Hacker News

points by mentalgear 14 hours ago | 0 comments

Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to prevent a multi-coalition, working class movement across ethnicity, unions, and religions that would have made the US a better democracy.

The battle of the present (ICE abuse, Social media speech suppression, ..) to win the government back by the people and for the people can still be won - but it hinges all on this November.

[–] VulgarExigency 14 hours ago

> Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to prevent a multi-coalition, working class movement across ethnicity, unions, and religions that would have made the US a better democracy.

What makes you think they've stopped?

[–] gadders 14 hours ago

Well, "they" did their best to stop Bernie running.

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

They succeeded.

I remember reading the online news about those primaries as they happened. Bernie wins this state in a landslide. Bernie wins that state in a landslide. Suddenly he's not on the ballot in most of the remaining states. At the end he doesn't have enough votes, oh dear too bad so sad. Some sort of investigation happened, but concluded the DNC has the absolute right to run primaries any way it chooses to.

[–] amenhotep 13 hours ago

> Suddenly he's not on the ballot in most of the remaining states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic...

Why are you just completely making things up?

[–] buellerbueller 13 hours ago

HRC was also given the power to effectively run the DNC (while a candidate in the primaries!) in exchange for some funraising. There were bunches of other shenanigans.

To me, it all seems to boil down to the notion that Bernie would credibly have "drained the swamp," which would have effectively tanked the careers of a lot of long-serving Democratic folks who were not aligned with his populist/progressive agenda. Simply by hiring people that would have aligned with his vision, this was such a threat to existing power, it had to be stopped. Yes, the Rs are worse (in my opinion), but this gives me plenty of distrust for the Ds. Institutions eventually become more about institutional survival than about their "core mission."

[–] raptor99 3 hours ago

Remember also that it turned out that the chair of the DNC (Donna Brazile) was able to let Hillary (or at least Hilary's campaign) have access to the CNN debate questions in advance

[–] caconym_ 12 hours ago

At some point during that primary season I was driving in my car listening to my local NPR station and they had a story about these two candidates. I shit you not: they were introduced as "Hillary Clinton" and "the socialist senator from Vermont".

For some reason I remember that moment as vividly as I remember pulling out in the car with my mom on the way to school and hearing that a plane had hit the WTC.

[–] swed420 11 hours ago

NPR has been capital-endorsed garbage for a long time now. NYT is no better.

The Sanders campaigns just made it painfully obvious to anybody paying attention.

[–] linuxftw 11 hours ago

Remember when Hillary won all those coin tosses?

[–] buellerbueller 9 hours ago

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-chec...

[–] mentalgear 14 hours ago

Yes, that was the Clinton-controlled ('wealthy donors') DNC that excluded Bernie from a fair competition to become the Democrat's Candidate - which by all metrics and polling from the party's base and non-party members he would have won.

So, the Clinton-controlled DNC from 2016 put Trump in the White House.

The positive message is that since then the Democrats have been infused by Sanders-like independent Democrats that want to do the right thing, but we must keep on pushing to rid and guard the DNC and party administration off the corrupt billionaire influences.

[–] 999900000999 12 hours ago

At a certain point you realize both parties ultimately serve the super rich. The DNC would rather have Republicans in office over electing real progressives.

If you look outside the US Bernie is actually a moderate. We're not talking about abolishing money or seizing the means of production. Just maybe, somewhere between minting a new trillionaire every year and pregnant women sleeping outside we can find a compromise.

Unlimited money for wars all over the planet, but if you lose your job and have a chronic illness you're screwed most of the time.

Sometimes your screwed even if you have a job and good health insurance. It's a magic game of musical chairs to see what's covered or not. What's out of pocket , etc.

[–] mentalgear 11 hours ago

Absolutely agree, Bernie is seen as politically 'normal' by most (western) countries. Only Amercians having become gradually skewed by Reagonomics (or better his puppet masters) that are so (ab)used by predatory capitalism would think of him as outer left, whereas most of the world sees in him a centrist (as would 1950s golden-era American voters).

[–] 999900000999 11 hours ago

I don’t think theirs any possible way Social Security or other New Deal programs could be enacted today.

Although it can be argued this should be handled state by state instead. Unemployment pays about 1k per week in Washington , but only 400$ a week in Illinois.

My big fear is a right leaning federal government will eventually dismantle the social safety net entirely. If not that expect rent seeking, ie paying fees to private companies to get your social security checks

[–] emchammer 8 hours ago

For the sake of discussion, can you clarify who you refer to by "puppet masters"?

[–] midev 14 hours ago

Can you explain why you shouldn't rely on media memories as truth?

> Suddenly he's not on the ballot in most of the remaining states

Can you list these states? This should be easy to verify.

> concluded the DNC has the absolute right to run primaries any way it chooses to

Can you cite a law that tells private parties who they must support?

[–] raptor99 3 hours ago

If by "they", you are referencing specifically the DNC establishment then you are correct.

[–] BobaFloutist 11 hours ago

By voting against him?

[–] swed420 14 hours ago

So did Dems

[–] gadders 14 hours ago

I don't think the Dems are still the party of the working class.

[–] amanaplanacanal 13 hours ago

There is no party of the working class. Hasn't been since Clinton in the 90s moved to the right.

[–] MisterTea 13 hours ago

Pretty much this. Voting in this election will give me no peace of mind.

[–] Arodex 7 hours ago

And won.

The truth is that Americans hate the working class. They idolize the super rich.

[–] mentalgear 14 hours ago

Never said they stopped: industry 'leaders', authoritarians, will always try to keep and expand their abusive grip over others and claw as much power from the common people as possible. The methods are always the same: distraction, disinformation, abuse. The common people's only defense is transparent institutions and limiting power/wealth in general.

See also how the robber barons of the 1930s (Rockefeller, JP Morgan, etc) already tried to overthrow the government to establish a fascist military dictatorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

[–] regretsresin 14 hours ago

The democrats participate in this export strongly too. Biden shut down a really important union strike. They are less overt about it, but go watch Malcolm X talk about foxes and wolves.

[–] ToucanLoucan 14 hours ago

Really all the comments about "white moderates/liberals." The exact sort of people who forgot the Civil Rights movement, Labor Rights movement, and Women's Suffrage, and really every movement by a marginalized group to gain power from the mainstream were packed full of organized political violence.

Non-violent protests have a place. On occasion though, you need to hit the system where it hurts in order for it to take you seriously.

[–] mentalgear 14 hours ago

The Democratic Party too had problematic 'wealthy supporters' that influenced them away from a people's real needs. However, Biden's initiatives were probably the most 'socialistic' since FDR. And if the DSA and Bernie Sanders' aligned forces are finally able to force the Democratic Party back to their roots of FDR, then there is good chance we might still make it.

[–] upboundspiral 11 hours ago

the DNC sabotaged Bernie in 2016 with all their might.

Even if Biden's strategy was serve the super rich, while minimally "throwing the dog a bone" (the average person), not much changed. Sure, he appointed Lina Kahn, but per usual she was also sabotaged within the FTC and outside of it had no support.

The comparison to FDR, who was supremely hated by Wall street, who banned any bankers from attending Bretton Woods, who oversaw the New Deal, etc, etc is laughable.

[–] superdisk 14 hours ago

It's the most important election of our lifetime... For the fourth time in a row!

[–] samrus 14 hours ago

Thats what happens when you live in increasingly interesting times

[–] swed420 14 hours ago

Anything to prop up the illusion of democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty

[–] deepsquirrelnet 9 hours ago

You're linking an article showing how everybody in modern times who uses the term "uniparty" is using it to further their own political interests...

Beyond just that, if there is a uniparty, then why is Elon spending half a billion dollars in electoral races?

It's not that there's a uniparty, it's that as a result of Citizen's United, parties don't need to represent you anymore. They represent their money donors instead. Money is speech now, and as the wealth disparity grows it becomes a bigger megaphone and drowns out the voices of hundreds of millions.

[–] swed420 4 hours ago

Sounds like you need to re-read the article.

[–] Arodex 10 hours ago

Then explain the existence and extension of ranked-choice voting.

Also explain why only one side of the "uniparty" is very, very vocal against ranked-choice voting. Like, to the point of banning it by law. All of them Republicans.

Weird, uh? But please tell us again how much Democrats and Republicans are the same and what is your solution.

[–] swed420 4 hours ago

Sounds like you need to re-read the article.

[–] timacles 14 hours ago

Yep, Dems are just the good cop to the bad cop. And their only purpose is to placate the country into thinking we’re not 100% owned by billionaires and corporate interests.

[–] chasd00 14 hours ago

The very foundation of Democracy is at stake!! …again for like 30 years straight now.

My step dad use to quote bible verses to me trying to prove Obama was the literal antichrist. Before that it was the evil Bush and his oil cronies. Now it’s Trump, in two years it will be someone else. Same as it ever was.

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

It is though? Like, every single election, someone runs on the platform of abolishing democracy. Every single election, it's important that person doesn't win, or there won't be a democracy any more.

By all rights there shouldn't be one already, but we're lucky the democracy abolitionists are fairly incompetent.

[–] sejje 13 hours ago

So last election, Kamala Harris was the platform of abolishing democracy?

Or, alternatively, did we cease to have a democracy?

[–] jeremyjh 13 hours ago

We are very substantially less democratic than we were in 2024. The admin has broken laws regarding impoundment and war powers, just to name two. The executive has no legal power to determine funding allocations, or to commit to wars long-term. Yet both have happened and are still happening.

Using the DOJ to interfere in state elections they have no jurisdiction in, and having masked men abduct people and ignore court orders regarding their disposition is just about as authoritarian as it gets.

Those are all new things that have substantially eroded - or removed all together the idea of democracy in less than two years.

[–] cowlevel 13 hours ago

On the other hand, it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening. It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election, and it would become irreversibly undemocratic if a president actually stayed in office after losing an election.

[–] sejje 13 hours ago

That's not gonna happen.

If one side shuts the other out of power, that's when we'll finally get the civil war many have been predicting for a long time.

Hopefully the framework to limit power can stay in place, in spite of all the calls to change it, abolish the senate, pack the court, make sure to punish/"hold accountable" red voters, etc.

[–] Hikikomori 5 hours ago

>It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election,

Jan 6, fake electors scheme, etc. This time it will be a lot worse.

[–] ImPostingOnHN 12 hours ago

> it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening

It's possible, but not very credible, to argue that in a situation where direct democracy doesn't exist.

The closest we have to voted for these things rather than voted for these people is polls, which overwhelmingly illustrate that most people oppose those things.

We'll know more after the election, if people supported those things.

> It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election

Yes, the current president tried exactly that, in a violent insurrection, and has interfered in national elections since regaining power.

[–] jeremyjh 10 hours ago

No one voted for what is happening now, because crimes like these were not on the ballot and were not promised in advance. If you vote for a president in a system with three equal branches and then they liquidate the other two - no one voted for THAT.

Was voting for a narcissistic treason weasel predictably going to lead to this? I would say - and did say - yes, without question. He already incited a violent insurrection once, rather than admit he lost an election. But people voted for cheaper groceries and deporting violent criminals.

As difficult as it is to believe, there are many tens of millions of people who think that Trump is a smart business man because he was portrayed that way on The Apprentice. They think the promises of this known huckster and flim-flam man were worth the bandwidth spent delivering them to televisions. They think that FOX News opinion show personalities are qualified to administer the country's government. They didn't vote for fascism, because they don't know what that word means. Many could not even reliably number the branches of government or describe them accurately.

[–] throwitaway222 13 hours ago

I mean Karen Bass just said there's no need for an Election for the governor, it's Xavier Baccera. He's the governor already according to her. "You don't need an election on November 3. A Republican cannot win in this state."

[–] cowlevel 12 hours ago

In Alaska the GOP has filed a lawsuit saying the election was rigged but only if they lose (since it hasn't happened yet). I wish I was making this up.

[–] BobaFloutist 11 hours ago

Do you think she meant there shouldn't be an election, or was simply alluding to the incredibly predictable result we all know to expect?

[–] throwitaway222 8 hours ago

Personally, and this is just my opinion, but many people are aware of the reporting on CA laws and how it's actually impossible to prove voting irregularities because they separate the voter from the vote. And to have people with the attitude she has, it only makes me lean towards - they know the irregularities are real.

[–] 15155 11 hours ago

How did she do in the primaries?

[–] Arodex 6 hours ago

Well, you'll see after the midterms... You know, the one where the DOJ is looking to cancel the election in Alaska, where Texas GOP officials are trying to stop the election, where Homeland Security Investigation officers are sent to a sitting Representative's home at dawn and the president is boasting she has forfeited her seat...

Totally normal stuff in a democracy, don't we agree?

Just imagine the shittiest country that you can think of. Now imagine everything I described above happening in that country. Now imagine how you would react to that, and how it would be covered in the news and punditry.

[–] 0xDEAFBEAD 11 hours ago

>every single election, someone runs on the platform of abolishing democracy

So was this person Romney in 2012? McCain in 2008? Kerry in 2004? Gore in 2000?

Any one of those presidents would've abolished democracy?

Somehow we picked the right candidate every time?

The average constitution lasts about 18 years. The US constitution has lasted almost 250. Statistically, that's quite unlikely if a candidate ran on a platform of abolishing democracy in every election.

[–] Arodex 6 hours ago

>The average constitution lasts about 18 years

What

[–] 0xDEAFBEAD 6 hours ago

"By our estimate, national constitutions have lasted an average of only seventeen years since 1789"

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitut...

Most countries are not as politically stable as the US. We're very privileged in that way.

[–] jackb4040 13 hours ago

Well it's important to you. It's evidently not important to the people you vote for, the people who fundraise off of this hostage situation, the people who have had trifectas multiple times during this era and have not even used them to permanently secure the "democracy", let alone the overwhelmingly popular policies with their base that would guarantee they win ever election but piss off their donors.

[–] basilikum 14 hours ago

How many of them openly attacked and rejected to democratic process itself? How many of them did not accept the result of an election?

[–] 10111001 14 hours ago

> The very foundation of Democracy is at stake!! …again for like 30 years straight now.

There's a very easy method to tell if someone making that claim is a liar: ask "what major ideological compromise are they making to save democracy?" if the answer is "none" or close to it, they're full of shit.

'Cause if fascism is really our doorstep, you'd think they'd be gunning for the broadest, most indefatigable anti-fascist coalition possible; instead of the narrowest, most pure one they think they can get away with.

[–] lkbm 13 hours ago

I mean...I think people who oppose GMOs, permitting reform, hydroelectric, and nuclear power do care about the environment, despite actively working against it. People who oppose developers building more houses do want more affordable housing, despite actively working against it.

People, including individuals, aren't single-minded, rational, or scientifically literate.

In the case of anti-fascism, many on the left earnestly believe that a far-left candidate is the solution because their bubble tells them that their views are dominant. After all, they and many of their friends aren't excited to vote for the moderates, but would vote for someone more left.

I'll sacrifice a lot of things I care about for leadership that would shore up democracy (I'm not sure how, though fixing redistricting is a big one), but it's seen as normal and admirable to refuse to compromise.

[–] 10111001 11 hours ago

You raise good points, and I think there are actually at least two phenomena here:

1. The liars: people cynically playing up fears of "losing democracy" as a political tactic to support some other political programs. I think this is especially obvious from candidates, activists, political operatives, etc. -- people sophisticated enough and engaged enough to know and think about what they're doing in a serious way.

2. The un-serious people: those you describe. Basically irrational people who believe a jumble of things without exercising the ability to prioritize or disengage the contradictions.

I don't think the boundaries between these phenomena are hard ones (e.g. you can often push un-serious people into liar territory by challenging them to prioritize).

[–] Arodex 6 hours ago

Yeah, it is not as if Trump was planning (more) massive war crimes, against Iran in particular, right now. (I mean , on top of the ongoing war crimes in the Caribbean Sea.) I am completely exaggerating here, right? It is not as if the secretary of war had fired another top ranking military officer without offering any explanation:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hegseth-fires-the-pent...

Or it isn't as if top oil executives are changing their business trip plans to the United Arab Emirates:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-chevron-cancel...

No need to think anything important is going to happen with an insane president (did you know that "dumb" ends with a "b"? Did you know that?) surrounded by incompetent sycophants.

We can all see the equivalence here: some people said that Obama was the antichrist, some people say now that Trump is senile, violent, racist and unhinged. Clearly they are both wrong. Both sides. Clearly. It is obvious that both are decent, educated men who just carry their elected duties.

[–] Arodex 14 hours ago

Oh, yeah, Bush wasn't that bad, right? Just hundreds of thousands of deaths and crippled veterans, and the complete destruction of global order that opened the door to Russia invading Ukraine. "Just worth a shrug", you say while you pass by a crack addicted veteran while on you way to pay 30% more for gas and food. "It wasn't worth getting worried about."

What a level-headed, reasonable know-nothing you are, sitting above all this unreasonable jockeying.

I am not surprised though, you live in a culture where people can lecture others that the Bible told them Obama was Satan. You don't know what actual politics is anymore.

[–] saila 13 hours ago

I’d add the so-called “Patriot Act” to the list of damages from the GW Bush era. Massive consequences that can’t be shrugged off with some both-sides nonsense.

[–] Micrococonut 14 hours ago

As long as people keep electing fascist billionaires to loot the country, the fight continues

[–] ifwinterco 11 hours ago

Continuing to believe in democracy when you seem to know how the country (all countries) actually works in practice is surely just illogical.

You can't vote for anyone who'll abolish the FBI, CIA and the rest of the elite groups that actually run things

[–] maerF0x0 13 hours ago

> but it hinges all on this November

A slight challenge here. November is a sizable opportunity to move towards that aim. Every day after is another opportunity to live it out in your life, community, neighborhood, finances, religion, and family...

[–] kspacewalk2 14 hours ago

>Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to prevent a multi-coalition, working class movement across ethnicity, unions, and religions that would have made the US a better democracy.

It's communism. Cold War. All there is to it. As with much other evil, this was done because the FBI feared that Big Bad Uncle Ivan will somehow gain influence over this leader and use it for leverage in the Cold War.

The same multitudes of extramarital affairs and other racy and embarrassing stuff that Dr King took part in, as a reverend, could be used by communists to blackmail him into working for them or making decisions that favour the Soviet Union. Is it far-fetched? Sure. Is it, in hindsight, paranoid and stupid? Yep. But can we say with certainty, without hindsight, that it was impossible, when you have an entire organization dedicated to rooting out hidden influence of the enemy in an existential covert global struggle?

And it wasn't all paranoia. The Soviet Union under Stalin was extremely good at infiltrating American academia, civil society and government. The Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, etc. The US government went from ignoring the problem and dealing with it so incompetently actual Soviet spies were in almost cabinet-level positions, to hysterically over-reacting and ruining the lives of people like Dr King "just in case".

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

There's another country that has infiltrated the whole American government, and a third country that is often said to have infiltrated American academia and civil society, but we don't seem to worry about them. Why the distinction?

[–] kspacewalk2 14 hours ago

I'm not sure what your question is. Did someone draw a distinction? If you transplanted the 1960s FBI to modern times and told them to look for influence in favour of Russia or Israel or whoever you mean but for some reason don't name, and told them to use the same tactics, they probably would try.

[–] jackb4040 13 hours ago

The USS Liberty happened in the 1960s. It's downright silly to pretend the American state would ever have had a similar orientation towards a rival superpower vs its own unsinkable aircraft carrier.

[–] kspacewalk2 12 hours ago

You're now the second person doing this. I won't try to keep up with the conspiracies, and multiple levels of unstated implications based on the assumptions about those conspiracies being facts. Israel has never been, nor will likely ever be a superpower or anything akin to a near-peer adversary of the United States, so I'm not too sure what there is to talk about. Still waiting for anyone to propose a topic.

[–] ricksunny 13 hours ago

But you don’t understand it’s okay when Mossad and Shin Bet do it.

[–] DFHippie 14 hours ago

It's pretty good under Putin, too. Better, actually. They don't use the same narrative template, but they're picking tools with more power. It turns out it's really easy to manipulate narcissists and authoritarian followers.

(well, the Russian Federation, not the USSR)

[–] accountrequired 14 hours ago

>multi-coalition, working class movement

That is how Communists get their cultural revolution, you know.

[–] cowlevel 13 hours ago

It's the excuse Communists used. It's also the same excuse Fascists used. Need I remind you: national socialist German worker's party.

There seems to be great demand for a party that actually makes life better for people, so great that you can just name your party that, win an election and do anything you want to. For some reason there's very little supply of parties that actually make life better and don't just pretend they want to.

[–] ricksunny 13 hours ago

>That is how Communists get tbeir cultural revokution, you know

That is how blowhards get Red-Scares and Cold Wars, you know. And exactly the abuses OP posting is decrying.

[–] pessimizer 13 hours ago

> Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to prevent a multi-coalition, working class movement across ethnicity, unions, and religions that would have made the US a better democracy.

Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to attack black civil rights movements. They also used it to attack things that were associated with the Soviet Union, including associating black civil rights with communism and socialism, like you're doing here.

Maybe this was not about everybody and not about you?

[–] regretsresin 14 hours ago

It doesn't all hinge on this November. It hinges on all the moments where people do work to avoid fascism. Some of that happens at the polls. Some of that happens at home. Some of that happens online.

Feed people. Engage in mutual aid. Build communities. Prepare candidates. Grow networks. Then vote. Voting is the last and easiest part.