I understand that the there is infighting, and I'm not arguing that when the US does collapse into civil war/revolution, there will likely be multiple warring bourgeois factions.
However, I think that we are far from seeing distinct enough contradictions between the opposing bourgeois factions, materially and ideologically. All I'm asking is, do you sense any bit of force behind the messaging of the DNC, any militancy? There are no DNC liberals calling for physical violence if Trump refuses to leave office. I just don't see it, and I could be wrong, but idk lol.
The Democratic Party has been much more willing to tolerate property destruction and street militancy than ever before. I don't feel like Leftists are recognizing this fact.
The shit that has happened in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. is orders of magnitude beyond anything we've seen before, e.g. Ferguson & Baltimore.
The Democrats have been pretty relatively silent on the issue. Democratic mayors & governors have been siding with protestors on occasion. The national Democratic Party is not condemning these actions with even a tenth of the ferocity they had condemned Ferguson.
If the Democrats really wanted, these protests would have been crushed by now.
There are no DNC liberals calling for physical violence if Trump refuses to leave office. I just don’t see it, and I could be wrong, but idk lol.
They have been positioning themselves the reject the results of the election, just as Trump has.
They're silent because they see their silence as the most beneficial decision for themselves electorally. It allows them to act as "opposition" to the Trump admin and Republicans, it convinces naive leftists that they might actually support violent rebellion (lol), and it also allows them the wiggle room later down more silently suppress dissidents and diffuse protests when protests no longer benefit them electorally.
My point in all of these is that you're listening to closely to what they want you to hear. There is not a huge gap between Republicans and Democrats, we know this. Yes, they have real differences in their strategies of managing the superstructure to replicate base relations, but they are not stupid enough (yet) to gift revolutionary factions the chaos of physical warfare between two bourgeois parties, which would undermine the entire legitimacy of each of their games. Their warfare is mainly ideological and in the ownership of Capital. Neither will risk their legitimacy as a legal US entity to destroy the other.
Do you understand imperialism, the inevitable contradiction of imperialist forces leading to imperialist war, and the opportunity that creates being the only reason proletarian revolution happens? It's frustrating to se Kautskyist nonsense that the bourgeoisie can coexist peacefully throughout deep crises in capitalism. This has been disproved by reality countless times.
they are not stupid enough (yet) to gift revolutionary factions the chaos of physical warfare between two bourgeois parties, which would undermine the entire legitimacy of each of their games. Their warfare is mainly ideological and in the ownership of Capital. Neither will risk their legitimacy as a legal US entity to destroy the other.
We are in the greatest crisis of finance capitalism is history. There must be consolidation amongst the finance class, which is an existential threat to factions within the financial class.
The imperialist wars are not waged within the imperial core though, at least not amongst competing national factions. I'm confused as to how my arguments are Kautskyite in theme, I'm curious to hear what you mean by that.
I would also ask which successful socialist revolutions have occurred out of civil war between competing factions of the ruling class? Perhaps I'm ill-informed but none of them really fit (Cuba, China, USSR, Vietnam, Venezuela)
The imperialist wars are not waged within the imperial core though
Both World Wars? What? Imperialist Wars must always be waged in the imperial core. It is the violent overthrow of the imperialists by either other imperialists or the proletariat.
I’m confused as to how my arguments are Kautskyite in theme, I’m curious to hear what you mean by that.
Kautsky's theory on imperialism was that the imperialist powers do not have anything to gain from war amongst themselves. Therefore, they will always coordinate imperialist efforts to be mutually beneficial while suppressing the proletariat, known as "super-imperialism."
This is bullshit. It's defeatist. And it is not grounded in reality. The imperialists are constantly in facing an existential threat from other imperialists because capitalism necessarily concentrates into fewer and fewer hands due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the growth in profit necessitated by capitalism.
I'm really getting confused by your definitions here. "Imperialist War" is not waged in the imperial core, it is a war of conquering other nations/peoples and creating a structure from the ruins to farm or just steal Capital.
Imperialist powers will war against each other, yes, I am not contending that. But each European bourgeoisie rallied around their national imperial entity, they did not war amongst their own national cohorts, or else there would have not been national armies warring exclusively against other nations' armies. The armies consist almost exclusively of proles, but their roles are unchanged, all that has changed is their job and their direct employer, they are wage slaves to the bourgeois State rather than a bourgeois individual.
I'm not saying there is nothing to be gained for the global working class from imperialist powers fighting each other. But imperialist powers will only use physical force against another imperialist power, not itself.
I’m really getting confused by your definitions here. “Imperialist War” is not waged in the imperial core, it is a war of conquering other nations/peoples and creating a structure from the ruins to farm or just steal Capital.
That's just Imperialism. I'm using Imperialist War to describe conflicts between imperialist powers, WWI & WWII. There's a tendency to make this distinction in works on these wars, but then "Imperialist War" is used to describe wars of imperialism in other cases. Language is imperfect
But each European bourgeoisie rallied around their national imperial entity, they did not war amongst their own national cohorts, or else there would have not been national armies warring exclusively against other nations’ armies.
National identities have been constructed through these struggles. Before WWI, the people who lived along the French-German border did not have rigid national identities. Given the polarization that has been occurring in the US for awhile, it seems like there has been an effort to create opposing national consciousness within the US. "Liberals" and "Conservative" do not see each other as fellow countrymen. This is a new development in the past 40 years. Or rather, it had been dormant, unreflected in the national politick.
Yeah this is why you see the "globalist" rhetoric from the right. The Liberal bourgeoisie sees itself more as an international bourgeoisie than a national bourgeoisie. It's a distinct identity and has distinct interests from the right wing national bourgeoisie. The idea of a WWII era united Imperialist class is obsolete . Idk how this will pan out but it's not going to just go away.
I understand that the there is infighting, and I'm not arguing that when the US does collapse into civil war/revolution, there will likely be multiple warring bourgeois factions.
However, I think that we are far from seeing distinct enough contradictions between the opposing bourgeois factions, materially and ideologically. All I'm asking is, do you sense any bit of force behind the messaging of the DNC, any militancy? There are no DNC liberals calling for physical violence if Trump refuses to leave office. I just don't see it, and I could be wrong, but idk lol.
The Democratic Party has been much more willing to tolerate property destruction and street militancy than ever before. I don't feel like Leftists are recognizing this fact.
The shit that has happened in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. is orders of magnitude beyond anything we've seen before, e.g. Ferguson & Baltimore.
The Democrats have been pretty relatively silent on the issue. Democratic mayors & governors have been siding with protestors on occasion. The national Democratic Party is not condemning these actions with even a tenth of the ferocity they had condemned Ferguson.
If the Democrats really wanted, these protests would have been crushed by now.
They have been positioning themselves the reject the results of the election, just as Trump has.
They're silent because they see their silence as the most beneficial decision for themselves electorally. It allows them to act as "opposition" to the Trump admin and Republicans, it convinces naive leftists that they might actually support violent rebellion (lol), and it also allows them the wiggle room later down more silently suppress dissidents and diffuse protests when protests no longer benefit them electorally.
My point in all of these is that you're listening to closely to what they want you to hear. There is not a huge gap between Republicans and Democrats, we know this. Yes, they have real differences in their strategies of managing the superstructure to replicate base relations, but they are not stupid enough (yet) to gift revolutionary factions the chaos of physical warfare between two bourgeois parties, which would undermine the entire legitimacy of each of their games. Their warfare is mainly ideological and in the ownership of Capital. Neither will risk their legitimacy as a legal US entity to destroy the other.
Do you understand imperialism, the inevitable contradiction of imperialist forces leading to imperialist war, and the opportunity that creates being the only reason proletarian revolution happens? It's frustrating to se Kautskyist nonsense that the bourgeoisie can coexist peacefully throughout deep crises in capitalism. This has been disproved by reality countless times.
We are in the greatest crisis of finance capitalism is history. There must be consolidation amongst the finance class, which is an existential threat to factions within the financial class.
The imperialist wars are not waged within the imperial core though, at least not amongst competing national factions. I'm confused as to how my arguments are Kautskyite in theme, I'm curious to hear what you mean by that.
I would also ask which successful socialist revolutions have occurred out of civil war between competing factions of the ruling class? Perhaps I'm ill-informed but none of them really fit (Cuba, China, USSR, Vietnam, Venezuela)
Both World Wars? What? Imperialist Wars must always be waged in the imperial core. It is the violent overthrow of the imperialists by either other imperialists or the proletariat.
Kautsky's theory on imperialism was that the imperialist powers do not have anything to gain from war amongst themselves. Therefore, they will always coordinate imperialist efforts to be mutually beneficial while suppressing the proletariat, known as "super-imperialism."
This is bullshit. It's defeatist. And it is not grounded in reality. The imperialists are constantly in facing an existential threat from other imperialists because capitalism necessarily concentrates into fewer and fewer hands due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the growth in profit necessitated by capitalism.
I'm really getting confused by your definitions here. "Imperialist War" is not waged in the imperial core, it is a war of conquering other nations/peoples and creating a structure from the ruins to farm or just steal Capital.
Imperialist powers will war against each other, yes, I am not contending that. But each European bourgeoisie rallied around their national imperial entity, they did not war amongst their own national cohorts, or else there would have not been national armies warring exclusively against other nations' armies. The armies consist almost exclusively of proles, but their roles are unchanged, all that has changed is their job and their direct employer, they are wage slaves to the bourgeois State rather than a bourgeois individual.
I'm not saying there is nothing to be gained for the global working class from imperialist powers fighting each other. But imperialist powers will only use physical force against another imperialist power, not itself.
That's just Imperialism. I'm using Imperialist War to describe conflicts between imperialist powers, WWI & WWII. There's a tendency to make this distinction in works on these wars, but then "Imperialist War" is used to describe wars of imperialism in other cases. Language is imperfect
National identities have been constructed through these struggles. Before WWI, the people who lived along the French-German border did not have rigid national identities. Given the polarization that has been occurring in the US for awhile, it seems like there has been an effort to create opposing national consciousness within the US. "Liberals" and "Conservative" do not see each other as fellow countrymen. This is a new development in the past 40 years. Or rather, it had been dormant, unreflected in the national politick.
Yeah this is why you see the "globalist" rhetoric from the right. The Liberal bourgeoisie sees itself more as an international bourgeoisie than a national bourgeoisie. It's a distinct identity and has distinct interests from the right wing national bourgeoisie. The idea of a WWII era united Imperialist class is obsolete . Idk how this will pan out but it's not going to just go away.