damn i guess there arent 2 other fucking words there like "divest" and "sanction". convenient for a liberal to just shoehorn the discussion away from whats being implied to obfuscate the meaning of some other liberals point.
edit to rail against this liberal harder: "wow wouldn't it be fucking PRAXIS if we used bourgeois state violence against an entire group of people based off some fucking imaginary lines????????"
I think you need to take a little break from toxic R*dditor brain. We are all comrades here and you're having a bit of a moment rather than communicating with comrades.
My point stands if you make it full BDS re: Texas. The SA boycott movement was also BDS, which you should already know if you're feeling so comfortable loudly shitting on others about it.
Speaking of deflection and liberalism, your point is still not based on a historical or material analysis and is actually the line of The Economist.
Firstly, since we're talking about the SA boycott movement, I'm sure you know that it built international support which could be funneled to the South Africans. I'm sure the temptation is great to make the obvious parallels to the United States, what with it being a settler colonial nation, however, the goal of the movement needs to be kept in mind here. This was not a movement to end capitalism, and, just as you might be tempted to draw parallels with the United States in their historical position, I might draw a parallel between the more Mensheviks leaning Workers Soviets and the avant-garde of the Kadets during the provincial government period following Tsar Nicolas's abdication, and say that the ANC-SACP coalition shows that: Here was a development for the working class in so far as it was able to secure freedom for the native South Africans, but in liberal sense of the word freedom. And of course, we can all agree that this development is a good thing, but incomplete.
Not to mention the other fact: 1960's did not see the rise of Neoliberalism. A movement that has completely eroded whatever aid existed following the anti-communist movements in the United States. To equate the two's historic and material conditions neglects the previous 40 years of austerity and destruction of any class based solidarity. In other words, to bring up the SA BDS movement, its to try to make an equivalence which itself is not grounded in the material or historical realities. The self-reflection is absolutely lacking from you here comrade.
Now, what goal would a BDS re:Texas hope to accomplish?
There are no calls for material gains for the working class, sure there is racism, sexism, and settler-colonialism there, but that is not much more pronounced there compared to other, say, Southern States, or even really any states. The calls here are on the basis of ideological difference between liberals and populist reactionaries.
Perhaps you think that BDS re:Texas will provide a way to build anti-capitalism in the state of Texas. Surely, with along side a BDS movement there is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs? No? There isn't? The support would be seized immediately?
Then what? You hope to see the comrades there build relationships with the bourgeois? Is that what is needed in the present moment in North America's historical development? At the behest of not being "sectarian" I won't go into my opinions on why this strategy is a losing one, but that is not the point. The point is, at present, the development of the reactionary efforts has taken on a more populist flavor than ever in the United States, which is entirely unlike the reactionary forces in SA. These reactionaries are actively recruiting disaffected members to do terrorism and target minorities and comrades in this state (see El Paso) and as their populism grows, so too will their aid networks, so too will their businesses which will remain free to move into Texas and aid their fellow reactionaries there, while targeting comrades.
The socialist program in America is not sufficiently developed, especially not in the South, and I won't hear liberals advocate for the turning into martyrs of our comrades, to have to answer to these agitated-reactionaries, as their lives degrade through a BDS, while not being able to provide them the means of doing so, during a period of time where the preservation of, and development of a socialist program there is of paramount importance. You are advocating for the smothering in the cradle of the growth of socialism in Texas. Hence, why I term you, liberal.
[paraphrased] The SA boycott movement also did other things in solidarity.
OP proposed the idea of BDS for Texas. It's not a fleshed out campaign to shit on, it's a vague idea in the direction of BDS. This "criticism" has no purchase in their commentary, you would have to make up shit on their behalf to make it relevant; embedding solidarity campaigns is completely compatible with their idea at this stage and they've hardly rules it out, have they? Instead of suggesting this as a helpful component, you've chosen to do the actual fed shit of being extremely abrasive and calling people names with a brand new account.
Not to mention the other fact: 1960’s did not see the rise of Neoliberalism. (...)
The SA boycott movement in the imperial core didn't pick up steam until the 70s and 80s. It was relatively fringe before this because they didn't do tabling or really even talk to leftist groups in SA, instead sticking to insular leftist spaces and polite liberal democratic requests. Neoliberalism was developed during this period and the fundamental forces in question were already established for decades. The "Western powers" consistently rejected sanctions or even particularly critical commentary through the 60s, 70s, even the 80s, instead running interference for the forces for apartheid and wrapping it into Cold War strategies.
To equate the two’s historic and material conditions
Would be misrepresenting me and anyone else here.
Now, what goal would a BDS re:Texas hope to accomplish?
You could ask OP and contribute to a productive discussion of that question instead of calling them a fed and generally being the truly endearing combination of insulting and generally incorrect in your comments.
You're basically fighting with your imagination for the next few paragraphs. Does a potential BDS Texas movement not have calls for material gains, policies to alleviate oppression, try to build socialism? This discourse is absurd, OP is just talking about having a BDS for Texas. You are free to try and help define it if you think there are (still unspecified) material conditions that necessitate a particular approach to achieve goals you think are important. As of now, it doesn't exist at all.
I'll just point to this quote as an example of how ridiculous this imaginary discourse is: "Then what? You hope to see the comrades there build relationships with the bourgeois?"
The point is, at present, the development of the reactionary efforts has taken on a more populist flavor than ever in the United States, which is entirely unlike the reactionary forces in SA.
Okay you finally got to the point. But this isn't particularly material, either. The forces of reaction are in power in TX. Why you believe the "populist" nature of reactionary Texans matters is unclear given that they get their way within the state government. The "populism" in question is highly partisan, comes from a position of power, and places the needs and material status of a privileged minority over those of the oppressed in a way that is highly racialized.
There will of course be differences that are important to leverage, but there is nothing about what you're pointing to that suggests a higher barrier or a qualitative difference that undermines BDS.
These reactionaries are actively recruiting disaffected members to do terrorism and target minorities and comrades in this state (see El Paso) and as their populism grows, so too will their aid networks, so too will their businesses which will remain free to move into Texas and aid their fellow reactionaries there, while targeting comrades.
There's no point attached to this narrative. Is it that the forces of reaction are better-organized and better-funded than those of, say, Israel or SA? I'm going to disagree with that. Is it that there are more reactionaries organized into violence and cadres than there are leftists? Okay, I agree, but this is not different from early anti-apartheid organization and there's no reason stated for why this is a no-go for BDS.
The socialist program in America is not sufficiently developed, especially not in the South, and I won’t hear liberals advocate for the turning into martyrs of our comrades,
Ask yourself how you got from BDS to martyrdom.
Boycotts with tabling are useful for building support for and membership of socialist orgs, by the way. You should try it sometime, since your dismissiveness makes it clear you haven't.
to have to answer to these agitated-reactionaries, as their lives degrade through a BDS
There's the line from The Economist, again.
You are advocating for the smothering in the cradle of the growth of socialism in Texas. Hence, why I term you, liberal.
You're telling yourself stories until you feel comfortable insulting others and are acting like a wrecker. And again, your logic on the impact of boycotts is literally a bullshit centuries-old line from The Economist that has been used to oppose all consumption-based tactics for organizing against oppression, including slavery and child labor.
I think that me deciding to engage in this actual discussion with you should be proof enough, but also if you just look through my history, you'll see a post where I flat out apologize to another person for being wrong about something. Not to mention, this is not a congress of international working people, this is "hexbear.net" a "kinda leftists website". Apologies for not engaging in the most principled possible debate imaginable off to start, but here we are, and that at least should give some credibility, considering I'm being at least somewhat consistent at this point. Also, spare me your tone-policing, I get that you think its relevant to bring this up because you're perhaps thinking "oh a fed would absolutely come in here and be an antagonistic as possible", but I've taken a decidedly different approach since then, so you can go ahead and stop now.
"The SA boycott movement in the imperial core didn’t pick up steam until the 70s and 80s"
During the development and deployment of Neoliberalism, the policies and erosion's to the working class haven't had the time to fully develop. Even still, I allude to this fact you are bringing up, when I say "40 years of austerity and destruction". There can be absolutely no doubt, that the state of international socialism is at a lower point now than it was in the 70's and 80's. Here also, I'm not really sure what the point is of sneaking in the point about western powers rejecting BDS policies, but how this is coming off to me is to give you some kind of logos to say "the western powers were against it so it must've been actually good", but we've already said that this wasn't overall an anti-capitalist movement, it overall was a movement to garner freedom for native South Africans. I think it's important to note that, the reason it probably was successful at all is because it wasn't explicitly anti-capitalist, but here's the thing, I don't actually know the exact historical nuances of South Africa during the anti-apartheid movement, and unless you're willing to start sharing some sources, I don't think you do either.
"To equate the two’s historic and material conditions
Would be misrepresenting me and anyone else here."
You're the one that brings up the SA BDS movement, reflexively. Note that you don't go on to say what this misrepresentation is exactly.
"You could ask OP and contribute to a productive discussion of that question instead of calling them a fed and generally being the truly endearing combination of insulting and generally incorrect in your comments."
This is just tone-policing. You're right though, I could've just decided to have a giant big brain discussion on someone's post that was literally "haha they like free markets, lets let em have it and do a praxis", but let's be honest, I'm doing this now and you're taking the ethos too far. Also if I'm "incorrect" in general, there hasn't really been much in the way of you showing me where I'm incorrect? There has been 3 posts, 1 of me trying to do a "le epic dunk" on the OP, 1 of me trying to do a lesser "le epic dunk" on you, and then the one you are replying to presently.
"Boycotts with tabling are useful for building support for and membership of socialist orgs, by the way. You should try it sometime, since your dismissiveness makes it clear you haven’t."
I didn't know it was a competition for who has the most credentials here, but yeah, I'm involved in socialist organizing, in my local area, there's not a ton of stuff going on so, I guess sorry for not living wherever you live. My dismissiveness is towards the idea of doing this BDS for Texas, and I'm outlining my reasons why, not that Boycotts and Tabling don't work, because it clearly worked, for anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, which I've already said is a good thing.
"You’re telling yourself stories until you feel comfortable insulting others and are acting like a wrecker. And again, your logic on the impact of boycotts is literally a bullshit centuries-old line from The Economist that has been used to oppose all consumption-based tactics for organizing against oppression, including slavery and child labor."
You keep equating "Boycotts" and "BDS" as though these are the exact same things. They are not. One is far more punitive than the other, and I don't know how you can even sit here and act principled while you're doing it. Not to mention, "The Economist" line on this presupposes an actual organized movement with actual support networks and power, because they are fighting in the interest of the bourgeoisie. My "line" on this is literally saying "this cannot work because there are no conditions present now or in the foreseeable future for this to be something that can possibly happen". We aren't advocating for BDS in the periphery of the empire, we are talking about advocating for BDS in the literal belly of a decaying empire*.
"This discourse is absurd, OP is just talking about having a BDS for Texas. You are free to try and help define it if you think there are (still unspecified) material conditions that necessitate a particular approach to achieve goals you think are important."
I'm replying to the whole snippet here: simply put, we are currently talking about it, so I don't know why you're still going on about this? I literally am engaging in this discussion now, so let's move on from whining about it. Also, why is your reply littered with little "gotchas" like "... there are (still unspecified) material conditions..."? I mean this is pure projection, where on one had you want me to engage in a thorough and peaceable discourse, while on the other hand you do not yourself engage in a thorough and peaceful discourse, you could instead literally just say "Can you please enumerate what material conditions that you believe are lacking" but you're choosing not to, and feel free to just say it plainly why you are choosing not to do this.
In any case, the material conditions I believe are lacking, while not explicitly enumerated are implied in this portion of my "ridiculous and imaginary discourse" where I ask if you believe there "... is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs?".
Either way, it's telling, and convenient for your response, that you've chosen to not engage with this to simply write it off as some "absurd" self imagined fight, when I'm legitimately asking you to answer for what you think a BDS on Texas is going to accomplish. A very notable thing you decided to not give an answer to was: Texas is a settler colonial region of America, it is a racist region of America, and it is a sexist region of America. But find for me a region in North America where that is not the case? If you cannot find a place where that is not the case, then, Texas is not any different the the rest of the United States. As well as this, this is approaching "orange man bad" levels of liberalism, since, the only reasons left to you or anyone who's pro-BDS for texas at this point is: "Do BDS because we don't like the GOP" and "Do BDS because I think it will help build socialism there". Point #1 is liberalism. Point #2 is not capable of being manifested at all currently, no matter how much you want it to be the case, because the support networks for socialism in the US is at absolute infancy levels. Socialist orgs cannot attend to the needs of their local communities, let alone Texan comrades, who, in this imaginary world where a BDS is done, will need as much resources as possible, since the "state" will in all likelihood seize as much of it as they can.
In any case, if you do answer these questions later, because of a misunderstanding of what the intent was there, consider all of these "conveniences" and "telling" parts of your response to be forgiven, since, I understand that when you're trying to win the epic debate (and not discuss amongst comrades) sometimes things are misunderstood.
"Ask yourself how you got from BDS to martyrdom."
I get there from the present conditions to say, isolating Texas does not give you anything but potentially harmed comrades.
"Okay, I agree, but this is not different from early anti-apartheid organization and there’s no reason stated for why this is a no-go for BDS."
More reactionaries organized to do violence against leftists and minorities is very different from early anti-apartheid organization for a number of reasons. I shouldn't have to explain why, since anti-apartheid organizing wasn't explicitly anti-capitalist.
"Does a potential BDS Texas movement not have calls for material gains, policies to alleviate oppression, try to build socialism? "
Sure it does, but the issues are not local to Texas, these are issues present everywhere in America, and so you cannot segment off a portion of the country off arbitrarily. I really need you to explain how you think that BDS for this arbitrary region of the United States is going to accomplish these things, from within a region of 47 other states which are all, also, guilty of the same things? You are the one imagining an America which has the potential to sanction off 1 segment of its country. Either it must sanction the entire United States, or, it must come from within the United States, and I need whatever you're on to think that there won't be states which ally themselves with Texas to help out their reactionary buddies.
Also, why is your reply littered with little “gotchas” like “… there are (still unspecified) material conditions…”?
I was reminding you of one of my few original points that you repeatedly ignored.
I mean this is pure projection, where on one had you want me to engage in a thorough and peaceable discourse
I have never suggested you be thorough or peaceable. I have told you to not be shitty to comrades, particularly your form of toxicity. I deal with that shit enough in irl organizing where baby leftists can't figure out that they shouldn't be trying to dunk on comrades in the same goddamn room with their shitty hot takes.
pissbaby: 11
you could instead literally just say “Can you please enumerate what material conditions that you believe are lacking” but you’re choosing not to, and feel free to just say it plainly why you are choosing not to do this.
That's not my point. I made the point that your position is not based on an analysis of material conditions or history. I am correct in that point and this extended storytelling and ego-protecting session is proving that very well.
In any case, the material conditions I believe are lacking, while not explicitly enumerated are implied in this portion of my “ridiculous and imaginary discourse” where I ask if you believe there “… is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs?”.
I recommend that you ask, "material conditions for what?" and see whether you can even make it match what OP is talking about. It is very clear that you jumped from "boycotts don't work and just hurt the workers" to a boilerplate description of the anemic state of socialist organizing in the United States without actually making a material connection between the boycott (etc) itself and your conclusion. Given that this is a bad-faith discussion, I don't think it would be worthwhile for me to try to fill in the gaps of logic in any way.
Either way, it’s telling, and convenient for your response, that you’ve chosen to not engage with this to simply write it off as some “absurd” self imagined fight, when I’m legitimately asking you to answer for what you think a BDS on Texas is going to accomplish.
It is indeed convenient for my position that your points are so terrible. But it's no fault of mine that this is the case, obviously.
I think a lack of empathy is going on, here, and is partly explanatory of your behavior. Your storytelling has next to zero material relevance to a BDS program. You have not actually tied it to the expected activities or outcome of a BDS-style movement. Do you really expect anyone to go down a rabbit hole with you about your stories? Would you follow that rabbit hole? I hope not.
And no, it was not clear that your question was anything but rhetorical because you went on to suggest why you think it would only accomplish negative things or otherwise lacked the ability to effect positive change. I'll think about answering it if I don't write off this entire conversation shortly, though hell you can find me elsewhere in the thread explaining the useful function of boycotts and related movements.
A very notable thing you decided to not give an answer to was: Texas is a settler colonial region of America, it is a racist region of America, and it is a sexist region of America.
That's not a question, lol. wtf do you expect as an answer to an obvious fact that poses no clear challenge to the thing in question? Let me help you organize your thoughts: when you bring up a point, ask yourself, "is this different enough from SA or Palestine [or whatever] for me to be making a point?"
Israel is a settler-colonial state. SA is a settler-colonial state. Both are racist. Both are sexist, and SA was in particular. Does this mean that BDS would be unworkable for those two?
Rewind the clock to the 60s: are you making a super great point about not doing any boycott-ie attempts in the UK re: SA? In other words, let's pretend there weren't already obvious counterexamples. Your claim doesn't even have clear relevance or validity regarding the premise.
But find for me a region in North America where that is not the case? If you cannot find a place where that is not the case, then, Texas is not any different the the rest of the United States.
This does not follow. If every state is American (and therefore settler-colonial), racist, sexist, it cannot be any different? You clearly don't fucking get around a lot, because there are areas (and states) where it's a lot more dangerous to be gay or black or socialist than others, including Texas. You are failing to understand qualitative vs. quantitative differences, which is the whole basis of a materialist analysis: the qualitative emerge from the quantitative, with significant gaps developing prior to recognizing a qualitative distinction. Seattle is still racist but it's a hell of a lot less racist, and less dangerous to e.g. black people than, massive swaths of Mississippi. And, if one were to pick a geographical divide, it would be more rural vs. urban than anything else, with TX having a larger rural (and suburban) reactionary population than states where the cities are absolutely dominant. i.e., the organization of underlying political forces need not be at the state level to be reflected by it and therefore reasonably targeted by state-level interventions.
Anyways I'm explaining too much. The logic you presented does not follow.
As well as this, this is approaching “orange man bad” levels of liberalism, since, the only reasons left to you or anyone who’s pro-BDS for texas at this point is: “Do BDS because we don’t like the GOP" and “Do BDS because I think it will help build socialism there”.
I have said nothing like either thing and you are now telling stories again. Though the latter does provide insight into why your points are so bad - you're believing some of your own storytelling about what I'm saying.
pissbaby: 12
In any case, if you do answer these questions later, because of a misunderstanding of what the intent was there, consider all of these “conveniences” and “telling” parts of your response to be forgiven, since, I understand that when you’re trying to win the epic debate (and not discuss amongst comrades) sometimes things are misunderstood.
Do not confuse my treatment of you in a conversation where you bring no good faith with you jumping in to be shitty to comrades coming up with ideas for action.
“Ask yourself how you got from BDS to martyrdom.”
I get there from the present conditions to say, isolating Texas does not give you anything but potentially harmed comrades.
Believe it or not, restating your conclusion in a slightly different way doesn't fill in the gaps.
More reactionaries organized to do violence against leftists and minorities is very different from early anti-apartheid organization for a number of reasons.
You're right, it's a lot easier going in the US vs. being a black South African in the 60s. And the SA boycott campaign had to pick up steam in a Thatcherite UK, in contrast to vaguely left-liberal/leftist American cities outside of TX where people are already used to the idea of consumption as advocacy, conflicted as it is as a general tool.
Though you'd have to actually state things clearly for me to do much more without trying to fill in gaps on your behalf.
Sure it does
Does it? Because it's just a random person's idea for a post and has no specifics. I'm highlighting the absurdity of your insulting pushback against all kinds of nonexistent specifics.
but the issues are not local to Texas, these are issues present everywhere in America
What issues? What is OP referring to? We don't even know. If I were to think of what TX has done most recently, it's to try and challenge federal protections for oppressed peoples (women, black, gay) established by the Supreme Court, and to have some success doing so. TX is not alone in this, but it is also in no way uniform, instead being restricted to states run by right wing parties. In addition, TX has a much better time with this due to its resources and near-total control by committed reactionaries. You're also falling for your own trap of not understanding quantitative vs. qualitative differences. And don't even get me started on the fact that you can mobilize people even if you think they are hypocrites or inconsistent.
