you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 hour ago* (2 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?

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

    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
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 54 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent