not voting for trump but low key hope biden doesnt win so the material conditions of a failing America will be on full display
I hate violence and want a peaceful revolution where nobody gets the wall. This is a privileged perspective enabled by the fact that I don’t belong to groups who have constantly suffered violence, and I want to recognize that incrementalism is a luxury reserved for the unoppressed, but I just don’t have it in me to hurt someone in anything other than self-defense.
Despite the shitposting, this isn't an unpopular opinion. It's always the reactionaries who make violence inevitable. See Allende or dozens of other examples of the left taking power peacefully before being violently ousted.
Revolutionary violence is all in self defence, because the people in power would rather kill you than let go of their power.
Then I would still like it to be the least violence possible, and only as a direct response, never as preventive measure or even as revenge.
Yeah gulags and mass executions are one thing when you're a poor-ass undeveloped country trying to get out from under capitalism, but if such revolutionary activity were to happen in a developed country, there will certainly be some violence, but hopefully the massive prison system that exists in most of them could be retooled to serve the same purpose in a more humane manner than just shooting them and leaving them to rot (though there are some that deserve that fate for sure).
Supposedly gulag system at good times(i.e. not during WWII) had a better record than US prison system.
Yeah I've seen some things to that effect. I was more addressing the "__ goes to the gulag" or "__ gets the wall" as a meme rather than the actual implementation (which varied).
It's a fine line between upholding the socialist principles of treating people humanely, and doing what is necessary to ensure the success of a revolutionary movement (which regretfully may entail some amount of violence).
I guess its privileged of me to consider it regretful, I'm sure some comrades who have had systemic abuse directed at them will feel differently, but that's not exactly my battle to fight.
That sounds nice but I cannot picture him doing that in a space where we wouldn't accidentally whip him to death for being too slow
Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, and Noam Chomsky (while imperfect) are actually really, really, really good.
Also, Cornell West and Russell Brand are in the 99.999%-tile of language fluency.
Folks may not like it, but Michael Moore has been right about pretty much everything.
When someone's right often enough, you don't disown them for one bad take here or there. A bad action? OK, that's different. But a few shitty opinions in a sea of good ones should be critiqued and discarded; you shouldn't write off the whole person.
Everything in this comment applies to left unity, too.
"He tweeted Michelle Obama should run for President, which I consider an actionable offense." - some dog-eared misanthrope
Moore holds the surreal, distinguished honor of being loathed by the triumvirate of libs, conservatives, and tankies alike.
I feel like there is something to his idea of a michelle obama presidency.
Imagine how she might act during these protests, or occupy over Barack. Maybe she would listen a little more to public pressure, maybe her precense in the white house would exacerbate the fascist esthetic without pushing us straight into fascism the way the racists would behave while material conditions will continue to suck might be enough to not have a bunch of people go back to sleep.
I'm fairly certain Trump has little to do with the anger in my extended family.
I only say all of this, becayse I am sure Michael Moore is putting just slightly more thought into it than democrats love her.
I could be totally wrong
Given the present dystopia, I think just about every shit talker would prefer M.Obama over Biden.
Oh yeah i guess that's what it comes down to.
I used to get annoyed at the idea of it when it's brought, because to my knowledge she has worked on hospital finance boards, which worries me she would really gum up the M4A fight.
But... She would most drfinitely be easier to pressure, not because she is weak or anything, but because i feel like she might actually care
Question about Michael Moore: Having watched Capitalism: A Love Story recently, I noticed quite a few things in there that appeared to be leftist dog whistles, especially at the end. Is there a chance that Moore might be at least somewhat of a closet comrade, or am I just hearing what I want to hear?
He's a Democratic Socialist, no bones about it. His blood runs red, but he still naively believes in electoralism.
I think his primary role is that of a propagandist, and I mean that in a good way, of course. His job is to highlight the hypocrisy and inherent unfairness of the system to ordinary people, and he's been relatively successful at that. I don't disagree that he's genuinely democratic socialist, but if his message did suddenly become more radical and "outside the mainstream", would he be able to reach as many people as he has been able to reach so far?
The best kind of unpopular opinion, where you instinctually head for the downvote button only to remember what thread you're in.
Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, and Noam Chomsky (while imperfect) are actually really, really, really good.
Didn't realize that was an unpopular opinion. You're right though imo.
This might get me sent to the GULAG, but:
-
I secretly worry that Marxism has a fatal flaw in it somewhere that ONLY renders it appealing to the middle classes of developed countries, rather than the working classes of developed countries. For example, neither the US nor UK have meaningful communist parties (how many members does the largest communist party in Britain boast, like 5k members?). Even Marx, Engels, and Lenin themselves were all middle class or higher.
-
A related worry I have is that most American leftists are urban college-educated middle-class, they inherently look down on 'Trump country' and Trump supporters even if they don't vocalize it, and they have no meaningful strategy/interest in reaching out to the working class who lives paycheck-to-paycheck. I admit this is a right-wing talking point, but I can't shake the feeling that it contains a kernel of truth.
-
A final worry I have: The leftist media that emerged after 2008 is dominated by Brooklyn hipsters and academics who have zero chance of organizing a working class movement.
I'm probably wrong on most of these, so I'll happily turn myself in to the proper re-education authorities as needed.
Marxism has a fatal flaw in it somewhere that ONLY renders it appealing to the middle classes of developed countries, rather than the working classes of developed countries
Good news, friend: it’s also wildly appealing in developing countries.
So yeah, pretty much every demographic other than the one that Marx predicted. Wild, huh?
I’m partial to a Gramscian explanation. In the imperial core, the working class haven’t ever won a war of position, ie propaganda, which heavily limits their ability to win wars of manoeuvre.
I’m partial to a Gramscian explanation. In the imperial core, the working class haven’t ever won a war of position, ie propaganda, which heavily limits their ability to win wars of manoeuvre.
Where can one read more on this?
Thanks for the resource. The "Buttigieg" citations scattered throughout are deeply triggering though, lol.
It's Pete's dad, he was an actual Marxist. Shame Pete didn't live up to his farthers revolutionary potential and became a huge lib.
Yes lol, I remember him calling Kamala out when she lied about listening to Snoop Dogg and smoking weed.
I think it's a combination of that and colonial superprofits keeping most workers in the imperial core just a little bit too comfortable for them to risk it all in a revolution.
That's not to say that the labor aristocracy wouldn't be better off materially under socialism; it's just that the circumstances aren't quite dire enough to motivate a direct revolutionary conflict with the imperialist state.
This video from Hakim on the subject is really good and offers a tangible response to the problem for parties in the core (i.e., support third world revolutionary movements as a priority):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E
But yeah, also propaganda.
Exactly. The Chinese Communist party was an unknown nothing before it made itself known through deed. Listen to the people and work with them directly. You don't make revolution by sitting around on the internet trying to spread communist ideas to people and waiting until everyone is on our side, that's how libs do elections. The western lib brainworm burrows deep into all political understanding.
At the same time, expect resistance and repression. Another part of that lib brainworm tells you that you are free. How free was the civil rights movement? Repression doesn't mean defeat though.
Uhh plenty of African Marxists or Marxist adjacent politicians have existed. Thomas Sankara, Nelson Mandela, etc. Also in South America have had actual democratic socialists, like Evo Morales and José Mujica, be very popular and take power. It's just in the west the propaganda is so strong that the working class won't consider communism because CIA propaganda.
I totally agree with you, my comment wasn't meant to erase Marxists outside America. My concern was that Marx argued socialism would emerge out of a proletarian revolution located where capitalism is the most developed (i.e. the Imperial core), but in reality, the proletariat of the imperialist core tends to be reactionary. And I agree that propaganda is probably part of the reason, along with the imperialists spoils mentioned by another commenter.
Yeah "capitalist realism" has definitely taken over most of the imperial core (that is the view that capitalism is the only system that can function in the modern world and we have to work within it to solve our problems). I highly recommend reading Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher. It's a short book, only 90 pages, but very insightful and cool.
I think part of your confusion is considering white working class people from imperialist countries to be a part of a vanguard. they're not. they can't and never will be. if you start looking to the countries getting fucked over by the imperialists, you'll start finding a lot of revolutionary marxists.
The insistence on adhering to 100+ year old texts, prestige-capping of newer works, and especially the insistence on using 100+ year old definitions of words despite 100+ years of language drift makes Marxism feel more like the domain of a bunch of know-it-all pedants who want something to lord over others than like a revolutionary movement focused on recruiting as many people as possible to the cause.
A serious movement focused on getting shit done would have rewritten the most popular works a dozen times by now.
Marxism was forced to retreat into the universities because by its own admission, it is not a threat there. In a way it was meaningless for Marxists to be organizing in the US from 1950 to 2000 (at least in white communities) because white workers were the labor aristocracy that Lenin was able to predict would arise. Materially speaking it would be impossible for them to build an anti-imperialist movement. Some black groups tried to organize, but without the support of white workers it was snuffed by the feds (with the support of many white workers). This is changing though as the contradictions are heightened and the labor aristocracy is slowly being returned to the status of proletariat. We're in a transitional phase now, akin to the Russian Empire of the 1890s (though obviously quite different at the same time). Socialists are broadly discussing and trying to figure out how to build organizations and reach out to normal people. We are testing different strategies and ideas, and within socialist groups (such as the book clubs of the last century), we are discussing. Marx has already laid out our next step.
"It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself. "
-
Electoral campaigns should be used as a form of publicity and "advertising" (eww) for the movement. By the time the movement is powerful enough any election held will be merely symbolic as most people will support you anyway. (See the ANC/South Africa 1994 elections).
The thing is that the focus needs to be starting our own party. Electoral campaigns should be like the third of fourth prioty of the workers' party, and should be treated more like marketing campaigns as you suggest.
I think that the point of the anti-electoral stance isn't that there's no use-case, but that there isn't a place for it in the current US political environment where an actual workers' party doesn't exist.
Voting is a tactic in a larger revolutionary strategy, a thing which even Lenin understood smdh :virgil-sad:
Everyone please read "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder for some quality Lenin dunks on ultras with an inflexible tactical line on elections and stuff.
The American system is incredibly undemocratic and inflexible though, and Americans are incredibly brainwashed about it, so I think in the US most of that value comes from propaganda.
Even the Sanders stuff isn't completely without value when you consider how much easier it is now to break through on the US not being a democracy to a section of Sanders libs, and the effect this had on the old sub. (though that's only a first baby step to capitalize on)
The last thing Engels ever wrote (1895 preface to the Class Struggles in France) is absolutely essential for anyone that says "abandon electoralism."
Voting is a tactic in a larger revolutionary strategy. Even Lenin understood this smh
It could be argued that this only becomes within the realm of possibility if there is no imperialist threat, which isn't a condition that has happened before (assuming that you are referencing the histories of past revolutionary/communist party-led states in your comment).
It's also worth pointing out that suggesting that the state will intentionally destroy itself is substituting an anarchist understanding of the state into Marxism. The state isn't abolishing itself, it is abolishing the capitalist mode of production, which by necessity abolishes the conditions under which the state necessarily and naturally arises in a capitalist world.
I definitely agree with your point here, but I also think that the form of the transition matters a great deal. I often wonder if a future transition to socialism might be served better by focusing on eliminating capitalist class relations as opposed to imposing central control over markets. In other words, a form of market socialism with layers of worker and/or community control over workplaces and the economy, as opposed to a top down state capitalist system. The idea being that as the economic sphere is democratized, decentralized and democratic economic planning would be much easier to implement.
I am not really an expert, but my understanding is the Titoist Yugoslavia looks closer to what you are describing, might be worth researching (for both of us). I'd argue that the options for such a transition to socialism matter greatly on the material conditions that a given society, and while it can be enjoyable to discuss what we think the best way to do so is, being so prescriptive ends up deep in idealism instead of actual analysis of history that can better guide us forward.
Factionalism when we're all such a small part of the total population is insanity.
I don't think it ever will, that's why I am generally an AnCom.
"The main concern of the powers that be that people should continue to be in and uphold the existing system." - Berkman
Biden:
-
Slow the fall of material conditions
-
Much better for minority Americans, not because he'll do something, but because he won't encourage non-state violence
-
Will kick off at least one imperialist war
-
Nation still in crisis in 4 years
-
Democrats will not place a primary challenger, despite Biden having no chance of winning reelection
-
Next president will have similar positions to Trump but will be more competent
Trump:
-
Accelerate
-
Brownshirts are going to kill people
-
Wants imperialist wars, but unable so far to actually execute them
-
Will attempt to end democracy, might succeed
-
If we somehow make it to the next election, the next president will be a New Deal style dem
Revolution:
-
Obviously better
-
Doesn't matter who's president
-
Assuming it's the most likely outcome doesn't absolve you from figuring out the right choice for the potential futures where it doesn't come
I think people really overestimate the extent to which a Biden administration is going to be able to slow down the worldwide crisis of capitalism.
Big time. Biden is a dottering fool who will bring with him the best talent and funding the professional political consultancy circuit has to offer - and still, I think his administration will snap like a twig under the sheer social and economic forces at play here. Everyone seems to think Biden will come in and satiate everyone with faux-progressive rhetoric and modest reforms the way Obama did, but Biden is no Obama, we fell for that trick once already, and the conditions today are entirely worse.
the best talent and funding the professional political consultancy circuit has to offer
Not saying much here. If anyone attracted "the best talent," Obama did, and look how much they managed to fuck up.
But even stagnation would be better then acceleration. Of course, only if you aren't an accellerationist.
Acceleration is only a good idea if you're ready to handle whatever it is you're accelerating towards, and I don't think the left is anywhere near organized enough for that. Things are bad enough that people are being radicalized right now -- radicalizing more people and organizing them under an impotent Biden presidency is probably a better bet than going full fascist and hoping the nascent left can figure it out on the fly.
Yea, I think even stagnating that process would require a Herculean effort, and it's more likely that Biden actively plays into the conditions for further crisis.
I don't think he will lead to anything positive, but personally I take an ineffective fight against global warming, and many billions of dollars, over fighting for more global warming, more deregulations and more cuts. There is no possible positive outcome.
He won't have any affect on the increasing exploitation of the working class and declining conditions as power is shoveled towards capital.
But he's not ideologically opposed to listening to experts, so he'll do better at managing the pandemic, natural disasters, that sort of thing. (And by he, I mostly mean the cabinet and VP that the party selects for him, since he's a senile old man.)
I'm pretty sure this is spam based off some bullshit that I'm not going to pay attention to, but your post made me think about how I actually have no idea what John Kerry's voice sounds like despite being old enough to remember that election pretty clearly.
What if Biden steps down/dies at some point while in office and his VP takes over? You'd have to expect whoever it is would have a better shot at re-election than he would.
Biden's VP is going to have largely the same policy goals as he does, so the labor/capital tension will continue to increase, forcing socialism or barbarism, and it already was bad enough to elect Trump after eight years of Obama.
-
Social democrats (NOT democratic socialists like Evo Morales and José Mujica ) are a betrayal of left wing values and just prolong the existence of capitalism by reducing the contradictions of capitalism and it's effects. FDR is the perfect example of this, despite all the capitalists trying to kill him his "New Deal" policies and welfare state saved the capitalist economy in the USA at the time from collapsing. It's also why a large number of communist farmers at the time hated FDR.
Edit: to make my views more clear, I consider people like Bernie Sanders and AOC at the moment to be social democrats. By Democratic socialists I mean people like Evo Morales and José Mujica.That's why there is that not section in brackets. I'm excluding them from the rest of my critique in my post
I dunno there's an "AOC is very good" post on here right now. Also by Democratic socialists I mean people like Evo Morales and José Mujica, not Bernie Sanders or AOC, they fall into social democrat territory to me.
I get this, but I find it hard to write off the material improvements social democrats bring. Take universal healthcare -- if Bernie won and pushed that through, that would be an enormous, immediate benefit for at least tens of millions of people (if not more). It would also further the argument that similar non-capitalist projects can and do work. In short, there's a ton of good that can be done through social democracy, and I struggle to call anything that does that much good a betrayal of left values. Look at how the standard of living for ordinary Bolivians rose under Morales -- how can that possibly be a betrayal?
My post is in support of people like Morales as he's an actual democratic socialist, which I don't believe is a betrayal of left wing values. I think you misread that part. Oviously material improvements are desirable and should be fought for tooth and nail, but they in no way should be the end goal of an anti capitalist movement. The thing is Bernie did not win at the end of the day and achieve any of those material improvements because he compromised too much with the capitalist class. This is the fatal flaw with social democrats imo, they have a limited usefulness and once it's done they comprise with the capitalist class, as social democrats themselves do not want to overthrow capitalism. Hope that clears things up.
I think you misread that part.
Yeah, I did. Thanks.
The thing is Bernie did not win at the end of the day and achieve any of those material improvements because he compromised too much with the capitalist class.
I don't think this is an accurate reading of why Bernie lost. The #1 reason he lost is that centrist Democrats kneecapped him on the eve of Super Tuesday. Obama called everyone but Biden and Warren and got them to drop out, anointing Biden as the One True Bernie Alternative, and leaving Warren to pull away some of the people who never like any of the centrist options. I don't see how this has anything to do with compromising with the capitalist class.
Well, of course it shouldn't be the end goal. But given that a substantial portion of people in the US unironically believe universal healthcare will be worse than the four pests campaign it's kind of necessary to demonstrate that they've been misled. Then we could possibly go further on the reformist route if we succeed. Who knows, maybe it'll work differently on the imperial core, and work better than last time due to better organizing tools and knowing what happened last time. If it doesn't pan out, it should still radicalize some people. Worked on me.
Showing people that they're being lied to when people tell them that any improvement in working class conditions will cause the downfall of society is extremely useful or arguably outright necessary when a third to a half of the country is balls deep in right wing propaganda.
Yeah that's the usefulness of SocDems, anything further than that and they always crumble as they themselves don't want to overthrow capitalism. Look at how nice Bernie was to the democrats during the whole campaign and how it backfired.
I still think he could have done much better if he didn't tolerate the bullshit bad faith arguments against M4A. "But people like their private insurance!" Not they fucking don't, or maybe they have Stockholm syndrome. "How will we pay for it lol" with taxes dumbass, the plan literally costs less than current total healthcare spending with a generous amount of benefits even by the standards of a civilized country, and also accounting for increased consumption. No need to be nice when you can justifiably call the candidate a liar.
Exactly, but he didn't do that. He also should've quoted the Nelson Mandela "Thier enemies are not our enemies" speech when attacked on Cuba.
No one who is currently in any socialist or communist org will wind up playing any noteworthy role in the coming troubles.
You forgot the leaders being CIA agents bit that happens pretty often.
I would say the organizations themselves might not play a role, but the people could.
let’s say, you’ve been a bad girl. let’s say, hypothetically, you’ve been a naughty girl even. ok, and if you were a naughty girl you would also be my dirty little removed right? then hypothetically speaking you would be my little cumslut. now let’s say that you’re also daddy’s girl.
oh you have definetly have a point about their industries. i am hoping to get there too at some point
Most of the eggs I end up eating are from backyard chickens and the like.
That's the hardest part for me. It's WAY easier to go without beef, chicken and pork than it is to go without cheese. Trying to find recipes that will make good substitutes, but at a certain point I have to accept that potatoes skins, pizza, mac and cheese, cheeseburgers, etc are just not foods I can continue to have.
There are some great recipes on the food community here if you want to try practice.
I'm underweight and don't think it's healthy for me to be restricting my diet too much because of that -- I need any food I get the urge to eat or I'll just lose more weight. I still avoid beef since it's one of the worst for the environment, which I think is a fair compromise.
Obviously I'm not an authority on your health and eating habits but here's my experience. I've been underweight my whole life, I went vegetarian close to a decade ago, then vegan and despite the concerns of my family non of those changes actually affected my weight.
I agree with this take completely. I still eat meat, but the environmental factors make me consider otherwise
I think AOC, Tlaib and Omar are not only good, but are very good. "But they aren't socialists!" - yeah well chocolate long johns aren't socialist, but they are fucking delicious and I'm glad they exist.
Which speaks to my even more unpopular opinion: I think social democracy, while of course is not the end goal, is good. Like, materially improving people's lives via social democracy while at the same time working via direct action and organizing to bring about socialism, is good. I'm not gonna thumb my nose at making the lives of the working class better by pushing for universal healthcare, a strong social safety net, public pensions, and mass unionization.
Which leads me to what is definitely my most unpopular opinion: I get the idea that social democracy only prolongs capitalist exploitation... but I'm not convinced that it absolutely is not one path to socialism, in the right circumstances.
I get the idea that social democracy only prolongs capitalist exploitation… but I’m not convinced that it absolutely is not one path to socialism, in the right circumstances.
The Fabian Society called. They want their 20th century hot take back.
That's a fair point, I'm not sure there's a lot of historical indicators either way. I guess my thought it is, say there was a serious drop in material conditions in say Norway - a drop large enough to potentially foment revolution. Do you think their social democratic setup would push people towards socialism? My gut says yes. Compare that to what we have in the US right now. It seems to me that we are so deeply ingrained with capitalism, that if we have revolutionary conditions here yeah socialism one direction we could go, but a lot others that are even worse.
But this is all admittedly conjecture, I don't really know for sure and thus don't have a particularly strong opinion on it.
I reckon AOC is controlled opposition. They saw the firestorm that was Bernie in 2016 and have been hinging their hopes on a young, bright superstar. It also happened with Obama's meteoric rise. Once she secures some power in the party, she'll begin toeing the party line.
I reckon AOC is controlled opposition.
She just beat out a former CNBC talking head who raised $2 million for a primary election; I find it hard to believe that would happen if AOC was controlled opposition.
Her role is to bring “progressive voters” back into the fold of DNC and continue the cycle of compromising with your political opponents.
You always have to compromise to some degree to get anything done on a national scale. What's bad is making compromise your primary ideological belief, and losing the willingness to maximize the political power you have. But there's a big difference between doing those things and making any sort of compromise, ever.
Her type of “progressives” will be the future of DNC, precisely to prevent a real leftist challenger from disrupting the order of the establishment.
If AOC is the template for the future of the Democratic party, that's an enormous improvement over the current Democratic party even if it falls far short of ending capitalism. And if she keeps working on the issues she's worked on so far, and doesn't just coast on incumbency and drift to the right, that's going to create more space for leftist challengers, not less.
Marijuana legalization is a good example of how this works in practice. At first you had some states experiment with medical marijuana, that cracked open the door for decriminalization, which cracked open the door for legalization, which has led to actual votes (maybe one has passed even) on decriminalizing or legalizing other recreational drugs. This has also pushed the conversation on the national level; recall that we went from Bill Clinton saying he "experimented" with pot but "did not inhale" to at least one major Democratic candidate talking about ending marijuana prohibition in 2020. None of this happens if you shut down the first steps in the right direction on the grounds that they don't go far enough, fast enough.
How do you think America got out of the Great Depression? It was FDR turning the country’s economy from “free market” capitalism into a centrally planned economy during WWII, with much opposition
Wasn't that a compromise, though? He didn't end capitalism (as the left of the time wanted to do) -- he created enough safety nets and job programs to keep it going long enough to recover. And even within the New Deal there were compromises. Part of the reason the New Deal didn't do a whole lot for black people is because to pass it FDR needed the votes of Southern Dixiecrats.
In an era threatened by a climate emergency, anything less radical will not be able to solve or mitigate the devastating effects of climate change.
I absolutely agree that radical solutions are the only thing that can reverse the effects of climate change at this point. But mitigation? Yes, smaller changes can at least help, and they can help quite a bit. Say we do nothing to actually reduce carbon emissions, but we instead open the southern border, offer a fast-track citizenship process, and stop orchestrating coups (at least in the Western Hemisphere). On the scale of potential changes those aren't radical. Hell, Reagan offered amnesty to immigrants in the 1980s. But they'd mitigate the effects climate change will have on an enormous amount of people. If we're talking about material improvements -- and we should be -- isn't the ability to move to a wealthier country and not be treated as a second-class citizen a material improvement? Isn't the ability to build a leftist government in your home country and not have it hamstrung by capitalist opposition a material improvement?
it will prevent radicalization of the US politics and perpetuate the theatrics of “progressives in the house” while people are being denied healthcare
If we wound the clock back to January and replaced every Democratic politician with an AOC clone, Medicare for All would be at the top of the agenda today, just as it was at the top of Bernie's agenda. There would also be a significant climate change plan (the GND) high on the agenda. You might be right that it would prevent radicalization, but you're wrong that it would just be a dog-and-pony show while nothing material changes, because the whole premise here is that we'd be electing people who are genuinely pushing for big solutions to big problems.
We already learned that from Obama, who campaigned as a progressive who will take on Wall Street and give hope to America, and we all know how that turned out.
I don't buy that the existence of one fake progressive means all progressives are similarly fake. Shit, we had progressives prior to Obama who did a better job of walking the walk, so we know that Obama isn't the only option.
Bernie Sanders conceded without getting even a single concession from Biden.
What leverage did he have? What were his other options? Would Biden in any way be obligated to follow through on any concessions?
What makes you think that AOC or other progressives will have the swaying power to resist them?
Again, we're talking about a situation where the establishment is full of politicians like AOC. There's no one to resist.
That's why Omar is the best American politician. She can't be controlled opposition because even the liberals are too racist to really throw support behind a Muslim woman.
Nah, she's a cryptotheological fundamentalist that defends Erdogan. Still love her, but stay wary.
I don't really have a huge issue with their domestic positions being overly moderate, but their support for imperialism is absolutely unacceptable.
Some potentially unpopular opinions I have:
-
Identity and narrative are critically important topics for any left mass movement, and aren't discussed nearly enough in spaces like this. This is especially true considering the current collapse of the establishment cultural narrative, which presents both an opportunity and an enourmous risk . If you've seen Hypernormalisation, than you probably understand what I'm talking about.
-
We don't have nearly enough discussion about our own personal experiences and emotions, and how they relate to how we see the world. It's perfectly normal for these things to influence our views, of course, but I think that if we don't self-analyze and discuss these things, it potentially creates a toxic environment for ourselves and others, and potentially leaves us open to manipulation.
-
Even if it has no chance of succeeding as a means to achieve socialism, electoralism is still useful for the following reasons:
- It provides a platform for organizing and spreading ideas.
- It provides us a way to force a public confrontation with the ruling establishment and expose their hypocrisy in the eyes of the public, as Lenin has talked about.
- It provides a front for more radical elements to do various activities like those I just mentioned, and gives them a sense of public legitimacy they might not otherwise have. This is why you had both IRA and Sinn Fein, PLO and Black September, etc.
-
This might be a bad take, but I think both the US and China are bad. Honestly I really can't believe how some people here dont have the nuance to understand that maybe both countries are bad.
Applying "good" or "bad" labels to any non-revolutionary country is a bad take IMO. China is too large and entrenched in the global status quo to be considered revolutionary and/or good, I think. They just are what they are. I can say with plenty of conviction that even with their drawbacks in their domestic policy, and their non-internationalist "socialism", they are far "better" than the US (not necessarily "good" or "bad" still). The easiest thing to point to is that they don't have 600 foreign military bases
Close enough, but don't say China bad to libs, it's none of their business. If you can't stomach defending it, then just don't say anything at all.
I mostly just say "china did a lot to lift people out of poverty in a relatively short amount of time." And leave it at that.
What about defending China (as an American or Westerner) because the US obviously wants negative sentiment against them so that they can justify several more decades of wars all over the world and is willing to lie and exaggerate to do so? Maybe your defense can at least be against those lies and exaggerations, but perhaps it doesn't need to be a conclusive defense of every one of its flaws? Perhaps we also save the discussion of China's flaws and downsides for when we are with socialist and/or communist comrades, so that we aren't stoking the fires of liberals' complicity with western imperialism?
This is generally the majority of the materialists' approach to the situation, but yes there are some others who will be happy to argue "China good" to the end of time, and you can take that up with them.
We don't want the US to attack China, or any other country while using China as a pretense. Nothing China is doing is worse that US imperialism, not to mention that unless you are a Chinese citizen or a CCP member, you have no material influence on what China is doing except for US/NATO intervention.
I think I was clear that being critical is just fine, but there is a time and a place for it, and you need to bring actual discussion to the table instead of liberal talking points that you caught on John Oliver or CNN or whatever.
Fuck it - I'll admit that I like cars in their most privileged form, in that I like Formula 1.
I just want to watch the most hectic feats of engineering go zoom sometimes
Dude I feel you. I despise what cars did to our cities and quality of life, but I love big yee haw trucks
Don't sweat it too much, I love the Jaguar E-Type and they're like the most "rich Tory wanker in the '60s" thing ever
nobody outside of the imperial core cares about “faphobia” and similar
That doesn't mean you can't still make it important, the rest of it you're just a good Maoist <3
dismantling the imperialist machine is incomparably more important and necessary than M4A
most people are conditioned to be insane narcissists
You're not going to dismantle imperialism unless you can push people in the imperial core to the left. You're not going to push people in the imperial core to the left unless you can demonstrate to them that leftist policies (like M4A) can do something for them.
Sanders’ biggest issue was his shitty foreign policy (read: imperialism)
IIRC Sanders didn't talk much about foreign policy at all.
The problem is it's impossible to talk about because half of everyone who says "idpol" mean "liberal tokenism" and the other half just use it as a cover for hating minorities and you gotta figure out what they mean before it's even worth engaging someone
“The race question is subsidiary to the class question in politics, and to think of imperialism in terms of race is disastrous. But to neglect the racial factor as merely incidental is an error only less grave than to make it fundamental." — CLR James
The stated idea isn't bad, depending on what angle it is it's either (correctly) identifying bigotry as a form of idpol and opposing it alongside More Women Drone Pilots, or opposing the use of More Women Drone Pilots as a substitute for/distraction from class politics, which are both at least somewhat useful ideas.
But instead we get rants about ｂｏｕｒｇｅｏｉｓ ｓｅｘｕａｌｉｔｙ.