But again, you'd need to actually ask OP some questions in good faith to have this conversation. You're dismissing a phantom.
You are the one imagining an America which has the potential to sanction off 1 segment of its country.
I think that me deciding to engage in this actual discussion with you should be proof enough
For fun, I'm going to keep a tally of obvious misrepresentations / petty ego-protecting shit, which I'll put under the heading, "pissbaby". It is very clear, it is obvious, that my point about "fedposting" is that your behavior is far more in line with doing so despite your criticisms. You decided, today, to go out and be utterly toxic to some comrades while being a big ol' hypocrite, and then are surprised when this is pointed out?
Oh, and because you're minimizing my criticisms of toxicity, let me be clear that swearing and namecalling aren't inherently toxic, particularly in response to toxicity. I'm not calling for decorum. I'm pointing out that you're attempt to disrupt and alienate people who are actually interested in some level of organization.
pissbaby: 1
but also if you just look through my history, you’ll see a post where I flat out apologize to another person for being wrong about something.
Your 1-day history where you've said a whole host of blatantly false shit. If that's the metric for not fed posting, you have a lot to apologize for, lol.
pissbaby: 2
Apologies for not engaging in the most principled possible debate imaginable off to start
Childish ego-protecting straw man trying to minimize your toxic behavior.
pissbaby: 3
and that at least should give some credibility, considering I’m being at least somewhat consistent at this point.
Turning on Rddit debatebro mode rather than Rddit dunking mode has not improved the situation.
Also, spare me your tone-policing
Kindly shut the fuck up. If you don't want to be called out for wrecker toxic shit, don't do wrecker toxic shit. It is not my fault that you chose to go do wrecker toxic shit today, nor my fault for noticing it, nor my fault for correctly calling it out. Your route away from having this kind of conversation is to no longer do this kind of thing. I do not give a shit about apologies, though if they make you feel better and less likely to do this in the future, knock yourself out.
And your idea of "improvement" is to go into a dishonest damage control mode. I was trying to avoid being so blatant about it, but it seems like you're just going to keep going down this path of feeling good about this shit if I try to beat around the bush and give you that pretense that I think you're acting in good faith. Minimizing your toxicity is not a good faith interaction. Ignoring or deflecting from my main points is not a good faith interaction. Misrepresenting what I say is not a good faith interaction. These are not some list of grievances against me, as I have low expectations and am not offended by them. They are reflections of your approach to these conversations: that we are not real people you should take seriously in any way, your comrades. This is not good shit, comrade.
pissbaby: 4
During the development and deployment of Neoliberalism, the policies and erosion’s to the working class haven’t had the time to fully develop (...)
Cool, my point about Western powers was related to the impact of neoliberalism on the S part of BDS, since that's the thing they can do officially. The hint for this was that I mentioned sanctions. That was in no way particularly different before or after neoliberlism picked up steam. I am essentially having to guess about what point you're trying to make re: neoliberalism, since it's not even that well-defined in leftist spaces and its relevance to this conversation is in no way obvious. Black South Africans under apartheid did not live in particularly rich conditions for personal economic stability or organizing - they did so out of necessity and desperation, more like. The average person in TX is in a much more favorable position, far more stable. But again, I'm probably being too generous in trying to make what you're claiming have basic logical connections between what you're concluding vs. what you're claiming. Feel free to just actually make a point that's an actual criticism of OP's vague allusion to BDS in Texas.
I don’t actually know the exact historical nuances of South Africa during the anti-apartheid movement, and unless you’re willing to start sharing some sources, I don’t think you do either.
We can have a conversation that involves collaboratively sharing information when it ceases to be one premised on bad-faith interactions and excuse-making.
You’re the one that brings up the SA BDS movement, reflexively.
I brought it up as an example of a reasonably successful boycott campaign - and, interestingly, one that shows the necessity of tabling under certain circumstances. I think this is obvious and will not condescend to suggest you didn't understand the relevance. Not sure why you mention "reflexively" if not to be pointlessly dismissive.
pissbaby: 5
Note that you don’t go on to say what this misrepresentation is exactly.
The entire claim is a misrepresentation because I never claimed or implied what is stated in it. It is at best irrelevant (telling some stories to make your point easier) and at worst an attempt to saddle me with a bullshit claim so that you can rationalize your thinking more easily.
pissbaby: 6
This is just tone-policing.
Kindly shut the fuck up. The other commenter probably had a better idea in just sending you PPB.
pissbaby: 7
You’re right though, I could’ve just decided to have a giant big brain discussion on someone’s post that was literally “haha they like free markets, lets let em have it and do a praxis”, but let’s be honest, I’m doing this now and you’re taking the ethos too far. Also if I’m “incorrect” in general, there hasn’t really been much in the way of you showing me where I’m incorrect? There has been 3 posts, 1 of me trying to do a “le epic dunk” on the OP, 1 of me trying to do a lesser “le epic dunk” on you, and then the one you are replying to presently.
If you wanted more explanation of my criticisms, you could ask questions. And most of the things where I've pointed to you being incorrect are blatant and obvious, requiring no explanation unless you reject the easily verified premise. Example: did the SA boycott movement have much steam in the 60s? No, it fucking didn't. It more like petered out for most of that decade. Therefore, discussing the movement in the 60s re: neoliberalism does not speak to my point and bringing it up was an error. Did you need me to explain this after I pointed out that it didn't pick up steam until the decades after the one you mentioned? I assumed you would put this together fairly easily, and I'm confident that you actually did do so.
I didn’t know it was a competition for who has the most credentials here
Not credentials. Being familiar enough with the topic to at least be consistent with condescension - though the toxicity displayed still wouldn't be warranted.
but yeah, I’m involved in socialist organizing, in my local area, there’s not a ton of stuff going on so, I guess sorry for not living wherever you live. My dismissiveness is towards the idea of doing this BDS for Texas, and I’m outlining my reasons why, not that Boycotts and Tabling don’t work, because it clearly worked, for anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, which I’ve already said is a good thing.
You have an incoherent set of stories that amount to, "it will just hurt the people it's meant to help", or more generously, "it will just hurt the workers". They have the trappings of a socialist discourse but aren't actually connected to the BDS part of the equation because you don't know the impact of such movements because you don't actually know jack shit about them.
This would be fine if you were asking questions or lurking or whatever. But you decided today was a good day to be shitty to a comrade with an idea and then all of the people who pushed back on that toxicity.
You keep equating “Boycotts” and “BDS” as though these are the exact same things.
Lie.
pissbaby: 8
Not to mention, “The Economist” line on this presupposes an actual organized movement with actual support networks and power, because they are fighting in the interest of the bourgeoisie.
It presupposes a boycott that is getting attention and there's an incentive to respond. We don't really need to dither about the extent to which they actually threaten the bourgeoisie given that you are taking their line on this.
My “line” on this is literally saying “this cannot work because there are no conditions present now or in the foreseeable future for this to be something that can possibly happen”.
As the person making the accusation, actually I get to tell you what line I'm referring to, which is the notion that all the boycott etc would do is hurt workers. The Economist actually uses the same line today to attack the idea of boycotting places with poor labor practices. Good consumer, do not fret about the 16 hour work days in unsafe conditions, you are actually helping lift that Bangladeshi out of poverty!
pissbaby: 9
I’m replying to the whole snippet here: simply put, we are currently talking about it, so I don’t know why you’re still going on about this? I literally am engaging in this discussion now, so let’s move on from whining about it.
Oh yes, now it's even a fault of mine for criticizing that toxic behavior! I'm "whining" for pointing to the thing you barely acknowledge, let alone correct, let alone admit fault for. Classic toxic R*dditor behavior.
If you wanted to vent today or something, there are plenty of other venues with actually deserving people for you to participate in.
I don't know what you think I'm doing here, but it's not whatever is being projected onto me? Since my second response to you, I've tried to engage in good faith with you, but at this point I'm really not sure what productive conversation we can continue having. From my second response, where I started off by saying "Okay then lets talk about it comrade", I was apologizing, through literal "action" (for what action posting on a forum really matters) that I was wrong to not engage in this with more nuance. And from that response forward, I guess maybe you smelled blood in the water out of the vulnerability being displayed in saying "I was wrong, lets have the discussion", and took that as your cue that you could embark on the crusade of self-righteousness?
As for this contrivance of a post: I'm not going to even try to engage with it. In as plain of English as I can muster up, you're just wrong, you are failing to apply the dialectics to the present day, and so you're just wrong. You will probably continue to always be wrong. That's all I can say. Other than that, hope you don't make it into any form of leadership or garner a platform large enough to influence socialist thought because you don't even have a grip on what the terms you're throwing around even mean. I'm honestly more depressed now than I was hours ago, because I'm thinking "this westerner can't get their terms straight, let alone apply them to the situation with any kind of intellectual rigor and honesty". Any time I have a point to make, you're just whining about toxicity to distract from the fact that you don't have a response. Whether this is intentional and conscious, or unconscious and unintentional, is besides the point, because the effect is the same; the situation is untenable.
Anyways, I sure am glad that you got the chance to wax poetic and drop this steaming shit of a take on the threshold, to then go running off with your fingers in your ears. That's some real, principled, and mature shit coming from such an experienced and wise socialist, or leftist organizer.
No, there is no "boycotts only hurt the working class and make them reactionary" rule. This does not follow from history nor a material analysis.
damn i guess there arent 2 other fucking words there like "divest" and "sanction". convenient for a liberal to just shoehorn the discussion away from whats being implied to obfuscate the meaning of some other liberals point.
edit to rail against this liberal harder: "wow wouldn't it be fucking PRAXIS if we used bourgeois state violence against an entire group of people based off some fucking imaginary lines????????"
I think you need to take a little break from toxic R*dditor brain. We are all comrades here and you're having a bit of a moment rather than communicating with comrades.
My point stands if you make it full BDS re: Texas. The SA boycott movement was also BDS, which you should already know if you're feeling so comfortable loudly shitting on others about it.
Speaking of deflection and liberalism, your point is still not based on a historical or material analysis and is actually the line of The Economist.
Yeah, okay comrade, let's talk about it.
Firstly, since we're talking about the SA boycott movement, I'm sure you know that it built international support which could be funneled to the South Africans. I'm sure the temptation is great to make the obvious parallels to the United States, what with it being a settler colonial nation, however, the goal of the movement needs to be kept in mind here. This was not a movement to end capitalism, and, just as you might be tempted to draw parallels with the United States in their historical position, I might draw a parallel between the more Mensheviks leaning Workers Soviets and the avant-garde of the Kadets during the provincial government period following Tsar Nicolas's abdication, and say that the ANC-SACP coalition shows that: Here was a development for the working class in so far as it was able to secure freedom for the native South Africans, but in liberal sense of the word freedom. And of course, we can all agree that this development is a good thing, but incomplete.
Not to mention the other fact: 1960's did not see the rise of Neoliberalism. A movement that has completely eroded whatever aid existed following the anti-communist movements in the United States. To equate the two's historic and material conditions neglects the previous 40 years of austerity and destruction of any class based solidarity. In other words, to bring up the SA BDS movement, its to try to make an equivalence which itself is not grounded in the material or historical realities. The self-reflection is absolutely lacking from you here comrade.
Now, what goal would a BDS re:Texas hope to accomplish?
There are no calls for material gains for the working class, sure there is racism, sexism, and settler-colonialism there, but that is not much more pronounced there compared to other, say, Southern States, or even really any states. The calls here are on the basis of ideological difference between liberals and populist reactionaries.
Perhaps you think that BDS re:Texas will provide a way to build anti-capitalism in the state of Texas. Surely, with along side a BDS movement there is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs? No? There isn't? The support would be seized immediately?
Then what? You hope to see the comrades there build relationships with the bourgeois? Is that what is needed in the present moment in North America's historical development? At the behest of not being "sectarian" I won't go into my opinions on why this strategy is a losing one, but that is not the point. The point is, at present, the development of the reactionary efforts has taken on a more populist flavor than ever in the United States, which is entirely unlike the reactionary forces in SA. These reactionaries are actively recruiting disaffected members to do terrorism and target minorities and comrades in this state (see El Paso) and as their populism grows, so too will their aid networks, so too will their businesses which will remain free to move into Texas and aid their fellow reactionaries there, while targeting comrades.
The socialist program in America is not sufficiently developed, especially not in the South, and I won't hear liberals advocate for the turning into martyrs of our comrades, to have to answer to these agitated-reactionaries, as their lives degrade through a BDS, while not being able to provide them the means of doing so, during a period of time where the preservation of, and development of a socialist program there is of paramount importance. You are advocating for the smothering in the cradle of the growth of socialism in Texas. Hence, why I term you, liberal.
OP proposed the idea of BDS for Texas. It's not a fleshed out campaign to shit on, it's a vague idea in the direction of BDS. This "criticism" has no purchase in their commentary, you would have to make up shit on their behalf to make it relevant; embedding solidarity campaigns is completely compatible with their idea at this stage and they've hardly rules it out, have they? Instead of suggesting this as a helpful component, you've chosen to do the actual fed shit of being extremely abrasive and calling people names with a brand new account.
