"There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up." — Tony Benn
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
"There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up." — Tony Benn
OP
OP
This is how the dialectical struggle functions. Workers don't always win - in fact, they lose quite often. But the thesis and antithesis clash and produce a synthesis, and that develops new conditions from which new theses and antitheses emerge, and so on.
Everyone who has ever wanted progress has despaired in this same way, but history does not stop. It also doesn't guarantee victory - it doesn't guarantee anything but further struggle. But that means that any period where loss seems absolute is a lie.
"Fight, fail, fight again, fail again, fight again . . . until their victory; that is the logic of the people"
Get dunked on Yang
She's talking about this btw https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/01/andrew-yang-coronavirus-discrimination/
Great thread talking about how Dem elites have lied and manipulated the public when it comes to M4A and virtually every other progressive policy they've been throwing cold water on for the better part of 40 years.
and then this which I want to delve into a little bit:
That right there is the kicker. Mainstream Dems need to realize we aren't clamoring for M4A for shits and giggles. Just like Republicans have myopia and can't see past their racism most times, Democrats seem to have this myopia when it comes to seeing past what their masters want (i.e. corporations and industries). To the point where they airblast out indoctrination and misinformation to plant seeds of doubt in americans that a much better future is possible quicker than they'd believe.
As Howard Dean once lamented during the debate for the ACA a decade ago:
"In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care."
That will be our forever future if we don't finally say 'no' to big money interests.
and then this which I want to delve into a little bit:
That right there is the kicker. Mainstream Dems need to realize we aren't clamoring for M4A for shits and giggles. Just like Republicans have myopia and can't see past their racism most times, Democrats seem to have this myopia when it comes to seeing past what their masters want (i.e. corporations and industries). To the point where they airblast out indoctrination and misinformation to plant seeds of doubt in americans that a much better future is possible quicker than they'd believe.
As Howard Dean once lamented during the debate for the ACA a decade ago:
"In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care."
That will be our forever future if we don't finally say 'no' to big money interests.
OP
OP
Capitalism is so ingrained into me that I'm starting to feel bad about "wasting" my two days off on video games.
As in Eric Andre? That kinda makes sense given the Hannibal Buress connection.
OP
OP
I intended on working on writing today and I ended up just posting Star Wars memes in the discord.
nah, just a semi-prominent socialist on Twitter. He usually has good takes, but idk about this thread:
Ah, okay. I feel like all the hand wringing about guillotine jokes is such a waste of time because we all know Twitter shitposters aren't actually gonna execute anyone anyway. The fact that people are posting guillotine emojis in the first place should be a warning sign of how bad inequality is, not an invitation to start theorycrafting scenarios of revolution happening tomorrow.
The "what about broke property owners" conversation always just makes me of the scene in Parasite when the mom kicks the ex-housekeeper down the stairs back into the basement.
Last edited:
I went to the website in the corner and the first header there is "Trump Friendly Cartoons"
Check out this article:
Stop Trying to Be Productive (Published 2020)
The internet wants you to believe you aren’t doing enough with all that “extra time” you have now. But staying inside and attending to basic needs is plenty.
I'm definitely a social democracy guy, but I'm starting to shift slowly.
Even the biggest free-market advocates should be aware that there are no free markets as incumbent form cartels. Apple and Google famously drove down worker wages in California and were busted for it. It's another reason why I think unions are needed as well.
I haven't even talked about stuff like corporate welfare and legalized protectionism--all that should be antithetical toward free-market devotees, but business asks for government help all the time. The republican party basically had legal welfare for farmers, yet they complain about mythical welfare queens.
OP
OP
I guess unknowns. Most economies have been mixed in our history as a species.
Also, a lot of port agricultural age history is evolutionary, similar to pre-history. We never really just start over. The same natural selection pressure that makes ancient systems like monarchy irrelevant for most nations, maintains things like commerce and trade.
We def need to talk about Class more. The elites have done a great job of masking it. Heck, that's the story of America, using racial discord while the plutes gonna plute.
I'm also a big proponent in non-violent resistance, so I don't know how to move forward.
An idea salad, I know. But a summary of my concerns.
OP
OP
This doesn't really contradict anything about socialism - we know it won't erupt fully formed out of nowhere, it develops out if a clash between classes. As Marx says:
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."
That's certainly something up for debate, but I think the important thing to remember is that the dialectical struggle between the owners and producers is inevitable and in fact always ongoing. You can support electoralism as harm reduction or to get ideas to filter down, you can support labor actions or a general strike, etc. The important thing is where do you think you'd stand if things got so bad that something really did kick off - and that would likely be spontaneous, not preplanned.
This puts my mind at ease a bit. I'm on art twitter a lot and I constantly see people showing off work they've done in quarantine and here I am playing Persona 5 lolCheck out this article:
Stop Trying to Be Productive (Published 2020)
The internet wants you to believe you aren’t doing enough with all that “extra time” you have now. But staying inside and attending to basic needs is plenty.www.nytimes.com
I'm definitely a social democracy guy, but I'm starting to shift slowly.
Even the biggest free-market advocates should be aware that there are no free markets as incumbent form cartels. Apple and Google famously drove down worker wages in California and were busted for it. It's another reason why I think unions are needed as well.
I haven't even talked about stuff like corporate welfare and legalized protectionism--all that should be antithetical toward free-market devotees, but business asks for government help all the time. The republican party basically had legal welfare for farmers, yet they complain about mythical welfare queens.
Don't worry, entremet, we all started out afraid to fully embrace socialism and revolution. We'll make a comrade out of you yet.
As far as the non-violence thing, we aren't really in a position where tomorrow we will have armed uprisings, and we should do what we can to make sure we don't have to do that. Strikes, walkouts, education, supporting labor and socialist politicians (even if it's little S socialism) is very important right now.
The fight for socialism is a long one.
As far as the non-violence thing, we aren't really in a position where tomorrow we will have armed uprisings, and we should do what we can to make sure we don't have to do that. Strikes, walkouts, education, supporting labor and socialist politicians (even if it's little S socialism) is very important right now.
The fight for socialism is a long one.
As Mekanos said, we aren't in a position to actually coordinate armed uprisings right now, the modern capitalist state has become in some ways too powerful to topple in traditional revolutionary style.
That said, I don't agree with the idea that we shouldn't ever be non-violent on principle. Liberals fetishize figures like MLK and Gandhi who managed to bring about change through non-violence, but both the civil rights movements and the Indian independence movement has long histories of justified violent revolution against oppression. I could be here all day talking about the Indian Independence movement especially, but to keep it short Britian suffered heavy losses was decolonizing post-WW2 anyways because they could no longer afford to keep their colonies running (especially one as populous and huge as India) and they also had a socialist Labour Prime Minister who was sympathetic to the cause of Indian Independence. Indians could have went full violent revolution and the result would have been likely the same/similar.
Also, the principle of non-violence assumes that the other side is behaving similarly, which is not necessarily the case. The violence of the state is a lot more subtle and not as direct, but make no mistake, it is still violence. Turning classes against each other, stirring racial resentment, the racist criminal justice system, imperialist foreign policy.... this is all violence of the capitalist state.
Last edited:
The issue of non-violence is more about survival than principles, imo. There might someday be a place for violent revolution, but right now America's leftist movement is small and vulnerable, and we should ensure it doesn't become throttled by state violence.
Taking and breaking corporate property isn't violence and occupying space isn't violence. And that is probably the most radicle step feasible if you don't have a way to leverage existing labor or rent relationships.
We might want to discuss if open carry protests are smart and just, but right now I really worry about the response not evoking the fear or anger we need but instead just the confident use of the iron fist.
Edit: Oh, I should add that individually making the assholes suffer the shame they deserve is good too if they know their asshole actions evoked it. The rest will know they could be the next to be milkshaked.
I think recent events has proven how fruitless it is to get the type of people who'd be appalled by the uncivil behavior on our side.
We might want to discuss if open carry protests are smart and just, but right now I really worry about the response not evoking the fear or anger we need but instead just the confident use of the iron fist.
Edit: Oh, I should add that individually making the assholes suffer the shame they deserve is good too if they know their asshole actions evoked it. The rest will know they could be the next to be milkshaked.
I think recent events has proven how fruitless it is to get the type of people who'd be appalled by the uncivil behavior on our side.
Last edited:
I'm not a violent guy by nature but its hard to argue with the basic observation that most of human "progress" was built on violence. European Feudalism didn't collapse because some hoity-toity bourgeoisie philosophers discovered solidarity, it was overthrown by force or the threat of force. Ditto colonialism, slavery, the tsardom, the Ming dynasty, etc.
That's also been an issue I've struggled with as well moving towards more leftists ideas: I can't see myself acting out in violence.
But this is where I'm at right now.
OP
OP
You can always be medics or agitprop or something lol
Regardless, revolutions aren't really planned so much as they result from collapsing conditions. If that happened, you wouldn't have the luxury of being able to debate whether you're OK with violence or not. The question is which side would you support.
Not all revolutions end up violent anyway. Did everyone forget about how the USSR collapsed?* It depends on the circumstances.
*Technically may not fit Marxist criteria for revolution depending on what class you think controlled the USSR!
Regardless, revolutions aren't really planned so much as they result from collapsing conditions. If that happened, you wouldn't have the luxury of being able to debate whether you're OK with violence or not. The question is which side would you support.
Not all revolutions end up violent anyway. Did everyone forget about how the USSR collapsed?* It depends on the circumstances.
*Technically may not fit Marxist criteria for revolution depending on what class you think controlled the USSR!
I will get better and stronger 😔
Exactly lol. I was excited to join the DSA, something I never considered before, and somehow get involved from there but literally a week later, shit hit the fan lol
Where I settled as a neoliberal-turned-socialist is: "Don't actively pursue violence, but if violence has to happen, don't be a curmudgeon and stand in its way". History is peppered with the corpses of well-meaning peaceniks who history regarded as being on the wrong side (collaborators).
This raises a question for history-illiterate me: does the level of violence put into going from one system to the next vary depending on what you're going from and to? Or is it always bloody? Like, would a transition from socialism to communism (assuming socialism is well-established of course) be less violent than going from feudalism to capitalism?
Not sure that question can really be answered tbh, but I find it interesting to ponder.
OP
OP
Depends on if classes were already eliminated or if an element has formed a nomenklatura/pseudo-ruling class within the state (that gets into whether or not socialism exists already if there's still a state and politicians).
Take, for example, the Cultural Revolution. I think it's pretty obvious that Mao was using it as a weapon to crush his enemies and rivals in the party, but I also think he was "correct" in the sense that the party had become an enemy to socialism and the only way out was to overthrow it. Of course, that was more rhetoric than reality - he didn't actually want to destroy the party. "Bombard the headquarters, but not our proletarian headquarters!"
I'd say yes but not in terms of the economic system on either side so much as technological/material progress. The violence is the result of the collapse of outdated systems, there is less violence (or more) depending on how entrenched the existing power structure is and how much force you need to challenge that structure. Using Gandhi and the liberation of the British Raj as an example, the main reason Gandhi got away with what he did (IMO) is because Britain got steamrolled by Nazi Germany. It could not afford to maintain its colonial holdings. In Gandhi's case, just the threat of rebellion was enough to get Britain to capitulate, whether he knew it or not he had exploited the violence that was done on Britain by Germany in order to liberate India. Peaceful transitions are possible if you can convince the power brokers to give up their station. I don't know who would be the power brokers in a hypothetical socialist state (worker councils?) but kings are historically not good at giving up their kingship which is why they often need to be violently overthrown, by the peasantry or by rival kings.
OP
OP
Also remember that the October Revolution was not particularly violent - it was the civil war that followed that really wreaked havoc. But even the Duma and the Constituent Assembly being replaced by the Soviets was fairly "simple".
Of course, again, violence preceded it, with World War I and the February Revolution.
Of course, again, violence preceded it, with World War I and the February Revolution.
Honestly I think even something like Buddhist philosophy, which (generally) has a reputation for pacifism or whatever, would agree with this. It will always be hard to determine what kinds of action may be necessary as long as we reserve special status for our own individual or private interests (including animosities), which is to say that under all ordinary circumstances people aren't really ethically objective, but if we're thoughtful or authentic about our intentions we can probably still make strides in separating what is just or life-preserving from what is simply wrath or violence, etc.