you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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 21 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 12 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 36 seconds 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 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