• CyborgMarx [any, any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Burning down that police station was meaningless to the locals, too. It’s just a building. They didn’t dismantle the police department,

    Destroying a police headquarters isn't meaningful? Disrupting police organizational capability isn't meaningful? Destruction of police equipment isn't meaningful? You're operating in vague abstractions, when a community burns a police precinct that’s a signal that possibilities outside electoralism exists and that everyday people are willing to take to the street in defiance of state power, THAT'S MEANINGFUL

    Rainbow coalition entryist bullshit on the otherhand is not meaningful, and that author is a dumbass for trying to sell this shit all over again, as if it was something never attempted, "take over the Democratic party from inside" definitely a bold NEW strategy that's never been tried before, genius

    We saw it collapse last year, and it will collapse again and again, because the Democratic Party doesn't operate around collective politics, its operate on careerist individualism that is disciplined by the donor system and media access politics, you can replace all the dems with socdem DSA members and you still don't get anywhere. Institutions have inertia and momentum and only outside force can shift it to the left

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      vague abstractions

      a signal that possibilities outside electoralism exists

      Vague abstractions are "signals" like this. Meaningful, material change is something like defunding the police.

      We saw it collapse last year, and it will collapse again and again

      Which wave of mass protests are you talking about here?

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Signals generated by material actions like burning down police stations and flipping cars can't be abstract in the same way campaign promises by elected DSA politicians are

        Which wave of mass protests are you talking about here?

        Mass protests don't collapse because people didn't "vote enough", their beaten down, dismantled, and subverted, but each new iteration results in larger protests, faster mobilization, and an expanded pool of experienced agitators, which requires the state to invest MORE resources, MORE manpower, and MORE media propaganda to suppress

        Electoral mass movements on the otherhand all fall apart on their own terms, according to their own inertia, they aren't beaten down or dismantled, they're captured by the state and then used as a bludgeon against Mass protest movements, this is why they're an inherently inferior form of political organization

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Mass protests don’t collapse because people didn’t “vote enough”

          But they do collapse. What they accomplish boils down to what they can pressure elected officials to do. And the response of elected officials is at least partly a function of whether those officials come with the priors of AOC or the priors of Nancy Pelosi.