structure of the country's systems. Despite the many varied layers and threads of oppression in the US, it has managed to have a solid hold over its people for centuries. Of course, that does mean that parties like the Democratic Party are fully entrenched in maintaining the systems as they are. They are a very hard vehicle to use for change. (And yes, the call for populism is quite ironic).

The changes you mention are valid and good. However, here is where I think we diverge. I believe revolution, despite the low chances of success, is our only chance to address some of the issues that are pressing on us harder and harder. The biggest one for me is climate change--other issues like race and gender ones have been around for centuries and will continue to be. They can be addressed in more moderate ways for the time being, though I don't believe there will be any meaningful change as long as we can still derive profit from the oppression of women and minorities.

Climate change is a recent emergence, and about as bad as a problem can get. It's the literal ending of the world we live in, and possibly our species in 50-1000 years. The changes that will come from it will be drastic, and though we may survive, we will have changed the face of this planet forever. We will require international cooperation as well as a system that puts the health of our environment above the ability to profit from it in order to have any chance at addressing the problem. I don't think that can be done with our current system, and I'm willing to take the (admittedly very large) gamble that a socialist revolution is.

The US is a key player internationally--we have enormous influence, and if it is possible for us to somehow change our economic structure, many other governments may fall to the same changes. A revolution is a long shot, but it's the only thing I can see that can possibly bring about a viable solution or response to these issues.

I have no disagreements with you on the difficulty of bringing about a successful revolution. I will be surprised if it happens successfully in my lifetime. At this moment, there is a significantly greater chance that it would bring about fascism rather than socialism. The left-wing of this country is beginning to emerge again, but it is very limited in scope and influence for the time being. It will require significantly further shifts to the left for a revolutionary spirit (for lack of a better term) to take hold. With a Sanders presidency, I do not think we will see that. With a Clinton presidency, I think there is a reasonable chance we will see continued radicalization. With a Republican presidency...all bets are off. I have no idea what may happen then. They're...less than predictable, as well as the reactions they would provoke.

Either way, for a revolution to be successful, it will have to be a national (and really, an international) movement. There are the beginnings of a successful organization of activists at the moment--the Black Lives Matter movement is still drawing people leftward and calling attention to the issues with capitalism. That will only continue as the state represses more in response to agitation. As long as we maintain our current path, I think we will see radicalization happening. I personally think that there is a chance that in the next 20 years we will have a large enough economic collapse or enough instability that we will see a sort of repeat of what happened back in the early 1900s. Whether or not that will produce a viable socialist movement is a good question, and one that I think we have the chance to actively influence.

The state's response to any perceived threat will certainly be harsh. I think you're absolutely right that the military will be used to prevent an uprising--it's already happening in places like Ferguson and Baltimore to a very minor extent. The assault on the working class will be brutal, but if anything, I think that will spur further reactions. The danger is that we might fall into a fascist state rather than a socialist one in the process. This is the other reason I believe a revolution is necessary: there is going to be enough unrest in the coming decades that we may see an uprising anyways. I'd rather that uprising be governed by socialist ideals rather than (for instance) tea party separatist ideals.

This is where I see my role as a socialist at the moment. I need to educate myself and the people around me in the possible alternatives to our current system in the hopes that there will be enough of us to capitalize on the general unrest that is inevitably going to occur. We are already seeing a general trend toward leftist politics among individuals, if it is not reflected in the actual mechanization's of the state. With continued agitation, I think the left has a good chance of influencing those who are radicalizing.

I don't really know, though, and I don't think anyone does. This is where I'm at politically at the moment--I have no idea how that may change in the future. A revolutionary path is a difficult one, fraught with things to go wrong, and horribly so. But it's (so far as I can see) the only possible way to address the systemic and immediate problems that we have. If we cannot do this successfully, the future 30-70 years from now is rather bleak. The environmental change will not slow down while we catch up.

Anyways, this is probably far too long a response as it is. I didn't mean to continue writing this far, so I'll end it here. I don't expect a full response to this, but I have very much appreciated your responses so far--you've challenged me and forced me to justify my ideas more than most people do, and it's extremely helpful. Thanks.