If the vast majority of Americans believed the Democrats to be less evil, the Democrats would have 90% of the vote. If that were the case, the Republicans would move ever further left, perhaps even overtaking the Democrats, until they get a chance at winning again.

The reason the parties are right wing is because the voters are right wing.

That's why we need a communist revolution where everyone will be a happy little comrade

The reason that people don't vote Democrats is the same reason that people won't join your revolution.

If you found enough people to support a revolution, that'd mean you have enough people to change the system by simple voting.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The reason the parties are right wing is because the voters are right wing.

You're completely right, the working class of the imperial core is reactionary by definition, always been and always will be.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Hopefully the Empire will whither and die, and a newly revolutionary working class can arise and organize from its ashes.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I have a problem with that phrasing. The empire will not die by itself, it has to be killed.

I can't think of any empire or state, no matter how frail, that just collapsed under its own weight.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I think it's both. Empire weakens its foundations, then the weakest links in the chain break off, heightening contradictions at play. Empire has to be killed, but this process begins because of Imperialism itself. No matter who pulls the trigger, the US will only have itself to blame for its own downfall.

I could very well be wrong, I'm still a baby ML and am starting to read Hudson's Super-Imperialism to see how the US empire functions in the modern day, it isn't the same as Imperialism in Lenin's time, but I believe Lenin to be correct still in that Imperialism begets its own demise through inciting others against it.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

The death of an empire is the qualitative development after a huge sum of quantitative changes, but you still need something to trigger the qualitative change, it won't happen by itself.

Think of Syria, the fall of Assad happened due to the collective sum of erosion of the economy, the army, the people, etc, but still it was ultimately triggered by the terrorist HTS attack. If that event didn't happen, Assad would still be in Syria.

People need to organize to kill the empire, not pray for it to fall under its own weight.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 hours ago

100% agreed, I understand what you mean and why you took issue with my framing. The shift from quantitative build-up to qualitative collapse of the US Empire still requires the jump from quantitative to qualitative itself, I agree. If I didn't, I don't think I could still be considered a Marxist, haha. Thanks!

[–] m532@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 8 hours ago

We will crush the evil empire from the outside

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 6 points 9 hours ago

The system will never give us the tools needed to dismantle it my dude

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That's not actually how electoral politics works. The two major parties are right wing because that's what the bourgeoisie allows the US to pick from, not because those policies are genuinely popular. Bernie, for example, had policies more supported by both republican and democrat voters than either other candidate. Policies like Medicare for All are overwhelmingly popular.

Revolution isn't won at the ballot box because the electoral system is designed from the outset to only allow pre-approved candidates and parties. Revolution comes from organizing, hence why in areas with stronger union presence government policy is usually more pro-worker, they must capitulate.

Revolution, ie the overthrow of the state, has happened many times before throughout the world and will happen many times more as long as it remains the only actual vector for change.

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 13 hours ago

So close...