|
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 |
On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course
Ask him!
GH do you advocate for armed revolution?
|
United States41965 Posts
On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course
I’ll let him speak for himself but anyone advocating for overthrowing fascists without using violence is not a serious person.
|
On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution?
I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary.
|
On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary.
There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'"
and
"I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence"
|
Northern Ireland23783 Posts
On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence"
Was about to post roughly this.
There’s quite a big gap between ‘if genuine Fascists come to power, we should violently resist’ and ‘if we don’t like the system we should violently overthrow it’
|
On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence"
Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century.
Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo.
Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some "Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense?
US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
|
On July 10 2024 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence" Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo. Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some " Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense? US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
Hmm, I don't see that there's a genuine dichotomy between this more holistic perspective and one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
This is why Wombat didn't think you advocate for armed revolution, because its always couched in funny language games.
Just say it, man. You clearly believe that we are currently living in a system where we are kept under capitalism by force, and believe its justified to to try and flip that system so that socialism can be enforced instead. Just say it!
|
On July 10 2024 18:19 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence" Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo. Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some " Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense? US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide. + Show Spoiler +Hmm, I don't see that there's a genuine dichotomy between this more holistic perspective and one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
This is why Wombat didn't think you advocate for armed revolution, because its always couched in funny language games.
Just say it, man. You clearly believe that we are currently living in a system where we are kept under capitalism by force, + Show Spoiler + and believe its justified to to try and flip that system so that socialism can be enforced instead. Just say it!
Do you believe otherwise?
|
On July 10 2024 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 18:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence" Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo. Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some " Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense? US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide. + Show Spoiler +Hmm, I don't see that there's a genuine dichotomy between this more holistic perspective and one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
This is why Wombat didn't think you advocate for armed revolution, because its always couched in funny language games.
Just say it, man. You clearly believe that we are currently living in a system where we are kept under capitalism by force, + Show Spoiler + and believe its justified to to try and flip that system so that socialism can be enforced instead. Just say it! Do you believe otherwise?
No.
Then again, I believe there's a gap between the system we currently live under, and the consequences of armed revolution, which in my eyes would not look like this at all.
For me, the discussion should take place in areas other than 'are we kept living under capitalism by force'. The more interesting parts of the conversation take place around exactly what the armed revolution would look like, rather whatever society looks like afterwards.
|
On July 10 2024 18:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 18:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence" Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo. Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some " Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense? US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide. + Show Spoiler +Hmm, I don't see that there's a genuine dichotomy between this more holistic perspective and one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
This is why Wombat didn't think you advocate for armed revolution, because its always couched in funny language games.
Just say it, man. You clearly believe that we are currently living in a system where we are kept under capitalism by force, + Show Spoiler + and believe its justified to to try and flip that system so that socialism can be enforced instead. Just say it! Do you believe otherwise? The more interesting parts of the conversation take place around exactly what the armed revolution would look like, rather whatever society looks like afterwards.
Which is exactly the part of the conversation GH never offers. He never says what he thinks the revolution looks like or what kind of system he even advocates for. It’s all about putting on the charade of being holier than thou and then brow beating everyone else for propping up the status quo. It’s the same exact nonsense over and over and over. We’ve had 1,000 iterations of GH calling a Joe Biden voter being complicit in genocide followed by someone else pointing out that Trump would be worse. It’s dreadfully dull and yet we are doomed to repeat it.
|
On July 10 2024 19:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 18:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 18:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence" Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo. Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some " Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense? US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide. + Show Spoiler +Hmm, I don't see that there's a genuine dichotomy between this more holistic perspective and one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
This is why Wombat didn't think you advocate for armed revolution, because its always couched in funny language games.
Just say it, man. You clearly believe that we are currently living in a system where we are kept under capitalism by force, + Show Spoiler + and believe its justified to to try and flip that system so that socialism can be enforced instead. Just say it! Do you believe otherwise? The more interesting parts of the conversation take place around exactly what the armed revolution would look like, rather whatever society looks like afterwards. Which is exactly the part of the conversation GH never offers.
I don't understand why tbh.
For me, GH has gone pretty far on occasion, to the point where saying "Yes I'm happy for major current political figures to be killed in service of the revolution" wouldn't actually be going much further than he already has sometimes.
The obvious sticking point is 'what happens to your average Joe who decides that he liked his capitalist system?'
