Yeah we're just going to keep going around on this. I'm just not going along with the idea that the only way he can win the general is to tie the governance of Israel to material conditions in NYC. Besides, it's an unfalsifiable position. If he loses it's because he didn't support Palestine hard enough. If he wins it proves that his capitulation bought him favor with the kingmaker Zionists and he's working for them.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I didn't say it was the only way to win the election, I said it's the way that his success or loss can matter most for a broader movement.

It seems I'm arguing why rhetoric can have material impact, and you're arguing that the rhetoric will be blamed afterwards. The unfalsifiability is exactly why it'll be used like that for or against a broader left movement whether you want it to or not, so might as well play your hand well

[–] LangleyDominos@hexbear.net 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but whether or not his win ties into a broader movement requires people outside of NYC to pitch in rather than sit and wait for him/his team to do it all. If he wins and everyone outside of NY decides that they don't like electoralism and that he's a sellout, then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. He will be weaker alone and have to make concessions to do stuff. If there is national support for it as a project, then it'll be easier for him to be successful. That will make it easier for it to happen elsewhere. It creates a cycle.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why does that disagree with me? To be a national movement with any power, it can't do these simple rhetorical concessions for nothing. It's a terrible strategy if that's the goal. People want someone representing the popular opinion of leftists about Israel, not someone willing to concede when pushed hard enough. That's how you lose that cycle

[–] LangleyDominos@hexbear.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

He hasn't lost anything yet though! You're saying he's lost it already when nothing has changed. I think we agree on some stuff but the main point of contention is that him saying "okay maybe I won't say globalize the intifada" is some earth-shattering concession that proves he's a DNC sellout. Like he just did the Contrapoints post and now it's all over.

Have one more post but I think we both should just move on from this conversation.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 1 points 5 days ago

He hasn't lost any election, but he lost a strategic public image for no reason because he was likely to win the race either way! And now, if he loses, he didn't even prove anything about how terrible the propaganda machine is to expand the grassroots organizing! The energy will leave if he does anything more. I care way less now that I feel like he's slowly turning into Corbyn. I hope he can flip that, but the energy will dissipate because of such a thing. We've seen it often. It doesn't make him a DNC sellout, I disagree with comparing him to AOC. I think Corbyn is much more relevant, and he didn't learn the lesson. He's a radical that thinks downplaying that is strategic instead of uplaying it, and it won't help in the battle but will lose the war if he stays on that path. So hopefully hearing that you think we're more aligned than before?