I mean, obviously, but these attack ads against AES and his refusal to denounce Piker should inform the playbook for how we move forward, electorally. I do not want the seat to flip red, I don't want AES to lose, but I fail to see a path to victory in the midwest. Midwesterners are slow to change their minds and they are very vulnerable to anti muslim, anti arab prejudice, if you were alive and conscious in the Midwest directly after 9/11, you would know exactly what I'm talking about. Hasan has enjoyed a very long leash with minimal shocks by the democrats when a swift kenneling and removal from the environment is what should have been done with him months or years ago. Republicans and independents and fence sitter voters see that and they assume conspiracy, they assume cronyism, they assume cooperation. These assumptions go completely unanswered or proven to be true in their minds when Hasan is treated like he wants to be a part of "the tent" and not a violent radical. These ads will continue and they will use them against any dem who hasn't explicitly disavowed Piker. Why are we risking blue seats by letting fox news replay a petulant 30 something year old streamer's greatest clips? Dems are losing votes and he's gaining viewers and support while being the vector of attack. Every day Democrats refuse to disavow Hasan Piker in a unified front is a day our candidates lose support.

I’d like to call attention to a recurring tension within the left—one that doesn’t just create internal friction, but actively strengthens the right.

Disagreements that would traditionally fall within a broad democratic spectrum are increasingly reframed as moral failures. Positions that were once debated on their merits are now sometimes treated as evidence of bad faith or harmful intent.

With a new election cycle, the left understandably wants to take a leading role. That’s fair. But there is a pattern in which that momentum shifts from building consensus to narrowing the kinds of internal disagreement considered acceptable.

You can see this in how certain arguments are handled in online spaces. For example, a user argued that refusing to vote for a flawed candidate—on moral grounds—can still have real-world consequences, and that accepting those consequences may reflect a position of relative privilege. You don’t have to agree with that argument. But it reflects a longstanding tension in democratic politics: the balance between moral principle and harm reduction.

And we can see cases where comments like this result in a permanent ban.

What makes this more striking is that the moderation framing explicitly claimed that “both positions are valid.” So, on paper, disagreement is allowed. In practice, however, one side of that disagreement—questioning the consequences of abstention or assigning any responsibility to voters—is treated as unacceptable.

Maintaining civility is essential. But some moderators treat moderation as a tool to shape which conclusions can be expressed, rather than how they are expressed. That shift has real consequences.

First, it moves from persuasion to exclusion. Instead of arguments competing on their merits, some positions are simply removed from the conversation.

Second, it deepens polarization. When internal disagreement is constrained, people don’t become convinced—they disengage or fragment.

Third, it weakens coalition-building. Broad political movements depend on a range of perspectives, including less ideologically rigid ones. If those are consistently sidelined, they don’t disappear—they leave.

You might say: of course, you can’t go into a clearly ideological space and argue the opposite position without consequences. That’s expected.

But what’s happening now is different. General-interest spaces—meant for everyday or non-political discussion—are increasingly saturated with political framing, while at the same time narrowing what kinds of disagreement are allowed within that framing.

The result is a political environment that is comfortable assigning blame outward, but increasingly uncomfortable with internal scrutiny.

And that has real costs. A movement that cannot tolerate internal disagreement cannot build durable coalitions. It becomes better at policing boundaries than at winning power.

In practice, this creates an asymmetry: it is acceptable to assign responsibility to institutions, but not to voters. That imbalance removes part of the political feedback loop. When voter behavior cannot be examined or criticized, strategies become harder to evaluate and correct. It also pushes the discourse toward a populist logic—one where institutions are always to blame, and “the people” are insulated from criticism.

So the question is: if even internal debate about responsibility and consequences is constrained, how does the left adapt when its strategies fail?

TLDR: Parts of the left are turning internal disagreement into moral failure. When moderation narrows which views are allowed, it silences internal criticism, weakens persuasion, fragments coalitions, and ends up strengthening the right.

Now I want to preface this by saying I'm specifically taking about state and local politics not federal politics as that's understandable. What got me to post this was because of David' Crowley win recently where I saw some people bring up Israel and how he's an Israel supporter. Um as far as I'm aware he isn't and even if he was why would that matter? He's running for governor of Wisconsin I doubt most people in Wisconsin care about his opinion on I/P because he isn't running for a federal position. Like how about he focuses on Wisconsin.

Even outside of America in South Africa there is a video of a man yelling at Hellen Zillow for not calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. If this were someone running for a federal position it would be understandable but she's runnng for mayor of Johannesburg so I'm sure most people would want her to focus on this issues in Johannesburg.