And also 'what about the military?' is a pretty good question considering you can't imagine Capitalists are going to be very happy giving up their beloved capitalism.
|
If you don’t elaborate on your ideas they can’t be scrutinized for being stupid. His motives aren’t to spread the socialist message to contribute to the revolution. It’s to role play as a revolutionary socialist and smugly position himself as morally superior to the rest of us. Actually articulating what he advocates for is messy and unnecessary to achieve that goal.
|
On July 10 2024 16:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 16:32 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 15:44 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 15:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 15:16 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2024 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not actually being a socialist outside of this website based on his imaginary caricature of me offline. If you want online credit for your offline achievements then you’re going to have to share them online. There’s no requirement that you share them online, you’re welcome to keep them to yourself. But if you make vague allusions to them online like suggesting that “they” will “come for” you due to your important offline political activities then you’re trying to have it both ways. I’ve been consistent in saying that I would be happy to be proven wrong. If it turns out you actually are Lenin offline then you can spend however much time you want saying that I was wrong and you’d be right to do that. But so far there’s just no evidence to support your online pomposity. Just as a point of clarity, it was never for my "important offline political activities" just that I would be dealt with along with other socialists. Part of my larger point was that no one is safe under fascism, even the fascists themselves. Because when fascism runs out of external targets, they don't arrive at their promised utopia, they just find new targets among themselves to blame for it not working. Perhaps this is just all about the tongue in cheek reference to liberal TL'ers pointing at me as the subversive they know of to avoid being randomly rounded up by Trump's fascist goon squads themselves? The socialists in Niemöller’s poem were fighting the Nazis in the streets. They were the organized resistance, they were armed, they broke up meetings, held violent strikes etc. + Show Spoiler +You wouldn’t be dealt with alongside them, you’re not one of them, you can’t even bring yourself to vote against fascists.
That said, it’s a fair point about the self devouring nature of fascism. While I continue to maintain that your suggestion that you’d make their list is pure pomposity and that you’re really one of the apolitical masses you’re technically correct that even they ultimately aren’t safe.
They’ll come for the resistance and then at a much later date after running out of ideas they’ll come for you and I. But technically that counts so sure, you can have that point, even if you got there accidentally. I've participated in various forms of organized resistance to date, including confrontations with police. I am and will continue to be in the streets putting my socialist studies into practice including the more disruptive methods you describe if/when they are necessary/advisable. But even if I wasn't, it's not about me and what I do or don't do. It's about what we as a society do and don't do and why we should or shouldn't do it. We should embrace socialism because our lives and liberty depend on us doing so imo. + Show Spoiler +It was about you because you made it about you with your assertion that you merited being on the list for political purges. But fair enough, maybe you are on a watchlist somewhere. I can respect direct action.
I’m also not in any way blind to the failures of the current political system and how they can’t be fixed within that system. Nor am I blind to how capitalism isn’t addressing the ecological catastrophe facing us or the concentration of wealth and power in a handful of elites. That’s why I’ve always included myself in the imaginary revolution, I’m an imaginary card carrying member. + Show Spoiler +In a way the question answers itself, revolution is simply what it is called when you overturn a political system and socialist is what it is called when you redistribute the means of production. The description of the problem necessarily leads to that answer.
The reason I push so hard for also engaging in harm reduction is simply that I don’t think you’ll win. Also, if you do win, there’s an extremely bad track record for revolutions actually making things better. They’re almost always immediately co-opted by tyrants who turn on the masses. So you’ll not only need to win against the status quo, you’ll also need to win against the revolutionaries themselves.
These aren’t new questions though, you’ve been asked a great many times how your revolution will avoid the pitfalls that seem to be an inevitable product of human nature.
I’m not saying this to put you on the spot with any expectation of a simple answer, I don’t think there is one. The status quo will defend itself with violence and so the revolution will need more violence to succeed and yet more to suppress counterrevolutionary elements but it must do this without being tyrannical. The contradictions are unavoidable.
Socialist revolution is the solution by definition, it’s just the words that mean the opposite of the defined problem, but that doesn’t get us anywhere. If the problem was an unstoppable force then the answer “immovable object” would be the correct solution but I wouldn’t know how to make one. That’s why it’s the Pepsi solution, it’s the starting point, all the impossible work is still to be done. Proclaiming the need for a socialist revolution (implicitly a successful one that somehow avoids all the failures of every previous attempt) is stating the obvious, it’s not virtuous.
I don’t have confidence in the success of the project and certainly not enough confidence to oppose any efforts at harm reduction. I’m in the imaginary revolution but I’m going to vote Biden as well. You don't just lack confidence, you actively try to undermine those that do. You're not part of or supportive of socialist revolution (imagined or otherwise), you're clearly in opposition to it and instead support reformism that is contrary to socialist goals. You can do that, just don't try to claim you're actually a socialist that is joining me in the streets.
I agree with GH here. Kwark is definitely not a socialist revolutionary. Neither am I. I don't want socialism and I don't want a revolution!
That said, I do want a lot of what socialism offers. I want redistribution of wealth. I just want it through heavy progressive taxation, and not seizing the means of production and redistributing that according to some "plan" for the "greater good" (tm).
I want free quality education for all, and private education to be abolished. I want free quality healthcare for all, and private healthcare to be abolished.
I want a radical reform of the housing market so real estate is for people who live in the houses, and hotels and holiday homes are clearly earmarked and such and regulated. Citizens of a city like Barcelona are given preference over tourists for using the real estate. Ideally, a market economy would find the right balance where people are willing to pay for the privilege of living in a desirable city vs. what people are willing to pay to visit a desirable city, but in its current state it isn't working. Even a city like Barcelona (or Amsterdam) with functioning public transport from comfortable satellite cities with all possible amenities, is experiencing an accute real estate crisis, partially due to investment capitalism, and partially due to tourism. Cities like London or SF are exponentially worse.
And yes, I am very comfortably in the 1% of my country, and all of these measures would directly hurt my own comfort. I advocate and vote against my own self-interest, because I believe in a society with greater equality than we have. But I don't believe we need a revolution to get there, and what I have seen of the revolutionary tendencies in Catalonia, Europe-wide, and historically, any revolution is almost certainly going to cause greater inequality rather than less (not to mention the negative impact on the environment a revolution would have). And I also don't believe that socialism (Marxist socialism, to be clear, because socialism is not a precise term) is the only way to reduce inequality.
EDIT: also, tbc, my perspective is as it relates to Spain, and more removed, EU politics. I might be more revolutionary if my choice was between insipid Democrats and fascist Republicans, and worse still, I lived in one of the very many states, where my vote hardly mattered at a national level.
|
On July 10 2024 18:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 18:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence" Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo. Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some " Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense? US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide. + Show Spoiler +Hmm, I don't see that there's a genuine dichotomy between this more holistic perspective and one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
This is why Wombat didn't think you advocate for armed revolution, because its always couched in funny language games.
Just say it, man. You clearly believe that we are currently living in a system where we are kept under capitalism by force, + Show Spoiler + and believe its justified to to try and flip that system so that socialism can be enforced instead. Just say it! Do you believe otherwise? No. Then again, I believe there's a gap between the system we currently live under, and the consequences of armed revolution, which in my eyes would not look like this at all. For me, the discussion should take place in areas other than 'are we kept living under capitalism by force'. The more interesting parts of the conversation take place around exactly what the armed revolution would look like, rather whatever society looks like afterwards.
Here's the thing. If you study socialism (or just revolutions) you'll see that there are intersecting aspects at the particular stage of revolution you (and most everyone else) are fixated on. If you grant me my previous bit on socialist revolution in a more holistic sense I'll try to give you some context of what I mean.
Basically that revolutions of all stripes (but particularly the rising action/climax part of the stylized idea of revolution people have in their minds) come about from different conditions. Sometimes it's the inequality, sometimes it more the conditions resulting from "acts of God" like drought or famine or whatever. Sometimes it's a sudden weakness exposed in the existing power structure, sometimes it's a sudden empowering of the disenfranchised masses.
Which is to say none of us can know precisely the conditions under which the US's revolution will reach that particular stage. Maybe Trump takes office and immediately starts rounding up Democrat politicians and disappearing them into military tribunals like he's suggested he'd do. He uses his basically limitless domestic intelligence services, various police departments, sympathetic military/special forces, and just anyone on twitter/truth social to find and collect them. Maybe sometime before he's rounded up all of them, the remaining Democrats say to themselves "we gotta do a revolution".
You can see how different it might look just between them having that realization after the first obscure congressperson or after he's already grabbed all of the federal Democrats and untold numbers of state and locals seized by various sympathetic groups across the country.
Or maybe Trump loses and the Republican party implodes in chaos after their most radical factions are locked up by the 10's of thousands for a failed coup attempt. It's not for another decade when another demagogue rises to blame all of the US's problems on the recent rise in worker rights, civil rights, human rights, etc caused by the lapse of a traditional American Christian party and their successful coup leads to people doing the math on revolution differently.
Or maybe some polls come out and Biden's down 10% to Trump and some person gets on TV and makes a miraculously impassioned speech that goes megaviral inspiring millions of Democrats and unaffiliated citizens to see the appeal of revolutionary socialism, and confronted with the prospect of mass civil unrest, non-reformist reforms are conceded and we progress in the revolution while stepping back from the brink.
Maybe a meteor hits Davos and all hell breaks loose.
I don't give you all those scenarios because I think they are particularly likely (the last one especially) but to illustrate that this insistence that "the conversation take place around exactly what the armed revolution would look like" doesn't appreciate that it's impossible to say even if I had perfect knowledge of every knowable thing on earth.
A hurricane, a volcano, a plane crash, a Trump win, a Trump loss, a Harris win, there's just too many variables (far more than I could ever list) to say with any certainty what it would look like beyond vague generalities. Like if things have gotten bad enough that armed revolution is happening, shit probably sucks for a lot more people than it does today, particularly for the US's "middle class".
Is it happening under Democrats or Republicans, have workers been successfully seizing the means of production or have capitalists successfully put down workers rebellions and started establishing company towns and that's what was the tipping point? I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Alas, I can tell you what socialism (setting aside internal divisions) looks like now in the US? It's organizing, study, praxis, repeat. You organize people, you study together, you put your studies into practice, review the results and repeat adding your experiences to that which can be studied. It's impossible for socialists to predict every possible scenario and have a detailed "battle plan" so to speak. The general idea is to work toward bringing about/recognizing a revolutionary moment (by highlighting contradictions in the marxist sense among other things) while preparing for that moment by developing the mass organization it would require to seize such a moment.
Hence the focus in US socialism on organizing and education.
On July 10 2024 19:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 19:41 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2024 18:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 18:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2024 17:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 10 2024 17:34 WombaT wrote:
Has GH ever advocated for some armed revolution, whipping the guillotines out from storage and whatnot?
My memory isn’t what it was in my youth so perhaps I’m misremembering but I don’t recall advocacy of that particular course Ask him! GH do you advocate for armed revolution? I advocate being armed for self-defense in the spirit of the Black Panthers. I also advocate for a peaceful transition into socialism. I also recognize that capitalists and their lackeys will violently resist that and socialist have to be prepared to defend themselves by any means necessary. There's an interesting place here where we can try and distinguish between "I want peaceful socialism, but if capitalists don't go along it (or resist) with we will 'defend ourselves'" and "I advocate for an armed revolution where the capitalists are given a choice between surrendering or violence" Surrender or violence is already the choice capitalists offer us all. It was pretty thematic throughout capitalist US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. Part of the problem of measuring stuff like this is that people intuitively memory hole/rationalize incalculable violence that is perpetrated to maintain the capitalist status quo. Like if a refugee escapes some country the US sponsored some dictator in and is stopped at the border by some " Arizona Border Guard" and they violently escape, was it self-defense? US capitalist law/courts would probably say it is not, a more holistic perspective might say otherwise. I tend to lean toward the more holistic perspective on self-defense rather than one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide. + Show Spoiler +Hmm, I don't see that there's a genuine dichotomy between this more holistic perspective and one rooted in rationalizing Manifest Destiny and genocide.
This is why Wombat didn't think you advocate for armed revolution, because its always couched in funny language games.
Just say it, man. You clearly believe that we are currently living in a system where we are kept under capitalism by force, + Show Spoiler + and believe its justified to to try and flip that system so that socialism can be enforced instead. Just say it! Do you believe otherwise? The more interesting parts of the conversation take place around exactly what the armed revolution would look like, rather whatever society looks like afterwards. Which is exactly the part of the conversation GH never offers. I don't understand why tbh. For me, GH has gone pretty far on occasion, to the point where saying "Yes I'm happy for major current political figures to be killed in service of the revolution" wouldn't actually be going much further than he already has sometimes. The obvious sticking point is 'what happens to your average Joe who decides that he liked his capitalist system?' And also 'what about the military?' is a pretty good question considering you can't imagine Capitalists are going to be very happy giving up their beloved capitalism.
Simply put, I'd need to have detailed enough context (based on the sort of things I mentioned) to even begin to seriously address your questions. But generally your avg Joe is just going to go with the flow, the military will follow structured civilian power, and the true capitalists (like billionaires) most of them will probably fight to the death for (or at least to the last person they can pay to die to protect) their wealth.
If a revolutionary moment comes, and those things line up for fascists we get a fascist revolution, if they line up for socialists, a socialist revolution, and so on. Right now they are lining up pretty uniformly for a fascist revolution and Democrats are running out of time to have their come to Jesus moment and change that balance.
Maybe we'll fail, fascists will take over and it's 100 years before the US has another presidential election, but I know I'll have tried my best (however embarrassingly inadequate that may be). It'll ultimately likely be of little consequence or consolation in the grand scheme of things, but it gives me a little peace for now, and that's worth a lot in times like these.
|
United States41965 Posts
As always, your best socialist revolutioning seems less impactful than my least socialist revolutioning. Waiting around for things to get worse or for some trigger event to set off a chain reaction seems an awful lot like doing nothing. If the revolutionary moment never comes in your lifetime and you never actually do anything would you still characterize that as you having done your best?
Edit: I just had a disturbing thought. You spend a lot of time posting about socialist revolution on teamliquid. What if this is it? What if in a life of inaction this ends up being the best?
|
On July 10 2024 22:22 KwarK wrote:
As always, your best socialist revolutioning seems less impactful than my least socialist revolutioning. Waiting around for things to get worse or for some trigger event to set off a chain reaction seems an awful lot like doing nothing. If the revolutionary moment never comes in your lifetime and you never actually do anything would you still characterize that as you having done your best?
Edit: I just had a disturbing thought. You spend a lot of time posting about socialist revolution on teamliquid. What if this is it? What if in a life of inaction this ends up being the best?
Okay! You personally blew up a federal building to start your socialist revolution. What now?
|
On July 10 2024 22:22 KwarK wrote:
As always, your best socialist revolutioning seems less impactful than my least socialist revolutioning. Waiting around for things to get worse or for some trigger event to set off a chain reaction seems an awful lot like doing nothing. If the revolutionary moment never comes in your lifetime and you never actually do anything would you still characterize that as you having done your best?
Edit: I just had a disturbing thought. You spend a lot of time posting about socialist revolution on teamliquid. What if this is it? What if in a life of inaction this ends up being the best?
this feels a bit raunchy. I think this is way too rude
|
Northern Ireland23783 Posts
On July 11 2024 01:32 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 22:22 KwarK wrote:
As always, your best socialist revolutioning seems less impactful than my least socialist revolutioning. Waiting around for things to get worse or for some trigger event to set off a chain reaction seems an awful lot like doing nothing. If the revolutionary moment never comes in your lifetime and you never actually do anything would you still characterize that as you having done your best?
Edit: I just had a disturbing thought. You spend a lot of time posting about socialist revolution on teamliquid. What if this is it? What if in a life of inaction this ends up being the best? Okay! You personally blew up a federal building to start your socialist revolution. What now?
You better hope you’re not shacked up in jail with Timothy McVeigh as he’ll be rather irked you stole his bit?
|
On July 10 2024 16:05 WombaT wrote:
In fairness maybe there is the genesis of a point or two in there, but it’s impossible to get to if it’s buried in a sheen giant wall of conclusions made from barely-connected anecdotes.
Look, people said explain more what you're talking about, I tried to provide a panoply of different examples to sink our teeth into and it's a wall of anecdotes. I don't have a publishable mathematical proof that there are people who take their politics as religious orthodoxies.
On July 10 2024 16:05 WombaT wrote:
Humans broadly share more than what separates them, but there are significant enough differences in actual core values, or indeed in base psychology between left and right-wing people that I think it’s flawed to express similarities in behaviour as merely being vectors for the same underlying phenomena.
I find more similarity between Bush, Clinton, Romney, and Obama than I do between Cenk Uygur, Andrew Cuomo, Noam Chomsky, and Bill Maher.
On July 10 2024 16:05 WombaT wrote:
I mean for one, religious folks kinda want their particular religion to be well, true. Supposed religious substitutes that the left adhere to are broadly things they rather weren’t true, otherwise they wouldn’t rail against them.
People who follow DEI and critical race theory believe white supremacy is real, people who follow 3rd wave feminism believe patriarchal society is real.
The fact that they purport to fight the bad thing in their framework doesn't mean they wish their beliefs, which in the religion analogy becomes the entire core of their existence, weren't true. The purpose comes from the struggle itself. That is also characteristic of religions. Islam has jihad, Christianity has constant tests, Buddhism has a struggle towards enlightenment. This is actually supposed to be endless by design. If the "belief," whatever it is, ever succeeds, it undermines its own purpose.
This would be roughly akin to saying Christians would rather Satan and Hell didn't exist, and therefore they don't really want their religious beliefs to be true. Right?
Communists still believe in communism. They don't suddenly not believe in communism just because they wish we didn't have this capitalism with its oppressive classist hierarchy.
On July 10 2024 16:05 WombaT wrote:
There used to be many a left-wing leader subject to the cult of personality, it’s not something leftists are somehow immune to. These days they feel very, very thin on the ground, whereas there’s more than you can shake a stick at on the right. Indeed I wonder why there’s such a paucity of the former.
Maybe that's the directional divide of our zeitgeist? Right wing has shifted to cult of personality while left wing has shifted to cult of good old-fashioned cult? But the right are much more critical and largely (or... noticeably) hate their representatives/party, so the result is polarizing, when someone is liked they enjoy a certain loyalty, on the left nobody is moving hearts and minds, just getting rubber stamped. This has been in like 10 years of intraparty approval stats.
On July 10 2024 16:05 WombaT wrote:
Going back to Blade’s point earlier, to me what differentiates a cult of personality from merely being popular, is in the former people will bend their own ostensible values to maintain the infallibility of Dear Leader, someone who is merely popular can fall from grace pretty quickly if they start doing things that are unpopular to their fan base.
To me it sounds backwards that a group of people who can be swayed or convinced of something different, are a cult, while people who would reject, cancel, or excommunicate someone at the slightest transgression against the blob, aren't.
On July 10 2024 16:05 WombaT wrote:
If I was being uncharitable it had crossed my mind that folks have a pretty internalised and repressed, but still existent comprehension that various charges made against them are pretty accurate, so seek to identify those same behaviours in the ‘other’.
Another fascinating psychological concept is that of "projection."
On July 10 2024 16:05 WombaT wrote:
Hey I think it’s an interesting enough broader subject to explore similarities in political psyche as well as differences, so long as it doesn’t take the form of a string of observations like ‘Rachel Maddow said something on her show once’ metastasising into a conclusion as far-reaching as ‘leftists act as a religious order’ or what have you.
Do not confuse the fact that because it doesn't describe you, that it doesn't describe a group of people. And you don't need to put words in my mouth, I didn't and won't say all leftists. But you can't ignore the patterns time and time again. Trump is concerned about the border, racist idiot, border is secure. Few moments later - Trump and Republicans don't care about our serious border problems like Biden and Mayorkas do! Gas is too expensive - Hey, president doesn't set gas prices. Drops -> Thanks Biden! Trump proposes tariffs - Every economist agrees he will crash the economy, the cost goes right to the American consumer. 25% tariff from Biden - Foreign policy genius! And remember we have to vote for Biden this year or else the atmosphere will blow up (because he is going to stop China from using 5x as much coal as everyone else combined?). These are not strawmen just because it doesn't happen to be what you or some other random guy personally believe. There are people who lockstep followed each and every one of these. And they're serious issues. I've seen the "priests" do this time and time again, I can accept that they, at least, are purposely manipulating with propaganda. But it's the people among my friends, all over my social media, that I have to account for that fall for it. I see this again and again for years on end. How else am I to describe this behavior, what other analogue is there?
|
United States41965 Posts
On July 11 2024 01:32 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2024 22:22 KwarK wrote:
As always, your best socialist revolutioning seems less impactful than my least socialist revolutioning. Waiting around for things to get worse or for some trigger event to set off a chain reaction seems an awful lot like doing nothing. If the revolutionary moment never comes in your lifetime and you never actually do anything would you still characterize that as you having done your best?
Edit: I just had a disturbing thought. You spend a lot of time posting about socialist revolution on teamliquid. What if this is it? What if in a life of inaction this ends up being the best? Okay! You personally blew up a federal building to start your socialist revolution. What now?
These are the challenges that must be addressed if you’re going to put all of your eggs in the revolution basket. But I’m not doing that. I’ve blown up zero buildings but I’m not allin on that plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
