Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a vocal Israel critic and 'squad' member, loses primary
Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a vocal Israel critic and 'squad' member, loses primary
NBC News projects Westchester County Executive George Latimer defeated Bowman after a bitter and expensive Democratic race in New York’s 16th District.
Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., suffered a primary defeat Tuesday to a moderate challenger who was backed by pro-Israel groups, NBC News projected, following a bitter and expensive race that exposed the party’s divisions over the war in Gaza.
The race between Bowman and Westchester County Executive George Latimer in New York’s 16th District drew more ad spending — $25 million, according to the ad tracking firm AdImpact — than any other House primary in history. Nearly $15 million of that spending came from the United Democracy Project, a super PAC linked to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby, which backed Latimer.
With 68% of the vote in, Latimer led Bowman by a wide margin, 55.7% to 44.3%.
Speaking to a roomful of his supporters Tuesday night, Bowman conceded defeat to his "opponents," most likely a nod to big-spending outside groups, but he vowed that the broader fight for "humanity and justice" would go on.
"This race was never about me and me alone. It was never about this district and this district alone. It was always about all of us," Bowman said. "Now, our opponents — not opponent — may have won this round, at this time, in this place. But this will be a battle for our humanity and justice for the rest of our lives."
edit: also AOC won her primary so she is staying
In a closely watched primary, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, has emerged victorious, securing her position as the Democratic candidate for New York’s 14th Congressional District.
The 34-year-old progressive, known as AOC, overcame a challenge from 66-year-old investment banker Marty Dolan, who positioned himself as a moderate alternative.
You're viewing a single thread.
Bowman wasn't great. He did vote to fund the Iron Dome a few years ago and still holds liberal zionist positions. That being said, it is disturbing how this wasn't enough for the zionists and basically had his seat bought from him. Very bad vibes. Like electoralism is a dead end, but it somehow became even worse.
the current USA support to Israel must be too important to affort even a light zionist victory, they need the hard liners to support them now especially with their future invasion of Lebanon
Permanently Deleted
Fascism and trying to solve problems by starting a second war. Name a more iconic duo. From
to 
it's been nothing but success.
The zionists are high on their own supply of Six-Day War nostalgia. In 1967 the Israeli government wasn't fighting against forces with cheap high-precision ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones in mass quantities.
This should be a lesson for the people that want to do triangulating electoralism "from the left".
It doesn't work. The liberal electoral apparatus is coming for you even if you give unconditional material support and publicly agree with 99% of their positions. You'll just lose any chance you had of building a larger project that draws people in via principled agitation.
It's also an example of how bad of an idea it is to use liberals' political machinery that's built on big donor funding. Bowman did not work within a left organization. He's not a representative of a larger left project with dedicated cadres, recruiters, onboarders, political educators. He's just a lone guy enjoying support from various groups because they kind of like what he says. That works for liberals because they're about attracting donors to a candidate that will support the donors' interests. They'll keep that support by being a perfectly good little lapdog. Anyone that tries to make waves will see that rug get pulled out from under them fast.
Participation in bourgeois electoralism shouldn't be written off but the people most interested in it make these naive mistakes. Bourgeois electoralism should be used when it can actually deliver valuable gains (this is hard but doable at a local level) and/or when it's part of a larger organizing project focused on agitation and growth. Even if the candidate later loses, a competent org can reap benefits from either strategy.
I was a part of the group that wanted him disciplined in my local DSA chapter when the Iron Dome vote (we lost by 3 votes).. I basically used these arguments when told that he was making his position more palatable for his district, and look where that got him.
Participation in bourgeois electoralism shouldn't be written off but the people most interested in it make these naive mistakes.
Unfortunately describes many people that I quite like. We kinda agree that this type of stuff should only be done at the local level for now.
Devil's advocate for a sec... if elections can be "bought" because people are so apathetic or lazy that they need literally millions of dollars worth of advertising to convince them to vote, then maybe electoral democracy can't work?
I mean, if we can't trust the masses to make good decisions in elections how can we trust them to make good decisions in a post-revolutionary system? Maybe Mao was right about a cultural revolution or can people actually convert to our side en masse?
Devil's advocate for a sec... if elections can be "bought" because people are so apathetic or lazy that they need literally millions of dollars worth of advertising to convince them to vote, then maybe electoral democracy can't work?
Dig in just a bit deeper here: These are people who live in New York, a state notorious for being unfailingly Democrat and also unfailingly conservative in its governance. The fact that some people have become disillusioned with elections that, their whole lives, have probably demonstrated very little change, is understandable and not a symptom of the average person somehow being simply inadequate for very basic tasks.