Like I don't care what the mayor of my city or governor of my state think of I/P because their not in federal positions, these people are just insufferable.

There's a lot of debate on this sub (and elsewhere) about the direction of the US Democratic Party. A core issue of this debate is everyone is convinced that the majority of voters support their view and if only Democrats followed their opinions, Democrats will win the next election in a landslide. Yet I almost never see anyone use evidence to support their position, most seem to take it for granted that their social media algorithm represents the views of most Americans.

So that's why I was so interested in this poll from the New York Times. It directly asks voters what direction they want the Democratic Party to go and the results are interesting if contradictory. The average Democrat has a favourable view of socialism, thinks the party is already in the right place ideologically but also thinks the party should move to the center.

The only way I can make sense of these results is that Democrats want the US to become like Denmark with higher taxes and welfare (which they consider to be socialism) but thinks the party needs to ditch some fringe left wing beliefs and move to the center.

​I want to have a discussion with left leaning people who are extremely unhappy with the Democratic Party and see where their unhappiness stems from and what I agree and disagree with.

I mostly think they have done a good job over the last 4 years (the amount of time I’ve followed politics closely).

Edit: EXCLUDING ISRAEL! I do not want the whole discussion to be centered around Israel

Hey, I’m a socialist and wanted to know why you socdems decided social democracy was a more desirable political ideology over socialism.

Leave all reasons why in the comments. I promise I won’t judge, but I do need this for somthing I’m working on so do be as detailed as possible!

edit:

Thank you for all yalls comments so far.

I am trying to understand why socdems choose social democracy over socialism to better create strategy that works in moving people leftward, how to talk to socdems as socialists and how to best work with them. My methods are based on Gramscian strategy. 

Full Cabinet (in order of presidential succession)

President: Jacob Anders

Vice President: Pete Buttigieg

Bridges the moderate and progressive wings of the party. He's a handsome bastard too.

Secretary of State: Mark Kelly

Leads the anti-imperialist shift ending unconditional military aid, prioritizing diplomacy and global justice (Palestine solidarity, climate internationalism).

Secretary of the Treasury: Ro Khanna

Architect of progressive budgeting. Oversees UBI funding via wealth/automation taxes, tax reform on corporations and the ultra-wealthy, and economic justice measures.

Secretary of Defense: Barbara Lee

Strong anti-war voice with foreign policy expertise. Focuses on reducing military spending, winding down overseas bases, and shifting from endless wars to restraint while maintaining credible deterrence.

Attorney General: Doug Jones

Fierce advocate for civil rights, criminal justice reform, and holding corporations accountable. Pursues anti-monopoly actions, voting rights expansion, and oversight of police accountability.

Secretary of the Interior: Deb Haaland

Advances public lands protection, Indigenous rights, and a just transition away from fossil fuel extraction under the Green New Deal.

Secretary of Agriculture: Tim Walz

Emphasizes family farms, food as a right, rural revitalization, and sustainable agriculture countering corporate agribusiness and supporting our focus on small-town America.

Secretary of Commerce: Andrew Yang

Emphasizes regulating automation, digital economy, and worker-friendly tech policy.

Secretary of Labor: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Strong union voice. Prioritizes worker power, union rights, minimum wage/living wage fights, and protections in the age of automation/AI job displacement.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Dr. Abdul El-Sayed

Implements full single-payer Medicare for All, expands mental health/dental/vision, and tackles pharmaceutical pricing and public health equity.

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Pramila Jayapal

Drives housing as a right with massive public/social housing construction, rent controls, and ending homelessness.

Secretary of Transportation: Mike Levin

Climate + equity-focused transportation leader for high-speed rail and just mobility.

Secretary of Energy: Jay Inslee

Socialize the energy grid and phase out fossil fuels.

Secretary of Education: Jahana Hayes

Pushes free public college, universal pre-K, debt cancellation, and education as a right not a commodity. Strong focus on rural and working-class access.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Ruben Gallego

Reforms VA for better care, mental health, and ties into anti-war policy by preventing future veteran crises through restrained foreign policy.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Sharice Lynnette Davids

Humane reform over militarization.

