socdoneleft
@socdoneleft.bsky.social
I make socialist and progressive videos
Reposted by socdoneleft
FDRbros…we’re so back
February 13, 2026 at 5:32 PM
FDRbros…we’re so back
The centrists promoting Newsom are braindead. He would just be Kamala 2.
The left thinks he's a spineless sellout. Completely correct.
The center thinks he governed as a center-left, social progressive Dem. Half right.
He pleases nobody.
The left thinks he's a spineless sellout. Completely correct.
The center thinks he governed as a center-left, social progressive Dem. Half right.
He pleases nobody.
February 13, 2026 at 11:16 PM
The centrists promoting Newsom are braindead. He would just be Kamala 2.
The left thinks he's a spineless sellout. Completely correct.
The center thinks he governed as a center-left, social progressive Dem. Half right.
He pleases nobody.
The left thinks he's a spineless sellout. Completely correct.
The center thinks he governed as a center-left, social progressive Dem. Half right.
He pleases nobody.
Aside: Gavin Newsom's strategy to pivot right isn't just evil, it's stupid.
He governs California. He's been the Woke Socialist on Fox News for a decade.
He could say the T-slur every day for a year. Wouldn't matter. The median voter would still think he's transing kids in Commiefornia!
He governs California. He's been the Woke Socialist on Fox News for a decade.
He could say the T-slur every day for a year. Wouldn't matter. The median voter would still think he's transing kids in Commiefornia!
February 13, 2026 at 11:11 PM
Aside: Gavin Newsom's strategy to pivot right isn't just evil, it's stupid.
He governs California. He's been the Woke Socialist on Fox News for a decade.
He could say the T-slur every day for a year. Wouldn't matter. The median voter would still think he's transing kids in Commiefornia!
He governs California. He's been the Woke Socialist on Fox News for a decade.
He could say the T-slur every day for a year. Wouldn't matter. The median voter would still think he's transing kids in Commiefornia!
This is why Trots ultimately split into three groups:
- People who leaned towards lesser-evilism, like Marcy, became quasi-Stalinists
- People who leaned towards anti-bad-things-ism, like the Revolutionary Socialist League, became ancoms
- true 3rd campist Trots
4/
- People who leaned towards lesser-evilism, like Marcy, became quasi-Stalinists
- People who leaned towards anti-bad-things-ism, like the Revolutionary Socialist League, became ancoms
- true 3rd campist Trots
4/
February 13, 2026 at 10:55 PM
This is why Trots ultimately split into three groups:
- People who leaned towards lesser-evilism, like Marcy, became quasi-Stalinists
- People who leaned towards anti-bad-things-ism, like the Revolutionary Socialist League, became ancoms
- true 3rd campist Trots
4/
- People who leaned towards lesser-evilism, like Marcy, became quasi-Stalinists
- People who leaned towards anti-bad-things-ism, like the Revolutionary Socialist League, became ancoms
- true 3rd campist Trots
4/
Most Trots accept some level of lesser-evil approach. They just saw both camps as so evil that either "winning" would be a loss.
But suppose a new, less "degenerated' or "state capitalist" socialist camp arose. Then they'd defend it to the death. That's why so many Trots became Castroists!
But suppose a new, less "degenerated' or "state capitalist" socialist camp arose. Then they'd defend it to the death. That's why so many Trots became Castroists!
February 13, 2026 at 10:46 PM
Most Trots accept some level of lesser-evil approach. They just saw both camps as so evil that either "winning" would be a loss.
But suppose a new, less "degenerated' or "state capitalist" socialist camp arose. Then they'd defend it to the death. That's why so many Trots became Castroists!
But suppose a new, less "degenerated' or "state capitalist" socialist camp arose. Then they'd defend it to the death. That's why so many Trots became Castroists!
a "lesser evil" argument. "Yes, our camp might have done atrocities -- but their has done greater, so ours must win."
Most anarchists reject lesser-evil approaches in general, so it's not surprising that most are non-campists.
IMO that's what distinguishes 3rd-campists from non-campists: 2/
Most anarchists reject lesser-evil approaches in general, so it's not surprising that most are non-campists.
IMO that's what distinguishes 3rd-campists from non-campists: 2/
February 13, 2026 at 10:42 PM
a "lesser evil" argument. "Yes, our camp might have done atrocities -- but their has done greater, so ours must win."
Most anarchists reject lesser-evil approaches in general, so it's not surprising that most are non-campists.
IMO that's what distinguishes 3rd-campists from non-campists: 2/
Most anarchists reject lesser-evil approaches in general, so it's not surprising that most are non-campists.
IMO that's what distinguishes 3rd-campists from non-campists: 2/
Excellent video. You are 100% correct that "campism" is the better term. Most modern campists are very much NOT Stalinists, nor do they limit "critical support" to AES.
Minor critique: I don't think your comparison of Campism to Freudian father figure quite nails it. Campism is closer to 1/
Minor critique: I don't think your comparison of Campism to Freudian father figure quite nails it. Campism is closer to 1/
February 13, 2026 at 10:39 PM
Excellent video. You are 100% correct that "campism" is the better term. Most modern campists are very much NOT Stalinists, nor do they limit "critical support" to AES.
Minor critique: I don't think your comparison of Campism to Freudian father figure quite nails it. Campism is closer to 1/
Minor critique: I don't think your comparison of Campism to Freudian father figure quite nails it. Campism is closer to 1/
Do you think AIPAC will become a liability for centrist Dems? If so, will they just drop the org and keep the same views, or pivot altogether?
February 13, 2026 at 10:24 PM
Do you think AIPAC will become a liability for centrist Dems? If so, will they just drop the org and keep the same views, or pivot altogether?
Reposted by socdoneleft
According to a Biss internal, AIPAC has -38 favorability among Democratic primary voters in a district that has a sizable Jewish population.
👀 – Biss' campaign seems to have shared favorables for AIPAC with @capitolfax from the internal poll it put out yesterday #IL09
Very fav: 4%
Somewhat fav: 7%
Total fav: 11%
Somewhat unfav: 14%
Very unfav: 35%
Total unfav: 49%
Name ID: 60%
Can't rate: 40%
Very fav: 4%
Somewhat fav: 7%
Total fav: 11%
Somewhat unfav: 14%
Very unfav: 35%
Total unfav: 49%
Name ID: 60%
Can't rate: 40%
February 13, 2026 at 10:00 PM
According to a Biss internal, AIPAC has -38 favorability among Democratic primary voters in a district that has a sizable Jewish population.
Good.
More and more Dems see the writing on the primary wall.
More and more Dems see the writing on the primary wall.
February 13, 2026 at 10:19 PM
Good.
More and more Dems see the writing on the primary wall.
More and more Dems see the writing on the primary wall.
1. Democrats are the lesser evil, by a long shot
2. Center-left economics is a winning strategy! From Zohran to Sherrod Brown, it overperforms!
If you want more Dems to win (#1) then you want Dems to run as economic populists (#2).
2. Center-left economics is a winning strategy! From Zohran to Sherrod Brown, it overperforms!
If you want more Dems to win (#1) then you want Dems to run as economic populists (#2).
February 13, 2026 at 10:15 PM
1. Democrats are the lesser evil, by a long shot
2. Center-left economics is a winning strategy! From Zohran to Sherrod Brown, it overperforms!
If you want more Dems to win (#1) then you want Dems to run as economic populists (#2).
2. Center-left economics is a winning strategy! From Zohran to Sherrod Brown, it overperforms!
If you want more Dems to win (#1) then you want Dems to run as economic populists (#2).
Legal freedom is no freedom at all without ECONOMIC FREEDOM.
The "right" to gender-affirming care means squat without affordable access.
"How do we get trans youths kicked out from home into public housing, in public health insurance, on a path to public college?"
By fighting for those programs!
The "right" to gender-affirming care means squat without affordable access.
"How do we get trans youths kicked out from home into public housing, in public health insurance, on a path to public college?"
By fighting for those programs!
February 13, 2026 at 9:57 PM
Legal freedom is no freedom at all without ECONOMIC FREEDOM.
The "right" to gender-affirming care means squat without affordable access.