Maybe Mao was right about a cultural revolution
Mao was a radical democrat (lowercase d) and both the successes and failures of the Cultural Revolution are connected to that. Though there was direction from the top, ultimately the events that I assume you are referring to, like the Four Olds Campaign, were carried out on a grassroots basis by young activists, sometimes constructively and sometimes not. It was in many respects a battle of the progressive elements of society against the reactionary elements, one that the reactionary elements ultimately won by holding out until Their Guy took over the country, since the progressive or would-be-progressive forces were too disorganized in themselves to succeed at anything but being a force of chaos that gave reactionaries a solid causus belli for police crackdown.
At scale this was not at all Mao dictating his socialism to the common people and then beating it into them when they resisted (though some of his followers certainly did, and this mostly failed).
The Cultural Revolution is a very fraught topic, but you are doing Mao a disservice by essentially accusing him of "commandism", an error that he was very much against.
Commandism is wrong in any type of work, because in overstepping the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of voluntary mass action it reflects the disease of impetuosity. Our comrades must not assume that everything they themselves understand is understood by the masses. Whether the masses understand it and are ready to take action can be discovered only by going into their midst and making investigations. If we do so, we can avoid commandism. Tailism in any type of work is also wrong, because in falling below the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of leading the masses forward it reflects the disease of dilatoriness. Our comrades must not assume that the masses have no understanding of what they themselves do not yet understand. It often happens that the masses outstrip us and are eager to advance a step when our comrades are still tailing behind certain backward elements, for instead of acting as leaders of the masses such comrades reflect the views of these backward elements and, moreover, mistake them for those of the broad masses. In a word, every comrade must be brought to understand that the supreme test of the words and deeds of a Communist is whether they conform with the highest interests and enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of the people. Every comrade must be helped to understand that as long as we rely on the people, believe firmly in the inexhaustible creative power of the masses and hence trust and identify ourselves with them, no enemy can crush us while we can crush every enemy and overcome every difficulty.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm
I'm personally struggling with the idea of "democracy" being an ideal since I have grown to hate most people. I think the majority of people in America are simply not smart enough, nor have enough basic empathy for others, to be trusted to make good decisions. Someone convince me that some form of benevolent authoritarianism isn't the solution.
I say with more empathy than you can know that your perspective is entirely cope for being socially maladapted. You don't know how intelligent most people are. You don't know how much empathy they actually have. You're just like a channer writing monologues online about how "normies" don't have internal monologues [citation needed!] and therefore are "NPCs". Society has hurt you and you've grown estranged from it, and in bitter loneliness you tell yourself stories of their inferiority (which, not coincidentally, implies your superiority) in order to sooth yourself. But you aren't superior and they are not the wretched creatures you have portrayed them as in their absence.
It seems to me unlikely that you will be able to outgrow this mindset without confronting it directly, which is why I am broaching the subject so directly. My access to a device to write these things is irregular, but I strongly encourage you to a) try talking to more people and b) actually read Mao.
...We must also arouse the political consciousness of the entire people so that they may willingly and gladly fight together with us for victory. We should fire the whole people with the conviction that China belongs not to the reactionaries but to the Chinese people. There is an ancient Chinese fable called "The Foolish Old Man who Removed the Mountains." It tells of an old man who lived in northern China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. With great determination, he led his sons in digging up these mountains hoe in hand. Another greybeard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw them and said derisively, "How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for you to dig up these two huge mountains." The Foolish Old Man replied, "When I die my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can't we clear them anyway?" Having refuted the Wise Old Man's wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. God was moved by this, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs. Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism, the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we too, will touch God's heart. Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can't these mountains be cleared away?"
https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1900_mao_speeches.htm#foolish
I’m really enjoying this discussion, my question is, for imperial countries like the USA, wouldn’t the two mountains that need to be removed in this case be the Americans themselves? I can understand having little to no faith in westerners, but I will never lose my faith in humanity.
I’ve also been thinking a lot about population these days. Fascists obsess over white replacement, but maybe there is actually something to this. It’s obvious, but colonial projects tend to fail sooner when they have smaller proportions of “white” people. I think for instance that Korea never had more than five or at most ten percent of its population being Japanese during the colonial period, and the portion of Americans now living in the south is much less than 1% (which kind of negates this idea). Algeria was ten percent French, apartheid was officially swept away when South Africa’s population was ten percent white, and now Israel is disappearing when half its population consists of settlers. The USA however is about 70% settler, which makes it a much tougher nut to crack, since settlers almost always think of themselves as their nationality first and barely if ever conceive of themselves as workers.
