Thanks for this, you summed it up well. For me I'm like "Inside me there are two wolves," one is demsoc, and the other is essentially what you described, MLM.
The thing that has me leaning demsoc recently is that while I agree with you that it isn't saving the third world, there is a history of western demsoc governments that have made significant moves towards anti-imperialism. I think the best example is Olof Palme. I think it should not be understated that he took a big risk and made a serious difference taking a stand against apartheid, standing with Chilean socialists, etc. Definitely freaked the Americans out, at least.
Basically, I just think what Palme did is really all you can do given the context of a relatively comfortable first-world population. Re: your 'comfortable imperialism' point I think it's valid, but I think the 'comfort' will always come first for a population. I think you need some of those 'comfort' wins to be able to bring first world working people into an internationalist ideology.
Re: your point about ceding concessions instead of control, I think that's a good point. But despite that, I think western democratic socialism is still what has ceded THE MOST control, along with concessions.
The MLM theories of change, IMO, are valid, and extremely important in the third world, but I think ultimately unsuccessful in the west. The MLM violent break is far too destabilizing for a relatively comfortable working class. (Curious what your take is on this point).
But yeah. It's kinda sad that we're both debating failed strategies. I guess in practice, if you're MLM in the first world, there aren't really any actionable steps other than watching the collapse like :sit-back-and-enjoy: so you might as well join DSA and do labor actions.
EDIT: Realized I didn't address your point of the "contradiction of the declining rate of profit / free movement of capital." It's a good point. Seems like it's basically what led to the downfall of nordic demsocs.
I agree, but this just shows that the best a demsoc can do is mostly meaningless gestures from a place of little geopolitical control. The 'wake up call to violence' part is the major factor for why there is little reason to act like a Third World MLM, even if you subscribe to their theories of change. There is no wake up call only materialist struggle. Currently there is no material incentive to revolt. However, this distinction arguably makes me a Dengist, but I don't think MLM directly contradicts social development theory. Idk, mostly I just think how China has been handling things is smart, if kinda near-sighted, but you have to be doing that if you want to take advantage of U.S. markets. You have to sacrifice the long term for the short term because otherwise you get crushed. Very stupid system, but it's way better to have more industry than less when the resources begin to dry up. When those conflicts happen, and the system of control is more focused on real (as opposed to our usual imagined) external enemies, that is when shit will probably get real for both the U.S. and China, and then we will see what the better strategy is, neglecting your population so they don't even realize they've abandoned you, or making people love your government so much through material improvements that they will perform it's functions voluntarily. I have no idea who will win this.
And before you ask, no I am not an accelerationist, I don't want this outcome. I just see it as a historical inevitability, and I just don't see a point in wasting precious resources fighting it. Learning to garden, as ineffectual as it may be large scale (though many other, more rural countries supplement their caloric intake with home gardens, city people are better off just using the centrally planned grocery-corner store setup), is probably a better use of your time and money than contributing to a U.S. demsoc who will never have a pinky on the tiller of power. Unless it's for like mayor or city council, they can be useful there.
Thanks for this, you summed it up well. For me I'm like "Inside me there are two wolves," one is demsoc, and the other is essentially what you described, MLM.
The thing that has me leaning demsoc recently is that while I agree with you that it isn't saving the third world, there is a history of western demsoc governments that have made significant moves towards anti-imperialism. I think the best example is Olof Palme. I think it should not be understated that he took a big risk and made a serious difference taking a stand against apartheid, standing with Chilean socialists, etc. Definitely freaked the Americans out, at least.
Basically, I just think what Palme did is really all you can do given the context of a relatively comfortable first-world population. Re: your 'comfortable imperialism' point I think it's valid, but I think the 'comfort' will always come first for a population. I think you need some of those 'comfort' wins to be able to bring first world working people into an internationalist ideology.
Re: your point about ceding concessions instead of control, I think that's a good point. But despite that, I think western democratic socialism is still what has ceded THE MOST control, along with concessions.
The MLM theories of change, IMO, are valid, and extremely important in the third world, but I think ultimately unsuccessful in the west. The MLM violent break is far too destabilizing for a relatively comfortable working class. (Curious what your take is on this point).
But yeah. It's kinda sad that we're both debating failed strategies. I guess in practice, if you're MLM in the first world, there aren't really any actionable steps other than watching the collapse like :sit-back-and-enjoy: so you might as well join DSA and do labor actions.
EDIT: Realized I didn't address your point of the "contradiction of the declining rate of profit / free movement of capital." It's a good point. Seems like it's basically what led to the downfall of nordic demsocs.
I agree, but this just shows that the best a demsoc can do is mostly meaningless gestures from a place of little geopolitical control. The 'wake up call to violence' part is the major factor for why there is little reason to act like a Third World MLM, even if you subscribe to their theories of change. There is no wake up call only materialist struggle. Currently there is no material incentive to revolt. However, this distinction arguably makes me a Dengist, but I don't think MLM directly contradicts social development theory. Idk, mostly I just think how China has been handling things is smart, if kinda near-sighted, but you have to be doing that if you want to take advantage of U.S. markets. You have to sacrifice the long term for the short term because otherwise you get crushed. Very stupid system, but it's way better to have more industry than less when the resources begin to dry up. When those conflicts happen, and the system of control is more focused on real (as opposed to our usual imagined) external enemies, that is when shit will probably get real for both the U.S. and China, and then we will see what the better strategy is, neglecting your population so they don't even realize they've abandoned you, or making people love your government so much through material improvements that they will perform it's functions voluntarily. I have no idea who will win this.
And before you ask, no I am not an accelerationist, I don't want this outcome. I just see it as a historical inevitability, and I just don't see a point in wasting precious resources fighting it. Learning to garden, as ineffectual as it may be large scale (though many other, more rural countries supplement their caloric intake with home gardens, city people are better off just using the centrally planned grocery-corner store setup), is probably a better use of your time and money than contributing to a U.S. demsoc who will never have a pinky on the tiller of power. Unless it's for like mayor or city council, they can be useful there.
Appreciate this perspective. Demsoc in the streets, MLM third worldist in the sheets. Don't really have anything else to add here.