616
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 point 3 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 3 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 3 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 2 hours 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 1 hour 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