I mean, maybe you're right. I just know that when I look around at the existing political landscape, I don't see an electoral path to change that avoids the worst of the climate crisis to come. I see the u.s. running aground against China the second it senses a real threat to the neoliberal world order from within or without, and from that point everything changes. Maybe that makes anti-imperialist electoral politics plausible. I'm willing to grant that. I just don't see it making much headway in the current political climate. It all just gets mired in neocolonial reaction, i.e. identity and positioning.
I agree on climate change -- we're not going to be able to do electoralism fast enough to head off the worst of that. But I don't see any other realistic path that would work faster, so I think we work the angles we have now and then work new ones as they present themselves.
I think it would be fair to say that at least part of my aversion to electoralism as a viable path are the local conditions that I see. I'm in one of those progressive cities with an almost fully segregated divide between black and white city residents, to the extent that most black citizens of the area technically live in less progressive suburban areas on the periphery. So the poor is largely ghettoized and then the white progressives are incredibly racist and paternalistic in that post-civil-rights liberal way. I don't think that doxxes me unduly. I also don't see any more realistic path, but I sometimes feel like that's for lack of trying. It's hard to build any kind of new strategy when no one living remembers any tactic ever working. I'm of the mind personally that any novel answers about how to beat neocolonialism will come from outside the imperial core; I think the best goal in the imperial core is to stress the military/we're-the-good-guys contradiction in order to give revolutions a fighting chance. But I'm not out there doing praxis, so no one should really listen to me anyway :marx-hi:
I mean, maybe you're right. I just know that when I look around at the existing political landscape, I don't see an electoral path to change that avoids the worst of the climate crisis to come. I see the u.s. running aground against China the second it senses a real threat to the neoliberal world order from within or without, and from that point everything changes. Maybe that makes anti-imperialist electoral politics plausible. I'm willing to grant that. I just don't see it making much headway in the current political climate. It all just gets mired in neocolonial reaction, i.e. identity and positioning.
I agree on climate change -- we're not going to be able to do electoralism fast enough to head off the worst of that. But I don't see any other realistic path that would work faster, so I think we work the angles we have now and then work new ones as they present themselves.
I think it would be fair to say that at least part of my aversion to electoralism as a viable path are the local conditions that I see. I'm in one of those progressive cities with an almost fully segregated divide between black and white city residents, to the extent that most black citizens of the area technically live in less progressive suburban areas on the periphery. So the poor is largely ghettoized and then the white progressives are incredibly racist and paternalistic in that post-civil-rights liberal way. I don't think that doxxes me unduly. I also don't see any more realistic path, but I sometimes feel like that's for lack of trying. It's hard to build any kind of new strategy when no one living remembers any tactic ever working. I'm of the mind personally that any novel answers about how to beat neocolonialism will come from outside the imperial core; I think the best goal in the imperial core is to stress the military/we're-the-good-guys contradiction in order to give revolutions a fighting chance. But I'm not out there doing praxis, so no one should really listen to me anyway :marx-hi: