you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 4 hours ago (20 children)

You're the one unwilling to learn.

People made mistakes in the past, yes. That's no reason not to try again.

We can give up, and the planet will die.

Or we can keep fighting, we can try something new, and we may save it.

Me, personally, I'll keep fighting until my dying breath if I have to, or until the battle is won and the planet is saved.

You can give up if you want to. But respectfully, stop encouraging others to give up too. Or else I'll have no choice but to view you as an enemy. And I already have enough of those as it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children)

    The "trying something new" isn't to keep falling for the same Democratic party snare over and over again.
    The party exists to prevent you from "trying something new".

    You only hear "give up" because your imagination has been constrained to action within bounds that are acceptable to the ruling class. When people tell you "this isn't going far enough" you somehow hear "do nothing".

    Your mind is shackled by crimestop.

    Building power outside of the Democratic party is one of the barest prerequisites to getting things moving in the right direction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 hours ago (4 children)

    Or we can take the democratic party from within and accomplish the goal through political means.

    We already saw maga do it to the republican party. They just happened to be fascists.

    The same thing can happen on the left. Left-wing populism can overcome the corpo-establishment centrism in the party. I've already been seeing calls for a leftwing teaparty.

    Why are you so thirsty for violence that you don't even want people to try to achieve this without open conflict?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (3 children)

    That's the exact same play the US left has fallen for over and over again.

    The fundamental difference is that the tea party takeover was billionaire approved and astroturfed.
    Entryism to the Democratic party on the other hand is a no go from the party's sponsors.

    There are squabbling factions within the ruling class, but they are united against us. The overton window they define will always be far to the right of what the masses find acceptable (insofar as they are not stupefied by fascistic dreck and capitalist realism).

    As for bloodshed, it's happening all the time at a scale that makes knowledge of it a moral hazard.
    You're just insulated from it; much of it is omitted from news cycles or hidden behind layers of obfuscation.

    Let's take some "uncontroversial" examples: Tens of thousands of people die in the US each year from denied health care claims. Mass shootings are now so common they almost never make the news. Three quarters of a million people in the US are homeless. Many die of exposure (often after police clear out their camps right before a cold snap). Just because they weren't stabbed or shot doesn't mean they aren't victims of violence.

    The Socdems in Germany wanted to avoid bloodshed, too.

    [The reformist] admits that the path of “bloody revolution” now becomes inevitable-after fifteen years of suffering, after the maximum strengthening of the class enemy, and therefore now involving far heavier sacrifice and bloodshed, that the so-called “peaceful” path is thus proved to involve in the end, not the avoidance of bloodshed, but the maximum of bloodshed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 hours ago (2 children)

    You just watch. You may well eat those words.

    And I'm aware of the suffering going on at an incomprehensible scale in the word, both domestically and abroad. Some of us are trying to build the political power to change that, and rhetoric like yours is getting in the way.

    Revolution will not solve it, only exacerbate and accelerate it with no guarantee of what comes after.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Without revolution there's a guarantee of societal collapse and possibly extinction.
    Exponential growth is not negotiable under capitalism, despite the literal mathematical certainty of where it leads.

    It's not just a poor choice of a contemporary ruling class with an abundance of hubris eschewing long term planning, it's baked into the foundational mechanics. Capitalism can't function without it.

    I've been watching for over a decade. I've fallen for the same trap, which I could have avoided if only I had read more about what came before. You on the other hand need only not forget recent years.

    I've watched the US left "resist" all the way into ever deepening fascism. Watched fascists cheerfully kill for their beliefs while the resistance meekly dies for theirs.
    Watched the squad get absorbed by the establishment. Watched the idea of not actively supporting a genocide be dismissed as radical. Watched bipartisan support for banning the platform people were using to learn about the atrocities. Watched the DNC fall over itself looking for excuses as to why they lost to the worst candidate in history.

    And I've watched the zeitgeist lag unfathomably far behind what anyone with a heart, brain, and eyes should already understand even if, like me, they lived most of their lives in political ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 16 minutes ago

    I understand that the fundamental structures and underlying philosophies of capitalism are inherently toxic to society, humanity, ecosystems, and the planet. You don't have to convince me of that.

    We agree on what the problem is. What we disagree on is the solution.

