|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”.
|
On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”.
They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something.
I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing "non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation.
For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful.
The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes.
www.marxists.org
|
On July 09 2024 02:37 RenSC2 wrote:
@oBlade So your thesis is that people have a need for religion and those that reject traditional religions will instead find religion somewhere else? In this case, it would be in leftist politics?
Let's examine that thesis. Many people who reject religion reject it because they try to follow a set of logic that does not allow for dogma. They reject political dogma for the same reason they reject religious dogma. The whole thing about being atheist is that you are a- (against or without) theist (religion). You reject religion in all of its forms.
This presupposes the rationality of man, whereas people who reject religion as a social phenomenon also do so as a trend, because their peers are doing it, to follow a set of rules that lets them dissociate from traditional power structures, to rebel, and without the introspection to equip them more generally to navigate the world with logic and reason. Because it's often fundamentally a movement from without rather than within.
In situations like this, overlaying your own experiences onto others assuming you must be average is a kind of bias by itself. The actual average could be far away from you in either direction.
On July 09 2024 02:37 RenSC2 wrote:
Do some people reject traditional religions but still seek dogmatic principles elsewhere? Sure. Plenty of crazy spiritualists on the left, especially as you go far left. But I'd suspect that if you look at a group of moderate democrats who are mildly religious or atheists, they're much less likely to believe in other dogmas than a religious person who has already proven to believe in one set of dogmas.
That's certainly an argument to be made, I would propose your issue may be a failure to consider that not everything to be believed is a dogma - most things shouldn't be. Or rather, assuming the religious are incapable of realizing that.
Maybe most people are dogma-brained, I would prefer to think they instead have a relatively standard dogma quota, or at least that's what we should reset our social structures to encourage because that's my hunch as to how things were not long ago. Anyway I don't have much insight on how to measure that.
On July 09 2024 02:37 RenSC2 wrote:
I would propose that people who already believe in one set of dogmas will be much easier to convince of another set of dogmas. I'd even say that since people who believe dogmas lack a need for logical consistency, they can also believe two conflicting dogmas at the same time. For example, they can worship a guy who's the embodiment of the 7 deadly sins while proclaiming to follow a religion that is supposed to be against those deadly sins.
I would wager that you don't follow their religion, and therefore the way you judge their behavior is based on the expediency of the context. If you think Drumpf is a bad Christian, then you can blame Christians who vote for him. - This is useful because you don't want them to vote for him presumably because that could cause him to win. - Yet if Christians voted for Billy Graham? Ted Haggard? (I can't be sure who to put here so just substitute who you think fits to see the point) - you would probably still be blaming them. In either case, as long as they are voting for political and not religious reasons, their behavior is essentially correct - because they have successfully compartmentalized and delineated two different spheres of the world, which is exactly what you want in a secular republic like America. Essentially, your criticism only makes sense if we were electing the Pope of America and not the President.
My guess is Christians are not supposed to be arrogant enough to think they are supposed to judge someone in God's place, and while it's true there is more direct religious reference from the right - in the Christian subcategory at least - I find most of it rhetorical and communal ("God bless America") - whereas the stealth fanatic dogmatism from regressives slips under the radar from what it actually is, which is an emergent religion.
On July 09 2024 02:37 RenSC2 wrote:
My thesis would then be that if you can get people to believe one crazy thing (religion), you can get them to believe anything (right wing politics).
Fascinatingly either naive or intentionally reductionist framing. There are certainly many observant Democrats of various religions. They probably have the more balanced share of the Abrahamic faiths between the two major parties. But they are polarized between those and with revolutionary progressives dragging a wing into essentially a state religion, whether knowingly or not, one that's more totalitarian than most spiritual religions knocking about. The way liberals (yes, not all liberals obviously) have disowned relationships and treated Drumpf as the antichrist just strikes me as much more of a religious phenomenon than anything on the right since Obama, and much more widespread than that even.
|
On July 09 2024 02:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 08 2024 14:47 oBlade wrote:On July 08 2024 01:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 07 2024 21:16 oBlade wrote:
[snip]
You seem to easily accept the proposition that one side has a higher propensity for delusion, conspiracy, and groupthink. You may one day have to face the fact that side may be yours. We could talk about why, I personally think it's because the right has religion that the left is the one to search for dogmas elsewhere. They repeatedly lie to your face, and one side's answer is "Please sir, may I have some more," while the other says "Doubt it."
[snip]
Sorry to snip out the rest of your post. Christianity in NA is -fucked-. I would not cite it as an example of a sane, grounding force for one side. For one, Republicans (or, in my case, conservatives) do not have a monopoly on the christian god. It isn't true that liberals don't go to church, nor that conservatives have a unique, spiritual groundedness while liberals are just searching desperately for something to believe in. Most of us went to church growing up and were likely steeled against the church for its obvious preaching of fear and hatred, through exclusion and/or oppression of gays, challenge and avoidance of other religions, and (though rarer in my circles) occasional brimstone "If you do evil you'll go to hell forever!" The church uses fear to control people, uses exegesis to support its marketing strategy (Go visit a Roman Catholic church), and commonly has invasive methods of recruitment. Y'all in the US also came up with mormons and other obviously bullshit denominations. I could go on, but my points are these : There are good community churches and great religious people in the world. However, organized religion in NA is abhorrent, going to church does not mean you're a good person, and if god is real I very much doubt he'd be willing to call half the churches in NA home. Besides all that, arguing that both sides are delusional is GH's job. I'm sure he appreciates the help! You have misunderstood the point, it wasn't that church makes people moral, it's that as your personal anecdote suggests, people who move away from religion - which you have to agree is the left - are those who are more likely to satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere - for example, the political realm. That's why when you look at progressives, you see the symbolism and imagery of sin, worship, devils, and so on, and why the latest generation of communists always sound like a ridiculous cult. Whether a force for good or bad or nothing by itself, it is on average a force of distraction, and it that sense, it has a moderating effect, is my point. I won't beat a dead horse by repeating it if you disagree, but it seemed like you were refuting something other than what I said. Also, there's no reason to try to memeify what people are saying instead of just reading it, especially when one of the people you are memeifying wasn't even in the conversation about this subject. Both sides are literally delusional, or do you think one is immune? Because I'm not going to give all my money to and elect in perpetuity a party, in a country responsible for 13% of anthropocentric emissions, with the promise that they have the ability and competence to change the temperature of the entire planet for me. On July 08 2024 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Chris Murphy (Dem Senator) makes it sound like Democrats are giving Biden the next week to pull out of this with some town halls and press conferences saying "I take him at his word that he can do this" (a bit of paraphrase). "Personally, I love Joe Biden. I don't know that the interview on Friday night did enough to answer those questions, so I think this week is going to be absolutely critical. I think the president needs to do more," Murphy said, referencing the interview Biden did with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.
When asked by Bash if Biden should remain on the Democratic ticket, Murphy didn't concretely affirmatively or negatively answer the question and said, "I take the president at his word. He said that he believes that he is up to do this job...I believe that he can do it. But I think that this is a really critical week, I do think that the clock is ticking." www.newsweek.comSen. Warner seems to be gathering the Dem Senators that would carry the message. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) is attempting to assemble a group of Democratic senators to ask President Biden to exit the presidential race, according to two people with direct knowledge of the effort. www.washingtonpost.com Mark Warner should unironically be on the ticket, he probably remains almost universally liked in Virginia, was 100x better than the weasel Tim Kaine, and is probably the Democrats' most recent competent governor. Fair point on the memeifying. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to knock GH's position - I generally appreciate their contributions and would rather see them have more allies than fewer. It's also unusual to see people other than GH claim that both sides are delusional without a followed 'but one side is MORE delusional', so it felt worth highlighting. That's all. As to the bolded, I literally do not know what you mean by basically any of that. You see the imagery of sin, angels, devils and worship because we're a christocentric culture who swear in on a bible, have "In god we trust" on (y)our money, and "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem. It's part of our culture at large, so I don't see what you're driving at with asserting progressives use religious imagery, nor that modern communists seem like a ridiculous cult. I mean you may personally just be Christocentric which is why you've ironically misunderstood me to have been talking about Christianity specifically when concepts of angels and devils, sin and worship are almost universal. Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned. Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates. There are screeds as would-be prayers. There are commandments and forbidden words. There are talking head priests. There is fawning over idols. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. That comes exactly from both the revolution in China and from Abraham being told to kill Isaac. If any belief system or ideology tried to come between me and my family, I would firstly stop believing it immediately, secondly tell it to fuck off, and then go to war with it if it didn't get the message. Show nested quote +On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
The way you phrase things makes me feel like you believe Christianity should have a monopoly on spiritualism in North America. That's obviously bullshit, and people who 'move away from religion' are likely to 'satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere' by literally believing in other things like science or buddhism or meditation or therapy. They're not 'moving away from religion', they're just moving to different religions and/or beliefs. We are mincing words here, to put it succinctly in your phrasing, I believe spiritualism should have a monopoly on spiritualism. If they are moving to "different beliefs," then they are self-evidently moving away from religion, contrary to your claim that they are not moving away from religion. If, on the other hand, they are moving to different beliefs while simultaneously not moving away from religion, it means they are adopting beliefs that aren't religious as religions, which is another way of stating my entire problem here. People don't realize the extent to which they themselves, and their groups in general, have a social/personal need for dogmas. There is nothing wrong with science, therapy, or politics - except if you adopt them as religions. Then the whole thing goes to shit. Aristotle said "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits." In the case of sports, it's not a huge deal. In the case of fiction, it's not a big deal. People get a little too attached to their hobby, it can be a phase, or anyway not usually a big deal. Although if it were, I'd try to explain that in the US Sports Thread instead. In the case of politics, it's an issue that people have not even thought about how to think. Show nested quote +On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
If your argument boils down to "Well, organized religion vis-a-vis Christianity is a useful tool for the right, because it helps us herd and control our idiots and prevent them from being distracted" then yeah, I can agree. My argument is I don't care if people are religious or not, but you have to be extremely careful about it because cultures have not often moved away from religion WITHOUT consciously making an effort not to simply substitute other systems as religions and then destroying themselves, and this affects the left more because New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left. I do not see any such introspection, consideration, or rationality in the left's haphazard cycling of weird. More than mitigating the right, it has unleashed the left.
I think the assertion that people need religion and will search for something to make a religion in the absence of one, is bizarre. Further, I think that the assertion that specifically 'progressives' uniquely have moved away from religion and, in an uncontrollable urge to fill their need for religion, have instead started to treat their politics as religion is bizarre.
I don't believe you have any clear idea what you're talking about. At least half of what you say is gibberish to the end of "New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left" or "Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems." that you'd have to substantiate with... anything... for it to be meaningful.
We exist in a subculture, here, that is predominantly left. I can describe exactly zero people here as having commonly used religious imagery to describe their political positions. I legitimately do not see, and have not seen, progressives develop analogues for religion in their beliefs. If that is a line of argument you would like to continue, I encourage you to support it with any kind of evidence, or I just continue to be confused and think about that time Roger Stone insisted there was a demon portal to hell above the Biden White House.
I'm also okay with dropping the conversation. At this point, I do not think we'll find common ground. I believe I understand your position - I just find it wholly absurd.
|
On July 08 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2024 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote:
I'm so fucking tired of Democrats man. I can't stand that there's no other valid option. Democrats work hard in coordination with Republicans to make sure there isn't. It helps maintain the delusion that Democrats aren't monstrous themselves (despite the ongoing genocide they believe Biden is engaged in among plenty of other horrific things). But revolutionary socialism is a valid option, despite Democrats and Republicans best efforts to crush it (including, but not limited to, assassination) for decades.
Man just cut the crap.
If Israel wants to kill all arabs in gaza, they are doing a fucking terrible job by telling them to move days ahead before they bomb.
And they do a terrible job by letting in humanitarian aid. And they do a terrible job by allowing international press. And they are doing a terrible job by allowing US Armed forces to airdrop and shore-deliver aid.
Even Russia manages to strike a child cancer hospital once a while.. and for IDF it would be literally shooting fish in a barrel.
But somehow it's all not happening.
I literally can't tell if you absorbed the tankieness so hard, or you are just trolling, but please just reevalute your life at this point.
|
Don't you get it? They can't do it explicitly, because that would dry up their big Benjamins stream real quick.
They need to genocide covertly so that no one (i.e. everyone) can understand what they are actually doing.
It's so easy to paint everything black and white, when in reality, the real things that should be discussed is the ethos by which Israel decides to take out Hamas operatives.
2 terrorists for a children's school... not a good trade imo.
|
On July 09 2024 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On July 09 2024 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 02:09 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2024 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 08 2024 23:23 Velr wrote:
Dunno, start your revolution? Don't know what you think that means, and clearly you don't either. Any successful revolution has to start with people recognizing its necessity and then working together on shaping it and making it happen. I can show horses the water, but I can't make them drink. You would think being on the verge of kneeling to King Trump they'd be more ready, but they've deluded themselves into thinking they'd just vote their way out of his monarchy. If you can’t do a revolution then you need to come up with a better plan. We can do a socialist revolution though. I thought you just said you couldn't make the horse drink? I must've misunderstood the metaphor, because I thought you meant that the US population (or at least, the tl.net corner of that population) is the horse and drinking is the glorious revolution. Correct, you misunderstood the metaphor. We need a socialist revolution to achieve ostensible liberal goals like equity and justice (like a horse needs water). People can show others what that socialist revolution looks like and where it is at (like one can show a horse water). But they can't force the horse to drink (join the socialist revolution). To say we "can't do a revolution" would be to condemn the entire Democrat party and tens of millions of people that don't support either party as hopelessly deluded. Democrats/their supporters may be willing to do that to themselves and countless others, but I'm not.
Not believing in your very, very, very vague socialist revolution makes one hopelessly deluded?
Your Horse/Wather analogy also fails because you don't ever show wather, you just show "not-wather" but never show the way to the actual wather pond and what exactly is in it or how it is any better than "not-wather".
Then you wonder why people think you aren't serious.
|
On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. Show nested quote +The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org
This is a rather tame reimagining of the Marxist socialist revolution. It's fair to do so, but it should be clear that most people when you talk about a socialist revolution, have something more in mind akin to the storming of the bastille or the various slave uprisings around the world. You know, the kind of revolutions Marx himself used as examples of what a revolution looks like. While a "socialist revolution that takes place over generations" would fit into the dialectical materialism he proposed, which makes no reference to time scales, it clearly isn't what he meant with a revolution, nor is it a commonplace use of the word. If you are willing to wait for "generations" for your socialist revolution to come about, then I guess you're on the right track. Of course, by then it'll probably be far too late to resolve any of the urgent issues you think the revolution should solve (e.g. man-made climate change), and you have handily absolved yourself of immediate action by claiming your immediate action is to educate the proletariat on their need for socialist revolution, and there is nothing else you can do (not even attempt to stop the rise of fascism by voting against the fascists, even if the other option is almost as bad and an enabler of the fascists). It's okay, the solution is the same: at some point in the future, the proletariat will get it, and we will all together rise up in glorious revolution! I understand you'd like it all to happen sooner rather than later, but there is nothing you can do to bring it about sooner if the proletariat won't stand with you! But the socialist revolution is still happening right now, even if we are ostensibly sliding into fascism. It just isn't immediately visible (or maybe this is one of those setbacks mentioned in your article?), but its fruit will be born in a few generations. Just gotta have patience...
Maybe you should rebrand yourself as a "socialist evolutionist", because evolution is what's supposed to happen over generations.
Honestly, I'm starting to see oBlade's point about (blind) faith in politics, despite dismissing it as absolute drivel mumbojumbo nonsense, there might be a gem of truth in it, if you can believe a socialist revolution is happening while your country slides into fascism.
|
A lot of people here like to pile on GH for not doing enough for the socialist revolution that he supposedly supports, so as a counter point, I'd like to ask:
What are you doing about the issues that plague your government & political system? If the comments in this thread are to be taken at face value, the only way to prevent a Trumpist dictatorship from here on out is by always voting for the Dems no matter what, which essentially makes the US a one-party state with the added bonus of extra fractured governance and the potential to become a full on fascist dictatorship should the chosen party end up losing an election in an increasingly rigged and broken electoral system; are you all okay with this, and believe this to be acceptable, or do you perhaps believe that at some point in future the ship will be righted -- and if so, how and why do you think that might happen -- and what are you doing to help things move in that direction?
|
On July 09 2024 14:21 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 02:46 oBlade wrote:On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 08 2024 14:47 oBlade wrote:On July 08 2024 01:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 07 2024 21:16 oBlade wrote:
[snip]
You seem to easily accept the proposition that one side has a higher propensity for delusion, conspiracy, and groupthink. You may one day have to face the fact that side may be yours. We could talk about why, I personally think it's because the right has religion that the left is the one to search for dogmas elsewhere. They repeatedly lie to your face, and one side's answer is "Please sir, may I have some more," while the other says "Doubt it."
[snip]
Sorry to snip out the rest of your post. Christianity in NA is -fucked-. I would not cite it as an example of a sane, grounding force for one side. For one, Republicans (or, in my case, conservatives) do not have a monopoly on the christian god. It isn't true that liberals don't go to church, nor that conservatives have a unique, spiritual groundedness while liberals are just searching desperately for something to believe in. Most of us went to church growing up and were likely steeled against the church for its obvious preaching of fear and hatred, through exclusion and/or oppression of gays, challenge and avoidance of other religions, and (though rarer in my circles) occasional brimstone "If you do evil you'll go to hell forever!" The church uses fear to control people, uses exegesis to support its marketing strategy (Go visit a Roman Catholic church), and commonly has invasive methods of recruitment. Y'all in the US also came up with mormons and other obviously bullshit denominations. I could go on, but my points are these : There are good community churches and great religious people in the world. However, organized religion in NA is abhorrent, going to church does not mean you're a good person, and if god is real I very much doubt he'd be willing to call half the churches in NA home. Besides all that, arguing that both sides are delusional is GH's job. I'm sure he appreciates the help! You have misunderstood the point, it wasn't that church makes people moral, it's that as your personal anecdote suggests, people who move away from religion - which you have to agree is the left - are those who are more likely to satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere - for example, the political realm. That's why when you look at progressives, you see the symbolism and imagery of sin, worship, devils, and so on, and why the latest generation of communists always sound like a ridiculous cult. Whether a force for good or bad or nothing by itself, it is on average a force of distraction, and it that sense, it has a moderating effect, is my point. I won't beat a dead horse by repeating it if you disagree, but it seemed like you were refuting something other than what I said. Also, there's no reason to try to memeify what people are saying instead of just reading it, especially when one of the people you are memeifying wasn't even in the conversation about this subject. Both sides are literally delusional, or do you think one is immune? Because I'm not going to give all my money to and elect in perpetuity a party, in a country responsible for 13% of anthropocentric emissions, with the promise that they have the ability and competence to change the temperature of the entire planet for me. On July 08 2024 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Chris Murphy (Dem Senator) makes it sound like Democrats are giving Biden the next week to pull out of this with some town halls and press conferences saying "I take him at his word that he can do this" (a bit of paraphrase). "Personally, I love Joe Biden. I don't know that the interview on Friday night did enough to answer those questions, so I think this week is going to be absolutely critical. I think the president needs to do more," Murphy said, referencing the interview Biden did with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.
When asked by Bash if Biden should remain on the Democratic ticket, Murphy didn't concretely affirmatively or negatively answer the question and said, "I take the president at his word. He said that he believes that he is up to do this job...I believe that he can do it. But I think that this is a really critical week, I do think that the clock is ticking." www.newsweek.comSen. Warner seems to be gathering the Dem Senators that would carry the message. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) is attempting to assemble a group of Democratic senators to ask President Biden to exit the presidential race, according to two people with direct knowledge of the effort. www.washingtonpost.com Mark Warner should unironically be on the ticket, he probably remains almost universally liked in Virginia, was 100x better than the weasel Tim Kaine, and is probably the Democrats' most recent competent governor. Fair point on the memeifying. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to knock GH's position - I generally appreciate their contributions and would rather see them have more allies than fewer. It's also unusual to see people other than GH claim that both sides are delusional without a followed 'but one side is MORE delusional', so it felt worth highlighting. That's all. As to the bolded, I literally do not know what you mean by basically any of that. You see the imagery of sin, angels, devils and worship because we're a christocentric culture who swear in on a bible, have "In god we trust" on (y)our money, and "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem. It's part of our culture at large, so I don't see what you're driving at with asserting progressives use religious imagery, nor that modern communists seem like a ridiculous cult. I mean you may personally just be Christocentric which is why you've ironically misunderstood me to have been talking about Christianity specifically when concepts of angels and devils, sin and worship are almost universal. Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned. Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates. There are screeds as would-be prayers. There are commandments and forbidden words. There are talking head priests. There is fawning over idols. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. That comes exactly from both the revolution in China and from Abraham being told to kill Isaac. If any belief system or ideology tried to come between me and my family, I would firstly stop believing it immediately, secondly tell it to fuck off, and then go to war with it if it didn't get the message. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
The way you phrase things makes me feel like you believe Christianity should have a monopoly on spiritualism in North America. That's obviously bullshit, and people who 'move away from religion' are likely to 'satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere' by literally believing in other things like science or buddhism or meditation or therapy. They're not 'moving away from religion', they're just moving to different religions and/or beliefs. We are mincing words here, to put it succinctly in your phrasing, I believe spiritualism should have a monopoly on spiritualism. If they are moving to "different beliefs," then they are self-evidently moving away from religion, contrary to your claim that they are not moving away from religion. If, on the other hand, they are moving to different beliefs while simultaneously not moving away from religion, it means they are adopting beliefs that aren't religious as religions, which is another way of stating my entire problem here. People don't realize the extent to which they themselves, and their groups in general, have a social/personal need for dogmas. There is nothing wrong with science, therapy, or politics - except if you adopt them as religions. Then the whole thing goes to shit. Aristotle said "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits." In the case of sports, it's not a huge deal. In the case of fiction, it's not a big deal. People get a little too attached to their hobby, it can be a phase, or anyway not usually a big deal. Although if it were, I'd try to explain that in the US Sports Thread instead. In the case of politics, it's an issue that people have not even thought about how to think. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
If your argument boils down to "Well, organized religion vis-a-vis Christianity is a useful tool for the right, because it helps us herd and control our idiots and prevent them from being distracted" then yeah, I can agree. My argument is I don't care if people are religious or not, but you have to be extremely careful about it because cultures have not often moved away from religion WITHOUT consciously making an effort not to simply substitute other systems as religions and then destroying themselves, and this affects the left more because New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left. I do not see any such introspection, consideration, or rationality in the left's haphazard cycling of weird. More than mitigating the right, it has unleashed the left. I think the assertion that people need religion and will search for something to make a religion in the absence of one, is bizarre. Further, I think that the assertion that specifically 'progressives' uniquely have moved away from religion and, in an uncontrollable urge to fill their need for religion, have instead started to treat their politics as religion is bizarre. I don't believe you have any clear idea what you're talking about. At least half of what you say is gibberish to the end of "New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left" or "Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems." that you'd have to substantiate with... anything... for it to be meaningful. We exist in a subculture, here, that is predominantly left. I can describe exactly zero people here as having commonly used religious imagery to describe their political positions. I legitimately do not see, and have not seen, progressives develop analogues for religion in their beliefs. If that is a line of argument you would like to continue, I encourage you to support it with any kind of evidence, or I just continue to be confused and think about that time Roger Stone insisted there was a demon portal to hell above the Biden White House. I'm also okay with dropping the conversation. At this point, I do not think we'll find common ground. I believe I understand your position - I just find it wholly absurd.
You haven't understood it if you think it's necessary for someone to self-describe their belief system as a religion for it to be one, when most of my point is the problem with the lack of skepticism among progressives now, and their uncritical deference to suspect authority, is that they are unknowingly substituting beliefs that aren't originally religions, for religions, by adopting them as quasi-religions that fill the psychological role of religion in their life without being explicitly labeled as such, and without people other than outsiders realizing it - which is the main problem.
You are stuck on something literal about Christianity it seems, maybe because I said imagery once, when what I'm talking about is an issue of psychology. I am not saying people literally put their hands together and pray to Biden calling him Gabriel, call Trump Lucifer, say illegal immigration is a way to take poor people to St. Peter, or that we need to part the Rio Grande the way Moses parted the Red Sea, etc, which while my examples might be a bit facetious is similar to what I think you're assuming the criteria must be. Those would anyway just be rhetorical devices. Like it's not religious to say "bless you" after someone sneezes.
I put an entire paragraph of evidence, either you missed it or didn't get it, I'll be more explicit instead of esoteric:
Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin - affirmative action and DEI presuppose Jews, Asians, and whites are guilty of something. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned - What if unrestricted immigration isn't good? How was a lab leak debunked by the entire news media the DAY AFTER the pandemic was identified? How did the same media prove 2020 was the most secure election in history on November 4th? Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates - look at the word salad of insults that get sent to anyone suspected of being "far" right - racist, sexist, fascist, bigoted, xenophobe, extremist. There are screeds as would-be prayers ("black lives matter, from the river to the sea, no human being is illegal"). There are commandments and forbidden words ("illegal immigrant"). There are rituals - confess to your privilege. Kneel during the football song. There are talking head priests - The Stelters and Scarboroughs and Maddows of the world will tell you one thing on Tuesday and the opposite on Wednesday. Where do their sermons come from? Anyone in the style of "No Lie" with Brian Tyler Cohen, is both filling the role of a priest, and lying. There is fawning over idols - Watch any TV comedian lick this administration's boots. There is a vague notion of a rapture/end of days/second coming sometime in the future, when the revolution finally happens and the exalted get raptured to power and everyone else get shot. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. Usually a parent transgresses a progressive rule. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. People report coworkers for wrongthink. The commander of Space Force even lost his career for disrespecting the political canons. Literally people have bragged about tattling to the FBI that their relative went to the Capitol, and they've now had to fight a BS charge for 3 years that the Supreme Court is finally ruling the obstruction charges were not warranted.
I definitely am conscious of the fact I do not want to be someone repeating myself ad nauseam because there's no truth in repetition. I can't be much clearer than the above, though, without sacrificing too much of my style to make it worthwhile. If you see where I'm coming from, and have any further comparison or perspective (for example, whenever I check up on politics, I'm almost guaranteed to hear about the "cult" of Drumpf and his cultists) - enlighten me.
And you have the cause and effect backwards. I am not saying "these pathetic heathens abandoned God and replaced him with communism." I don't care if people follow or believe any religion or not. It was only after seeing this behavior that I started to suspect people seem to be filling a psycho/social gap they didn't know they had, without realizing it, with the wrong kind of beliefs. Not because communism is wrong, again I don't care about communism here per se, but consciously or not, following communism as a religion is as mismatched as using religion as politics - for a functioning republic.
|
On July 09 2024 18:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org This is a rather tame reimagining of the Marxist socialist revolution. It's fair to do so, but it should be clear that most people when you talk about a socialist revolution, have something more in mind akin to the storming of the bastille or the various slave uprisings around the world. You know, the kind of revolutions Marx himself used as examples of what a revolution looks like. While a "socialist revolution that takes place over generations" would fit into the dialectical materialism he proposed, which makes no reference to time scales, it clearly isn't what he meant with a revolution, nor is it a commonplace use of the word. If you are willing to wait for "generations" for your socialist revolution to come about, then I guess you're on the right track. Of course, by then it'll probably be far too late to resolve any of the urgent issues you think the revolution should solve (e.g. man-made climate change), and you have handily absolved yourself of immediate action by claiming your immediate action is to educate the proletariat on their need for socialist revolution, and there is nothing else you can do (not even attempt to stop the rise of fascism by voting against the fascists, even if the other option is almost as bad and an enabler of the fascists). It's okay, the solution is the same: at some point in the future, the proletariat will get it, and we will all together rise up in glorious revolution! I understand you'd like it all to happen sooner rather than later, but there is nothing you can do to bring it about sooner if the proletariat won't stand with you! But the socialist revolution is still happening right now, even if we are ostensibly sliding into fascism. It just isn't immediately visible (or maybe this is one of those setbacks mentioned in your article?), but its fruit will be born in a few generations. Just gotta have patience... Maybe you should rebrand yourself as a "socialist evolutionist", because evolution is what's supposed to happen over generations. Honestly, I'm starting to see oBlade's point about (blind) faith in politics, despite dismissing it as absolute drivel mumbojumbo nonsense, there might be a gem of truth in it, if you can believe a socialist revolution is happening while your country slides into fascism.
People have already been working at it against the best efforts of libs to destroy them for generations. The piece itself is ~70 years old. It came out ~6 months into what ended up being a nearly 20 year Vietnam war. Vietnam fits both the "generational struggle" and the more "storming of the bastille" understanding of socialist revolution as would a socialist revolution in the US.
Libs are a major impediment to socialist revolution in the US despite it being the only way to achieve their ostensible goals of equity and justice. They also would prefer to live under King Trump than revolt.
The hope is, presented with the choice between fascism and socialist revolution "progressive" libs would pick revolution. Unfortunately it seems the indoctrination is too strong and they are choosing fascism under King Trump while doing anything in their power to make it appear that doing so is the only rational option.
The US is being confronted with fascism and libs are choosing complicity à la Niemöller/Hindenburg. It won't end well and they are just about out of time to recognize it.
|
Hi oBlade, I'm mostly a lurker on this forum but your examples intrigued me in your post.
I'm confused and saddened by the fact that "no human being is illegal" that I thought sincerely is a normal, valid, sane position looks more likely a screed or would-be prayer to you. This is a simple statement which I would hope can be accepted by all. (I mean isn't this the same message religious people take vs. abortion as well?)
Could you give me a counter example on a sentence that you think is just normal, secular, non-religious way to express something similar? If I say some human being could be illegal, is that the non-cult position to take?
I'm genuinely curious and just thought to ask for clarification.
|
GH, I hate to say it. In recent weeks your posts have sounded all doom and gloom but without anything substantial to back it up. Trump has huge obstacles to overcome if he wants to turn America fascist. He's up against a mountain of pushback.
You're constantly predicting that it'll happen, but you're not looking at the actual mechanics of it. Just saying "Trump can do it, so he will" is not enough. You have to prove that he can (realistically!) do it, you can't just claim that he has everything laid out in front of him (in a purely theoretical manner). You have to prove that he can do it in reality, not just in an obscure one in a billion fantasy scenario.
|
On July 09 2024 20:34 Magic Powers wrote:
GH, I hate to say it. In recent weeks your posts have sounded all doom and gloom but without anything substantial to back it up. Trump has huge obstacles to overcome if he wants to turn America fascist. He's up against a mountain of pushback.
You're constantly predicting that it'll happen, but you're not looking at the actual mechanics of it. Just saying "Trump can do it, so he will" is not enough. You have to prove that he can (realistically!) do it, you can't just claim that he has everything laid out in front of him (in a purely theoretical manner). You have to prove that he can do it in reality, not just in an obscure one in a billion fantasy scenario.
The idea that Trump will be a fascist King/Dictator that irreparably destroys democracy if he wins comes from Democrats/Biden campaign messaging and Supreme Court Justices, so who would I be proving it to?
|
On July 09 2024 19:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 14:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 09 2024 02:46 oBlade wrote:On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 08 2024 14:47 oBlade wrote:On July 08 2024 01:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 07 2024 21:16 oBlade wrote:
[snip]
You seem to easily accept the proposition that one side has a higher propensity for delusion, conspiracy, and groupthink. You may one day have to face the fact that side may be yours. We could talk about why, I personally think it's because the right has religion that the left is the one to search for dogmas elsewhere. They repeatedly lie to your face, and one side's answer is "Please sir, may I have some more," while the other says "Doubt it."
[snip]
Sorry to snip out the rest of your post. Christianity in NA is -fucked-. I would not cite it as an example of a sane, grounding force for one side. For one, Republicans (or, in my case, conservatives) do not have a monopoly on the christian god. It isn't true that liberals don't go to church, nor that conservatives have a unique, spiritual groundedness while liberals are just searching desperately for something to believe in. Most of us went to church growing up and were likely steeled against the church for its obvious preaching of fear and hatred, through exclusion and/or oppression of gays, challenge and avoidance of other religions, and (though rarer in my circles) occasional brimstone "If you do evil you'll go to hell forever!" The church uses fear to control people, uses exegesis to support its marketing strategy (Go visit a Roman Catholic church), and commonly has invasive methods of recruitment. Y'all in the US also came up with mormons and other obviously bullshit denominations. I could go on, but my points are these : There are good community churches and great religious people in the world. However, organized religion in NA is abhorrent, going to church does not mean you're a good person, and if god is real I very much doubt he'd be willing to call half the churches in NA home. Besides all that, arguing that both sides are delusional is GH's job. I'm sure he appreciates the help! You have misunderstood the point, it wasn't that church makes people moral, it's that as your personal anecdote suggests, people who move away from religion - which you have to agree is the left - are those who are more likely to satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere - for example, the political realm. That's why when you look at progressives, you see the symbolism and imagery of sin, worship, devils, and so on, and why the latest generation of communists always sound like a ridiculous cult. Whether a force for good or bad or nothing by itself, it is on average a force of distraction, and it that sense, it has a moderating effect, is my point. I won't beat a dead horse by repeating it if you disagree, but it seemed like you were refuting something other than what I said. Also, there's no reason to try to memeify what people are saying instead of just reading it, especially when one of the people you are memeifying wasn't even in the conversation about this subject. Both sides are literally delusional, or do you think one is immune? Because I'm not going to give all my money to and elect in perpetuity a party, in a country responsible for 13% of anthropocentric emissions, with the promise that they have the ability and competence to change the temperature of the entire planet for me. On July 08 2024 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Chris Murphy (Dem Senator) makes it sound like Democrats are giving Biden the next week to pull out of this with some town halls and press conferences saying "I take him at his word that he can do this" (a bit of paraphrase). "Personally, I love Joe Biden. I don't know that the interview on Friday night did enough to answer those questions, so I think this week is going to be absolutely critical. I think the president needs to do more," Murphy said, referencing the interview Biden did with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.
When asked by Bash if Biden should remain on the Democratic ticket, Murphy didn't concretely affirmatively or negatively answer the question and said, "I take the president at his word. He said that he believes that he is up to do this job...I believe that he can do it. But I think that this is a really critical week, I do think that the clock is ticking." www.newsweek.comSen. Warner seems to be gathering the Dem Senators that would carry the message. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) is attempting to assemble a group of Democratic senators to ask President Biden to exit the presidential race, according to two people with direct knowledge of the effort. www.washingtonpost.com Mark Warner should unironically be on the ticket, he probably remains almost universally liked in Virginia, was 100x better than the weasel Tim Kaine, and is probably the Democrats' most recent competent governor. Fair point on the memeifying. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to knock GH's position - I generally appreciate their contributions and would rather see them have more allies than fewer. It's also unusual to see people other than GH claim that both sides are delusional without a followed 'but one side is MORE delusional', so it felt worth highlighting. That's all. As to the bolded, I literally do not know what you mean by basically any of that. You see the imagery of sin, angels, devils and worship because we're a christocentric culture who swear in on a bible, have "In god we trust" on (y)our money, and "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem. It's part of our culture at large, so I don't see what you're driving at with asserting progressives use religious imagery, nor that modern communists seem like a ridiculous cult. I mean you may personally just be Christocentric which is why you've ironically misunderstood me to have been talking about Christianity specifically when concepts of angels and devils, sin and worship are almost universal. Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned. Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates. There are screeds as would-be prayers. There are commandments and forbidden words. There are talking head priests. There is fawning over idols. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. That comes exactly from both the revolution in China and from Abraham being told to kill Isaac. If any belief system or ideology tried to come between me and my family, I would firstly stop believing it immediately, secondly tell it to fuck off, and then go to war with it if it didn't get the message. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
The way you phrase things makes me feel like you believe Christianity should have a monopoly on spiritualism in North America. That's obviously bullshit, and people who 'move away from religion' are likely to 'satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere' by literally believing in other things like science or buddhism or meditation or therapy. They're not 'moving away from religion', they're just moving to different religions and/or beliefs. We are mincing words here, to put it succinctly in your phrasing, I believe spiritualism should have a monopoly on spiritualism. If they are moving to "different beliefs," then they are self-evidently moving away from religion, contrary to your claim that they are not moving away from religion. If, on the other hand, they are moving to different beliefs while simultaneously not moving away from religion, it means they are adopting beliefs that aren't religious as religions, which is another way of stating my entire problem here. People don't realize the extent to which they themselves, and their groups in general, have a social/personal need for dogmas. There is nothing wrong with science, therapy, or politics - except if you adopt them as religions. Then the whole thing goes to shit. Aristotle said "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits." In the case of sports, it's not a huge deal. In the case of fiction, it's not a big deal. People get a little too attached to their hobby, it can be a phase, or anyway not usually a big deal. Although if it were, I'd try to explain that in the US Sports Thread instead. In the case of politics, it's an issue that people have not even thought about how to think. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
If your argument boils down to "Well, organized religion vis-a-vis Christianity is a useful tool for the right, because it helps us herd and control our idiots and prevent them from being distracted" then yeah, I can agree. My argument is I don't care if people are religious or not, but you have to be extremely careful about it because cultures have not often moved away from religion WITHOUT consciously making an effort not to simply substitute other systems as religions and then destroying themselves, and this affects the left more because New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left. I do not see any such introspection, consideration, or rationality in the left's haphazard cycling of weird. More than mitigating the right, it has unleashed the left. I think the assertion that people need religion and will search for something to make a religion in the absence of one, is bizarre. Further, I think that the assertion that specifically 'progressives' uniquely have moved away from religion and, in an uncontrollable urge to fill their need for religion, have instead started to treat their politics as religion is bizarre. I don't believe you have any clear idea what you're talking about. At least half of what you say is gibberish to the end of "New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left" or "Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems." that you'd have to substantiate with... anything... for it to be meaningful. We exist in a subculture, here, that is predominantly left. I can describe exactly zero people here as having commonly used religious imagery to describe their political positions. I legitimately do not see, and have not seen, progressives develop analogues for religion in their beliefs. If that is a line of argument you would like to continue, I encourage you to support it with any kind of evidence, or I just continue to be confused and think about that time Roger Stone insisted there was a demon portal to hell above the Biden White House. I'm also okay with dropping the conversation. At this point, I do not think we'll find common ground. I believe I understand your position - I just find it wholly absurd. You haven't understood it if you think it's necessary for someone to self-describe their belief system as a religion for it to be one, when most of my point is the problem with the lack of skepticism among progressives now, and their uncritical deference to suspect authority, is that they are unknowingly substituting beliefs that aren't originally religions, for religions, by adopting them as quasi-religions that fill the psychological role of religion in their life without being explicitly labeled as such, and without people other than outsiders realizing it - which is the main problem. You are stuck on something literal about Christianity it seems, maybe because I said imagery once, when what I'm talking about is an issue of psychology. I am not saying people literally put their hands together and pray to Biden calling him Gabriel, call Trump Lucifer, say illegal immigration is a way to take poor people to St. Peter, or that we need to part the Rio Grande the way Moses parted the Red Sea, etc, which while my examples might be a bit facetious is similar to what I think you're assuming the criteria must be. Those would anyway just be rhetorical devices. Like it's not religious to say "bless you" after someone sneezes. I put an entire paragraph of evidence, either you missed it or didn't get it, I'll be more explicit instead of esoteric: Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin - affirmative action and DEI presuppose Jews, Asians, and whites are guilty of something. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned - What if unrestricted immigration isn't good? How was a lab leak debunked by the entire news media the DAY AFTER the pandemic was identified? How did the same media prove 2020 was the most secure election in history on November 4th? Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates - look at the word salad of insults that get sent to anyone suspected of being "far" right - racist, sexist, fascist, bigoted, xenophobe, extremist. There are screeds as would-be prayers ("black lives matter, from the river to the sea, no human being is illegal"). There are commandments and forbidden words ("illegal immigrant"). There are rituals - confess to your privilege. Kneel during the football song. There are talking head priests - The Stelters and Scarboroughs and Maddows of the world will tell you one thing on Tuesday and the opposite on Wednesday. Where do their sermons come from? Anyone in the style of "No Lie" with Brian Tyler Cohen, is both filling the role of a priest, and lying. There is fawning over idols - Watch any TV comedian lick this administration's boots. There is a vague notion of a rapture/end of days/second coming sometime in the future, when the revolution finally happens and the exalted get raptured to power and everyone else get shot. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. Usually a parent transgresses a progressive rule. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. People report coworkers for wrongthink. The commander of Space Force even lost his career for disrespecting the political canons. Literally people have bragged about tattling to the FBI that their relative went to the Capitol, and they've now had to fight a BS charge for 3 years that the Supreme Court is finally ruling the obstruction charges were not warranted. I definitely am conscious of the fact I do not want to be someone repeating myself ad nauseam because there's no truth in repetition. I can't be much clearer than the above, though, without sacrificing too much of my style to make it worthwhile. If you see where I'm coming from, and have any further comparison or perspective (for example, whenever I check up on politics, I'm almost guaranteed to hear about the "cult" of Drumpf and his cultists) - enlighten me. And you have the cause and effect backwards. I am not saying "these pathetic heathens abandoned God and replaced him with communism." I don't care if people follow or believe any religion or not. It was only after seeing this behavior that I started to suspect people seem to be filling a psycho/social gap they didn't know they had, without realizing it, with the wrong kind of beliefs. Not because communism is wrong, again I don't care about communism here per se, but consciously or not, following communism as a religion is as mismatched as using religion as politics - for a functioning republic.
Dude, you are insane. You believe that religion is central and cannot accept that some people don't have a religion, so you are fanatically trying to project something that fits your "religion" concept onto them so you can say something like "See, they are religious too, they just don't call it religion".
You also neatly construct a fame where people who disagree with your weird conspiracy theories don't do so because you are wrong, they are just pseudo "religious". You then proceed to strawmen the hell out of basically everything said or done by people who don't agree with you.
The beliefs which "cannot be questioned" are insane strawmen that people have told you time and time again no one actually beliefs. I'll just go for the first few:
"What if unrestricted immigration isn't good?" No one is speaking about unrestricted immigration. No one ever did (in a modern context). Rightwing people (like you) assume that that is what leftwing people want and are saying, and refuse to ever accept that they are incorrect in that.
"How was a lab leak debunked by the entire news media the DAY AFTER the pandemic was identified?" The fuck are you talking about? You seem to be utterly lost. The only thing even remotely close to this was people saying things like "We currently have no reason to believe the disease leaked from a lab".
"How did the same media prove 2020 was the most secure election in history on November 4th?" Another the fuck are you talking about?
Your hypothesis sounds thought up by someone who is caught absurdly deep in some strange rightwing crazypeople filter bubble and only has a very vague idea of how actual humans outside of that bubble act. It could also be the kind of thing thought up by an alien from outer space who tries their very hardest to understand humans, but the whole thing doesn't really fit to humans at all.
|
United States41971 Posts
On July 09 2024 20:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 18:03 Acrofales wrote:On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org This is a rather tame reimagining of the Marxist socialist revolution. It's fair to do so, but it should be clear that most people when you talk about a socialist revolution, have something more in mind akin to the storming of the bastille or the various slave uprisings around the world. You know, the kind of revolutions Marx himself used as examples of what a revolution looks like. While a "socialist revolution that takes place over generations" would fit into the dialectical materialism he proposed, which makes no reference to time scales, it clearly isn't what he meant with a revolution, nor is it a commonplace use of the word. If you are willing to wait for "generations" for your socialist revolution to come about, then I guess you're on the right track. Of course, by then it'll probably be far too late to resolve any of the urgent issues you think the revolution should solve (e.g. man-made climate change), and you have handily absolved yourself of immediate action by claiming your immediate action is to educate the proletariat on their need for socialist revolution, and there is nothing else you can do (not even attempt to stop the rise of fascism by voting against the fascists, even if the other option is almost as bad and an enabler of the fascists). It's okay, the solution is the same: at some point in the future, the proletariat will get it, and we will all together rise up in glorious revolution! I understand you'd like it all to happen sooner rather than later, but there is nothing you can do to bring it about sooner if the proletariat won't stand with you! But the socialist revolution is still happening right now, even if we are ostensibly sliding into fascism. It just isn't immediately visible (or maybe this is one of those setbacks mentioned in your article?), but its fruit will be born in a few generations. Just gotta have patience... Maybe you should rebrand yourself as a "socialist evolutionist", because evolution is what's supposed to happen over generations. Honestly, I'm starting to see oBlade's point about (blind) faith in politics, despite dismissing it as absolute drivel mumbojumbo nonsense, there might be a gem of truth in it, if you can believe a socialist revolution is happening while your country slides into fascism. People have already been working at it against the best efforts of libs to destroy them for generations. The piece itself is ~70 years old. It came out ~6 months into what ended up being a nearly 20 year Vietnam war. Vietnam fits both the "generational struggle" and the more "storming of the bastille" understanding of socialist revolution as would a socialist revolution in the US. Libs are a major impediment to socialist revolution in the US despite it being the only way to achieve their ostensible goals of equity and justice. They also would prefer to live under King Trump than revolt. The hope is, presented with the choice between fascism and socialist revolution "progressive" libs would pick revolution. Unfortunately it seems the indoctrination is too strong and they are choosing fascism under King Trump while doing anything in their power to make it appear that doing so is the only rational option. The US is being confronted with fascism and libs are choosing complicity à la Niemöller/Hindenburg. It won't end well and they are just about out of time to recognize it.
If libs would rather live under king trump than revolt and you’re never going to actually revolt then what does that make you?
|
On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 20:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 18:03 Acrofales wrote:On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org This is a rather tame reimagining of the Marxist socialist revolution. It's fair to do so, but it should be clear that most people when you talk about a socialist revolution, have something more in mind akin to the storming of the bastille or the various slave uprisings around the world. You know, the kind of revolutions Marx himself used as examples of what a revolution looks like. While a "socialist revolution that takes place over generations" would fit into the dialectical materialism he proposed, which makes no reference to time scales, it clearly isn't what he meant with a revolution, nor is it a commonplace use of the word. If you are willing to wait for "generations" for your socialist revolution to come about, then I guess you're on the right track. Of course, by then it'll probably be far too late to resolve any of the urgent issues you think the revolution should solve (e.g. man-made climate change), and you have handily absolved yourself of immediate action by claiming your immediate action is to educate the proletariat on their need for socialist revolution, and there is nothing else you can do (not even attempt to stop the rise of fascism by voting against the fascists, even if the other option is almost as bad and an enabler of the fascists). It's okay, the solution is the same: at some point in the future, the proletariat will get it, and we will all together rise up in glorious revolution! I understand you'd like it all to happen sooner rather than later, but there is nothing you can do to bring it about sooner if the proletariat won't stand with you! But the socialist revolution is still happening right now, even if we are ostensibly sliding into fascism. It just isn't immediately visible (or maybe this is one of those setbacks mentioned in your article?), but its fruit will be born in a few generations. Just gotta have patience... Maybe you should rebrand yourself as a "socialist evolutionist", because evolution is what's supposed to happen over generations. Honestly, I'm starting to see oBlade's point about (blind) faith in politics, despite dismissing it as absolute drivel mumbojumbo nonsense, there might be a gem of truth in it, if you can believe a socialist revolution is happening while your country slides into fascism. People have already been working at it against the best efforts of libs to destroy them for generations. The piece itself is ~70 years old. It came out ~6 months into what ended up being a nearly 20 year Vietnam war. Vietnam fits both the "generational struggle" and the more "storming of the bastille" understanding of socialist revolution as would a socialist revolution in the US. Libs are a major impediment to socialist revolution in the US despite it being the only way to achieve their ostensible goals of equity and justice. They also would prefer to live under King Trump than revolt. The hope is, presented with the choice between fascism and socialist revolution "progressive" libs would pick revolution. Unfortunately it seems the indoctrination is too strong and they are choosing fascism under King Trump while doing anything in their power to make it appear that doing so is the only rational option. The US is being confronted with fascism and libs are choosing complicity à la Niemöller/Hindenburg. It won't end well and they are just about out of time to recognize it. If libs would rather live under king trump than revolt and you’re never going to actually revolt then what does that make you? One of the socialists they'll foolishly watch get "came for", if they don't report me themselves out of self-destructive spite.
As far as Democrats are concerned, me not voting Biden in a deep blue state is already revolt, so... /shrug
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23785 Posts
On July 09 2024 20:34 Magic Powers wrote:
GH, I hate to say it. In recent weeks your posts have sounded all doom and gloom but without anything substantial to back it up. Trump has huge obstacles to overcome if he wants to turn America fascist. He's up against a mountain of pushback.
You're constantly predicting that it'll happen, but you're not looking at the actual mechanics of it. Just saying "Trump can do it, so he will" is not enough. You have to prove that he can (realistically!) do it, you can't just claim that he has everything laid out in front of him (in a purely theoretical manner). You have to prove that he can do it in reality, not just in an obscure one in a billion fantasy scenario.
I assume GH is more saying that the centre is trying to have their cake and eat it here. Vote for us or a Fascist will get in, but also we’ll not really push the boat out in any other way to prevent the onset of Fascism.
In combination a stated belief that Fascism is looming, and the way to offset that is hoping that Joe Biden wins the upcoming election is a worrisome combination.
It’s a pretty classic 1-2 punch and you see it all over the shop, but it does somewhat beg other questions. Why not embrace the left more for one, yanno, if Fascism is looming. Desperate times call for desperate measures after all
That you don’t frequently see that either implies that people don’t really believe in the looming threat they’re trying to get votes against, or at least exaggerate it, or alternatively that they’d rather lose and open the door to fascists than pivot out and embrace the left on issues.
Obviously I’m painting with a very broad brush here, I do think there’s at least some validity to this angle though. To look at my native land the centre spent a lot of energy sniping at Jeremy Corbyn, then pivoted back to ‘we have to keep the Tories out because x’ for this cycle. Why the difference, they were in before too?
I do think Trump getting in would be absolutely a shit state of affairs, although I think there’s sufficient cultural pushback and structural impediments to prevent various worst case scenarios. Fingers crossed on that as it’s looking increasingly likely he will return.
But if one does believe that Trump will destroy the Republic but we can’t collectively do anything but vote for Biden, then the Republic sure as hell doesn’t feel very secure
|
Northern Ireland23785 Posts
On July 09 2024 19:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 14:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 09 2024 02:46 oBlade wrote:On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 08 2024 14:47 oBlade wrote:On July 08 2024 01:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 07 2024 21:16 oBlade wrote:
[snip]
You seem to easily accept the proposition that one side has a higher propensity for delusion, conspiracy, and groupthink. You may one day have to face the fact that side may be yours. We could talk about why, I personally think it's because the right has religion that the left is the one to search for dogmas elsewhere. They repeatedly lie to your face, and one side's answer is "Please sir, may I have some more," while the other says "Doubt it."
[snip]
Sorry to snip out the rest of your post. Christianity in NA is -fucked-. I would not cite it as an example of a sane, grounding force for one side. For one, Republicans (or, in my case, conservatives) do not have a monopoly on the christian god. It isn't true that liberals don't go to church, nor that conservatives have a unique, spiritual groundedness while liberals are just searching desperately for something to believe in. Most of us went to church growing up and were likely steeled against the church for its obvious preaching of fear and hatred, through exclusion and/or oppression of gays, challenge and avoidance of other religions, and (though rarer in my circles) occasional brimstone "If you do evil you'll go to hell forever!" The church uses fear to control people, uses exegesis to support its marketing strategy (Go visit a Roman Catholic church), and commonly has invasive methods of recruitment. Y'all in the US also came up with mormons and other obviously bullshit denominations. I could go on, but my points are these : There are good community churches and great religious people in the world. However, organized religion in NA is abhorrent, going to church does not mean you're a good person, and if god is real I very much doubt he'd be willing to call half the churches in NA home. Besides all that, arguing that both sides are delusional is GH's job. I'm sure he appreciates the help! You have misunderstood the point, it wasn't that church makes people moral, it's that as your personal anecdote suggests, people who move away from religion - which you have to agree is the left - are those who are more likely to satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere - for example, the political realm. That's why when you look at progressives, you see the symbolism and imagery of sin, worship, devils, and so on, and why the latest generation of communists always sound like a ridiculous cult. Whether a force for good or bad or nothing by itself, it is on average a force of distraction, and it that sense, it has a moderating effect, is my point. I won't beat a dead horse by repeating it if you disagree, but it seemed like you were refuting something other than what I said. Also, there's no reason to try to memeify what people are saying instead of just reading it, especially when one of the people you are memeifying wasn't even in the conversation about this subject. Both sides are literally delusional, or do you think one is immune? Because I'm not going to give all my money to and elect in perpetuity a party, in a country responsible for 13% of anthropocentric emissions, with the promise that they have the ability and competence to change the temperature of the entire planet for me. On July 08 2024 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Chris Murphy (Dem Senator) makes it sound like Democrats are giving Biden the next week to pull out of this with some town halls and press conferences saying "I take him at his word that he can do this" (a bit of paraphrase). "Personally, I love Joe Biden. I don't know that the interview on Friday night did enough to answer those questions, so I think this week is going to be absolutely critical. I think the president needs to do more," Murphy said, referencing the interview Biden did with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.
When asked by Bash if Biden should remain on the Democratic ticket, Murphy didn't concretely affirmatively or negatively answer the question and said, "I take the president at his word. He said that he believes that he is up to do this job...I believe that he can do it. But I think that this is a really critical week, I do think that the clock is ticking." www.newsweek.comSen. Warner seems to be gathering the Dem Senators that would carry the message. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) is attempting to assemble a group of Democratic senators to ask President Biden to exit the presidential race, according to two people with direct knowledge of the effort. www.washingtonpost.com Mark Warner should unironically be on the ticket, he probably remains almost universally liked in Virginia, was 100x better than the weasel Tim Kaine, and is probably the Democrats' most recent competent governor. Fair point on the memeifying. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to knock GH's position - I generally appreciate their contributions and would rather see them have more allies than fewer. It's also unusual to see people other than GH claim that both sides are delusional without a followed 'but one side is MORE delusional', so it felt worth highlighting. That's all. As to the bolded, I literally do not know what you mean by basically any of that. You see the imagery of sin, angels, devils and worship because we're a christocentric culture who swear in on a bible, have "In god we trust" on (y)our money, and "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem. It's part of our culture at large, so I don't see what you're driving at with asserting progressives use religious imagery, nor that modern communists seem like a ridiculous cult. I mean you may personally just be Christocentric which is why you've ironically misunderstood me to have been talking about Christianity specifically when concepts of angels and devils, sin and worship are almost universal. Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned. Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates. There are screeds as would-be prayers. There are commandments and forbidden words. There are talking head priests. There is fawning over idols. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. That comes exactly from both the revolution in China and from Abraham being told to kill Isaac. If any belief system or ideology tried to come between me and my family, I would firstly stop believing it immediately, secondly tell it to fuck off, and then go to war with it if it didn't get the message. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
The way you phrase things makes me feel like you believe Christianity should have a monopoly on spiritualism in North America. That's obviously bullshit, and people who 'move away from religion' are likely to 'satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere' by literally believing in other things like science or buddhism or meditation or therapy. They're not 'moving away from religion', they're just moving to different religions and/or beliefs. We are mincing words here, to put it succinctly in your phrasing, I believe spiritualism should have a monopoly on spiritualism. If they are moving to "different beliefs," then they are self-evidently moving away from religion, contrary to your claim that they are not moving away from religion. If, on the other hand, they are moving to different beliefs while simultaneously not moving away from religion, it means they are adopting beliefs that aren't religious as religions, which is another way of stating my entire problem here. People don't realize the extent to which they themselves, and their groups in general, have a social/personal need for dogmas. There is nothing wrong with science, therapy, or politics - except if you adopt them as religions. Then the whole thing goes to shit. Aristotle said "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits." In the case of sports, it's not a huge deal. In the case of fiction, it's not a big deal. People get a little too attached to their hobby, it can be a phase, or anyway not usually a big deal. Although if it were, I'd try to explain that in the US Sports Thread instead. In the case of politics, it's an issue that people have not even thought about how to think. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
If your argument boils down to "Well, organized religion vis-a-vis Christianity is a useful tool for the right, because it helps us herd and control our idiots and prevent them from being distracted" then yeah, I can agree. My argument is I don't care if people are religious or not, but you have to be extremely careful about it because cultures have not often moved away from religion WITHOUT consciously making an effort not to simply substitute other systems as religions and then destroying themselves, and this affects the left more because New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left. I do not see any such introspection, consideration, or rationality in the left's haphazard cycling of weird. More than mitigating the right, it has unleashed the left. I think the assertion that people need religion and will search for something to make a religion in the absence of one, is bizarre. Further, I think that the assertion that specifically 'progressives' uniquely have moved away from religion and, in an uncontrollable urge to fill their need for religion, have instead started to treat their politics as religion is bizarre. I don't believe you have any clear idea what you're talking about. At least half of what you say is gibberish to the end of "New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left" or "Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems." that you'd have to substantiate with... anything... for it to be meaningful. We exist in a subculture, here, that is predominantly left. I can describe exactly zero people here as having commonly used religious imagery to describe their political positions. I legitimately do not see, and have not seen, progressives develop analogues for religion in their beliefs. If that is a line of argument you would like to continue, I encourage you to support it with any kind of evidence, or I just continue to be confused and think about that time Roger Stone insisted there was a demon portal to hell above the Biden White House. I'm also okay with dropping the conversation. At this point, I do not think we'll find common ground. I believe I understand your position - I just find it wholly absurd. You haven't understood it if you think it's necessary for someone to self-describe their belief system as a religion for it to be one, when most of my point is the problem with the lack of skepticism among progressives now, and their uncritical deference to suspect authority, is that they are unknowingly substituting beliefs that aren't originally religions, for religions, by adopting them as quasi-religions that fill the psychological role of religion in their life without being explicitly labeled as such, and without people other than outsiders realizing it - which is the main problem. You are stuck on something literal about Christianity it seems, maybe because I said imagery once, when what I'm talking about is an issue of psychology. I am not saying people literally put their hands together and pray to Biden calling him Gabriel, call Trump Lucifer, say illegal immigration is a way to take poor people to St. Peter, or that we need to part the Rio Grande the way Moses parted the Red Sea, etc, which while my examples might be a bit facetious is similar to what I think you're assuming the criteria must be. Those would anyway just be rhetorical devices. Like it's not religious to say "bless you" after someone sneezes. I put an entire paragraph of evidence, either you missed it or didn't get it, I'll be more explicit instead of esoteric: Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin - affirmative action and DEI presuppose Jews, Asians, and whites are guilty of something. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned - What if unrestricted immigration isn't good? How was a lab leak debunked by the entire news media the DAY AFTER the pandemic was identified? How did the same media prove 2020 was the most secure election in history on November 4th? Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates - look at the word salad of insults that get sent to anyone suspected of being "far" right - racist, sexist, fascist, bigoted, xenophobe, extremist. There are screeds as would-be prayers ("black lives matter, from the river to the sea, no human being is illegal"). There are commandments and forbidden words ("illegal immigrant"). There are rituals - confess to your privilege. Kneel during the football song. There are talking head priests - The Stelters and Scarboroughs and Maddows of the world will tell you one thing on Tuesday and the opposite on Wednesday. Where do their sermons come from? Anyone in the style of "No Lie" with Brian Tyler Cohen, is both filling the role of a priest, and lying. There is fawning over idols - Watch any TV comedian lick this administration's boots. There is a vague notion of a rapture/end of days/second coming sometime in the future, when the revolution finally happens and the exalted get raptured to power and everyone else get shot. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. Usually a parent transgresses a progressive rule. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. People report coworkers for wrongthink. The commander of Space Force even lost his career for disrespecting the political canons. Literally people have bragged about tattling to the FBI that their relative went to the Capitol, and they've now had to fight a BS charge for 3 years that the Supreme Court is finally ruling the obstruction charges were not warranted. I definitely am conscious of the fact I do not want to be someone repeating myself ad nauseam because there's no truth in repetition. I can't be much clearer than the above, though, without sacrificing too much of my style to make it worthwhile. If you see where I'm coming from, and have any further comparison or perspective (for example, whenever I check up on politics, I'm almost guaranteed to hear about the "cult" of Drumpf and his cultists) - enlighten me. And you have the cause and effect backwards. I am not saying "these pathetic heathens abandoned God and replaced him with communism." I don't care if people follow or believe any religion or not. It was only after seeing this behavior that I started to suspect people seem to be filling a psycho/social gap they didn't know they had, without realizing it, with the wrong kind of beliefs. Not because communism is wrong, again I don't care about communism here per se, but consciously or not, following communism as a religion is as mismatched as using religion as politics - for a functioning republic.
People call Trump cultists cultists because they behave in such a manner so frequently. And not necessarily in the religious sense, but in the cult of personality one. There isn’t a particular analogue for him across the centre thru the left that has anywhere near that kind of pull and devotion.
That he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and folks would be grand with it is arguably one of the truest things the man has ever said.
I also don’t see any innate problem in cutting family members off, it’s a very case-by-case situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
