:walter-breakdown: :dean-smile:
For a moment I thought he was a libertarian and went :walter-shock:
I was this close to :walter-breakdown:
Right? This is like finding out that the cop from Stranger Things is a socialist
Of course he also has red scare brainworms but I'll take it. Of course that could also just be him hedging against the obvious likelihood of liberals doing a "but what about muh gulags"
If I remember right, his mom is Allende's cousin of some sort.
He called his chud Mandalorian castmate out on some transphobic bullshit. Seems like a swell guy.
I'm sorry, did that article call UK newspaper The Guardian "pro-socialist?" It's liberal at best, and if it's Pro- anything, it's pro-typo.
if it’s Pro- anything, it’s pro-typo.
Counterpoint: pro-zionist, pro-TERF, pro-pedophile.
Yeah, they all are. Just fine it funny that they chose a guy who's pretty clearly read at least dinner communist theory to play the anti-communist trope guy.
in black widow, he had K A R L M A R X tattooed on his knuckles and in the short scene where he is shirtless or almost shirtless he's got a lenin? tattoo somewhere i think
He stated it was Lenin in an interview, but it was actually Stalin. I looked
If you work at Starbucks and you make the coffee, then you should own it. You’re the one making the coffee!
Damn what a cool ass dude.
I shouldn't be taking this so seriously, but I'm so de-radicalized and demsucced recently that I just don't have a problem with this anymore.
The USSR will probably always be evil in our collective minds. It is what it is. And you can't deny that lots of the bad shit people associate with AES is, in fact, bad shit, that actually happened in AES. I just happen to have a much more nuanced take on the context of WHY this bad shit occurred.
So when people are vocally pro-socialism and disavow the USSR, I'm like ok. You can have that. We can frame "our" socialism against "their" socialism, as long as we fight for militant socialist unionism together. I just don't need people to understand the nuance anymore because it only matters for the 0.0000001% of the population that frequents Hexbear and left twitter.
I think this calculation changes if a significant left movement actually existed, but it just doesn't. Altho I guess it also changes when it comes to decision-making on the treatment of modern AES...
It's a socialism that will disavow socialism itself, if the propaganda is enough.
Insanely late reply but yeah you're getting to the root of the disagreement. I no longer really see sucdemry & eurocommunism as inherently anti-communist. To be clear, CURRENTLY it absolutely is. The foreign policy of almost all social democratic parties are all Guaido-pilled. :guaido:
What changed for me is that I consider these centers of power to be the aftermath, or the fallout of the western socialist movement in the 1900s. "Useless sucdemry" is what the movement got as a booby prize. And though the struggle for western socialism failed, we still see the fruits of that struggle today in the welfare states. It failed in its goal of transitioning to socialism, like every other democratic socialist project has, but the struggle was worth it nonetheless. (I'd also point out that it's not like Maoist insurgencies were especially close to power in the west either.)
It's a painfully unclear big-picture take, but in essence I'm saying this: if leftism somehow pops off in the west, the only leftism I imagine winning is one that occasionally has cringe takes about the USSR. Or one that says something like "Cuba is not perfect but the embargo is worse so let's end it."
To be clear, this is purely a west-centric take. And it's maybe too jaded. But for the foreseeable future, there's not going to be an insurgent Maoist left. The only thing I even bother hoping for now in the west is a social democracy that brings some amount of welfare and defangs its imperialist projects.
Operation Lentil, four pests campaign, etc. I think AES is better than capitalism but there have certainly been some bad things.
Apologies for the late response, I don't frequent this site too much.
It's funny that as soon as I'm questioned about specifics I'm not even sure what I was referring to lol. I'm not really well-read enough to give you a good answer.
Absent specifics, what I was saying was this: in my experiences trying to bring people into socialism, bringing up the USSR in a positive light has not been successful, even if someone is generally open to the idea of, say, nationalizing industry. This goes double for any working-class person I've talked to.
For sure. Demonstrable gains are undeniable.
I guess precisely BECAUSE we are so weak, the #1 thing we can point to in this nascent left movement is the uncontroversial take that militant unions get the goods. Here and now. We can all see it, and many workers are starting to see it too. In the face of that, defending the USSR seems like a silly internet thing to me.
^FOR NOW. I think the main point I was missing though was that if the left were not so weak, the USSR would not be such a fringe discussion.
Yeah, in short, read theory. Let's end it there lol
I completely disagree. It's not nuance. It's the core of the whole thing. It's actually understanding systems, how they work, their historical background and the ramifications of those processes. If you do not actually understand those things, you will not be able to create even an iota of non-reactionary policy and ideas. You don't have to convince people, but it's important to actually know what has been done, so we know what is to be done.
Hmmm yeah I can't really disagree with anything you wrote.
Maybe all I'm really saying is what you said: "You don't have to convince people."
I guess more than anything I'm coming from a place of defense of western democratic socialism. I used to believe things like "social democracy/democratic socialism just offers concessions to the working class to placate them" - which is still technically true, but my new understanding is that these concessions were won from a true socialist struggle, not just some kind of capitalist op. In other words, my new take is "actually, democratic socialism is probably the best case scenario we can hope for in the west."
But yeah, I think my argument lacks because I'm not well-read enough on what actually made western social democracy successful.
The major issue with democratic socialism in the West isn't that 'It only cedes concessions to the workers as apart from control.' while that is a big problem, the major issue is that it cedes concessions to first world workers while doing nothing to address the far greater exploitation of third world workers that cheap first world commodity markets are based on. Basically, all it allows for is more comfortable imperialism, because it does not solve the contradiction of the declining rate of profit, as well as the more or less free movement of capital.
If democratic socialism is the best we can hope for in the West, then the West is doomed to inevitably slip into facism, which as somebody who ascribes to M-L-M theories, I do think is fairly inevitable at this point. All it takes is a couple of major failures of imperialism, and the machine is turned inwards and all of those gains you had are wiped out. Democratic socialism can possibly be used as a stepping stone towards the elimination of capitalism, though historically it has tripped and fallen, but it cannot be seen as an end-in-of-itself.
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.
I had to read this comment like 3 times before I understood you didn't mean the Red Scare Pod and this wasn't another Elizabeth Olsen situation.
I mean… the price of petroleum isn’t actually a “fair market price”, it’s created by a series of artificial scarcities, starting with OPEC, a cartel who literally decide the price of oil limiting how much oil they’ll drill to keep prices high.
yeah but cartelisation is a free market force itself.
in fact a union is arguably a cartel for labor
Ive been talking oil with people that just don't get it.
Most are chuds. The longer the Convo goes the more clear it becomes they want to nationalize the petro sector. When i tell them that. And that's pretty much as socialist as your can get they have a hissy fit.
The "damn it, they're minerals not rocks" line should be replaced with this
damn it, they’re minerals not rocks
You really fucked it up.
Jesus Christ Marie they’re minerals
These guys are anti-capitalist.
brace noise
Jack! Jack, don't do it! No, Jack!
Why not, he's anti-capitalist?
He's family.
Say again?
He's my family, he's my brother-in-law.
It didn't cross your mind to tell us you had a commie for a brother in law? Did you know anything bout this?
It doesn't matter, this doesn't concern you.
We just wasted his partner here and he's wearing a bullet, so I'd say yeah - it does concern us. You and your brother-in-law don't seem to be getting on too well.
Listen - Hank - you have to tell them we can work this out. That you'll promise us, you'll just let this all go.
Yeah thought as much. Sorry, just no scenario in which this guy lives.
No wait, I have oil! Seven barrels, and all have to do.. is let him go.
Hell of an offer. How about it commie, should I let you go?
Hank. His name is Hank.
How about it Hank?
My name is Berniebro Schrader, and you can go fuck yourself.
Hank listen, we can work this out. You just have to promise us.. you'll let this
:dean-frown: What, do you want me to beg?
:walter-shock:
:dean-malice: : You're the smartest person I've ever met... and you're too stupid to see... the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry.
:walter-breakdown:
lol I just saw that referenced in the new Some More News video and I had totally forgot about it.
This is big actually, it seems like socialism or at least open anticapitalism is getting a lot more popular lately. I mean duh but it's still wild to see
liberal detected :mao-aggro-shining: guess I'm the one true leftist for POSTING THE LINK https://twitter.com/deanjnorris/status/1536958973198274560
It's not a free market problem. Gasoline isn't a free market. The skyrocketing cost of gas is caused by Biden's policies on Russia. The harm it's doing to American working people is just a bonus.
