The 2020 primary was more complicated than that.

Biden was dead in the water until the eve of Super Tuesday. Bernie had a strong lead coming out of the early states despite the best efforts of the media. Then you had Obama coordinate the centrist candidates to drop out and endorse Biden, and the media was happy to treat that as normal and good. And all that might not have been enough, but then Covid hit, Bernie suspended his campaign, and Biden told all his elderly supporters to go out and vote anyway.

The media is a big factor, but it was not calling the shots in 2020. That was Obama more than any one person, and all the weirdness of the early pandemic was a huge X factor.

Another thing electoral movements can do is improve conditions enough to where change that previously wasn’t possible becomes possible. Think of a mild reform like forcing police to use body-worn cameras. It certainly didn’t solve all problems with policing in capitalist societies, but it did open up a lot of avenues for changing cop behavior and agitating for further improvements.

More broadly, I think we have to be somewhat agnostic about what electoral movements can and cannot do. No one has ever brought socialism to a bourgeois democracy, or to an economy as developed as that of the modern imperial core. The closest examples to accomplishing that come from Latin America – Chile under Allende, the pink tide early in the 21st century – and were done through elections. There are no historical successes in anything close to the conditions of, say, the modern U.S. No one really knows what will or won’t work.

Calling someone a moron is not seriously criticizing them. It’s impotent shouting, which is why it’s tolerated.

And if we’re going to get into the finer points of what domestic criticism is or isn’t tolerated in China, we’ll need some evidence.

you won’t get censored for criticising the Government… I guess unless you are an American criticizing Israel (which is a newer thing, really.)

This is a pretty big “you won’t get censored… unless you do.”

And if we’re inputting government censorship onto modding decisions by major social media – which we absolutely should, as those companies are ran by a revolving door of politicos, all the owners openly play high-level politics, and the threat of regulation is ever-present – there’s all sorts of criticism of the U.S. government and its approved narratives that will get comments removed or accounts banned.

selling lumber and steel to Nazi Germany in the 1930s

Every future member of the Allies did this.

What really separated the Soviets from other future Allies is it approaching Britain and France on the eve of the war with an offer of an anti-Nazi pact. imagine if those countries were not so rabidly anti-communist that they agreed to this.

What makes you right and a bunch of people who actually live in China wrong?

This is the guy Democrats are “triangulating” towards

I always come back to two things on leftist infighting:

1. We all want to get to more or less the same place. It’s like we’re planning a road trip from New York to Los Angeles, and leftist infighting at this stage is like punching out your road trip friend before you even get in the car because you disagree about the route you take after you cross the Mississippi.
2. In the imperial core we’re so far away from the material conditions that were present at the start of any AES state that no one can be certain about how we will get from here to a classless society. We all have our educated guesses, but we should also have some level of open-mindedness and humility because we’re in such a radically different environment than anything that came before.

It’s more that both parties support an imperialist foreign policy (even if they’ll quibble on the details), while there are real partisan differences on domestic issues.

You care more about posting etiquette than you do about Canadian parliament applauding a Nazi.

This story has circulated widely enough (I see multiple articles on BBC and CBS, among other outlets) that they had to issue an apology. I don’t believe you haven’t heard of it, but if you really haven’t, what does that say about where you’re getting your news/what draws your attention?

Do you have even the slightest problem with Canadian parliament applauding a Nazi? You and a bunch of other people here seem to think litigating how to post is more important than the actual issue.

Here’s the news story if you missed the dozen other threads on it and the discussion elsewhere in this thread. Let me know if you need anything else spoonfed to you.

The Canadian parliament gave one of these Nazis a standing ovation within the past week.

The point is that who that guy was should be no surprise to anyone, because this all has been public knowledge since (at least) Windows 95.

This is relevant context to the recent incident of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to one of these Nazis.

Holy shit, read what you respond to

The guy criticizing Canada for knowingly admitting Nazis is somehow a Nazi?

Sharp as a cue ball, this one

“I’m lazy” is your argument here? Even the blurb from the start of the article says this immigration happened in 1950.

Did history start yesterday? Are we ever allowed to discuss the background of current events?

I explained why in the comment you responded to, read that lol

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed.

If you’re going to rules lawyer, do it well.

This is very obviously relevant to a recent news story that has had several posts here already.

This is relevant context to the recent incident of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to one of these Nazis. The “narrative” here is that that it’s abhorrent and no one in the room has an excuse to plead ignorance as the presence of Nazis in Canada was well-known at least 25 years ago.

The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

To the capitalist, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury.

Marx, I Fucking Told You, Bro