The SA boycott movement in the imperial core didn't pick up steam until the 70s and 80s. It was relatively fringe before this because they didn't do tabling or really even talk to leftist groups in SA, instead sticking to insular leftist spaces and polite liberal democratic requests. Neoliberalism was developed during this period and the fundamental forces in question were already established for decades. The "Western powers" consistently rejected sanctions or even particularly critical commentary through the 60s, 70s, even the 80s, instead running interference for the forces for apartheid and wrapping it into Cold War strategies.
Would be misrepresenting me and anyone else here.
You could ask OP and contribute to a productive discussion of that question instead of calling them a fed and generally being the truly endearing combination of insulting and generally incorrect in your comments.
You're basically fighting with your imagination for the next few paragraphs. Does a potential BDS Texas movement not have calls for material gains, policies to alleviate oppression, try to build socialism? This discourse is absurd, OP is just talking about having a BDS for Texas. You are free to try and help define it if you think there are (still unspecified) material conditions that necessitate a particular approach to achieve goals you think are important. As of now, it doesn't exist at all.
I'll just point to this quote as an example of how ridiculous this imaginary discourse is: "Then what? You hope to see the comrades there build relationships with the bourgeois?"
Okay you finally got to the point. But this isn't particularly material, either. The forces of reaction are in power in TX. Why you believe the "populist" nature of reactionary Texans matters is unclear given that they get their way within the state government. The "populism" in question is highly partisan, comes from a position of power, and places the needs and material status of a privileged minority over those of the oppressed in a way that is highly racialized.
There will of course be differences that are important to leverage, but there is nothing about what you're pointing to that suggests a higher barrier or a qualitative difference that undermines BDS.
There's no point attached to this narrative. Is it that the forces of reaction are better-organized and better-funded than those of, say, Israel or SA? I'm going to disagree with that. Is it that there are more reactionaries organized into violence and cadres than there are leftists? Okay, I agree, but this is not different from early anti-apartheid organization and there's no reason stated for why this is a no-go for BDS.
Ask yourself how you got from BDS to martyrdom.
Boycotts with tabling are useful for building support for and membership of socialist orgs, by the way. You should try it sometime, since your dismissiveness makes it clear you haven't.
There's the line from The Economist, again.
You're telling yourself stories until you feel comfortable insulting others and are acting like a wrecker. And again, your logic on the impact of boycotts is literally a bullshit centuries-old line from The Economist that has been used to oppose all consumption-based tactics for organizing against oppression, including slavery and child labor.
[Paraphrased] "You are the doing the fed posting"
I think that me deciding to engage in this actual discussion with you should be proof enough, but also if you just look through my history, you'll see a post where I flat out apologize to another person for being wrong about something. Not to mention, this is not a congress of international working people, this is "hexbear.net" a "kinda leftists website". Apologies for not engaging in the most principled possible debate imaginable off to start, but here we are, and that at least should give some credibility, considering I'm being at least somewhat consistent at this point. Also, spare me your tone-policing, I get that you think its relevant to bring this up because you're perhaps thinking "oh a fed would absolutely come in here and be an antagonistic as possible", but I've taken a decidedly different approach since then, so you can go ahead and stop now.
During the development and deployment of Neoliberalism, the policies and erosion's to the working class haven't had the time to fully develop. Even still, I allude to this fact you are bringing up, when I say "40 years of austerity and destruction". There can be absolutely no doubt, that the state of international socialism is at a lower point now than it was in the 70's and 80's. Here also, I'm not really sure what the point is of sneaking in the point about western powers rejecting BDS policies, but how this is coming off to me is to give you some kind of logos to say "the western powers were against it so it must've been actually good", but we've already said that this wasn't overall an anti-capitalist movement, it overall was a movement to garner freedom for native South Africans. I think it's important to note that, the reason it probably was successful at all is because it wasn't explicitly anti-capitalist, but here's the thing, I don't actually know the exact historical nuances of South Africa during the anti-apartheid movement, and unless you're willing to start sharing some sources, I don't think you do either.
You're the one that brings up the SA BDS movement, reflexively. Note that you don't go on to say what this misrepresentation is exactly.
This is just tone-policing. You're right though, I could've just decided to have a giant big brain discussion on someone's post that was literally "haha they like free markets, lets let em have it and do a praxis", but let's be honest, I'm doing this now and you're taking the ethos too far. Also if I'm "incorrect" in general, there hasn't really been much in the way of you showing me where I'm incorrect? There has been 3 posts, 1 of me trying to do a "le epic dunk" on the OP, 1 of me trying to do a lesser "le epic dunk" on you, and then the one you are replying to presently.
I didn't know it was a competition for who has the most credentials here, but yeah, I'm involved in socialist organizing, in my local area, there's not a ton of stuff going on so, I guess sorry for not living wherever you live. My dismissiveness is towards the idea of doing this BDS for Texas, and I'm outlining my reasons why, not that Boycotts and Tabling don't work, because it clearly worked, for anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, which I've already said is a good thing.
You keep equating "Boycotts" and "BDS" as though these are the exact same things. They are not. One is far more punitive than the other, and I don't know how you can even sit here and act principled while you're doing it. Not to mention, "The Economist" line on this presupposes an actual organized movement with actual support networks and power, because they are fighting in the interest of the bourgeoisie. My "line" on this is literally saying "this cannot work because there are no conditions present now or in the foreseeable future for this to be something that can possibly happen". We aren't advocating for BDS in the periphery of the empire, we are talking about advocating for BDS in the literal belly of a decaying empire*.
I'm replying to the whole snippet here: simply put, we are currently talking about it, so I don't know why you're still going on about this? I literally am engaging in this discussion now, so let's move on from whining about it. Also, why is your reply littered with little "gotchas" like "... there are (still unspecified) material conditions..."? I mean this is pure projection, where on one had you want me to engage in a thorough and peaceable discourse, while on the other hand you do not yourself engage in a thorough and peaceful discourse, you could instead literally just say "Can you please enumerate what material conditions that you believe are lacking" but you're choosing not to, and feel free to just say it plainly why you are choosing not to do this.
In any case, the material conditions I believe are lacking, while not explicitly enumerated are implied in this portion of my "ridiculous and imaginary discourse" where I ask if you believe there "... is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs?".
