'Our Revolution' is Not a Revolutionary Movement I The Hampton Institute

“Our Revolution is not revolutionary, and it should not be discussed as revolutionary. Revolutionary politics will only come from outside the two-party establishment and will likely not come by playing by the establishment rules. Even parties such as the Green Party are not bringing about revolutionary change as they seek to gain power through the already established system and offer no path to changing or overthrowing that system. They wish to reform our politics, not revolutionize them.

As socialists, the goal should be to educate the influx of young voters who are seemingly attracted to the socialist label, but only understand it in the context of Bernie Sanders. When speaking to a crowd at the University of Georgetown, Sanders proclaimed that his brand of socialism didn’t involve workers owning the means of production.

If the mainstream understanding of socialism in the United States becomes offering partly socialized programs through the means of capitalism, the goals of socialists around the country become a greater uphill battle than ever before. Socialists still find themselves explaining that socialism isn’t aligned with Stalinism and the USSR, and now have to further explain that it doesn’t support ‘fixing’ capitalism. Even the term democratic socialism has been muddied by Sanders campaign. What Sanders thinks of as socialism is merely an old-school, post-New Deal Democrat. A liberal who understands the importance of a welfare state, but who cannot see past the blinders of capitalism to understand why this economic system makes welfare necessary. Instead of fighting to change the system, they instead fight to put band-aids on it. The world socialism should be nowhere near that.

With that said, we can admit that Sanders can be praised to some degree for removing a lot of the stigma around the ’S’ word, while at the same time realizing that by using the label for his liberal version of socialism, he has also done damage to what the word means.”

anonymous asked:

I'm the anon of the does-the-Martells-blame-the-Starks question. Thanks for the answer :D ... So, do you think that a marriage between Trystane/Quentyn and Sansa/Arya wasn't a impossible option?

Thanks for the question, Anon.

I mean, there’s a long way between “not impossible” and “probable”. It’s not impossible that those betrothals would have been made, but would that really have benefited the dynastic ambitions of either party? 

As a general rule, lords’ daughters tend to marry their fathers’ bannermen - certainly not an absolute, but a definite consideration for Ned and Catelyn in deciding to whom they would marry Sansa and Arya. As I’ve talked about before, I don’t think the Joffrey match was ever off the table for Sansa - it was too neat post-Robert’s Rebellion politics. Especially if Sansa were so betrothed, the Stark vassal lords might feel even more than one of them “deserves” the only remaining Stark maiden (after all, no Stark daughter has wed among her bannermen since Serena’s daughters Arana and Aregelle Stark wed an Osric and a Cerwyn, respectively). 

Beyond the North as well, there might have been far more obvious matches than the two Martell princes. Robert Arryn, the girls’ first cousin, was (at least in terms of dynastic importance, and not so much in personality) a great marital prize. Starks had wed Valemen before - Lorra Royce marrying Beron Stark and Jocelyn Stark wedding Benedict Royce - so one of the great First Men Houses of the Vale could have been an option as well. Of course, with the girls being half-Tullys, the sons of great riverlords might have been considered too - a Mallister, say, or a Blackwood. 

With all of those considerations, I don’t see how a Martell prince would be a very likely match. The Starks and the Martells have really no history together (save Rickon Stark, Cregan’s heir, who fell in battle outside Sunspear, and of course whatever happened with Rhaegar and Lyanna). When discussing a potential Arya-Edric Dayne match a while ago, I said that Starfall is not wealthy or powerful enough to give the North great material benefits and outweigh marriage possibilities closer to home; I think the same is true of the Martells. Neither Quentyn nor Trystane is heir to Sunspear and the Dornish princely seat, or wealthy enough to forgo those dynastic concerns. 

Moreover, although Doran may not direct the same ire to the Starks as he does toward the Lannisters and the ruling Baratheon regime, he certainly desires the restoration of the Targaryen monarchy - a monarchy which killed Lord Rickard and Brandon Stark, and against which Eddard fought as one of the high commanders in Robert’s Rebellion. Would Prince Doran (himself betrothing his daughter Arianne to the would-be Viserys III) have sought a marriage between the son he thought would rule Dorne after Arianne became a Targaryen queen and the daughter of a man who fought so hard against that king’s father? Even for poor-planning Doran, it seems a bad choice.

The Queen Regent (NFriel)

corruptapostasy  asked:

Hmm...I've been thinking. How different would everything have played out had Liam been what Bill expected? You know, if Liam actually wanted to "liberate" his home just as much as Bill?

I figure they would have clashed anyway at some point, at least concerning what the dimension should be like once they took over. Bill wanted an endless party without any rules, but I doubt Liam would have liked the price common people had to pay as a result.