Surveillance video obtained by NBC10 Boston appears to show a man setting himself on fire outside the Four Seasons hotel in downtown Boston, in what witnesses described as a deeply upsetting scene. The incident happened around 8:15 p.m. Wednesday. There was a large police presence as investigators collected evidence and searched cars in the area. Boston EMS confirms a man…
Before I would've said it seems to be the action people take when they're totally dedicated to non-violence even against people actively involved in genocide. But even that other dude was former military, so I don't know.
I'd much rather these people go down raising hell than just go down. If they're going to sacrifice themselves because they see no other way then the adventurist sacrifice is better than this, it at least might scare the shit out of the bourgeoisie.
Maybe it might be useful doming some major gentile zionist, but I think traditional adventurist actions like that tend to just be used as a pretext for cracking down on the left, while self-immolation so far is not, so I think it's really the less harmful option.
Maybe if you can get an Israeli general or something, just because disrupting their operation might actually sink them at this point, while anyone could die in the US and the arms would keep flowing.
But really both suck and should be denounced as anti-social behavior.
People say that a lot, but it's not really true. The state will make some encroachment hear or there periodically, but it's nothing like the immediate move to crush dissent and organizing that we see when we give them an excuse. Probably the closest thing to a real argument is that "well, they'll generate that excuse with agent provocateurs or whatever" to which I say "the correct response is to stop agent provocateurs, not do their work for them". There's a reason that the feds have a long history of trying to turn leftist activists (among others) into terrorists, and it's because terrorism is useful to the state.
I agree, so let's make sure that we are ready for it by developing leftist organization and that what the leftist action accomplishes is worth the blowback
Maybe it might be useful doming some major gentile zionist, but I think traditional adventurist actions like that tend to just be used as a pretext for cracking down on the left, while self-immolation so far is not, so I think it's really the less harmful option.
I'm not convinced this is true in the current era we're in. Until I actually see it happen I'm not conforming to the old school of thought on it. After seeing 2 successful assassinations and the Trump one actually scare the living shit out of him so much that I believe he has some real fear and ptsd from it I'm not convinced that our old head thoughts on these actions are correct.
I'm willing to change that view if something happens that genuinely does result in something that would've been better for us had it not occurred. But right now 3 things have happened that could be considered adventurism and all 3 times they've been fucking awesome, or in the case of trump maybe that was neutral? I lean towards good though just because i know damn well he's scared shitless.
People are just too dogmatic about this. Palestine Action is very much doing work even though they're technically being adventurist. The orgs doing it the rightTM way haven't come close to the amount of material good Palestine Action has done. Is "building a working class movement" by protesting at the DNC supposed to help the Palestinians somehow?
The way I see it is imagine if you were a socialist in 1941 Germany who, through alignment of the stars, was able to avoid conscription to the Wehrmacht but couldn't leave Germany. What would socialist praxis look like in 1941 Germany? It would essentially be blowing up railroads and bridges, sabotaging airplanes and tanks, and committing wanton acts of violence against random Germany bureaucrats through gruesome murders. At best, you might have contacts with Allied intelligence and smuggle sensitive government documents, but every other form of socialist praxis is pretty much just every form of adventurism. I'm sure killing the German leader would've alienated the German working masses, but the German working masses were completely on board with exterminating Jews, Roma, and other undesirables in 1941. The whole tailist-commandist paradigm just doesn't make sense. The path to socialism with German characteristics in 1941 is the complete destruction of the German state wrought by the Red Army and the forceful reorganization of the German state into a socialist one by the Soviet Union. The proper socialist praxis would be being an underground partisan movement based within the heart of the German war machine itself.
East Germany, like the DPRK, had its founding facilitated by the Soviet Union, but was actually constructed mainly by Germans, as evidenced by their somewhat different laws. There were aspects that the SU demanded, but generally they did respect that a dictatorship of the proletariat has to be democratic. It was a bit easier to accomplish by the thorough purging of the Nazis, of course.
The Trump assassination was a) such a failure that it barely scratched him, b) not against a sitting official, and c) did not actually accomplish anything (his ptsd does not seem to have actually changed anything outside him). I don't think we can use the lack of backlash to prove much of anything given these features.
Abe's assassination was literally one of the most effective political assassinations of all time in terms of causing concrete policy changes, and that was in large part because of the existing racist animosity in the Japanese population towards the moonies, along with the killer having basically the perfect message to tell the media (and not getting killed before he could tell it) of actually supporting Abe politically but having his mother suffer due to one specific policy.
I don't know what the other assassination you are referring to is. Remember, I didn't rule out the killing of an Israeli general or something because it would be concretely useful for disrupting Israeli military operations, but I really think that if you kill some gentile Zionist politician, it just won't matter because the system does not rely on them and the media will still call you an antisemite and move on. If they're a Jewish Zionist, forget about it.
It being “less harmful” implies whatever the westerners are doing in protest currently are useful enough that disrupting it would become harmful to the cause.
I think shattering the existing BDS movement would be bad, actually, even if we wish it was more effective. It has still gotten some institutions to divest.
Before I would've said it seems to be the action people take when they're totally dedicated to non-violence even against people actively involved in genocide. But even that other dude was former military, so I don't know.
I'd much rather these people go down raising hell than just go down. If they're going to sacrifice themselves because they see no other way then the adventurist sacrifice is better than this, it at least might scare the shit out of the bourgeoisie.
Maybe it might be useful doming some major gentile zionist, but I think traditional adventurist actions like that tend to just be used as a pretext for cracking down on the left, while self-immolation so far is not, so I think it's really the less harmful option.
Maybe if you can get an Israeli general or something, just because disrupting their operation might actually sink them at this point, while anyone could die in the US and the arms would keep flowing.
But really both suck and should be denounced as anti-social behavior.
They'll crack down on the left regardless of what we do.
People say that a lot, but it's not really true. The state will make some encroachment hear or there periodically, but it's nothing like the immediate move to crush dissent and organizing that we see when we give them an excuse. Probably the closest thing to a real argument is that "well, they'll generate that excuse with agent provocateurs or whatever" to which I say "the correct response is to stop agent provocateurs, not do their work for them". There's a reason that the feds have a long history of trying to turn leftist activists (among others) into terrorists, and it's because terrorism is useful to the state.
The excuse “not being given” is indicative of the general lack of leftist action; when that happens, repression will follow in tow
I agree, so let's make sure that we are ready for it by developing leftist organization and that what the leftist action accomplishes is worth the blowback
Lone wolves are useful to the state. Organized action however, is not.
I was explicitly referring to adventurists
I'm not convinced this is true in the current era we're in. Until I actually see it happen I'm not conforming to the old school of thought on it. After seeing 2 successful assassinations and the Trump one actually scare the living shit out of him so much that I believe he has some real fear and ptsd from it I'm not convinced that our old head thoughts on these actions are correct.
I'm willing to change that view if something happens that genuinely does result in something that would've been better for us had it not occurred. But right now 3 things have happened that could be considered adventurism and all 3 times they've been fucking awesome, or in the case of trump maybe that was neutral? I lean towards good though just because i know damn well he's scared shitless.
People are just too dogmatic about this. Palestine Action is very much doing work even though they're technically being adventurist. The orgs doing it the rightTM way haven't come close to the amount of material good Palestine Action has done. Is "building a working class movement" by protesting at the DNC supposed to help the Palestinians somehow?
The way I see it is imagine if you were a socialist in 1941 Germany who, through alignment of the stars, was able to avoid conscription to the Wehrmacht but couldn't leave Germany. What would socialist praxis look like in 1941 Germany? It would essentially be blowing up railroads and bridges, sabotaging airplanes and tanks, and committing wanton acts of violence against random Germany bureaucrats through gruesome murders. At best, you might have contacts with Allied intelligence and smuggle sensitive government documents, but every other form of socialist praxis is pretty much just every form of adventurism. I'm sure killing the German leader would've alienated the German working masses, but the German working masses were completely on board with exterminating Jews, Roma, and other undesirables in 1941. The whole tailist-commandist paradigm just doesn't make sense. The path to socialism with German characteristics in 1941 is the complete destruction of the German state wrought by the Red Army and the forceful reorganization of the German state into a socialist one by the Soviet Union. The proper socialist praxis would be being an underground partisan movement based within the heart of the German war machine itself.
There's Abe. Which one is the other one? Prigo?
This blanquist bullshit is beneath you.
East Germany, like the DPRK, had its founding facilitated by the Soviet Union, but was actually constructed mainly by Germans, as evidenced by their somewhat different laws. There were aspects that the SU demanded, but generally they did respect that a dictatorship of the proletariat has to be democratic. It was a bit easier to accomplish by the thorough purging of the Nazis, of course.
The Trump assassination was a) such a failure that it barely scratched him, b) not against a sitting official, and c) did not actually accomplish anything (his ptsd does not seem to have actually changed anything outside him). I don't think we can use the lack of backlash to prove much of anything given these features.
Abe's assassination was literally one of the most effective political assassinations of all time in terms of causing concrete policy changes, and that was in large part because of the existing racist animosity in the Japanese population towards the moonies, along with the killer having basically the perfect message to tell the media (and not getting killed before he could tell it) of actually supporting Abe politically but having his mother suffer due to one specific policy.
I don't know what the other assassination you are referring to is. Remember, I didn't rule out the killing of an Israeli general or something because it would be concretely useful for disrupting Israeli military operations, but I really think that if you kill some gentile Zionist politician, it just won't matter because the system does not rely on them and the media will still call you an antisemite and move on. If they're a Jewish Zionist, forget about it.
more specifically, 2 billionaires (or their spouses) that are funding dems and republicans
It being “less harmful” implies whatever the westerners are doing in protest currently are useful enough that disrupting it would become harmful to the cause.
I think shattering the existing BDS movement would be bad, actually, even if we wish it was more effective. It has still gotten some institutions to divest.
deleted by creator