“Agency” is something that factors into my dissertation a lot— and whether or not if other states who weren’t Canada, were given the same exact (or close to) opportunities as Canada did, would they act the same— and the answer is ‘yes.’

The answer is ‘yes’ because of the opportunities and the conditions within the Canadian context being the same on behalf of the other states (thus “if” in the hypothetical) who didn’t actually get those opportunities.

I’m noting this here because I see a lot of fallacious arguments that are had on Twitter regarding agency and context— whereby people extrapolate US electoral conditions to “make the case” for why leftists *must work with/find allyship in the US Democratic Party.*

A true contextualization would be one which looks at the conditions of the current US Democratic Party and see whether or not it is applicable to the situation you are extrapolating it upon.

If more people did this— vs simply believing that it is the US Democratic party is *THE* party “obviously” positioned to be comparable to the communist, socialist, and democratic socialist labor parties of the past in other states— they’d see why this contextualization is bad.

I’m always in disbelief with people saying US leftists can find some allyship amongst Democrats (/moderates/liberals) that are *fundamentally opposed* to our morals, values and goals of justice and equality in what is an imperial and settler colonial state

That just is not the case with parties reckoning with how far they can go in their societies given (what was their) societal contradictions and present realities.

The US reality is that a few capitalists are continuously allowed by BOTH PARTIES— who enact these *BIPARTISAN* policies and legislation— to amass *THE MOST WEALTH IN THE WORLD* with no account at all for the poor or working class.

Neither of these parties (in what was the reform that so many falsely try to equivocate this on to societies revolutionaries were talking ab) are granting concessions to labor unions (both parties actively invested in their destruction), concessions to health (again), etc

So I want to know/see the context where “Marxists” are comparing the Dem party today to aftermentioned parties of the past— to reach the conclusion that a corporate party intent on serving capitalism *BLATANTLY* is an ally to working people

It is the case, that today’s Democratic and Republican Party’s are so close in interests, that the current conditions that allow them to exist as they are would not have approved a 40 hour work week or end child labor— even with mass movements asking for such.

And even in that situation, if Democrats were slightly a bit “better” socially— we’d still be told that “we must” vote for them. And wait ∞ to be given the right to not have to work to death to simply survive