Either way, it's telling, and convenient for your response, that you've chosen to not engage with this to simply write it off as some "absurd" self imagined fight, when I'm legitimately asking you to answer for what you think a BDS on Texas is going to accomplish. A very notable thing you decided to not give an answer to was: Texas is a settler colonial region of America, it is a racist region of America, and it is a sexist region of America. But find for me a region in North America where that is not the case? If you cannot find a place where that is not the case, then, Texas is not any different the the rest of the United States. As well as this, this is approaching "orange man bad" levels of liberalism, since, the only reasons left to you or anyone who's pro-BDS for texas at this point is: "Do BDS because we don't like the GOP" and "Do BDS because I think it will help build socialism there". Point #1 is liberalism. Point #2 is not capable of being manifested at all currently, no matter how much you want it to be the case, because the support networks for socialism in the US is at absolute infancy levels. Socialist orgs cannot attend to the needs of their local communities, let alone Texan comrades, who, in this imaginary world where a BDS is done, will need as much resources as possible, since the "state" will in all likelihood seize as much of it as they can.
In any case, if you do answer these questions later, because of a misunderstanding of what the intent was there, consider all of these "conveniences" and "telling" parts of your response to be forgiven, since, I understand that when you're trying to win the epic debate (and not discuss amongst comrades) sometimes things are misunderstood.
I get there from the present conditions to say, isolating Texas does not give you anything but potentially harmed comrades.
More reactionaries organized to do violence against leftists and minorities is very different from early anti-apartheid organization for a number of reasons. I shouldn't have to explain why, since anti-apartheid organizing wasn't explicitly anti-capitalist.
Sure it does, but the issues are not local to Texas, these are issues present everywhere in America, and so you cannot segment off a portion of the country off arbitrarily. I really need you to explain how you think that BDS for this arbitrary region of the United States is going to accomplish these things, from within a region of 47 other states which are all, also, guilty of the same things? You are the one imagining an America which has the potential to sanction off 1 segment of its country. Either it must sanction the entire United States, or, it must come from within the United States, and I need whatever you're on to think that there won't be states which ally themselves with Texas to help out their reactionary buddies.
I was reminding you of one of my few original points that you repeatedly ignored.
I have never suggested you be thorough or peaceable. I have told you to not be shitty to comrades, particularly your form of toxicity. I deal with that shit enough in irl organizing where baby leftists can't figure out that they shouldn't be trying to dunk on comrades in the same goddamn room with their shitty hot takes.
pissbaby: 11
That's not my point. I made the point that your position is not based on an analysis of material conditions or history. I am correct in that point and this extended storytelling and ego-protecting session is proving that very well.
I recommend that you ask, "material conditions for what?" and see whether you can even make it match what OP is talking about. It is very clear that you jumped from "boycotts don't work and just hurt the workers" to a boilerplate description of the anemic state of socialist organizing in the United States without actually making a material connection between the boycott (etc) itself and your conclusion. Given that this is a bad-faith discussion, I don't think it would be worthwhile for me to try to fill in the gaps of logic in any way.
It is indeed convenient for my position that your points are so terrible. But it's no fault of mine that this is the case, obviously.
I think a lack of empathy is going on, here, and is partly explanatory of your behavior. Your storytelling has next to zero material relevance to a BDS program. You have not actually tied it to the expected activities or outcome of a BDS-style movement. Do you really expect anyone to go down a rabbit hole with you about your stories? Would you follow that rabbit hole? I hope not.
And no, it was not clear that your question was anything but rhetorical because you went on to suggest why you think it would only accomplish negative things or otherwise lacked the ability to effect positive change. I'll think about answering it if I don't write off this entire conversation shortly, though hell you can find me elsewhere in the thread explaining the useful function of boycotts and related movements.
That's not a question, lol. wtf do you expect as an answer to an obvious fact that poses no clear challenge to the thing in question? Let me help you organize your thoughts: when you bring up a point, ask yourself, "is this different enough from SA or Palestine [or whatever] for me to be making a point?"
Israel is a settler-colonial state. SA is a settler-colonial state. Both are racist. Both are sexist, and SA was in particular. Does this mean that BDS would be unworkable for those two?
Rewind the clock to the 60s: are you making a super great point about not doing any boycott-ie attempts in the UK re: SA? In other words, let's pretend there weren't already obvious counterexamples. Your claim doesn't even have clear relevance or validity regarding the premise.
This does not follow. If every state is American (and therefore settler-colonial), racist, sexist, it cannot be any different? You clearly don't fucking get around a lot, because there are areas (and states) where it's a lot more dangerous to be gay or black or socialist than others, including Texas. You are failing to understand qualitative vs. quantitative differences, which is the whole basis of a materialist analysis: the qualitative emerge from the quantitative, with significant gaps developing prior to recognizing a qualitative distinction. Seattle is still racist but it's a hell of a lot less racist, and less dangerous to e.g. black people than, massive swaths of Mississippi. And, if one were to pick a geographical divide, it would be more rural vs. urban than anything else, with TX having a larger rural (and suburban) reactionary population than states where the cities are absolutely dominant. i.e., the organization of underlying political forces need not be at the state level to be reflected by it and therefore reasonably targeted by state-level interventions.
Anyways I'm explaining too much. The logic you presented does not follow.
I have said nothing like either thing and you are now telling stories again. Though the latter does provide insight into why your points are so bad - you're believing some of your own storytelling about what I'm saying.
pissbaby: 12
Do not confuse my treatment of you in a conversation where you bring no good faith with you jumping in to be shitty to comrades coming up with ideas for action.
Believe it or not, restating your conclusion in a slightly different way doesn't fill in the gaps.
You're right, it's a lot easier going in the US vs. being a black South African in the 60s. And the SA boycott campaign had to pick up steam in a Thatcherite UK, in contrast to vaguely left-liberal/leftist American cities outside of TX where people are already used to the idea of consumption as advocacy, conflicted as it is as a general tool.
Though you'd have to actually state things clearly for me to do much more without trying to fill in gaps on your behalf.
Does it? Because it's just a random person's idea for a post and has no specifics. I'm highlighting the absurdity of your insulting pushback against all kinds of nonexistent specifics.
What issues? What is OP referring to? We don't even know. If I were to think of what TX has done most recently, it's to try and challenge federal protections for oppressed peoples (women, black, gay) established by the Supreme Court, and to have some success doing so. TX is not alone in this, but it is also in no way uniform, instead being restricted to states run by right wing parties. In addition, TX has a much better time with this due to its resources and near-total control by committed reactionaries. You're also falling for your own trap of not understanding quantitative vs. qualitative differences. And don't even get me started on the fact that you can mobilize people even if you think they are hypocrites or inconsistent.
But again, you'd need to actually ask OP some questions in good faith to have this conversation. You're dismissing a phantom.
Am I? Quote me saying so.
pissbaby: 13.
For fun, I'm going to keep a tally of obvious misrepresentations / petty ego-protecting shit, which I'll put under the heading, "pissbaby". It is very clear, it is obvious, that my point about "fedposting" is that your behavior is far more in line with doing so despite your criticisms. You decided, today, to go out and be utterly toxic to some comrades while being a big ol' hypocrite, and then are surprised when this is pointed out?
Oh, and because you're minimizing my criticisms of toxicity, let me be clear that swearing and namecalling aren't inherently toxic, particularly in response to toxicity. I'm not calling for decorum. I'm pointing out that you're attempt to disrupt and alienate people who are actually interested in some level of organization.
pissbaby: 1
Your 1-day history where you've said a whole host of blatantly false shit. If that's the metric for not fed posting, you have a lot to apologize for, lol.
pissbaby: 2
Childish ego-protecting straw man trying to minimize your toxic behavior.
pissbaby: 3
Turning on Rddit debatebro mode rather than Rddit dunking mode has not improved the situation.
Kindly shut the fuck up. If you don't want to be called out for wrecker toxic shit, don't do wrecker toxic shit. It is not my fault that you chose to go do wrecker toxic shit today, nor my fault for noticing it, nor my fault for correctly calling it out. Your route away from having this kind of conversation is to no longer do this kind of thing. I do not give a shit about apologies, though if they make you feel better and less likely to do this in the future, knock yourself out.
And your idea of "improvement" is to go into a dishonest damage control mode. I was trying to avoid being so blatant about it, but it seems like you're just going to keep going down this path of feeling good about this shit if I try to beat around the bush and give you that pretense that I think you're acting in good faith. Minimizing your toxicity is not a good faith interaction. Ignoring or deflecting from my main points is not a good faith interaction. Misrepresenting what I say is not a good faith interaction. These are not some list of grievances against me, as I have low expectations and am not offended by them. They are reflections of your approach to these conversations: that we are not real people you should take seriously in any way, your comrades. This is not good shit, comrade.
pissbaby: 4
Cool, my point about Western powers was related to the impact of neoliberalism on the S part of BDS, since that's the thing they can do officially. The hint for this was that I mentioned sanctions. That was in no way particularly different before or after neoliberlism picked up steam. I am essentially having to guess about what point you're trying to make re: neoliberalism, since it's not even that well-defined in leftist spaces and its relevance to this conversation is in no way obvious. Black South Africans under apartheid did not live in particularly rich conditions for personal economic stability or organizing - they did so out of necessity and desperation, more like. The average person in TX is in a much more favorable position, far more stable. But again, I'm probably being too generous in trying to make what you're claiming have basic logical connections between what you're concluding vs. what you're claiming. Feel free to just actually make a point that's an actual criticism of OP's vague allusion to BDS in Texas.
We can have a conversation that involves collaboratively sharing information when it ceases to be one premised on bad-faith interactions and excuse-making.
I brought it up as an example of a reasonably successful boycott campaign - and, interestingly, one that shows the necessity of tabling under certain circumstances. I think this is obvious and will not condescend to suggest you didn't understand the relevance. Not sure why you mention "reflexively" if not to be pointlessly dismissive.
pissbaby: 5
The entire claim is a misrepresentation because I never claimed or implied what is stated in it. It is at best irrelevant (telling some stories to make your point easier) and at worst an attempt to saddle me with a bullshit claim so that you can rationalize your thinking more easily.
pissbaby: 6
Kindly shut the fuck up. The other commenter probably had a better idea in just sending you PPB.
pissbaby: 7
If you wanted more explanation of my criticisms, you could ask questions. And most of the things where I've pointed to you being incorrect are blatant and obvious, requiring no explanation unless you reject the easily verified premise. Example: did the SA boycott movement have much steam in the 60s? No, it fucking didn't. It more like petered out for most of that decade. Therefore, discussing the movement in the 60s re: neoliberalism does not speak to my point and bringing it up was an error. Did you need me to explain this after I pointed out that it didn't pick up steam until the decades after the one you mentioned? I assumed you would put this together fairly easily, and I'm confident that you actually did do so.
Not credentials. Being familiar enough with the topic to at least be consistent with condescension - though the toxicity displayed still wouldn't be warranted.
You have an incoherent set of stories that amount to, "it will just hurt the people it's meant to help", or more generously, "it will just hurt the workers". They have the trappings of a socialist discourse but aren't actually connected to the BDS part of the equation because you don't know the impact of such movements because you don't actually know jack shit about them.
This would be fine if you were asking questions or lurking or whatever. But you decided today was a good day to be shitty to a comrade with an idea and then all of the people who pushed back on that toxicity.
Lie.
pissbaby: 8
It presupposes a boycott that is getting attention and there's an incentive to respond. We don't really need to dither about the extent to which they actually threaten the bourgeoisie given that you are taking their line on this.
As the person making the accusation, actually I get to tell you what line I'm referring to, which is the notion that all the boycott etc would do is hurt workers. The Economist actually uses the same line today to attack the idea of boycotting places with poor labor practices. Good consumer, do not fret about the 16 hour work days in unsafe conditions, you are actually helping lift that Bangladeshi out of poverty!
pissbaby: 9
Oh yes, now it's even a fault of mine for criticizing that toxic behavior! I'm "whining" for pointing to the thing you barely acknowledge, let alone correct, let alone admit fault for. Classic toxic R*dditor behavior.
If you wanted to vent today or something, there are plenty of other venues with actually deserving people for you to participate in.
pissbaby: 10
I suppose I should note that I have no expectations for a good faith interaction going forward and that these are my last replies of any length.
I don't know what you think I'm doing here, but it's not whatever is being projected onto me? Since my second response to you, I've tried to engage in good faith with you, but at this point I'm really not sure what productive conversation we can continue having. From my second response, where I started off by saying "Okay then lets talk about it comrade", I was apologizing, through literal "action" (for what action posting on a forum really matters) that I was wrong to not engage in this with more nuance. And from that response forward, I guess maybe you smelled blood in the water out of the vulnerability being displayed in saying "I was wrong, lets have the discussion", and took that as your cue that you could embark on the crusade of self-righteousness?
As for this contrivance of a post: I'm not going to even try to engage with it. In as plain of English as I can muster up, you're just wrong, you are failing to apply the dialectics to the present day, and so you're just wrong. You will probably continue to always be wrong. That's all I can say. Other than that, hope you don't make it into any form of leadership or garner a platform large enough to influence socialist thought because you don't even have a grip on what the terms you're throwing around even mean. I'm honestly more depressed now than I was hours ago, because I'm thinking "this westerner can't get their terms straight, let alone apply them to the situation with any kind of intellectual rigor and honesty". Any time I have a point to make, you're just whining about toxicity to distract from the fact that you don't have a response. Whether this is intentional and conscious, or unconscious and unintentional, is besides the point, because the effect is the same; the situation is untenable.
Anyways, I sure am glad that you got the chance to wax poetic and drop this steaming shit of a take on the threshold, to then go running off with your fingers in your ears. That's some real, principled, and mature shit coming from such an experienced and wise socialist, or leftist organizer.
:PIGPOOPBALLS: