getting the 3.5 trillion reconciliation bill passed is a fundamental part of the theory of change advocated by bernie/the squad. if it succeeds, they deserve credit for passing the litmus test they set for themselves. if it fails, it means that entire theory of change is bankrupt
but if it does fail, which I believe is the more likely outcome, I fully expect them to change the goalposts and claim that a further watering down of the bill to 1.5 trillion or whatever is actually still a major success and victory, and their followers will greedily lap it up
to be clear, their theory of change is the notion that you can get the necessary measures taken to avoid another trump and ward off climate catastrophe by getting more "progressives" elected into congress in the short-term. if that bill fails, that project is effectively dead
you can persuasively argue it's already dead bc the bill doesn't go nearly far enough to avoid that, and I'm inclined to agree. but extending the principle of charity you can take them by the standard of the bare minimum for success they've set, and see if they can live up to it
btw if you're one of the cultists who believes the project of getting "progressives" elected is the be-all end-all of politics that's fine, but please do us all a favor and take those hammer and sickle and anarchist black flags out of your handle and just be a warrenite liberal
I'm getting people w/ fred hampton avis rage-whining about how getting democrats elected is the only thing we can do. bitch you are the literal opposite of fred hampton in every imaginable way. he was a revolutionary, you're a liberal hack
anyway, for anyone who is devoted to this reformist frame of mind, who is convinced in their heart and soul that it's the only thing that can ever produce meaningful change, I highly recommend reading ralph miliband's brilliant critical analysis of this project: 
I'm reading it again now and it's amazing how many parallels there are to today. labourism, the name that frame of mind takes in the UK, reached much greater successes than its US variant. but we saw how brittle it was, and how the same labourism contributed to its dismantling
what I find most interesting in that incisive demolition of the labourite ideology is that it isn't counterpoised by an idealistic account of the revolutionary alternative, but it does highlight the importance of the more radical mass working class movements of the time
it's a basically the story of the continual betrayal of these more radical social movements by the leadership of the formalized organizations that are supposed to represent their interests: trade unions and parties (particularly the labour party). that's gone on until today
for those asking what my alternative is, it's basically working class self-organization, which is expressed in its most coherent forms whenever a mass social movement arises, like last year with the black lives matter uprising. prepare for those as best you can in the meantime
historically it's fundamentally these mass working class social movements from below that have effected systemic change. in history books politicians take the credit for what these movements accomplished, but they're always an obstacle to overcome rather than an agent of change
but there's obviously no guaranteed success here either. as I said the history of social movements is a history filled w/ betrayals and defeats. I just know it's the only thing that has produced systemic, long-lasting change, and I still have hope that it can do so again today
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
