False Consciousness Leads To False Percentages Of Agreement or Chance Of Alignment: We Aren't The Reactive KPD.

Some who vote progressive wing of the democratic party say we agree on 90% of things. Some who vote Democrat say we're on the same side and need to unite to get things accomplished. I disagree but they don't hear me, they don't hear us but they hear AI. Even AI says they're wrong. Here's three images, six AIs in total saying we aren't even frenemies but enemies... We cannot agree on the problem, therefore we cannot agree on the solution, and they have told us in legislative language that they consider us the enemy. By the time the blog is done, I will show it as truth.

Two AIs confirming the ideological chasm is structural, not superficial. The Google result frames the Sanders/AOC wing as operating entirely within capitalist property relations, seeking regulated markets and electoral reform, while ML internationalism seeks the total overthrow of the capitalist state and proletarian dictatorship. Compatibility described as "virtually non-existent." Perplexity puts a number on it: 2 to 3 out of 10, citing rejection of electoral reformism, capitalist management, and coalition politics inside the Democratic Party as the core incompatibilities.

Copilot identifies the Bernie/AOC framework as reform-oriented social democracy, tethered to the Democratic Party and limited in systemic capacity. It notes probable compatibility on narrow anti-neoliberal points but flags the ML view of that wing as insufficiently radical and too integrated into capitalist electoral structures. Grok is the sharpest here, describing the gulf as ideological rather than a matter of degree, naming the democratic socialist position as a mechanism that pacifies the working class through concessions that delay true revolution. Probable compatibility rated near zero on core strategic questions.

Claude gives the most theoretically developed answer, grounding the incompatibility in the ML critique of bourgeois democracy itself, citing Lenin's critique of Kautsky and the Second International as the foundational text. It identifies social democracy's function as stabilizing capitalism rather than transforming it. Britannica contextualizes democratic centralism as the organizational principle that makes ML positions structurally incompatible with the pluralist, open-debate framework the progressive Democrats operate within.

We don't agree on 90%, we agree on zero at the strategic level. We both see something as a problem like homeless, our solution is seize the 1.5 abandoned homes and house them, and decommodifying homes, making them all public owned and state run. Their solution involves sweeps, clean outs, arrests and forcing people into programs or camps, without addressing the underlying problem. Tactical overlap on a specific issue isn't alliance, it's coincidence of immediate interest, and if we're starting from different roots, our analysis isn't correcting the same problem because like with homelessness, we're not seeing the same problem to begin with.

We are not even on the same wing, they are a center right party with their progressive wing being right of center... So technically there is no tactical overlap, just more opposition to take down to solve the problem. Like here, they keep the homeless out of sight, while not abolishing the systemic reason for the existence of the homeless population, in a sense, indirectly protecting the system by directly hiding it's flaws. Enablers just like the Comintern called them 100 years ago. Let the red scare propaganda, bad faith arguments begin to protect current systems and prove my point, exposing them. I'm confident in my statement but know what attack's incoming.

This isn't "same goals, different speeds." Ends different, as do means. Tactical convergence on a narrow issue can occur from opposed analyses, but that's coincidence of interest, not alliance. Once power or implementation hits, the divergence reasserts. Tactical unity talk papers over the strategic enmity. The "red scare" pushback is predictable; so is the mirror accusation of enabling authoritarianism via romanticizing past revolutions. And history shows coalitions fracture when principles are applied and fundamentals are tested. Ideological views are psychological, factual-philosophical understandings. To ignore the psychology, philosophy, or factual information is to come to an incomplete and therefore wrong understanding of material conditions.

And that is why the 90% is false, y'all agree with with us as much as the SPD agreed with Rosa and Karl in 1919. Just see H. Con. Res 9, H.R. 5349 of the 118th congress. And the 119th's H.Con.Res.58, S.Con.Res.21, H.R.6540 / S.3244, H.R.2080, H.R.8387. It's there Democrats hate communists as much as the SPD hated the KPD in 1919. We're not playing nice waiting for the latest assassination, and we're not going under ground. Continue to come at us for Stalin, Mao, HCM, Castro, and Hoxha using revised and fictional history, we'll still take them over these criminals against humanity: Andrew Jackson, L.B.J., George Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump.