614
Petition Calling for House Speaker Other Than Hakeem Jeffries Hits 1 Million Signatures | Common Dreams (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] -1 points 6 hours ago (14 children)

Cowbee gonna cowbee, tsk tsk

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago (13 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 hours ago (12 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (11 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 hours ago (10 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (9 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 hours ago (8 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (7 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 hours ago (6 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (5 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 hours ago (4 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.

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

    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?

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

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 child)

    I don't necessarily need the USSR, I need a worker controlled society. I need socialism, where the commanding heights of the economy are socially controlled and the working class controls the state. This is incompatible with the Nordic model, which is essentially capitalist control of the state and commanding heights, but a large welfare net, one that comes from imperialism and unequal exchange. The high living standards in the Nordics come from the backs of global south labor.

    What I want is worker liberation, and an end to the dictatorship of capital. If you stand against the workers of the world, including yourself, so that you can enjoy cushy safety nets taken from the backs of the global south, then you have far more in common with fascism than I ever could.

    The fact that you do not even mention imperialism and unequal exchange while espousing the Nordic Model is precisely why we need to be serious and study socialism, rather than operate purely off of vibes and hopium. Revolutionary optimism is good, nonsense is bad.

    Also, for what it's worth, your jab at the USSR is unfounded, it was far more democratic than the Nordics are today.

    The disconnect seems to me to be that I recognize and understand imperialism as a system capitalism necessarily evolves into, and that I see the state as a product of class struggle dependent on the mode of production and distribution. You see capitalism, ironically, as a static system that can be perpetuated forever (or at least for our lifetimes) as long as we simply vote to maintain social democrats, and do not factor in that this requires the moribund system of imperialism to go on for at least a while longer despite already being on its way out.

    When you fight tooth and nail against the only group that can bring socialism, when capitalism collapses under its own weight you'll only have barbarism. You'd rather oppose a transition to socialism and have barbarism necessarily take its place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 39 minutes ago

    Why do you think a violent revolution would result in a worker-controlled socialist society? It seems it would just result in a society dominated by whoever controls the revolution, its resources, and distribution systems.

    And the thing you gloss over is that that's precisely what tends to happen in so-called "communist" revolutions. I put communist in quotes because I know that's not true communism. But Stalin and Mao were both authoritarian dictators who centralized resources under their personal control, maintained dominance and hierarchy through their personality cults, and caused millions of deaths and widespread suffering throughout the regions under their control. To say nothing of the surveillance states they used to maintain their hold on power.

    I agree that capitalism is going to inevitably crumble, especially now that it's reached the point when it physically cannot continue to expand. However, by my view, violence and chaos are the path to barbarism.

    The purpose of building the welfare state and social safety nets now isn't to pacify the masses to enable capitalism to continue. It's to have those structures in place so that when capitalism does inevitably fall, we'll already be able to organize ourselves civilly and distribute resources in such a way that everyone has what's needful.

    The transition to socialism can and must occur. But it must happen through political means, or else all is lost. And to do so, first the welfare state must be in place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent