chapotraphouse

I’d love for you to find a single line of Lenin that endorses supporting liberal candidates running in bourgeois elections representing a capitalist imperialist party. It doesn’t exist which is why you just gesture vaguely towards it.

Shall we actually quote Left Wing Communism?

Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification—that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses. By failing to fulfil this duty and give the utmost attention and consideration to the study of their patent error, the “Lefts” in Germany (and in Holland) have proved that they are not a party of a class, but a circle, not a party of the masses, but a group of intellectualists and of a few workers who ape the worst features of intellectualism.

Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory ON THE PARTY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

You want to create a new society, yet you fear the difficulties involved in forming a good parliamentary group made up of CONVINCED, DEVOTED AND HEROIC COMMUNISTS, in a reactionary parliament!

Emphasis mine. Lenin explicitly states that yes, as long as the parliamentary form remains relevant to less class conscious sections of the working class, it can be useful for proletarian revolutionary parties to enter those parliaments, even if just for agitational/propaganda purposes. Members of a proletarian party (call it a CP, call it whatever you want, a democratically central organisation for proletarian revolution) who are elected to those offices are beholden to proletarian party discipline. They can’t just win office and immediately betray the workers like every liberal politician does - at least it is less likely and has some consequences for the class traitor.

Literally nowhere in Lenin does it say “communists should throw their support behind milquetoast social democrats running in the party that stands for murderous imperialism and capitalism in its worst form”.

Now I am going to call you deeply unserious. Please go to bluesky or something if you’re going to be this liberal and hold such indefensible positions then attempt to defend them with vibe based analysis.

Also, death threats? I literally have no idea what you are talking about lol. Grow up.

100%. People compliment me when I talk about committed COMMUNIST political education by saying I remind them of big name Dem-Sucs, Bernie and AOC included. In one sense I of course know that's incoherent, and in another sense it's almost an insult lmao, but to the largely ignorant and incoherent "leftist" or liberal who I'm trying to convince, it's their highest compliment. I smile and say thank you, and politely insist that I'm actually quite different and I'm happy to help them understand why.

It's part of being normal.

half or more of the dem establishment are still trying to stop him, there was another socialist mayoral candidate who won a primary in Buffalo, NY who the party undermined and backed their shitbag guy who she beat.

let him break fucking campaign promises before dooming.

Not going to comment on policy positions, but he certainly has not won the race outright. He won the primary handily, but an independent Cuomo is still a threat to him especially if Adams drops out. Trump was literally offering Adams a federal position to do so and Cuomo is the media favorite. The establishments of capital are organizing to sink Mamdani in the general and he has to run to make it past the finish line, not victory lap.

I don't think it's a clear race yet with Cuomo and Silwa still trying to triangulate some kind of spoiler upset. Winning a broad election means appealing to a broad base. Democrats lie about how progressive they are all the time and then carry the status quo, it's about time the reverse happens. Either way, coming out into a general campaign with the idiocy of the average American and preaching about the merits of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a recipe for losing no matter the underlying circumstances, whether you won the nomination of the blue party or not. I'm not going to deny that the strategy and messaging moderated going into the general, but isn't that exactly what you would do if you were a committed communist trying to get into a major political office to use its power to advance the workers struggle? Who cares if you have to lie and smile next to some ghouls if it let you do real good? Still though, the allegations are all tea leaf reading and speculation until proven. Awfully silly to start counting rotten eggs before they've even been laid.

And I was old enough, don't you worry. I'm on a 5 year old account after all. I just find doomers dooming to be tiring and will point out the unfalsifiable nature of the allegations until they're settled, because that's all we can do. Don't see the point in casting such venom on a hypothetical.

"Ultra" was a term coined to critique those that refused to work with electoral socialists on the mission towards revolution, ironically enough. Critique the viability of electoralism all you want, but some electoralists see that as a viable strategy to advance the militancy and political education of the working class in service to eventual revolution. Pitting electoralism and revolution against each other is misrepresenting their position.

"Once he's Mayor he'll keep making concessions..." Maybe. That's another empirical question that can't be predicted at this point. I don't see the point in continuing to bemoan the demon-rattification of him before he's even elected and thus insulated by statutory structures of the office. If I were a militant communist seeking to undermine the US government, I certainly wouldn't lead with that in my public campaign. I'd wait until I was in office to start actually pulling levers of power, and that seems almost so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated, unless for some reason you think the average USian is ready for that kind of messaging... In which case I'm going to call you an Ultra. This time in the sense of "advocating a strategy beyond the conditions of the current readiness of the working class."