"How do we get trans youths kicked out from home into public housing, in public health insurance, on a path to public college?"
By fighting for those programs!
The "right" to gender-affirming care means squat without affordable access.
"How do we get trans youths kicked out from home into public housing, in public health insurance, on a path to public college?"
By fighting for those programs!
The correct path to attack Dems is ECONOMIC.
How many blue states have:
Single payer? 0
Public options? 3*
Tripartite wage boards? 1*
Sectoral bargaining? 0
Min wages >60% of median? 0
Public investment banks? 0
Good cause eviction? ~15%
Parental leave? ~33%
Paid sick leave? ~66%
A total joke!
How many blue states have:
Single payer? 0
Public options? 3*
Tripartite wage boards? 1*
Sectoral bargaining? 0
Min wages >60% of median? 0
Public investment banks? 0
Good cause eviction? ~15%
Parental leave? ~33%
Paid sick leave? ~66%
A total joke!
February 13, 2026 at 9:51 PM
The correct path to attack Dems is ECONOMIC.
How many blue states have:
Single payer? 0
Public options? 3*
Tripartite wage boards? 1*
Sectoral bargaining? 0
Min wages >60% of median? 0
Public investment banks? 0
Good cause eviction? ~15%
Parental leave? ~33%
Paid sick leave? ~66%
A total joke!
How many blue states have:
Single payer? 0
Public options? 3*
Tripartite wage boards? 1*
Sectoral bargaining? 0
Min wages >60% of median? 0
Public investment banks? 0
Good cause eviction? ~15%
Parental leave? ~33%
Paid sick leave? ~66%
A total joke!
Three things are true:
1. State Dems ADVANCED trans rights, not abandoned.
2. Federal Dems MOSTLY FAILED to protect trans rights. Ex: Biden repeatedly failed to use DOJ. Counter-ex: Dems nixed anti-trans riders in BBB.
3. On trans issues, Dem electeds are 0-30 points left of median American (chud).
1. State Dems ADVANCED trans rights, not abandoned.
2. Federal Dems MOSTLY FAILED to protect trans rights. Ex: Biden repeatedly failed to use DOJ. Counter-ex: Dems nixed anti-trans riders in BBB.
3. On trans issues, Dem electeds are 0-30 points left of median American (chud).
February 13, 2026 at 9:44 PM
Three things are true:
1. State Dems ADVANCED trans rights, not abandoned.
2. Federal Dems MOSTLY FAILED to protect trans rights. Ex: Biden repeatedly failed to use DOJ. Counter-ex: Dems nixed anti-trans riders in BBB.
3. On trans issues, Dem electeds are 0-30 points left of median American (chud).
1. State Dems ADVANCED trans rights, not abandoned.
2. Federal Dems MOSTLY FAILED to protect trans rights. Ex: Biden repeatedly failed to use DOJ. Counter-ex: Dems nixed anti-trans riders in BBB.
3. On trans issues, Dem electeds are 0-30 points left of median American (chud).
This argument is tired and bad. Democrats are rainbow capitalists!
1: Trans people have MUCH stronger legal protections in blue states than red. Look at that linear correlation!
2: Every Dem state but HI has a "shield" law for youth gender-affirming care. Every Rep state but AK has a ban.
1: Trans people have MUCH stronger legal protections in blue states than red. Look at that linear correlation!
2: Every Dem state but HI has a "shield" law for youth gender-affirming care. Every Rep state but AK has a ban.
February 13, 2026 at 9:31 PM
This argument is tired and bad. Democrats are rainbow capitalists!
1: Trans people have MUCH stronger legal protections in blue states than red. Look at that linear correlation!
2: Every Dem state but HI has a "shield" law for youth gender-affirming care. Every Rep state but AK has a ban.
1: Trans people have MUCH stronger legal protections in blue states than red. Look at that linear correlation!
2: Every Dem state but HI has a "shield" law for youth gender-affirming care. Every Rep state but AK has a ban.
Well, that depends. Most tankies are strong Stalinists and thus support classic 2nd campism, so they endorse left-of-center anti-US forces, like DPRK.
Blanket anti-US sentiment is more of a 3rd Worldist / non-Leninist view. That's how you get leftists for Iran.
Blanket anti-US sentiment is more of a 3rd Worldist / non-Leninist view. That's how you get leftists for Iran.
February 11, 2026 at 11:59 PM
Well, that depends. Most tankies are strong Stalinists and thus support classic 2nd campism, so they endorse left-of-center anti-US forces, like DPRK.
Blanket anti-US sentiment is more of a 3rd Worldist / non-Leninist view. That's how you get leftists for Iran.
Blanket anti-US sentiment is more of a 3rd Worldist / non-Leninist view. That's how you get leftists for Iran.
I mean, it's both, isn't it?
In the 2000s, the US left was equal parts young anarchists, young Trots, and aging demsocs -- those traditions very much stamped themselves on the post-Bernie left, no?
In the 2000s, the US left was equal parts young anarchists, young Trots, and aging demsocs -- those traditions very much stamped themselves on the post-Bernie left, no?
February 11, 2026 at 10:29 PM
I mean, it's both, isn't it?
In the 2000s, the US left was equal parts young anarchists, young Trots, and aging demsocs -- those traditions very much stamped themselves on the post-Bernie left, no?
In the 2000s, the US left was equal parts young anarchists, young Trots, and aging demsocs -- those traditions very much stamped themselves on the post-Bernie left, no?
I have promoted this article since the day it came out!
I'm making exactly the same argument it does!
US parties largely *don't exist* -- or are incredibly weak/"thin" -- BECAUSE primaries, celebrity candidates, and megadonors actually control them. Example: Trump taking over the hostile RNC!
I'm making exactly the same argument it does!
US parties largely *don't exist* -- or are incredibly weak/"thin" -- BECAUSE primaries, celebrity candidates, and megadonors actually control them. Example: Trump taking over the hostile RNC!
February 11, 2026 at 9:56 PM
I have promoted this article since the day it came out!
I'm making exactly the same argument it does!
US parties largely *don't exist* -- or are incredibly weak/"thin" -- BECAUSE primaries, celebrity candidates, and megadonors actually control them. Example: Trump taking over the hostile RNC!
I'm making exactly the same argument it does!
US parties largely *don't exist* -- or are incredibly weak/"thin" -- BECAUSE primaries, celebrity candidates, and megadonors actually control them. Example: Trump taking over the hostile RNC!
In fact, progressives championed two reforms: Partisan primaries OR nonpartisan elections.
In local nonpartisan elections with successful left parties, we see that dues-paying party system emerge.
Progressive Dane and Richmond Progressive Alliance both pay dues! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmon...
In local nonpartisan elections with successful left parties, we see that dues-paying party system emerge.
Progressive Dane and Richmond Progressive Alliance both pay dues! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmon...
Richmond Progressive Alliance - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
February 11, 2026 at 3:10 PM
In fact, progressives championed two reforms: Partisan primaries OR nonpartisan elections.
In local nonpartisan elections with successful left parties, we see that dues-paying party system emerge.
Progressive Dane and Richmond Progressive Alliance both pay dues! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmon...
In local nonpartisan elections with successful left parties, we see that dues-paying party system emerge.
Progressive Dane and Richmond Progressive Alliance both pay dues! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmon...
Other countries exist!
The American electoral-party system is unique in the world: State-run partisan primaries, very strong candidates, very weak "parties".
No Euro country has this. They have dues-paying membership parties. Most have more responsive, less corrupt politics than we. What gives?
The American electoral-party system is unique in the world: State-run partisan primaries, very strong candidates, very weak "parties".
No Euro country has this. They have dues-paying membership parties. Most have more responsive, less corrupt politics than we. What gives?
Do people not realize it is illegal for parties to do this in the United States because we decided around the turn of the last century that we didn't want unaccountable party bosses to decide who we could vote for
People pay because they want their ideology to win
February 11, 2026 at 3:06 PM
Other countries exist!
The American electoral-party system is unique in the world: State-run partisan primaries, very strong candidates, very weak "parties".
No Euro country has this. They have dues-paying membership parties. Most have more responsive, less corrupt politics than we. What gives?
The American electoral-party system is unique in the world: State-run partisan primaries, very strong candidates, very weak "parties".
No Euro country has this. They have dues-paying membership parties. Most have more responsive, less corrupt politics than we. What gives?
Oh: I'm implicitly arguing that the lack of action isn't because centrist types don't want to come off as DSA Right, but because they wants to rock the boat
(Also, I think soft campism is more popular than we'd like: R&R-MUG called Ukraine a "US client-state".)
(Also, I think soft campism is more popular than we'd like: R&R-MUG called Ukraine a "US client-state".)
February 11, 2026 at 5:52 AM
Oh: I'm implicitly arguing that the lack of action isn't because centrist types don't want to come off as DSA Right, but because they wants to rock the boat
(Also, I think soft campism is more popular than we'd like: R&R-MUG called Ukraine a "US client-state".)
(Also, I think soft campism is more popular than we'd like: R&R-MUG called Ukraine a "US client-state".)
See also: How mad minor restrictions on IC comms ("don't justify killing") made the Left, or narrow endorsement restrictions ("must be anti-Zionist") made the Right
So the current balance remains, because it pisses everyone off, but not enough for them to take the nuclear option & risk blowback
So the current balance remains, because it pisses everyone off, but not enough for them to take the nuclear option & risk blowback
February 11, 2026 at 5:20 AM
See also: How mad minor restrictions on IC comms ("don't justify killing") made the Left, or narrow endorsement restrictions ("must be anti-Zionist") made the Right
So the current balance remains, because it pisses everyone off, but not enough for them to take the nuclear option & risk blowback
So the current balance remains, because it pisses everyone off, but not enough for them to take the nuclear option & risk blowback
There's no way around this, except for the NPC to halt one wing's preferred Thing, which makes people REALLY angry
Example: The anti-mutual-aid and pro-mutual-aid factions of DSA were at each other's throats because they tried to shut each other down 2/3
Example: The anti-mutual-aid and pro-mutual-aid factions of DSA were at each other's throats because they tried to shut each other down 2/3
February 11, 2026 at 5:17 AM
There's no way around this, except for the NPC to halt one wing's preferred Thing, which makes people REALLY angry
Example: The anti-mutual-aid and pro-mutual-aid factions of DSA were at each other's throats because they tried to shut each other down 2/3
Example: The anti-mutual-aid and pro-mutual-aid factions of DSA were at each other's throats because they tried to shut each other down 2/3
I actually think Mikhail is wrong here
National DSA is implicitly divided into fiefdoms where people self sort into Their Thing, the work they want the most
The DSA Right gets (most of) electoral, the Center gets (most of) labor, the Left get the IC & Robert's Rules because that's Their Thing 1/2
National DSA is implicitly divided into fiefdoms where people self sort into Their Thing, the work they want the most
The DSA Right gets (most of) electoral, the Center gets (most of) labor, the Left get the IC & Robert's Rules because that's Their Thing 1/2
February 11, 2026 at 5:16 AM
I actually think Mikhail is wrong here
National DSA is implicitly divided into fiefdoms where people self sort into Their Thing, the work they want the most
The DSA Right gets (most of) electoral, the Center gets (most of) labor, the Left get the IC & Robert's Rules because that's Their Thing 1/2
National DSA is implicitly divided into fiefdoms where people self sort into Their Thing, the work they want the most
The DSA Right gets (most of) electoral, the Center gets (most of) labor, the Left get the IC & Robert's Rules because that's Their Thing 1/2
Conservatives are killing American science.
They've obliterated & politicized research grants. They've obliterated every scientific agency.
It may take a decade to recover from this skill loss & career disruption.
They've obliterated & politicized research grants. They've obliterated every scientific agency.
It may take a decade to recover from this skill loss & career disruption.
February 11, 2026 at 3:25 AM
Conservatives are killing American science.
They've obliterated & politicized research grants. They've obliterated every scientific agency.
It may take a decade to recover from this skill loss & career disruption.
They've obliterated & politicized research grants. They've obliterated every scientific agency.
It may take a decade to recover from this skill loss & career disruption.