    And I can see I'm not going to convince you. But unlike you I won't try to berate or goad anyone into doing things my way.

    I start conversations, I contribute what I can and I encourage others to do the same. And increasingly I'm finding it futile to try persuading anyone so far lost among the fringes that they believe the only way forward is violence and chaos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (13 children)

    Why are you framing seeking change outside of the electoral system as "giving up?" If you're going to fight until your dying breath for change, then why pin it all on a strategy that has never worked, and completely reject what has? Nobody is arguing for giving up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 3 hours ago (12 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (11 children)

    You're fully capable of answering that question without rejecting me because of who I am.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 hours ago (10 children)

    I don't reject you because of who you are, I reject you because you have a pattern of using the same rhetoric.

    I believe I've already explained this. Maybe I haven't said it directly to you. Perhaps I didn't expect you to engage with it seriously if I did. But I'll state it now.

    Chaos is not better than order, if it can be avoided. The system has not failed us yet, although it may be hanging on by a thread. There's still a chance we can use it for the good by working within it. It looks unlikely at times, even hopeless or desperate, yes. But the recent election shows that it's still possible when people come out to vote and actually use the system the way it's designed.

    I don't deny that it's an uphill battle. But violence doesn't benefit anyone, and things could still be much worse. In the military, there's a saying. "Things could always be worse." Even when bullets are whizzing past your head, it could still be worse. One of them could have landed in you. You could be getting shelled. Things could always get worse.

    Combat is not glorious, and I take serious issue with anyone who tries to romanticize it. It won't solve your problems. You'll fucking lose anyway. You're neither equipped, trained, nor organized to take on the MIC. And if you try, you'll only give them a firmer foothold on power.

    They would love to implement martial law. They've threatened to, they've tried to, but they can't. Don't give them the pretext. Not as long as the electoral results are respected, and the duly-elected governments are seated as mandated by the constitution.

    If that ever fails, the country is already gone. So at that point, do whatever the fuck you want. But until that day, don't fire the first shot. Because you will lose. You wouldn't last a week.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (9 children)

    We have never not been able to use the system the way its designed. The problem is that the way its designed is as a selection for which wing of the capitalist class gets to dominate society, not a way for the working class to direct society. The fact that the working class is not in control has not been challenged by the recent midterms.

    There’s still a chance we can use it for the good by working within it.

    I do not see why you believe this. Every time socialism has been implemented through largely peaceful means, such as Allende in Chile, the capitalist class oversteps the boundaries of legality to directly sieze the state, because they already own the economy and can do so at will. How do you grapple with this without revolution?

    And no, revolution isn't something you just do, it requires an organized working class, a mass socialist revolutionary party of trained cadre, and a crisis in the capitalist class. That's how you make a revolution, by advancing the former while awaiting the latter, which is made inevitable by capitalism.

    They would love to implement martial law. They’ve threatened to, they’ve tried to, but they can’t. Don’t give them the pretext. Not as long as the electoral results are respected, and the duly-elected governments are seated as mandated by the constitution.

    They absolutely can implement martial law at any time. They do not need pretext to do so, that just helps them save face. The state is not a neutral body, it's something that co-evolves along with the mode of production, and therefore rests upon the property relations therein.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 hours ago (8 children)

    If it's in response to the capitalist class overstepping the boundaries of legality, then it's not revolution. It's counter-revolution. Which is precisely what I stated is the one contingency in which it would be justified.

    If they could implement martial law any time they want, they would have already done so. They've even tried and it's been shut down, because the system is still working in some ways, even while it fails in others.

    The only thing it will take to put control in the hands of the working class is for the progressive caucus to overcome the establishment Dems, place progressives in the congressional leadership positions, and for the people to elect a progressive president. Then they only need to deliver.

    We're working on those things, and we're closer than we've ever been before. In two years, we may just do it. But rhetoric like yours is only throwing stumbling blocks in our way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (7 children)

    The capitalist class is already in control. A counterrevolution in the US would be the slaveocracy taking power once again, or a socialist replacement for the US being retaken by capitalists.

