we're never getting change outside of third worldism bruh
source link: https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1akcbol/if_the_revolution_comes_people_will_start_eating/
I mean... eh? There's definitely a large community of people who just kinda post a lot about Leftism and then Fed-jacket anyone caught doing actual organizing. There's folks who try to do electoralism and completely fail at it, then fish around for this direct action stuff and come up empty, then just get burned out and go terminally online (I say, staring directly into a mirror).
There's a certain Waiting For Godot thing going on with lots of self-proclaimed Leftists, where we just kinda sit around and debate as the world passes by, and we try to figure out if we're actually getting any closer to Leftism without really doing anything (or grasping what it is that we can do). There's a lot of fantasizing and wish-casting about what a Revolution might look like, without any serious effort being applied. And there's a lot of real honest to fucking god revolutionary struggle taking place completely outside our sensory range, such that we're consumed by despair.
So... I sympathize with this sentiment, at least somewhat. There's definitely a certain "Second Coming"-esque attitude towards the idea of Revolution, because its only described to us in the moment of its apotheosis. You get to read about 1917 as a thing that happens all of a sudden, rather than a culmination of half a century of building pressure blowing the lid off in an unexpected place. You get to read about the fucking First Coming as a thing that happens one day in a manger, rather than the cumulative pressure of centuries of Roman imperialism in the Levant.
I don't think the guy's strictly wrong. He's just phrased it like an asshole.
I'm also on team "I don't think this was the right phrasing but the fundamental idea is essentially correct." Like, I really can picture myself on both sides of this argument. I think that having a genuine belief in a "destined eventuality" of a revolution is important to counter capitalist realism, and it's really only in the last year or so that I feel like I've fully transcended that doomerism and believe in the very depths of my heart that capitalism will indeed be overthrown just like how feudalism and the slave empires were. So I think it's heartening when people talk about a revolution as if it's something that very much could happen rather than being caught in spirals of doomerism and pessimism, even if that speculation is imperfect and even has some liberal brainworms writhing around in there.
I also think that believing that a mythical revolution will save us is, more than anything else, simply ahistorical. Things are going to get worse before they get better. A LOT worse. Even once "the revolution" is occurring. Even for a number of years after "the revolution" has officially been won. It'll all be so much worse that the 2020s will be looked upon with fond nostalgia and mythologized as the "pre-war" times where things were simple and happy. And, most importantly, I feel like this idea of "The Revolution" being something almost divinely created and bestowed upon us, rather than actively fought for with the death and sacrifice of thousands, perhaps even millions of people, leads to a big fracture with the idea of putting in effort towards The Revolution. How many Tumblr and Reddit radlibs are actively cheering on Hamas and Hezbollah (and, god forbid, Iran - the object of so much scorn over the last few years due to all the "my people yearn to be free, let's overthrow the patriarchal and women-hating regime of Iran!" propaganda and color revolution attempts). I would bet that most of them are currently dejectedly commenting about how much the situation in Gaza sucks and how it's all doomed, while the Resistance continues its incredible fighting and is bringing Israel to its knees. The Resistance are working towards the revolution, but not The Revolution, and so they cannot be supported.
kinda incoherent further notes
I have trouble ascribing any particular blame for this tendency or making moral judgements, though. Making a comparison between socialism and religious belief only leads to the second question of "Okay, why is it bad to have a religious belief in an eventual blissful reward for all the earthly suffering?" And I can't really answer that. It's not "bad", it's a coping mechanism, as the "opiate of the masses" quote demonstrates. Not the "cope" sort of coping mechanism, either - every human alive has to have a coping mechanism (even if at a subconscious level) to remain functional in daily life. You can call yourself a nihilist all you want - when you're done with the daydreaming or philosophizing about the utter cosmic pointlessness of life, you then go do the laundry and go make lunch - very pointless activities in the grand scale of even your country, let alone the Earth or the Universe - rather than lying prone on the floor until you die of thirst.
Ultimately I have a fairly deterministic view of life and human society and all that. While I was anxious for a few years of my life about the seeming utter impotence of, say, the Western left and its organizations, and how we're spiralling towards fascism and climate hell, I'm not really anxious about that anymore. The beliefs and actions of people aren't really determined by what is told to them; "We've gotta stop climate change! We have to do socialism NOW! If we don't then the planet is toast and billions might die!" They're determined by their immediate conditions and surroundings. As conditions become more dire, the revolutionary potential of people correspondingly increases - the mistake is misjudging how bad things have to get before enough people decide that the cost of rebelling against the system is worth it. A naive leftist will look at every headline of "Thing gets worse!" and go "Please, NOW things have to be bad enough! There's not much more that capitalism and the empire can take!" But there is a lot more it can take. A few ten thousand more dire article headlines like that over the next couple decades and we might be getting somewhere.
So, a belief that the course of history is bending towards communism, sooner or later, is my coping mechanism. Previously I thought that "Everything will be okay in the end - if it's not okay, it's not the end," was a stupid, naive quote that belongs alongside a dozen other inspirational quotes on some imageboard, but I guess that's now my guiding star, who'd have thunk it. It's why I can really empathize with the radlibs on tumblr and reddit who talk about how "Oh, when The Revolution happens, we can have all these cool things, like..." And when they inevitably talk about how the USSR or current-day China is a totalitarian nightmare and we need to democratically vote in socialism but until then we just have to vote for Biden, etc etc, I now realize that their ideology and material conditions just need a little more time in the oven to cook. They aren't doomed to be radlib morons with no sense of strategy forever - the difficulties of the future will harden them into the revolutionary communists of this generation and future ones. If not, then the poorer nations will overthrow the system from the outside, and those radlibs will die mad in the ruins of Western cities. Communism is coming, love it or hate it.
I really resonate with a lot of what you’re saying. I think one of the most important things you said is about how ugly the revolution is likely to be when it comes. I think a big part of that is that revolutionary change is very likely to come from the right first. By that I just mean any kind of real destruction or alteration of the constitutional order.
The western left are really kind of stuck doing triage on a really sick and miserable society. I know a lot of countries are like this too but the reality of modern car based life and infrastructure is so incredibly alienating and disempowering in its own way. It’s very difficult to work against. It is a society with no institutional left of any kind, horrible societal issues mostly stemming from poverty, union density that is only just starting to rebound, and a paranoia inducing panopticon. I think the reality is that the fundamentals of unionizing and community organizing will always be important. but also we must be creative and deliberate about how we present leftist ideas and actions and always seek small innocuous opportunities to just be an exemplary member of our communities and workplaces. That doesn’t mean do extra work for less money, but always do what you can with what you have to go out of your way to meet your neighbors and co-workers. You don’t have to be good at your job, just be friendly with everyone and look busy! Know their names and problems. Even if you can’t organize something now we should always try and behave as the membership of the party we want to have.
All this is to say that I do not look forward to what is coming from the right, but in the reaction to that there will be opportunity.
I may be naive in saying that but I will be very curious to see how things develop in Argentina because I think we may be in for something similar but less drastic but still worse in its own way. Only time will tell but one thing I am sure of is that war with Iran will bring lean times like they have not seen for a very long time in AmeriKkka.
Oops I think I mentally ascribed a frame of bad faith and total rejection of communism in the Tumblr post that doesn't actually exist. Thank you for the reframe.
I agree that there's certainly something there. Like a sense that the project is so unbelievably overwhelming that it seems uncertain what action would even help, so people console themselves with waiting and bystanding.
The "everything short of my version of True Leftism is useless" part has a point, too. We'll critically support countries that aren't remotely leftist (Russia, Iran), but won't give an inch to American politicians who are anything short of Lenin. That applies to American politicians who have as much to do with imperialism as you or I, too.
I get where it comes from, but it's not internally consistent, which is bad on its own and also makes it harder to communicate these ideas to other people.
We'll critically support countries that aren't remotely leftist (Russia, Iran), but won't give an inch to American politicians who are anything short of Lenin
You're looking at things in too moralistic a frame. It's not that Russia and Iran have progressive values but that they geopolitically represent historically progressive forces as part of the anti-imperialist bloc. Some shithead in the House who gets elected just to Tweet Kropotkin and get pressured into voting Yes instead of Present on the latest Warcrime Bill before crying about it does not represent historical progress geopolitically or in any other sense.
It's not about who is "good" or "bad", it is about who is beneficial and who is not, and just because that means something else if you cross out the words and replace them with different words does not mean I'm actually saying something very similar to the second thing.
That applies to American politicians who have as much to do with imperialism as you or I, too.
If you mean municipal politicians, you're incorrect as we do support them. If you mean Congresspeople at the federal level, you are smoking crack if you think they aren't significantly involved in the maintenance of imperialism.
It's not about who is "good" or "bad", it is about who is beneficial and who is not
Agreed, and I'd say pretty much any prominent politician to the left of the main body of the Democratic Party is beneficial if you're trying to pipeline people left of the Democratic Party.
Take Bernie. Despite his many faults, he helped crank open the valve on the pipeline left. It's far easier to talk to someone about bigger ideas of economic redistribution if they're bought into universal healthcare. It's far easier to talk to someone about the structural limits of the U.S. electoral system if they bought into Bernie and saw him get ratfucked in 2020.
When Bernie was doing something useful, he was worth supporting. Right now he is not, and often is being very actively detrimental.
Some shithead in the House who gets elected just to Tweet Kropotkin and get pressured into voting Yes instead of Present on the latest Warcrime Bill before crying about it does not represent historical progress geopolitically or in any other sense.
There's definitely something to be said for a woman who runs and wins on a platform of strong unions and functional public services and a popular green energy revolution relative to the corporate flake she replaced. That she came in spitting fire and got flattened almost immediately by the Pelosi / NYC machine speaks more to the scope and force of opposition than it does about the quality of candidate that got shoved into the political sausage machine.
But the fact that she and a variety of other left-insurgent candidates were able to pop their heads up into Congress rather than being condemned to the political outskirts represents a real shift in the underlying composition of the electorate in those districts. She's a symptom, not a panacea.
you are smoking crack if you think they aren't significantly involved in the maintenance of imperialism.
If the roof of the House Chamber caved in tomorrow and flattened half of the 118th US Legislature, I do not believe the functions of empire within the US would suffer significantly.
The individual House Reps exist to maintain a flow of commerce out of the periphery and into their respective districts, with the expectation that doing so maintains domestic support for Empire. But no single individual involved in the process can do more to shape it than a single soldier on a battlefield can decide whether or not two countries continue to be at war. The US House is a collection of Middlemen who can, at best, improve or degrade the efficiency of the imperial machinery.
Were the whole Squad to go balls-to-the-wall obstructionist and take steaming shits on the Speaker's desk every time a vote for more war funding or police expansion or whatever came up, I do not think they could collectively be as effective at derailing the mission of the state as a couple of Ron Paul types who divert a few million dollars into their back pockets as a condition for letting a bill out of a subcommittee, then spend the next six months whining about military overspending on ash trays.
But neither Ron nor AOC can defang the federal behemoth, because that's not a power House Reps really have. All they can do is chip away at the edges by being annoying and hope the whole thing caves in eventually. And that's not big sexy revolutionary stuff. Its mostly just corrupt shits sucking excess cum out of the Pentagon's balls for 60 years, until its own weight brings it down.
It's not that Russia and Iran have progressive values but that they geopolitically represent historically progressive forces
Take caution along with this; many components of historically progressive forces can end up flipping in just a few years.
If you use that sort of 10 million foot view then everyone outside of AES states is a different shade of Nazi. This isn't a useful frame of analysis.
You wouldn't say the only Nazis in Nazi Germany were the leaders, right? Obviously their enthusiastic supporters were Nazis, too, and you might say the libs who went along for the ride were just a moderate type of Nazi. So if you're calling the political leadership of every country outside of AES states different flavors of Nazi, you're calling much of the world Nazis, which is what I mean by "not a useful frame of analysis." We have to go into detail enough to parse out which people can be brought around to our side and which can't.
Bernie or AOC as anything good and not just tools to subvert radicalism
Those two are useful to the extent they start people down the leftist path, and harmful to the extent people get stuck thinking they're the best possible solution. When we're talking to baby leftists we shouldn't say "this person who brought you left of the Democratic Party is a Nazi," because we'll sound unhinged, and because (as I outlined above) that's not useful analysis anyway. Our take on the Bernies and AOCs of the world should be "they have some good ideas, but here's where their failings are and why you should move past them."
I actually prefer tumblr posters over most cos their takes are hilarious bad not depressing bad. For example:
Show
she's from umineko, it's a good story! please don't judge it by this very bad post
Wild that changing the words in a sentence can change the meaning.
except that socialism offers concrete solutions to real world problems whereas religion offers pie in the sky promises which is the actual origin of the fucking phrase
Christians believe in a heavenly afterlife overseen by a benevolent god. Leftists believe humans, removed from exploitative relationships, can create a better world that puts people over profit. I, an idiot, can't see a difference between these things
Every person dreaming of a better world is exactly the same in every way, you fool, you absolute buffoon.
Lol this reminds me of some bullshit I saw on the Vaush sub today. Some guy claiming that he watched tons of "normie news" and how it shows that leftist are "completely disconnected from reality" cuz we aren't always as familiar with the legal frameworks of the US government as policy wonks.
I was like, dude what fucking "normie news" are you watching? Neither Fox nor CNN really gets into the minutia of policy making, it's 90% current events and culture war shit. Yeah some 17 year old TilToker ain't gonna know as much as a lawyer, but honestly leftist sources I follow probably do an overall better job of getting into the finer details of legal policy than fucking Rachel Maddow. Clearly you just came up with this shit to have another excuse to complain about the left that you hate but nevertheless want to consider yourself a part of.
if there was a revolution leftists would eat anyone who can afford an apartment by themselveswho would they be paying? all the landlords would be dead, L-
Those lifestyle choices?
Being a landlord and slaughtering Palestinians
Hard to do but they're wrong on both counts. Even evangelical Christians attempt to make progress.
Off topic but the concept of mega churches is so foreign to me. Growing up all the churches my family went to were small enough to be on first name basis with most if not all of the congregation, pastor included. We even left one because my dad had beef with the pastor over the existence of hell and whether a benevolent god would allow the existence of hell (the pastor was pro-hell). Comparing that to literal stadiums full of people? I never got much out of church/religion but I can't imagine having any kind of spiritual connection when you're "worshiping" alongside 10s of thousands of people, the grand majority of which are complete strangers to you. What kind of community is even fostered there? I can't imagine they're able to have everyone hangout in the church basement after the sermon drinking coffee and shooting the shit
Christianity as consumerism in its purest form the megachurch. Community? No one will ever know I was here. Conversations? I cannot hear you over this sick ass guitar solo during Days of Elijah. Social currency? Hell yeah, take these bumper stickers that act like those police union stickers.
This is what I was imagining btw
Show
I too want to go to a giant communist gathering that fills a stadium or similar venue! But yea, American "Christianity" is so divorced from what I think of as Christianity it's not even funny. Even what I thought was a twisted imitation in the church my sister's family goes to is nothing compared to a proper megachurch (my sister's church had a paid cafe in the lobby, my dad and I got to have some good jokes about WWJD and running them out of the Lords house)
I grew up northeast catholic so those were basically the only churches I knew. When i was maybe 9 or 10 some family member had a christening for their kid or something. So we drove our asses out to bumfuck PA and we get to their church and its like a walmart with a vaulted ceiling. we get in and i'm looking around and I see these huge screens, like 4 or 5 set up across the front where there was a massive stage that looked like it was for performances.
Little me had absolutely zero theory, basically all my politics up to that point was captain planet, lil bush, and mind of mencia. I somehow still remember feeling really grossed out, thinking "this place doesn't really feel all that Jesus-y to me, jesus doesn't use televisions and stage lighting" I don't even know if it could be considered a mega church but it felt like it really wanted to be one.
Yea, that kind of thing is the closest I've been to a mega church. My sister's church (not sure on the exact flavour of protestant but not the anabaptism I was raised in) has the screens, Christian Rock Band™, and the knockoff Starbucks in the lobby that me and my dad clowned on (Jesus would have run them out with a whip...). If I even go somewhere in America with a megachurch I think I have to attend just to see first hand how the American Religion
Communists also want to condemn
infidelsfascists, sendnon-believersanti-communist militants tohellthe Gulag, they also hateblasephemouslordslandlordsi always forget there are people like this on tumblr because everyone i follow is cool
It's so weird to stumble across a right winger on tumblr. Like baby what are you doing here.
been gradually seeing a lot of the whole "DAE le horseshoe theory but for radical leftists and evangelicals" talking point being spread in radlib spaces in the last few months, so im willing to bet that some libtube talking head debate bro said it a few times in some video or something
It's almost as if they share an eschatology of radical change but one of them is entirely based on materialism and the other idealism, which means that they are fundamentally different. But that would require things like nuance.
