|
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 |
United States41470 Posts
On July 09 2024 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote: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 Why would they come for you when your revolutionary socialism is indistinguishable from embracing their rule?
|
On July 09 2024 23:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote: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 Why would they come for you when your revolutionary socialism is indistinguishable from embracing their rule?
1. You know why On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:
...when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from....
2. It isn't, and it'll be libs emphatically explaining this in vain to the "proud police boys" or whatever the hell Trump calls his goons when they start knocking on libs doors.
3. Part of my point is that libs throwing socialists under the bus won't work because fascists obviously aren't just coming for the socialists anyway.
EDIT: 4. Pretty sure being Black and not sycophantic will be enough also
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 10 2024 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 23:29 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2024 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote: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 Why would they come for you when your revolutionary socialism is indistinguishable from embracing their rule? 1. You know why Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:
...when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from.... 2. It isn't, and it'll be libs emphatically explaining this in vain to the "proud police boys" or whatever the hell Trump calls his goons when they start knocking on libs doors. 3. Part of my point is that libs throwing socialists under the bus won't work because fascists obviously aren't just coming for the socialists anyway. EDIT: 4. Pretty sure being Black and not sycophantic will be enough also No. You’re not really a threat to anyone, you just roleplay one online. You’re not on anyone’s radar.
|
On July 09 2024 19:34 oBlade wrote: 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.
I'm leaving the quote here - there's no sense to the rest because we've already diverged strongly by the end of this paragraph.
Let's establish a ground base of terms.
Belief : Something one holds true in some capacity. I can believe in potatoes. I can believe in Zeus. I can believe the world is flat.
Religion : An organized subset of spiritual beliefs, typically structured into a set of rules or guidelines and typically following one or more gods. Wicca is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Guns are not a religion.
Faith : Having trust or confidence in something. You can have faith that your dog won't eat your sofa. You can have faith that the Dems won't fuck up this time. Your dog does not become a religion or god by you having faith in it.
Humans do believe things and have faith in things. Humans believing things doesn't make things religions, whether or not they self-identify as following a religion. Religion has spiritual associations and is a helpful term for communication, but there's no 'irrationality threshold' past which something becomes a religion and stops being just something you believe in. Claiming something to be a religion ties it to spiritual and 'irrational' associations. That's it.
Again, I will repeat : For this conversation to continue, you need to substantiate any of the garbage that you're saying. You can't just flatly assert that progressives are subconsciously making their politics a religion and that's an issue without making that MEAN anything. You try shove everything through the word 'religion' to make it have any gravity but it's literally just pseudopsych with terms from religion. For clarity, by 'substantiate' I mean 'meaningfully distinguish it as a uniquely religious activity that is uniquely performed by 'progressives'', not 'tell me why the idea resonates for you and why you believe it'.
I'm glad for you that you have an understanding you're working on, and that works for you. I don't think it's an understanding that yet holds up to public scrutiny and in its current state serves to confuse more than to explain. More than anything else, it reminds me of getting high and being convinced my brain has seven layers of consciousness - it's a fun theory and fun to explore, but once I'm no longer high I realize that it never really meant anything.
- e - in fairness, I should mention that I did read your evidence. I encourage you to go through that list and substitute it with a trip to the bank, to determine if a bank is pseudo-religious. Or, if you prefer, to republicans, to see if republicans are pseudo-religious. Either way, it demonstrates that your evidence is insufficient.
|
On July 10 2024 02:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 23:29 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2024 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote: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 Why would they come for you when your revolutionary socialism is indistinguishable from embracing their rule? 1. You know why On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:
...when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from.... 2. It isn't, and it'll be libs emphatically explaining this in vain to the "proud police boys" or whatever the hell Trump calls his goons when they start knocking on libs doors. 3. Part of my point is that libs throwing socialists under the bus won't work because fascists obviously aren't just coming for the socialists anyway. EDIT: 4. Pretty sure being Black and not sycophantic will be enough also No. You’re not really a threat to anyone, you just roleplay one online. You’re not on anyone’s radar.
Im not used to seeing you be this dense, you know GH is fuckin BLACK right? Fascists dont historically like black people
|
On July 10 2024 02:07 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 02:04 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 23:29 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2024 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote: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 Why would they come for you when your revolutionary socialism is indistinguishable from embracing their rule? 1. You know why On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:
...when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from.... 2. It isn't, and it'll be libs emphatically explaining this in vain to the "proud police boys" or whatever the hell Trump calls his goons when they start knocking on libs doors. 3. Part of my point is that libs throwing socialists under the bus won't work because fascists obviously aren't just coming for the socialists anyway. EDIT: 4. Pretty sure being Black and not sycophantic will be enough also No. You’re not really a threat to anyone, you just roleplay one online. You’re not on anyone’s radar. Im not used to seeing you be this dense, you know GH is fuckin BLACK right? Fascists dont historically like black people No you don't get it... Libs and even Black socialists like me aren't "a threat to fascism" so we're all gunna be safe /s
I'm more used to it than you are, but that one is osmium tier.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 10 2024 02:07 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 02:04 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 23:29 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2024 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote: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 Why would they come for you when your revolutionary socialism is indistinguishable from embracing their rule? 1. You know why On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:
...when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from.... 2. It isn't, and it'll be libs emphatically explaining this in vain to the "proud police boys" or whatever the hell Trump calls his goons when they start knocking on libs doors. 3. Part of my point is that libs throwing socialists under the bus won't work because fascists obviously aren't just coming for the socialists anyway. EDIT: 4. Pretty sure being Black and not sycophantic will be enough also No. You’re not really a threat to anyone, you just roleplay one online. You’re not on anyone’s radar. Im not used to seeing you be this dense, you know GH is fuckin BLACK right? Fascists dont historically like black people Eh, European ethnonationalist fascism crossovers had issues with the blacks. But I didn’t think GH was planning a vacation to 1940s Germany. Spanish fascism was less racially defined, likely because none of them got to be top rung on the hierarchy so it made less sense to care about it. Modern Putinist fascism seems to care about race, but in a very arbitrary sense. Ukrainians are the bottom of the racial totem pole there for example. India’s rapid embrace of it uses caste and religion far more than race, though they’re not above racism either.
While fascism does overlap a lot with racism I’d argue that it only does so in as much as fascism requires an in group and an out group. Racism provides a neat solution there and so fascists will frequently latch onto racial hierarchies to establish their fascist internal order. But they’re just as happy to use communists as the out group. Or Muslims. Fascists don’t really care about the specifics because the justification doesn’t really matter to them, the hierarchy is the objective, racism is just one of many ways to create one.
I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction. There are way too many African Americans and a substantial number of them are vocal fascists themselves. The in groups of American fascists are police, and there are plenty of African American police officers out there brutalizing their communities, conservative Christians (see above), men (see above) and the rich (see above).
That’s not to say that African Americans might not disproportionately suffer under American fascism. They’re over represented in police encounters, unhoused groups, prisons, and so forth. But that won’t apply to GH, he’s a model citizen. He works, pays his taxes, stays quiet. If they made a list of people who voted against Trump he wouldn’t be on it. If they made a list of people who contributed to movements that might stop Trump he wouldn’t be on it. GH will be fine.
|
I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction.
This is very silly, there are plenty of very actively violent and hateful groups in the US that would love to have the opportunity to kill, attack, enslave, really inflict any form of harm on black people and those groups are very much in line with the fascist-types in the US. They might not make Kill All Blacks part of their platform, but if you think you arent gonna see a huge rise in say, KKK and the like going around and killing/assaulting/etc. black people without any real consequence in a fascist US you dont really know anything about significant portions of the US.
Just take the L dude, everyone here makes them from time to time, I certainly have.
Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 10 2024 02:58 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction. This is very silly, there are plenty of very actively violent and hateful groups in the US that would love to have the opportunity to kill, attack, enslave, really inflict any form of harm on black people and those groups are very much in line with the fascist-types in the US. They might not make Kill All Blacks part of their platform, but if you think you arent gonna see a huge rise in say, KKK and the like going around and killing/assaulting/etc. black people without any real consequence in a fascist US you dont really know anything about significant portions of the US. Just take the L dude, everyone here makes them from time to time, I certainly have. Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. That’s not how it works.
Nazis may support Trump but that doesn’t mean he’s going to implement Nazi ideology in its entirety. Not all rectangles are squares. I suggest you take the L with this ridiculous suggestion that a Trump victory will be followed by the rounding up of all African Americans.
|
On July 10 2024 03:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 02:58 Zambrah wrote:I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction. This is very silly, there are plenty of very actively violent and hateful groups in the US that would love to have the opportunity to kill, attack, enslave, really inflict any form of harm on black people and those groups are very much in line with the fascist-types in the US. They might not make Kill All Blacks part of their platform, but if you think you arent gonna see a huge rise in say, KKK and the like going around and killing/assaulting/etc. black people without any real consequence in a fascist US you dont really know anything about significant portions of the US. Just take the L dude, everyone here makes them from time to time, I certainly have. Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. That’s not how it works. Nazis may support Trump but that doesn’t mean he’s going to implement Nazi ideology in its entirety. Not all rectangles are squares. I suggest you take the L with this ridiculous suggestion that a Trump victory will be followed by the rounding up of all African Americans.
I didnt say any of this, what in the world are you talking about?
|
On July 09 2024 22:23 WombaT wrote: 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.
You're begging the question here. They call them cultists because they're like cultists - could you explain how? What does a cult of personality mean besides being too popular - more popular than others?
On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: Humans do believe things and have faith in things. Humans believing things doesn't make things religions, whether or not they self-identify as following a religion. Religion has spiritual associations and is a helpful term for communication, but there's no 'irrationality threshold' past which something becomes a religion and stops being just something you believe in. Claiming something to be a religion ties it to spiritual and 'irrational' associations. That's it. Claiming something to be a religion gives you tax and personal privileges. This is why people literally make them up also.
Claiming something to have replaced or imitated a religion ties it to - frameworks of worship and deference to authority similar to organized religion, strong in/outgroup bias, suppression of skepticism, tenets of faith and unique/esoteric vocabulary, risk/fear of excommunication, sin, punishment, reward, moral superiority and inferiority, blind faith thicker than blood, etc.
Correct, getting the newspaper is not a religion just because it's a ritual. Economics isn't a religion just because it has weird words other people can't understand. That's because these are single data points.
And you are simultaneously telling me irrationality doesn't make something a religion, and in the very next sentence telling me a religion is spiritual and irrational. Could you get your own definitions straight first?
On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: Again, I will repeat : For this conversation to continue, you need to substantiate any of the garbage that you're saying. You can't just flatly assert that progressives are subconsciously making their politics a religion and that's an issue without making that MEAN anything. You try shove everything through the word 'religion' to make it have any gravity but it's literally just pseudopsych with terms from religion. For clarity, by 'substantiate' I mean 'meaningfully distinguish it as a uniquely religious activity that is uniquely performed by 'progressives'', not 'tell me why the idea resonates for you and why you believe it'. First, I think you're repeating something you haven't said before.
Also, I regretfully reject your terms, I don't have to distinguish that progressives "uniquely" do anything any more than praying is "unique" to Christianity or going to a place of worship is "unique" to Buddhists. That doesn't make any fucking sense even in the context of something we can all agree are pure religions - why would it apply in the framework of people building pseudoreligious frameworks around nonspiritual dogmas? It doesn't, so I'm not subjecting my "garbage" to such an arbitrary hoop.
Women who have lost children have been known to gravitate to dolls or dogs. Your unjustified certainty about human psychology is giving you blinders about the mind's capacity to substitute when there is a psycho/social drive.
On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: - e - in fairness, I should mention that I did read your evidence. I encourage you to go through that list and substitute it with a trip to the bank, to determine if a bank is pseudo-religious. If the purpose of your trip were to sing the praises of Jerome Powell, that he can do no wrong, that support for anyone else would mean the end of Jerome Powell and our economy, and anyone who doesn't also actively praise him wants Ron Paul to crash the economy, we might get somewhere. Your facetious example has strongly disproven the claim that going to the bank is a religious activity. Bad news for anyone who made that claim. You don't seem to know how to conceptualize these categories despite patronizing me about it - there's no one characteristic (even in your own provided definition) that signifies a brick and mortar religion to begin with, it's a confluence of different things. There's no one single thing that makes even Christianity a "religion" when we all agree it is one.
How about this - I had a pizza party with friends. Is gathering with friends to be considered a religious ritual now? Haha, surely not, unless it's at, for example, a church.
Look. Like you said, you can believe anything. Let's go with that. You can also worship anything/anyone. Just because you worship Taylor Swift, that doesn't make her a god, and Swiftism a religion. You add the gathering together at special events with fellow believers, going to fan meetings and getting told by your Swiftism leaders to buy a bunch of albums to help her in the charts, living your life by copying her shitty lyrics and having a bunch of failed relationships. The system here has become more similar to a religion than to a potted plant.
Like, a restaurant has someone cooking. Just because I cook, that doesn't make my kitchen a restaurant. A restaurant also has people ordering, a large ratio of customers to cooks, a set menu, lot of spare ingredients coming in regularly, many tables and chairs and a common area, a place off limits to the people eating, they don't do the dishes themselves, it's only open certain hours and not at 3am when oBlade wants a cheese omelet, etc.
Now in a school you have a cafeteria. It's not quite a restaurant, we can agree. It doesn't have people ordering. They just get the same food, whatever the school is serving. But apart from that, inquisitive minds start to detect an awful lot of similarities between the cafeteria and the restaurant, wouldn't you agree? Moreso than the similarities between a restaurant and a car. The goals, the method, the process - they have far more parallels than dissimilarities. Is it that hard to see that just because you don't treat your political beliefs (hopefully) this way - that there aren't others who do, which is interesting, even if there isn't a spiritual element, and this might be a fair question: whether that's helpful or detrimental or no effect?
I mean, obviously politics is not metaphysical. Is that what you're arguing against?
On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: Or, if you prefer, to republicans, to see if republicans are pseudo-religious. Either way, it demonstrates that your evidence is insufficient. Are you going on record saying there's no cultism among Republicans?
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 10 2024 03:10 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 03:01 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 02:58 Zambrah wrote:I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction. This is very silly, there are plenty of very actively violent and hateful groups in the US that would love to have the opportunity to kill, attack, enslave, really inflict any form of harm on black people and those groups are very much in line with the fascist-types in the US. They might not make Kill All Blacks part of their platform, but if you think you arent gonna see a huge rise in say, KKK and the like going around and killing/assaulting/etc. black people without any real consequence in a fascist US you dont really know anything about significant portions of the US. Just take the L dude, everyone here makes them from time to time, I certainly have. Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. That’s not how it works. Nazis may support Trump but that doesn’t mean he’s going to implement Nazi ideology in its entirety. Not all rectangles are squares. I suggest you take the L with this ridiculous suggestion that a Trump victory will be followed by the rounding up of all African Americans. I didnt say any of this, what in the world are you talking about? You said the rise of American fascism would “come for” GH because he’s black and fascists always go after blacks. The implication was a sweeping Nazi style policies.
I disagreed, pointing out that Nazis may have done that but fascism varies a lot in its racial policies and there’s no reason to assume American fascism would target all African Americans.
You then pointed to a variety of neo Nazi hate groups in the US and I said that their support of American fascism does not imply American fascism would mirror their specific ideologies.
The idea that the KKK will suddenly start roving death squads is somewhat strange too. And it doesn’t amount to them “coming for him”.
American fascists are very clear on who their out groups are. Hispanic migrants, protestors, trans people, Muslims. Just listen to any of their speeches. Whether you’re here legally, a DREAMer, seeking asylum, or illegal they don’t care, if you weren’t born here and you’re Hispanic then they hate you. But people born here are okay, they’re a key conservative voting demographic. Whether you’re protesting police brutality, Israel, abortion bans, or you just don’t like Trump you’re part of a George Soros funded hate group and should be sent to Gitmo. Whether you’re pre-op MTF, post op, a male identifying gay drag queen, you’re out. And all Muslims.
African Americans aren’t on the list. They may get disproportionately impacted by some other policies like expanding protections for police brutality but they’re not coming after GH. African Americans are like women in that regard, they’re not going to be net beneficiaries but they’re not going to be targeted solely for that. Which brings me back to my initial post that started this and which I stand by.
On July 09 2024 23:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 21:40 KwarK wrote: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 Why would they come for you when your revolutionary socialism is indistinguishable from embracing their rule? GH said they’re coming for him. I said they’re not coming for GH. Your argument is that they are coming from him because he’s black.
|
On July 10 2024 03:10 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 03:01 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 02:58 Zambrah wrote:I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction. This is very silly, there are plenty of very actively violent and hateful groups in the US that would love to have the opportunity to kill, attack, enslave, really inflict any form of harm on black people and those groups are very much in line with the fascist-types in the US. They might not make Kill All Blacks part of their platform, but if you think you arent gonna see a huge rise in say, KKK and the like going around and killing/assaulting/etc. black people without any real consequence in a fascist US you dont really know anything about significant portions of the US. Just take the L dude, everyone here makes them from time to time, I certainly have. Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. That’s not how it works. Nazis may support Trump but that doesn’t mean he’s going to implement Nazi ideology in its entirety. Not all rectangles are squares. I suggest you take the L with this ridiculous suggestion that a Trump victory will be followed by the rounding up of all African Americans. I didnt say any of this, what in the world are you talking about? I think he's having his own version of a Dangermousecatdog moment.
EDIT: I should also second this:
Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists.
|
On July 10 2024 03:25 oBlade wrote: And you are simultaneously telling me irrationality doesn't make something a religion, and in the very next sentence telling me a religion is spiritual and irrational. Could you get your own definitions straight first?
No, I am informing you that referring to something as a religion or religious in a conversational, communicative format will make people associate spirituality and irrationality with it, insofar as god is an irrational concept et al.
On July 10 2024 03:25 oBlade wrote: First, I think you're repeating something you haven't said before.
"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."
Nope, looks like I said that before.
On July 10 2024 03:25 oBlade wrote: Are you going on record saying there's no cultism among Republicans?
No, I'm pointing out that if I go on a rant about how tesla owners work out and it's poisoning their minds, I need to demonstrate that uniquely tesla owners work out, and that said working out is poisoning their minds. If I don't do this, the statement is so imprecise as to be worthless even if it is true that some tesla owners work out, some tesla owners have poisoned minds, and some people who work out have poisoned minds.
In your case you connected the ideas 'progressives' and 'pseudo-religious interaction with politics'.
If you can't demonstrate that it's uniquely attached to progressives, then you need to go back and broaden your statement to something more true but less useful, like 'people'. As it is also true, as you admit, that there is cultism amongst Republicans, it's safe to say that your earlier statement :
"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."
...makes no fucking sense because one, you don't see it uniquely in progressives, and two, you see that symbolism and imagery only if you look REALLY CLOSELY and in the right (no pun intended) lighting.
Anyways, moving on...
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 10 2024 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 03:10 Zambrah wrote:On July 10 2024 03:01 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 02:58 Zambrah wrote:I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction. This is very silly, there are plenty of very actively violent and hateful groups in the US that would love to have the opportunity to kill, attack, enslave, really inflict any form of harm on black people and those groups are very much in line with the fascist-types in the US. They might not make Kill All Blacks part of their platform, but if you think you arent gonna see a huge rise in say, KKK and the like going around and killing/assaulting/etc. black people without any real consequence in a fascist US you dont really know anything about significant portions of the US. Just take the L dude, everyone here makes them from time to time, I certainly have. Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. That’s not how it works. Nazis may support Trump but that doesn’t mean he’s going to implement Nazi ideology in its entirety. Not all rectangles are squares. I suggest you take the L with this ridiculous suggestion that a Trump victory will be followed by the rounding up of all African Americans. I didnt say any of this, what in the world are you talking about? I think he's having his own version of a Dangermousecatdog moment. EDIT: I should also second this: Show nested quote +Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. This isn’t a straw man, the disagreement was specifically about your claim that “they” are “coming for you”. I just don’t see why “they” would.
But you’re the one who made the claim so if you’d like to substantiate why you think that you specifically are worth their time then please go for it. Please keep it realistic. I can absolutely imagine a world in which “they” target someone like MLK who preaches radical revolutionary socialism to an audience of millions. But vague allusions to that scenario rely on the unrealistic circumstance of you becoming as influential as Dr King. What I’m after is why “they” would “come for” GH. The real GH, not the one you pretend to be online.
|
On July 10 2024 04:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 03:10 Zambrah wrote:On July 10 2024 03:01 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 02:58 Zambrah wrote:I don’t envision American fascism going in a hardline “kill all blacks” direction. This is very silly, there are plenty of very actively violent and hateful groups in the US that would love to have the opportunity to kill, attack, enslave, really inflict any form of harm on black people and those groups are very much in line with the fascist-types in the US. They might not make Kill All Blacks part of their platform, but if you think you arent gonna see a huge rise in say, KKK and the like going around and killing/assaulting/etc. black people without any real consequence in a fascist US you dont really know anything about significant portions of the US. Just take the L dude, everyone here makes them from time to time, I certainly have. Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. That’s not how it works. Nazis may support Trump but that doesn’t mean he’s going to implement Nazi ideology in its entirety. Not all rectangles are squares. I suggest you take the L with this ridiculous suggestion that a Trump victory will be followed by the rounding up of all African Americans. I didnt say any of this, what in the world are you talking about? I think he's having his own version of a Dangermousecatdog moment. EDIT: I should also second this: Theres plenty to criticize and argue with GH about but it would be nice if people argued with that instead of these weird strawmen they have in their mind of some sort of GH Archon that is basically a non-human embodiment of what they consider annoying about leftists. This isn’t a straw man, the disagreement was specifically about your claim that “they” are “coming for you”. I just don’t see why “they” would. But you’re the one who made the claim so if you’d like to substantiate why you think that you specifically are worth their time then please go for it. Please keep it realistic. I can absolutely imagine a world in which “they” target someone like MLK who preaches radical revolutionary socialism to an audience of millions. But vague allusions to that scenario rely on the unrealistic circumstance of you becoming as influential as Dr King. What I’m after is why “they” would “come for” GH. The real GH, not the one you pretend to be online.
I think less MLK, more secret participant in the underground railway. Certainly someone 'they' would "come for", though perhaps not with the gusto they would MLK.
|
Northern Ireland22754 Posts
On July 10 2024 03:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 22:23 WombaT wrote: 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.
You're begging the question here. They call them cultists because they're like cultists - could you explain how? What does a cult of personality mean besides being too popular - more popular than others? Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: Humans do believe things and have faith in things. Humans believing things doesn't make things religions, whether or not they self-identify as following a religion. Religion has spiritual associations and is a helpful term for communication, but there's no 'irrationality threshold' past which something becomes a religion and stops being just something you believe in. Claiming something to be a religion ties it to spiritual and 'irrational' associations. That's it. Claiming something to be a religion gives you tax and personal privileges. This is why people literally make them up also. Claiming something to have replaced or imitated a religion ties it to - frameworks of worship and deference to authority similar to organized religion, strong in/outgroup bias, suppression of skepticism, tenets of faith and unique/esoteric vocabulary, risk/fear of excommunication, sin, punishment, reward, moral superiority and inferiority, blind faith thicker than blood, etc. Correct, getting the newspaper is not a religion just because it's a ritual. Economics isn't a religion just because it has weird words other people can't understand. That's because these are single data points. And you are simultaneously telling me irrationality doesn't make something a religion, and in the very next sentence telling me a religion is spiritual and irrational. Could you get your own definitions straight first? Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: Again, I will repeat : For this conversation to continue, you need to substantiate any of the garbage that you're saying. You can't just flatly assert that progressives are subconsciously making their politics a religion and that's an issue without making that MEAN anything. You try shove everything through the word 'religion' to make it have any gravity but it's literally just pseudopsych with terms from religion. For clarity, by 'substantiate' I mean 'meaningfully distinguish it as a uniquely religious activity that is uniquely performed by 'progressives'', not 'tell me why the idea resonates for you and why you believe it'. First, I think you're repeating something you haven't said before. Also, I regretfully reject your terms, I don't have to distinguish that progressives "uniquely" do anything any more than praying is "unique" to Christianity or going to a place of worship is "unique" to Buddhists. That doesn't make any fucking sense even in the context of something we can all agree are pure religions - why would it apply in the framework of people building pseudoreligious frameworks around nonspiritual dogmas? It doesn't, so I'm not subjecting my "garbage" to such an arbitrary hoop. Women who have lost children have been known to gravitate to dolls or dogs. Your unjustified certainty about human psychology is giving you blinders about the mind's capacity to substitute when there is a psycho/social drive. Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: - e - in fairness, I should mention that I did read your evidence. I encourage you to go through that list and substitute it with a trip to the bank, to determine if a bank is pseudo-religious. If the purpose of your trip were to sing the praises of Jerome Powell, that he can do no wrong, that support for anyone else would mean the end of Jerome Powell and our economy, and anyone who doesn't also actively praise him wants Ron Paul to crash the economy, we might get somewhere. Your facetious example has strongly disproven the claim that going to the bank is a religious activity. Bad news for anyone who made that claim. You don't seem to know how to conceptualize these categories despite patronizing me about it - there's no one characteristic (even in your own provided definition) that signifies a brick and mortar religion to begin with, it's a confluence of different things. There's no one single thing that makes even Christianity a "religion" when we all agree it is one. How about this - I had a pizza party with friends. Is gathering with friends to be considered a religious ritual now? Haha, surely not, unless it's at, for example, a church. Look. Like you said, you can believe anything. Let's go with that. You can also worship anything/anyone. Just because you worship Taylor Swift, that doesn't make her a god, and Swiftism a religion. You add the gathering together at special events with fellow believers, going to fan meetings and getting told by your Swiftism leaders to buy a bunch of albums to help her in the charts, living your life by copying her shitty lyrics and having a bunch of failed relationships. The system here has become more similar to a religion than to a potted plant. Like, a restaurant has someone cooking. Just because I cook, that doesn't make my kitchen a restaurant. A restaurant also has people ordering, a large ratio of customers to cooks, a set menu, lot of spare ingredients coming in regularly, many tables and chairs and a common area, a place off limits to the people eating, they don't do the dishes themselves, it's only open certain hours and not at 3am when oBlade wants a cheese omelet, etc. Now in a school you have a cafeteria. It's not quite a restaurant, we can agree. It doesn't have people ordering. They just get the same food, whatever the school is serving. But apart from that, inquisitive minds start to detect an awful lot of similarities between the cafeteria and the restaurant, wouldn't you agree? Moreso than the similarities between a restaurant and a car. The goals, the method, the process - they have far more parallels than dissimilarities. Is it that hard to see that just because you don't treat your political beliefs (hopefully) this way - that there aren't others who do, which is interesting, even if there isn't a spiritual element, and this might be a fair question: whether that's helpful or detrimental or no effect? I mean, obviously politics is not metaphysical. Is that what you're arguing against? Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote: Or, if you prefer, to republicans, to see if republicans are pseudo-religious. Either way, it demonstrates that your evidence is insufficient. Are you going on record saying there's no cultism among Republicans? Do I honestly need to explain how some aspects of Trump’s support exhibit classic cult of personality traits?
|
I used to be in right-wing circles. Let me assure you all in this thread that, yes, black people are definitely a target of American fascists. They hate them and ideally they want to round them up and deport them all. Or at the very least segregate them.
And that's just the fascists. Even less extreme racists are very anti-black, and they will support plenty of anti-black policies. The only difference between these two groups is that the fascists are full-blown extremists, while the more common racists have a "look away" type of approach where they let loose the actual fascists and trod along with them, even if they don't like their methods.
The fascists will deport, possibly even kill black people. Fascists are extremely dangerous, and to say black people aren't on their list is absolutely opposite to reality.
While I don't believe American fascism stands a realistic chance, IF it were to happen, black people would absolutely get rounded up, deported, some even murdered. If you don't believe me, you've never spoken to a real fascist before.
|
We have had veteran posters, long since banned, in this thread advocate for a white ethno-state in America because white and blacks can't co-exist.
I think they might have something against black people.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 10 2024 05:14 Magic Powers wrote: I used to be in right-wing circles. Let me assure you all in this thread that, yes, black people are definitely a target of American fascists. They hate them and ideally they want to round them up and deport them all. Or at the very least segregate them.
And that's just the fascists. Even less extreme racists are very anti-black, and they will support plenty of anti-black policies. The only difference between these two groups is that the fascists are full-blown extremists, while the more common racists have a "look away" type of approach where they let loose the actual fascists and trod along with them, even if they don't like their methods.
The fascists will deport, possibly even kill black people. Fascists are extremely dangerous, and to say black people aren't on their list is absolutely opposite to reality.
While I don't believe American fascism stands a realistic chance, IF it were to happen, black people would absolutely get rounded up, deported, some even murdered. If you don't believe me, you've never spoken to a real fascist before. That’s total nonsense. You’re perhaps imagining neo Nazis when the conversation is about regular garden variety Republicans who will happily vote Trump in the hope that he’ll suspend habeus corpus and put drag queens in Gitmo. We’re not talking about the KKK taking over, we’re talking about Trump taking over. Deporting all African Americans is very much not on the agenda.
It was over Trump wins = they’re coming for GH
GH will not be getting deported during a Trump presidency. That’s not a sane take.
|
|
|
|