    The reason the capitalist class doesn't implement martial law is because it breeds resentment and resistence towards the system. The electoral system is a revolutionary pressure valve, the capitalist class uses it to give workers the illusion of democracy without actually being beholden to the working class. The bourgeois democratic shell is the most stable defense of capitalism that presently exists, fascism is a system for emergencies when this no longer works in favor of capitalism. The fascist button is in the hands of capitalists, not the state.

    If the entire state is controlled by a progressive party, that does not translate to working class control. The capitalist class controls the commanding heights of the economy, and therefore the state is subservient to the capitalist class. This is my central point. Why do you believe Allende was couped? The long line of reformist progressives getting nakedly overthrown by their domestic capitalist class because they have not actually confronted the ownership of capital in their economy isn't a series of flukes, but the rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 hours ago (6 children)

    So when maga fascists call for open revolution at the behest of the capitalist class, what do you call the leftwing resistance if not counter-revolution?

    It sounds like you've had your nose so buried in textbooks for so long that you can't read the current situation, because you're projecting what you've learned about prior situations in different times and different places. That's a failure to discern. An overgeneralization.

    the state is subservient to the capitalist class.

    If we want to make the capitalist class subservient to the state, we need to elect a progressive government. That is the only way out of this mess.

    Your dreams of armed conflict are a dead end. I'm not following you down that path, and if I have to spend my time persuading as many people as I can to also not follow you, then that's just what I'll have to do.

    I'd much rather spend my time and energy fighting fascism. So all you're doing is drawing fire away from our mutual enemy. Are you proud of yourself?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (5 children)

    The capitalist class is already in control. The MAGA wing of the capitalist class couping the Democrat wing of the capitalist class isn't a revolution, but a coup. A revolution implies a transformation in the class that dictates society, not any change in leadership.

    It sounds like you’ve had your nose so buried in textbooks for so long that you can’t read the current situation, because you’re projecting what you’ve learned about prior situations in different times and different places.

    I'd say you're guilty of the reverse. You have not learned from history, and because of that you cannot see how the problems of today are connected. Of course there are differences, but you have not demonstrated why these differences add up to an entirely new situation divorced from history. For example, why do you believe Allende was couped? You have not answered this, but it's core to the following point:

    If we want to make the capitalist class subservient to the state, we need to elect a progressive government. That is the only way out of this mess.

    You have not grasped the situation at all. Capitalists are not subservient to the state, the state is subservient to capitalists. This is not because the individuals in the state are personally handpicked by the capitalist class, but instead because whoever controls the commanding heights of the economy controls the state. A progressive government has no means by which to appropriate the commanding heights of the economy, this requires worker revolution.

    You can try to convince people otherwise, but when they have similar questions to those I have asked you, and you cannot respond except by restating your hypothesis in different ways, then they will abandon your frame of view and seek those who can answer their questions. That's why Marxism-Leninism is seeing a resurgence around the world.

    And yes, I am proud of myself for putting my time and money into studying socialism and organizing and educating the working class. Why wouldn't I be? All you're doing is disarming the working class and making us prey to the fascists with no ability to resist when they inevitably use their control of the commanding heights to overturn any progressive government antidemocratically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 hours ago (4 children)

    You have not learned from history, and because of that you cannot see how the problems of today are connected.

    It's funny how wrong you are about that, but I'm not here to get into an intellectual dick-measuring contest with you.

    It doesn't matter why I think Allende was couped. Because this isn't Allende.

    A progressive government has no means by which to appropriate the commanding heights of the economy,

    We'll see about that.

    then they will abandon your frame of view and seek those who can answer their questions.

    To anyone who prefers Cowbee's way, go ahead and follow Cowbee. I won't try to stop you.

    To everyone else, we have work to do. And we don't have much time left to waste getting tripped up in these thorny vines. We have a path to walk.

    To anyone caught in the middle, the ravine is only going to keep widening. So if you can't choose a path, then I hope you're flexible enough to do a split without getting yourself injured.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (3 children)

    It’s funny how wrong you are about that, but I’m not here to get into an intellectual dick-measuring contest with you.

    It doesn’t matter why I think Allende was couped. Because this isn’t Allende.

    And this is exactly why you have not learned from history. Do you think that you have a solid chance of surviving jumping off Hoover Dam without a parachute, just because today is not the same as the times when people did before? As I said, of course this isn't the exact same, but this necessarily requires proof that today is fundamentally different enough to no longer apply. We call this the difference between the generality and the particularity of a thing. Every thing has both general characteristics and particular ones, and you have not proven that the particular characteristics have changed to where the general no longer apply.

    You're stating that the US state is fundamentally unique among all states in history, not merely a particular state but one that has practically nothing in common that we can look to for analysis. That's hardly a justified view, which is why I have asked either for your analysis on Allende, or your proof that the US is significantly different enough to throw that out. You provided neither, and just restated your hypothesis.

    Contrary to what you say, the path is absolutely clear for revolution: organize the working class, and raise the level of political development of the working class. We cannot stumble blindly ahead on vibes, as you insist, but instead must take a scientific study of history, and apply analysis to our conditions today, rather than a stance of historical nihilism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 22 minutes ago (2 children)

    What you're asking for is non-falsifiable. You want me to prove to you that the future can be different from the past? That's ridiculous.

    In fact, if we're learning from history, what we should be able to see clearly is that the past isn't always indicative of the future. Because change and progress have been happening all along the way.

    You ask if there's a chance of surviving a jump off the hoover dam? I'd say sure, if the right conditions are in place for it. Base jumpers exist. Politics are more complex than a squirrel suit, but the same rule applies. All is dependent upon conditions of time and place. Which means this: context matters.

    I never claimed that the US is fundamentally unique. That's a strawman. I claimed that the future always has the potential to be different from the past. So be serious, or I'm done engaging with you.

    You claim progressive politics don't have the time or the resources or the backing to make the necessary changes? Well guess what. That applies tenfold to your proposed means.

    So it's kinda strange how you say the oligarchs are too strong and too entrenched and progressives could never defeat them. And then you go and claim we need to take actions that have even lower feasibility.

    But you accuse me of going on vibes, and you call what you do "science"? Be real.

    You have tunnel vision, and you ridicule me for being too perceptive of the particularities of the moment. You're the one stumbling blindly through darkness.

    Maybe if you pull the magnifying glass away from your eye, you'll be able to see your surroundings better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 13 minutes ago* (1 child)

    We both agree that there is no such thing as a static, unfixed, unmoving "thing." Conditions are always changing. However, you seem to use this more as an excuse to believe anything is possible, a rejection of analysis rather than an affirmation of it. You have reductive reasoning.

    Progressive candidates can absolutely beat liberal ones, sure. I never denied this. Where we disagree is the idea that they can translate this electorally defined power into hard power over the economy, the basis of society, in a way that goes against the very foundations of property relations within society without armed struggle and therefore revolution.

    Can you logically prove this? Why do you think this will be the first time in history a ruling class has ever peacefully relinquished control they hold, control that lies outside of the realm of electoral politics? The question isn't whether conditions are different, they absolutely are. The question is whether or not the parts that are the same do or do not influence what we have to work with today.

    You operate off of the assumption that the state exists outside of the control of the base of society, the economy. You also say that revolution has "lower feasibility" than changing the mode of production through electoralism, but revolution has done so many times while reformism has never once. Where do you base your confidence?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 minute ago*

    Maybe this is our disconnect:

    You seem to be approaching this as if the goal is a USSR-like society, and so you argue that progressive politics won't achieve that.

    I agree. They won't. And I don't want them to, either. I would say most people don't want that.

    By the angle I'm approaching from, which is what I think the current zeitgeist is onboard with, is making incremental progress towards a system closer to the Nordic Model.

    There's a reason Norway has the stereotype of being one of the best places in the world to live. They enjoy an excellent quality of life. If we can achieve that in the US, I can spend the rest of my life peacefully avoiding politics, only turning up to vote in each election so that we can maintain it.

    And I believe that's possible with progressive politics. And I believe it's impossible to achieve using violence.

    So that's likely the source of our disagreement. I don't want a USSR-like society. I don't want bolsheviks to violently overthrow the civic order, plunging society into chaos so that they can reshape it into their own authoritarian wetdream.

    So if that's your goal, then I stand as firmly against you as I stand against fascism. And even if I have to walk a razor's edge to arrive safely at my destination, then my feet are gonna bleed, but I'm gonna keep fuckin walking. Because that's the only way forward that doesn't lead off a cliff.

  • source
  • parent