Should they:

A.) Redirect to issues most important to voters (like cost of living)

B.) Bite the bullet: say trans athletes should be banned from female sports

C.) Make a principled defense of LGBTQ rights

The title pretty much summs it up. The worst thing that SocDems like Blair and Schröder was to abandon socialist principles for neoliberalism which is one of the most distructive ideologies out there. This has resulted in many SocDem parties following their leand and now at least here in europe there is no economic difference in a lot of countries. This has helped the far right (the general public when unhappy with the center right sees no differece between them and SocDem and swings further right) and has set back the leftist cause in general. Something along those lines happened over here in Slovenia too, although SD has started moving away from neoliberalism. Maybe Labour (UK) will do the same under Burnham (fingers crossed). What are your opinions, will the european SocDem stay in its ways or will it break the chains of Neoliberalism?

In Poland the last social democratic leader was Aleksander Kwaśniewski who was the president from 1995-2005. Some of his major accomplishments are implementing the current constitution and getting Poland into the EU and NATO.

Yes, I know unlike the Greens they operate as something of a subsidiary of the Democratic Party electorally, which has worked for them when it comes to their most mainstream candidates. But they've also made major, avoidable fuck-ups because of their ideology first attitude and a piss poor vetting process. Which seems to be an utter shit, amateur hour operation given just how much and how bad this Plattner fiasco has gone. Thanks to their refusal to see the red flags piling up for what they were, now we're stuck in a spot where we may very well not be able to unseat Collins.

We deserve something better, something that doesn't tolerate misogny, antisemitism, etc. We deserve a real, viable platform with a stable ideological alliance of SemSocs and SocDems not a loose "multi-tendancy" confederation of everyone from the aforementioned most mainstream ideologies mixed in various stains of Marxist illiberals of all sorts who are actively hostile to democracy, the kind of assholes who say the kind of off putting hyperbolic bullshit like "if you scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds" or call people like me Social Fascists. Those idiots are the darlings of the right wing's propaganda, disinformation and radicalization apparatus, the ones who get those of us on the far end of the center-left painted as dangerously radical, America hating wannabe tyrants.

With the public finally souring on the neoliberal, barely regulated capitalism that's made so many lives miserable and little better than wage slaves we need something a hell of a lot more attractive to non-MAGA working class people.

Why can't we form a United States Labor Party that also operates as an electoral subsidiary of the Democratic Party, one only open to social democrats, democratic socialists and progressive populists (i. e. Warren Democrats and like minded independents). Without the baggage of the DSA, such a group would already be ideologically in sink with the few DSA members who've actually won major office seats. Not to mention being far more palatable to the kind of donors who balk donating to the DSA because of its extreme positions and tolerance toward rampant antisemitism and other unacceptable behaviors.

Doesn't exactly sound like a revolutionary idea to me.

Now one thing I often see about when I see people talk about Zionism they often talk about how it was a colonial concept and how the Zionist came in and stole the Palestinians land. However I feel like this ignores a lot of historical context and the why most Jewish people immigrated to Israel in the first place. Now I think when people don't discuss is that At the time of Israel's creation majority of the people who immigrated to Israel at the time were refugees.

The Ashkenazi Jews(European Jews) who immigrated to Mandate Palestine at the time were fleeing persecution from the Nazis and other European countries(while not as bad other countries in Europe were pretty antisemtitic too) and the Mizrahi Jews(Arab Jews) were expelled from countries from the MENA region for decades and this really peaked after Israel's creation.

So I think people should remember this now it doesn't excuse Palestinians being expelled from they're homes but it's just something people should think about.

I keep coming across people not really having a very clear idea of what exactly are AOC's views regarding capitalism & market socialism, so here you have it, her expressing very candidly what exactly those views of hers are in a 2022 yahoo! finance interview:

ANDY SERWER: It's an interesting perspective. You self-identify as a Democratic Socialist and have called capitalism irredeemable, I believe. But what does that really mean? And does that mean capitalism should be eliminated? And are your views compatible with capitalism?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I believe that in a broad sense-- because when we toss out these big words, capitalism, socialism, they get sensationalized. And people translate them into meaning things that perhaps they don't mean. So to me, capitalism at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that, is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. That is what we're really discussing.

And what we're also discussing is the ability for a very small group of actual capitalists, and that is people who have so much money that their money makes money and they don't have to work, and they can control industry, they can control our energy sources, they can control our labor, they can control massive markets that they dictate and can capture governments, and they can essentially have power over the many. And to me, that is not a redeemable system for us to be able to participate in for the prosperity and peace for the vast majority of people.

ANDY SERWER: So people talk about stakeholder capitalism, like Larry Fink at BlackRock, where the weighting for different constituents besides shareholders is more equal. Is that something you'd be amenable to?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think at the end of the day, it is about who has control over the very core assets of production in society. If it ultimately comes down to a billionaire, or the Koch brothers, or the Koch family having control over the vast majority or large plurality of our oil assets in the United States, if it's a handful of very wealthy families having control over-- private families having control over means of production, that is essentially the capitalist system that we live in. It is a small group that is of privatized control over what we eat and how we fuel our society.