I feel like this is a very boring answer, but it still needs to be given:
I think the main issue here is that you are starting from a lens of what borders on racial essentialism. The different historical examples you give have wildly different contexts (for example, the occupation of Korea being much more heavily military than the others you list, while white South Africans were overwhelmingly civilians -- whatever else might be said of them). I think the greater through line here is the one that any Marxist would point to first: class. Fundamentally, these societies of brutally exploited underclasses were setting themselves up for revolt by the very fact of their exploitation itself. What sets the US apart from these societies then is not the racial divide (though of course US society is highly racialized and it factors in to things) but that it is not primarily the site of the exploitation it carries out, i.e. it is imperialist, and therefore is able to temporarily "circumvent" the consequences of the basic principles of social stratification that all capitalist systems are bound by.
As imperial decline accelerates, more and more of the population you identified as settler (idk where you got 70% specifically from, but that doesn't really matter) is going to find themselves on the "brutally exploited" side of the above dichotomy, and from there, and with the necessary construction of dual power, it should not be difficult at all for them to be turned to the side of the colonized population as fellow exploited people.
So I believe that, in the framework of Mao's metaphor, the American people are still our God, and the mountains are capitalism and imperialism.
I'm far underread for this discussion but I think for most americans the mental/superstructural blocks to over come are the structure of race and whiteness and the perception of everyone as consumers.
Common GS W.
That's quite flattering, though expectations honestly terrify me
Benevolent authoritarianism is already the promise of liberal representative democracy. IMO the true problem is that people are alienated from politics after decades of neoliberalism being the leftmost position. If people didn't feel like the entire institution of democracy was useless, I'm sure you wouldn't see that level of detachment. Hell, just compare to Cuba where democracy is much more direct and people have much more input: it directly leads to a vastly larger portion of the population participating to protect their interests and their communities' interests. Because they see their own civil participation in politics as an extension of their country's revolutionary project. In America, the national political project is so transparently aligned with the interests of industrialists and billionaires that the best they can offer people is a negative promise, that we won't do what the other scary guy is gonna do.
American political ideology is also just broken as fuck. Most people can't even maintain a coherent set of beliefs let alone consistently vote base upon whatever incoherent beliefs they may have. Works out for the ruling class of course.
Incredible dedication to the Mayor Pete bit lol
A benevolent dictatorship is obviously the most effective form of government, the problem is that any dictatorship can be used for good or evil and no matter how benevolent your queen or dictator or whatever you call her is, she's gonna die eventually and now you're rolling the dice. If you get someone less benevolent, system's a failure. If you get someone just as benevolent but less competent and they get deposed, system's a failure. And that's assuming that the system even survives succession rather than devolving into old-school feudalism or capitalist 'democracy' or ancap utopia or whatever in a power vacuum.
The only way to ensure a benevolent government remains long-term is by spreading the power out enough that the system can shrug off the deaths and retirement of individuals and keep going along some plan that exists beyond any one person
Okay, you say, so don't have a dictatorship of one benevolent queen but rather of a benevolent group acting in the best interests of the people. And this has the same pros and cons, but both blunted. It's good at what it does as long as the group remains truly benevolent, but any organization can decay and become corrupt and, in a sense, die just like our hypothetical good queen.
So if we just keep following the logic down, we end up at the idea that the group responsible for the wide-ranging decisions affecting everyone's lives should ideally be accountable to, more or less, everyone. If the ultimate goal is for the government to act in the best interests of the people, it follows that it is the people who should be the best judge of how well the government is working. If it stops doing its job properly, it is the people who notice. So it should be in the hands of the people to correct it.
I've thought this way for a while, and part of it might be our experiences are with the American public, who are not known for their grasp on politics, let alone much else.
I think this is mainly due to lack of education, propaganda, and outright brainwashing by neoliberal interests. Hopefully, once those things are no longer in the picture, people can be trusted to do what is genuinely in their long term best interests.
Join the pedagogy of the oppressed book club, starts July 1st
Bourgeois democracy does work, just not for the majority.
Read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. Money is needed to grease the wheels of the media apparatus. He who controls the flow of money controls what people are exposed to. With it you can vilify your enemies and make a saint out of a sinner.
He who controls the flow of money controls what people are exposed to.
The golden rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.
America would need a cultural revolution. There’s no ifs or buts about it. This country is dogshit.
Many apathetic non-voters are that way because they correctly see the narrow bounds of what bourgeois elections can accomplish. Changing that can change voter apathy.
Just use propaganda and don't let the capitalists mislead the gullible
with how publicized this primary was in terms of israel i think zionism was the losing factor here. the majority of americans (especially older ones who vote more) are indoctrinated zionists.
bowman already had a huge incumbent advantage and way more name recognition than most reps, so there's no reason to believe seeing the other guy's ads more is the reason he lost (even if it certainly didnt help). if it were that easy, mike bloomberg would be president and all the other cases where interest groups spent ungodly amounts to unseat a progressive would've generally worked
in elections between nobodies then yeah, a lot of people literally just vote for whoever's name they hear more
