Which is why we need people who walk it to have a firm theoretical grounding and we should criticize them from the left where their actions are misguided or indefensible.
But we do need to get into power, otherwise we're dead in the water. We should be wary of sellouts, but we can't be scared of the types of compromises it takes to obtain power.
i dunno about needing to be in power to actually change things. it seems that anytime someone in power represents the interests of the people they do so from a compromised position, always willing to sell out and stifle the actual movement.
most of the progressive policies that have been implemented throughout US history were not a result of having a voice in politics, but as a result of the people protesting due to a lack of a voice. people willing to do sit ins and marches and rioting.
the civil rights movement didn't advance because there were black politicians, it advanced because of protests and an unwillingness to take no for an answer.
having a token progressive in congress hasn't really gotten us anywhere, and almost perpetuates the cycle of passivity.
I think these are all good points, but I don't see how climate change (or other similarly enormous problems) are going to get addressed without taking over the formal levers of government. For instance, mutual aid is great, but it's not going to get us Medicare for All.
I think these are all good points, but I don’t see how climate change (or other similarly enormous problems) are going to get addressed without taking over the formal levers of government.
i don't disagree, i guess what i'm trying to get at is that electoralism and a few social democrats in office aren't going to get you the 'formal levers of government' in time to actually address specifically the issue of climate change.
it doesn't hurt to have people in office be sympathetic to the cause, but it's simply not enough, and seems to contribute to this liberal idea that all you have to do is vote. we've drifted further and further to the right for the last 40 years, and a lot of that has to do with people not protesting nearly enough, and specifically not in an effective enough manner, because they feel that if they just cast a ballot that it's going to make the difference needed.
electoralism and a few social democrats in office aren’t going to get you the ‘formal levers of government’ in time
Well, we don't know that, and we don't know if a non-electoral strategy (if it's viable at all) will work in time, either. No one knows how to build socialism in the imperial core, so we shouldn't write anything off completely. We especially shouldn't write off what the vast majority of Americans think of when they think of politics.
We should be working every angle that might feasibly provide a solution. One might pop up where we're not expecting it, and modest gains in one area might help another area considerably.
You could have a concession akin to universal healthcare in a very short time if we actually had a political leadership of the working class with a class struggle perspective.
Our political power as a class comes from our role in production: our labor allows for capitalist profits and our labor is what runs society. Nothing happens without the permission of the working class, and we literally do not need the capitalists, it’s the other way around. If we withhold that permission, if we actually threaten power on a class basis and in our capacity as workers, they will scramble to make that shit available.
this isn't a path to power. the problem isn't the compromises, it's who you're compromising with. we will need to make compromises to take power - no arguments there. but our power does not derive from the bourgeoisie and power within the bourgeois state only comes with their consent. so these compromises with a bourgeois political party can at best result in things that the ruling class is capable and willing to compromise on. willing is an important word there - it doesn't matter how many compromises you make before you have leverage. if they profit more by just ignoring you, symbolically appeasing you, or threatening you in the backroom, they'll just do that.
so this isn't a path to power, even if you do want a social democratic state (you shouldn't, but that's a separate argument), because it's putting things in the wrong order. compromises only matter when you're at the negotiating table and AOC/Sanders/whoever else are emphatically not there.
Which is why we need people who walk it to have a firm theoretical grounding and we should criticize them from the left where their actions are misguided or indefensible.
But we do need to get into power, otherwise we're dead in the water. We should be wary of sellouts, but we can't be scared of the types of compromises it takes to obtain power.
i dunno about needing to be in power to actually change things. it seems that anytime someone in power represents the interests of the people they do so from a compromised position, always willing to sell out and stifle the actual movement.
most of the progressive policies that have been implemented throughout US history were not a result of having a voice in politics, but as a result of the people protesting due to a lack of a voice. people willing to do sit ins and marches and rioting.
the civil rights movement didn't advance because there were black politicians, it advanced because of protests and an unwillingness to take no for an answer.
having a token progressive in congress hasn't really gotten us anywhere, and almost perpetuates the cycle of passivity.
I think these are all good points, but I don't see how climate change (or other similarly enormous problems) are going to get addressed without taking over the formal levers of government. For instance, mutual aid is great, but it's not going to get us Medicare for All.
i don't disagree, i guess what i'm trying to get at is that electoralism and a few social democrats in office aren't going to get you the 'formal levers of government' in time to actually address specifically the issue of climate change.
it doesn't hurt to have people in office be sympathetic to the cause, but it's simply not enough, and seems to contribute to this liberal idea that all you have to do is vote. we've drifted further and further to the right for the last 40 years, and a lot of that has to do with people not protesting nearly enough, and specifically not in an effective enough manner, because they feel that if they just cast a ballot that it's going to make the difference needed.
Well, we don't know that, and we don't know if a non-electoral strategy (if it's viable at all) will work in time, either. No one knows how to build socialism in the imperial core, so we shouldn't write anything off completely. We especially shouldn't write off what the vast majority of Americans think of when they think of politics.
We should be working every angle that might feasibly provide a solution. One might pop up where we're not expecting it, and modest gains in one area might help another area considerably.
You could have a concession akin to universal healthcare in a very short time if we actually had a political leadership of the working class with a class struggle perspective.
Our political power as a class comes from our role in production: our labor allows for capitalist profits and our labor is what runs society. Nothing happens without the permission of the working class, and we literally do not need the capitalists, it’s the other way around. If we withhold that permission, if we actually threaten power on a class basis and in our capacity as workers, they will scramble to make that shit available.
yes this more of this louder and more
this isn't a path to power. the problem isn't the compromises, it's who you're compromising with. we will need to make compromises to take power - no arguments there. but our power does not derive from the bourgeoisie and power within the bourgeois state only comes with their consent. so these compromises with a bourgeois political party can at best result in things that the ruling class is capable and willing to compromise on. willing is an important word there - it doesn't matter how many compromises you make before you have leverage. if they profit more by just ignoring you, symbolically appeasing you, or threatening you in the backroom, they'll just do that.
so this isn't a path to power, even if you do want a social democratic state (you shouldn't, but that's a separate argument), because it's putting things in the wrong order. compromises only matter when you're at the negotiating table and AOC/Sanders/whoever else are emphatically not there.