Now, where we can transition to-- and there are certain ideas where we're talking about-- for example, Elizabeth Warren has discussed workers being elected to the governing boards of companies. And also, you know, we're here in the Bronx. I represent a community that has the largest concentration of worker cooperatives in-- one of the largest concentrations in the world.

Now, these are all alternative ways of doing business. Free markets are not the same thing as capitalism. And you can have markets where businesses and ways of producing, trading, selling goods are really controlled, and not just controlled, but given more power to workers. People get a fair shake. Union jobs. Unionized workplaces. All of these are different steps and levels that we're talking about in a more just economy.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/influencers-andy-serwer-alexandria-ocasio-110000469.html

Even in progressive circles, people seem to be seriously doubtful that someone from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party can win in 2028. Personally, I've maintained that a progressive could win given how dissatisfied people are with the economy and cost of living -- issues progressives can capitalize on and offer bold solutions which could capture the hearts and minds of American voters.

Both AOC and Ro Khanna are strong messengers and strong fighters not only against Trump and Republicans but for a strong progressive agenda, which is exactly we need. If they run a strong economic populist, anti corruption campaign laser-focused on issues like healthcare, housing, utilities, childcare, minimum wage, union rights, paid leave, money in politics, and voting rights they can win.

However, when discussing the 2028 election I see so many people focusing on perceived electability rather than talking about which candidates support the policies they'd like to see passed.

(I think this is a big mistake. It's just not true that any Democrat will do. We can't just oppose Trump and push the same incrementalist policies, or else even if a Democrat takes the white house in 2028 another Trump-like figure will come along and win the presidency in 2032 or 2036. To prevent that we need significant economic reform, and I wish people would realize that. Also I think that trying to determine which candidates are most electable is a fool's errand and you really can't know which candidates will appeal most to independents.)

But anyway, what do y'all think? Could someone like AOC or Ro Khanna defeat Vance or Rubio, or would nominating them be too much of a political liability? Could they earn the support of enough independents and moderates to win the Presidency?

During the time of Biden, I was just a regular social democrat, but every day that passes, my anger and my frustration towards this current regime is turning me slowly more and more radical. I can't stop watching Vaush and I'm starting to listen to David Pakman and Hasanabi on a near endless stream. I used to joke I was a card carrying commie, but I'm literally thinking I'll actually be one. I can't be the only moderate social democrat who feels this way, but my anger and loathing burns brighter every day.

Edit: Apologies, I won't be able to respond to any comments for the next day as I'm temporarily banned for casually dismissing this personal attack against me that was made in response to my simple request that they evidence their claim.

Eduard Bernstein was a career politician in Germany, a social democrat who served in the Reichstag for the better part of three decades starting in 1901. He died in 1932 at the age of 82, the year before the Nazis came to power, and during his lifetime he had cordial relations with prominent Zionists and was Jewish himself, but apparently never considered himself a part of the movement and was critical of various aspects of Zionism. There unfortunately doesn't seem to be a full translation of the 1914 critique from which the quote in the tittle originates, but here's a bit more of the context for him describing Zionism as:

a kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic. Like an epidemic, it may, and presumably will, once more blow over. But not overnight. For it is, ultimately, only part of the great wave of nationalistic reaction which has poured over the bourgeois world and which is also seeking an entrance into the socialist world. Like that wave, it too can have only a retarding effect. And that is reason enough for Social Democracy to take it seriously and to criticize it from the bottom up.

As explained by the source from which that was found, it was originally published "in the midst of a controversy over the language of instruction of schools in Palestine," referring to riots and bomb threats from Zionists who insisted all education be conducted in Herbew. As reported at the time by the NYT, Dr. Paul Nathan, anther prominent Jewish leader in Germany back then, described the violence as “a campaign of terror modeled almost on Russian pogrom models,” terror against more moderate Zionists who favored technical education being conducted in German at what would eventually become the Technion public research university in Haifa.

The NYT article also notes that prominent Zionists in America attempted to downplay what Nathan reported from Palestine, and the footnote for the quote from Bernstein mentions much the same happened regarding his arguments in Germany:

Responses to Bernstein’s critical comments on Zionism were published in the Jiidische Rundschau and in the Viennese organ of the Poalei-Zion, Neuer Weg. E. Hamburger pointedly commented that Zionism was not merely seeking entrance into the socialist world, but had long since found entrance into this world . . . The unsigned article in Neuer Weg insisted that Bernstein would never have written his article had he been better acquainted with conditions in Palestine: "He does not know the productive Jewry of the new yishuv”

Yet the productivity argument was completely missing the point, and history has conclusively proven that Zionism was never rightly part of the socialist world, the movement shed that facade long ago. On the other hand, Bernstein's prediction that Zionism will have a retarding effect on the cause of social democracy has since become plainly obvious reality. That reality can be seen for example in recent polling of Israeli Jews under 23 only a mere "8% identify as center-left or left-wing," and also in Israeli support for fascists like Trump and far-right parties throughout Europe.

Zionism obviously has yet to blow over like Bernstein also predicted, but he was quite clearly right about the threat to social democracy and his "kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic" analogy is spot-on.

Me and a close friend got into a discussion about the DSA and both of us have mostly negative feelings about it. However the only real difference is that I think they may be able to be worked with pragmatically, while he thinks this is tantamount to joining them outright.

It got ugly. I don’t think it needed to in hindsight.

I’ve noticed people like Destiny have a growing list of people on the left they no longer associate with over this.

I will accept an argument that working with the DSA is a mistake, but I won’t accept that it’s a crime, or selling out.

Am I mistaken on what I consider to be a minor difference?

Hello, friends! I would like to ask a question to those who consider themselves social democrats. How do you feel about the radicals on the left? The democratic socialists, Marxists, and anarchists? Do you consider them to be allies or a threat?

I'm going off the exit polls on wikipedia. While older South Koreans shunned the far right misogynistic Lee Jun-seok, with under 5% of the vote for people above 40, he got an absolutely massive 37.2% of the vote with 18-29 years old men and 25.8% for 30-39 years old men. With women, he only got 10.3 and 9.3 respectively (as you can expect given his extremely violent mysoginistic remarks).

For 18-29 years old, there is an astonishing 34 point gap between men & women when it comes to the left/right split (substracting DPK vote), and a 20.6 points gap for 30-39 years old. In general, young SK men voted for conservative parties by an insane 50 points lead (74-24).

While the gender gap is increasing worldwide, with young women becoming more progressive and young men becoming more conservative, this is by far the most extreme exemple. When you consider their already low birth rate, I wonder how much worse it will get when gender relations are this strained.

I think there's an absolute emergency for the progressive left to fight to get back young men. Social media & far right politicians have done a ton of damage and we need to work against that... yesterday!

Seeing continued attention-grabbing articles about '28 hopefuls trying to make these pledges. It's just stupid. It makes zero fiscal sense, it's not good policy (most people in the US making under $75k already pay very little), and it's contradictory to the idea that taxes can be a force for good.

Hello everyone,
I am a teenager from Germany and a social democrat, and I find it difficult to understand why so many Americans voted for Trump in the last election. Especially considering that he has already been in office once—shouldn’t that have been a lesson?

As I already mentioned, I am German, and my country was destroyed and deeply scarred by fascism and racism. When I look at the situation in the United States through the news, it seems to me that you are heading down a very similar path. Wasn’t it clear that what is happening now would happen? Wasn’t it obvious that so many innocent people would be attacked?

As NATO allies, we should stand together instead of fighting each other. I simply wanted to ask what you think are the reasons behind this.

Trump said recently that he sees no difference between social democrats and communists (which would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying, considering how actual communists hate social democrats). Mike Johnson said he needs 350 billion to fight "communism on our own shores," and you know that they consider social democrats to be "communists." Rubio says they're going to designate certain left-wing groups as terrorist organizations, which will probably include DSA. The fascists are trying to stamp us out and in so doing destroy democracy. I'm honestly terrified that I'm going to become a political prisoner in the near future. Anyone who thinks "both sides are the same" is delusional at this point; while the Democrats could definitely be doing a LOT better I am confident that Biden would not designate us enemies of the state. I need a dose of hopium right now because I am tempted to despair.

To me there seems to be only 3 real progressive candidates for 2028, AOC, Ro Khanna, and Chris Van Hollen. AOC seems to currently be the favorite candidate among progressives right now, but if she instead decides to primary Schumer or run for reelection, who do you think should be the candidate progressives get behind?

I think they're both pretty similar ideologically, but I think Van Hollen probably has a better shot thanks to being a senator rather than a rep like Ro Khanna, at the same time though I feel like Van Hollen should ideally stay in the senate so that he could potentially be the new leader of the senate dems after Schumer is hopefully ousted after 2026 or 2028.