Canconda comments on redblue farce

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (9 children)

"The system" isn't designed. It's a patchwork of interests, causes and effects. The meme is a false dichotomy in that the system isn't categorically functional or dysfunctional and the notion that parts of it being repressive doesn't preclude repairing institutions that are salvageable.

Its great you guys can hodgepodge some first year economic theory with a surface level of military concepts to convince yourselves and a few people on reddit.

But I'm not convinced you guys know wtf you're talking about and genuinely think you're all talk and no follow through.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (8 children)

I’m not sure what to say to the idea that the system isn’t designed. Like…surely you don’t deny that the electoral system is created by the bourgeoisie in the bourgeoisie’s interest? Sure they have fights with each other…finance vs industry, etc. The world is a complicated place. But those differences clearly don’t stop them working together when it matters (protecting property).

Sure, you might take out the refrigerator before knocking down a decrepit house, but when the construction is unsound, the fact that some parts may be salvageable is not a reason to try to fix it rather than knock it down.

And as for Marxists being nobodies, obviously true in the imperial core since…well a long time. But you’ve heard of the USSR, the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, etc? It’s not first year economic theory being bandied about on Reddit, and they’ve got some serious follow through haha

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

Who's design? Certainly not King George III's.

the fact that some parts may be salvageable is not a reason to try to fix it rather than knock it down.

No but the people still living there are. Thats the part you guys always forget is that you're literally asking people to sacrifice their vulnerable loved ones for your half baked 'solution'.

But you’ve heard of the USSR, the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, etc?

USSR - 300+ years of Romonov Monarchy before Russian Revolution

PRC - 2000 years of Qing Dynasty before Xinhai Revoluiton

Vietnam - Imperial rule followed by French/Japanese occupation until being partitioned after US occupation

Cuba - A Spanish colony for 400+ years that failed to gain independence despite several revolts before the Spanish-American war.

Even citing those in this conversation deeply discredits your argument in my mind. Never mind drawing straight line comparisons between societies with decades/centuries of autocracy to our poorly utilized but still functional democracies.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm hearing you say:

people who think systems of oppression should be destroyed rather than reformed are losers.

Or in other words:

Reform or revolution? Reform is correct...if you say revolution you're a larper.

I provided successful revolutionary societies as a counterexample to that claim. You know, Batista held elections too, maybe the Cuban people should have just voted him out? The July 26 movement was the equivalent of redditors with no follow through? (I'm sure you're not saying that, which is why I think it's a useful counterexample).

And despite the US's centuries (250 years) of autocracy, I certainly did not and am not saying "the US is like those revolutionary societies." I don’t think anyone thinks the United States is on the cusp of a revolution. I do say it's silly to think that these capitalist republics are “functional” in any sense other than functioning to oppress working people, and it has been silly for a long time.

Help people out of the house before knocking it down, for sure. That’s dual power! That comes way before knocking it down. And we’re not even doing a good job at that yet. No doubt about it, we got a long way to go before we start knocking the house down. But the point we're disagreeing about is that I think we shouldn't waste time propping up the house…help people instead…get people out. And you think we should be patching up the cracked foundations and rotten support beams (or...sounds like maybe you don't think the foundation is so bad, which might be a whole separate conversation).

Don’t take me seriously; I’m a very un-serious person. I do a little organizing in my community, but I haven't found the true marxist vanguard party or the insurrectionist anarchist cell that'll kick it all off or whatever. But the position that the system is not salvageable as a whole is a serious position!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

I'm sorry but the USA has not been an autocracy for 250 years. Maybe you misspoke?

I hate your house analogy. But I'll use it if that helps.

people who think systems of oppression should be destroyed rather than reformed are losers.

People who are not accredited home inspectors trying to declare a building condemned while the actual occupants are trying to renovate, are wrong.

the true marxist vanguard party

Yea because that's not how it works. Marxism is an end point for social democracy. In the context of a society achieving marxism, a marxist party would be redundant.

A society of people who would rather fight than vote will not rebuild better institutions than the one's they forsook.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago

In the context of a society achieving marxism, a marxist party would be redundant.

If you swap that for "in the context of a society achieving a stateless classless society, a communist party would be redundant" I completely agree (Marxism is a means of analysis, not an end point). I think maybe you're not familiar with the concept of a vanguard party? It doesn't really matter to what I was saying, that was a throwaway self-depreciating joke. But if you want I'm happy to talk about that more.

A society of people who would rather fight than vote will not rebuild better institutions than the one’s they forsook.

I think Ireland, Cuba, and the USSR all disprove that... and many more besides. Home rule was a shoe-in for Ireland if not for the revolutionary war. Batista held elections. The February revolution lead to significant reforms before the October revolution. Sometimes the good fight is worth fighting.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

Word. I respect the effort youre putting into this. But FYI I will never respect any means to the end which is communism other than democracy.

IMO giving up on America's democracy will never result in the eschewment of capitalism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

No doubt. "Democracy is essential."

America's "democracy" will never result in the eschewment of capitalism (I put democracy in quotes because the US is not a democracy, and its vaguely democratic-flavored institutions will also never result in a democracy). The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie cannot give rise to a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you don't think class is what counts, or that some kind of labor-peace is possible I am not gonna convince you here lol. If wolves control deer by biting them, the deer will not control the wolves by biting them back. And there is no peace to be had between wolves and deer.

Like...I think what you're talking about is a US Allende, which...dude I'd be so happy. But it's quite a naive hope. Like...can you imagine what it will take to give working people power? To start we'd need constitutional amendments at the federal level and in every state, and we'd need to wait for every judge to die and still be in power to appoint new ones. All while the bourgeois parties maintain all the power and inertia they already have. To look for that is idealism (in the sense that it's about ideas primarily affecting the material world, rather than the material world primarily affecting ideas - not in the sense of "hopeful" ... it's that too, but that part is nice).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

If wolves control deer by biting them, the deer will not control the wolves by biting them back. And there is no peace to be had between wolves and deer.

Please stop using analogies. They're having the opposite effect. Wolves and deer live in symbiosis.

I'm gonna have to call it quits here tbh. The moment someone calls me an idealist... I know they're not picking up a word I'm putting down.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago

Sure, thanks for the chat. IDK how these got split.

But boy I can't help it...Wolves prey upon deer. That's not symbiosis. Maybe you can say they find a kind of "balance" in their perpetual struggle, but symbiosis requires mutual benefit.

To drop the analogy, working people don't benefit from capitalists. Capitalists exploit working people. There's no peace to be had between capitalists and workers, we are in perpetual struggle. Capitalist republics try to find "balance" in that struggle, so that capitalists can perpetually exploit working people.

And sorry, if you're not an idealist, are you a materialist? You didn't seem like it, but maybe i missed it.

Anyway, good luck, have fun!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent