I didn't claim they stopped focusing on those problems, but their political line changed from one to the other. The context was something to the degree of "class" as a basis is no longer relevant with the BPP being an example, yet their politics moved towards class, not away from it.
It's tied to whiteness, because it fucking is white. It's nothing to do with perception, but a reality.
There are plenty of "progressive" movements in the world that posited that simply replacing one ruler for another of a national bourgeoisie or national character was sufficient enough to liberate their people.
Sphagnum Said it better than i could.They outwardly and explicitly lessened their focus on black liberation in favor of international proletarianism. This led to a visit to the PRC and meeting Zhou Enlai.
Condescending and dismissive, as always.Maybe you have the privilege of talking out of your ass to sound smart. Some of us don't and are encouraged to actually to learn about people.
Exactly.The BPP absolutely adopted a Maoist-inspired international revolutionary outlook, but it's not like they stopped focusing on the problems specific to the black community.
The problem is, it's not just Berniebros. It's more systemic then that.Also no argument there. That's what I'm worried about - there are certainly plenty of non white socialists providing their input and analyses, but the Berniecrats - while helping destigmatize the word socialism - are also tying it up with white-interested economic reformism, and outside of that there is still a refusal among many Marxists to engage with superstructure problems on their own terms.
What you guys would do, when you need to relax your mind of political debate, but the fascism and anticommunism is rising and could Win your country in the elections this year and you feel preoccupied with that?
The problem is, it's not just Berniebros. It's more systemic then that.
We discussed superstructure much earlier in the thread. Part of the ultimate problem with how "Marxists" and "Leftists" address superstructure problems is that, in the end, it is still reformative and, ultimately, the struggle to combat bigotry exists outside of Socialism. It can be fought along side it, but racism/sexism/homophobia/etc can "potentially" be solved within Capitalism itself. I say "potentially" because Capital always requires an alibi and scapegoat to satisfy its requirements of unequal development.
There are plenty of "progressive" movements in the world that posited that simply replacing one ruler for another of a national bourgeoisie or national character was sufficient enough to liberate their people. Marxism-Leninism devolved from international proletarian to a national bourgeois character post WW2 and all of those movements that addressed the racial superstructure and colonialist problem became part and parcel and willing participant in global Capital and their people are no better off.
Anyway, point being...
What's the takeaway here? What new ways are people addressing superstructure that hasn't been done, and failed, before?
Although "socialism" in the purest sense is an economic revolution
Let's say, for example, that there was another depression and the workers rose up and seized the MoP. They begin establishing councils. When it comes time to vote on this or that, the black workers say "hey, we need help in this area because of x and y historical problem" but the white workers say "Divisive! We need to focus on the pure socialist revolution, and when we change the base the superstructure will change with it!" The female workers say the same thing and get the same response from the male workers. And so on. We have a democracy now but without an intersectional commitment it's just a new way for old societal power relations to be maintained.
Tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, such as land, buildings, money, copyrights, patents, etc. Private property can be transferred only with its owner's consent, and by due process such as sale or gift.
In the meantime I don't think there's anything wrong with supporting minority and other repressed groups in their various reformist struggles simply because it's the right thing to do within the current reality.
So sure, we can have the vanguard sitting around debating pure Marxism before The Revolution, but if they're not seeking to instill an intersectional fervor along with the economic theory it's empty.
In our times, the idea of development, of evolution, has almost completely penetrated social consciousness, only in other ways, and not through Hegelian philosophy. Still, this idea, as formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of Hegels' philosophy, is far more comprehensive and far richer in content than the current idea of evolution is. A development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis ("the negation of the negation"), a development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; "breaks in continuity"; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society
Socialism is more than an "economic revolution", as the concerns of economy (planning, allocation, consumption, collectivization, accumulation, etc) are the concerns of scarcity, growth, and surplus.
But the second statement... Does "Group X" having access to "Item X" and having the political authority to withhold it not satisfy the concept of privatization?
In your illustration the MOP have been seized but the end result is that the once proletariat has now become the Capitalist, and Capitalism has always promised accessibility to Capital by the proletariat. The American Dream has come true as the various proletariat has changed their productive relations and can now use it to their own benefit of surplus and expropriation. But now each group has to protect their own Capital and assess its trade value against their needs to further their own economic goals.
This is Capitalism, and no one is liberated.
A simple "economic revolution" isn't the solution. And, coincidentally enough, what you've described happened within the Black Panthers. Some sections rejected opening the Party and their support and welfare structures up to whites. Others rejected the concept of liberating women. Etc etc. This caused divisions and, ultimately, aided in its own destruction.
Well, as I've said a few times before. These are needed struggles, and struggles within Capitalism are their own but they are independent of Socialism. And these struggles within capitalism influence and teach the generations of potential Socialist revolutionaries.
How is Socialism, the recognition of the one thing that the majority of humans have in common, not intersectional? The one quality between me and a man or woman who I otherwise have nothing else in common with.
The Vanguard does not sit around and debate, the Vanguard is the true progressive and Revolutionary force that acts. The Vanguard are the proletariat of all races, sexes, etc that recognize what binds them their ultimate oppressor and abolishes it. Any section of the proletariat that devolves into reactionary politics should be destroyed along with Capital. What if the Vanguard cannot or will not successfully confront the reactionary politics of their Proletarian allies?
An "economic revolution" has happened, but the Social and Cultural Revolution did not. The Socialist Revolution has failed and the movement must start anew.
This is a depressing notion, but it is not an unknown one. This is the course of history. Remember Marx, Engels, and Lenin:
Don't ever be afraid to post in here.Oooh, can we talk about tech and socialism? I was kind of afraid of bringing the futurism here, given how much we all seem to disagree on stuff.
Every time one of these Bernie mishaps pops up it makes me think about the damage being done to the understanding of "socialism" in the US by it being tied to whiteness. Total opposite problem from last century!
Also looks like Lula is going to turn himself in today?
A few days late on this, but I haven't been closely following this thread for the past few.
Respectfully: I absolutely do agree that Bernie has real blind spots on these issues and that they should be criticized (as long as it's about something he actually did or said, like the 2015 drugs comment, and not a wholly mendacious smear like the MLK/Jackson/Obama controversy). However, I think handwringing about the degree to which Bernie is doing lasting damage to the socialist "brand," as it were, both overestimates the actual numbers of vocally anti-left liberals, and the extent to which they're willing or able to argue in good faith on this subject.
To put this more succinctly: I think the problem is more that this sort of messaging is failing to reach people who might otherwise be amenable to socialism than that it's actively repelling anyone who might otherwise be amenable, and the specific "socialism is for white bros only" discourse you're talking about is very largely a phenomenon of certain online bubbles and the professional Dem political classes.
I suppose that's true. In my own life most "normal" people I know don't really even catch on to these arguments and only pay attention once campaign season starts. But he could be doing so much more if he wasn't prone to these gaffes. I guess it's similar to Hillary where she was controversy prone but half the time the controversy was some grinned up nonsense, glossing over her real problems.
https://www.facebook.com/USdems/pho...10435343749/583278635390260/?type=3&source=57
FB page of US democratic socialists
Yeah.....
We are in weird times, the academic/real definition of stuff doesnt matter anymore, as an user Said to me here in other words "doesnt matter What you Say communism is or Marx, but what the popular meaning is and what people say It is today".I like democracy and think destroying private corporations is Good Actually. What does that make me?
I like democracy and think destroying private corporations is Good Actually. What does that make me?
TBH I always get them mixed as well and use the wrong one in conversation and honestly we should probably just find a different label for one of themThanks to Bernie, tons of people conflate demsoc and socdem. Kind of a small difference when it comes down to the same strategies with different long term goals.
This is probably the first thing we've agreed on.Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats. Same thing, different order.
If the Democrats were more into destroying private corporations I'd probably have way less issues with them now
Exactly my feelings.If the Democrats were more into destroying private corporations I'd probably have way less issues with them now
In fairness, the only reason I don't like it is because it tastes bad.
Inspirational communists phrases for coaching or companies
No pain no gain
"If I voted, I would have voted for Trump" - Kanye 2016
And if you need more reason to not whitewash this assholes's politics, remember: this is where his shitty $150 t shirts are made.
http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/20...iding-notes-for-shoppers-inside-clothing.html
JOKES?!?!?! To the gulag with you.Cool to know that about him, but i was posting this Just for the joke.
/Runs to mexico
Cool to know that about him, but i was posting this Just for the joke.
No need to copy/paste since a thread was already made about it, but yet another news item about Amazon being shitty to its workers.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/am...ng-punished-for-taking-a-comfort-break.36472/