getfiscal posted:baby huey is correct yet again, by the way.
bourgeois society sees itself as a totality. as such, it sees itself as natural and rational, while attempts to ignore this essential rationality are seen as a dangerous other. however, the dangerous other is entirely determined by rational factors - their crimes are comprehensible within a certain framework (they are jihadis because they are angry young males, or serial murderers because of brain chemical problems, or some other label). likewise, any attempt to fundamentally transform the system from within is entirely foreclosed - liberal politics can form the tone of a capitalist society within certain limits, but it cannot overthrow capitalist society. likewise, NGO-style work is simply a linear solution to a geometric problem - global collective problems require global collective solutions.
this perceived surface steadiness is constantly rumbling with earthquakes and eruptions from the real base of the system: the fact that capitalist society needs to exploit workers to reproduce itself. this constant search for new surplus value forces the world to fracture itself into endless material subdivisions - class, race, gender, etc. - which are used as dimensions of repression. the problem is that not all of these divisions have the reasonable ability to stop the system in its tracks. only people who create the means of sustenance for capitalism have the ability to stop the core parts of value flows. this means the people who grow the food, make the clothes, use the tools and so on. everyone else can cause short-circuits in the local channels of capitalism but they cannot stop the system from rerouting around them.
however, this mass collective revolt (an unlimited political general strike) can only survive if the systems of ideological and coercive repression are neutralized in some way. knowing this, most "radical-minded" people work within the existing capitalist totality - they use the channels they know will work to make their lives better. however, for any radical that knows that capitalism is an impossible state to maintain - there is no balance to be found within it - then the self-defence of the strike becomes their central task. this is foreclosed as well in most situations - imagine if you tried to defend a picket line in the US with a rifle today (even though this happened in the US and Europe in the past!).
the solution to this dilemma is that the capitalist totality does not in fact exist as it sees itself. it projects an all-inclusive, complete visgage but it can never fully integrate its constituent parts because it depends on their exploitation. as such, the process of exploitation causes weak links in the system - underdeveloped regions, abandoned factories, states weakened by imperialism, etc. the aim of socialists is to seize these weak links and demonstrate to the masses that they can use these nodes to control their own societies in their own interests.
however, the above must involve being prepared (especially in theory) to actually control the flow of events. that is, the aim is not agitation (simply encouraging revolution), but rather to make revolution oneself - to "pick up the rifle" and not to put it down until the revolution is over. this means that the state is essentially a weapon, it cannot be conceived as a "state of the whole people" within a globe that remains fundamentally capitalist. this means that socialists must argue against people who want fundamentally the same sort of society - liberal-democratic with a market framework - and dress it up as socialism. if you notice, that's virtually all socialists who compete in elections, because they are trying to change capitalism through reforms - even if they call themselves anticapitalists.
the problem is that there is no institution or policy that can guarantee a revolution will stay on track given the enormous pressures within a capitalist world to throw it off track. this is partly because most people are asking for reasonable things - they want an end to corruption, they want quality food and consumer goods, they don't want to be bossed around at work - and no socialist society has been able to consistently provide those things. beyond that, socialism may solve some problems, but it certainly has some of its own in terms of organizing a well-functioning economy. yet most socialists, even socialist economists, consider the actual functioning of socialism to be largely a minor issue. however, we must continue to try! for there is nothing else to do!
red salute, baby huey p. newton!
hail stalin
for example, in "darkness at noon" there's a little story (it's fiction but gets to the point) about how a person wrote a report that called for long-range submarines to be built. but the political implication of long-range submarines is that the soviet union would be projecting its power, which implies world revolution, while short-range submarines means national defence, which is socialism-in-one-country. so the person calling for long-range submarines obviously had to be arrested. this sort of logic permeates an entire "stalinist" society - almost everyone produces "errors" that need to be ironed out using force. so what people end up doing is mouthing the same words - and then you really can't tell who is at fault, because the people most committed to "capitalist restoration" or whatever tend to be the ones who know the party line the most and have become quietly cynical about it. so after stalin, mao and hoxha you get leaders that were once fiercely loyal parts of the system but then changed their minds and call for pragmatism.
so if you call for democracy internal only to socialism then you will almost always end up substituting towards a narrow dictatorship, and that dictatorship can't hold on because the lack of democracy produces countless dangerous errors. the way to handle this is to build majorities out of the weak links across the world, to balance between leadership and self-organization as far as possible within a democratic model. in other words, insurgent democracy.
waiting for an opportune moment to strike means waiting for a long time, those vested in the capitalist economy are more likely to retain their influence (and the lack of balance...) even if they do elect to introduce changes to 'ownership laws' which really don't have to benevolent.
so basically, you have no real way to agitate a revolution and you have no way to control it once/if it rises, so, well, I prefer Khamsek's line of ideas, it actually includes trying to do stuff for people with you own hands even though I don't believe it can actually hope to topple the national state any time soon.
the way to handle this is to build majorities out of the weak links across the world, to balance between leadership and self-organization as far as possible within a democratic model. in other words, insurgent democracy.
this is really interesting. Could you please write something expanding on it, like, an entire book
littlegreenpills posted:the way to handle this is to build majorities out of the weak links across the world, to balance between leadership and self-organization as far as possible within a democratic model. in other words, insurgent democracy.
this is really interesting. Could you please write something expanding on it, like, an entire book
littlegreenpills posted:this is really interesting. Could you please write something expanding on it, like, an entire book
don't troll me bro
Transient_Grace posted:waiting for an opportune moment to strike means waiting for a long time, those vested in the capitalist economy are more likely to retain their influence (and the lack of balance...) even if they do elect to introduce changes to 'ownership laws' which really don't have to benevolent.
we had a financial collapse almost five years ago and the left had nothing to say or offer to the wretched of the earth. at this rate (following the opportune moment line of reasoning), we might as well wait for jesus and his white horse.
Transient_Grace posted:so basically, you have no real way to agitate a revolution and you have no way to control it once/if it rises, so, well, I prefer Khamsek's line of ideas, it actually includes trying to do stuff for people with you own hands even though I don't believe it can actually hope to topple the national state any time soon.
i agree. question: how will these local grassroots communities address the problems of overemployment and structural unemployment? speaking as a southerner who has been poor and homeless, how would you go about offering jobs that simply don't exist? in creating jobs (seeing as we are working through the system), how far would you be willing to compromise your political positions to attract outside manufacturers and distributors seeing as most local southern governments typically sell their souls for the opportunity? how would these local grassroots community government have any efficient means of dealing with discriminatory hiring practices in private employment?
another question: how would this hands-on, feel-good volunteerism be any different than what most local churches and shelters already provide?
littlegreenpills posted:It may be that it won't turn out to be much of a barrier at all; would you say that, contrary to the liberal stereotype, white and black people in poor communities by and large respect each other in their day to day dealings pretty well? and that where tension exists its generally related to environmental issues (competition for jobs and what not)? or what's going on here
it's an inseparable part of the social fabric and can't be removed without completely destroying and rebuilding society which the federal government refused to do during reconstruction because as a source of cheap, supplicant labor the region was more valuable in its current state, which is true today such as boeing moving to sc as a union-busting tactic
jools posted:hahahha im going to preempt you by posting my badass article in like 20 minutes
hell ya
discipline posted:babyfinland posted:I don't think anyone is interested in Olivia reading about how the Man is keeping us down,.they want decent lives for their families
people can want decent lives for their families and also seek an end to oppression and big bank parasitism.
-- Adolf Hitler, 1938
a reading of nietzsche that doesnt erase his many acerbic rants about socialists will show that he was pretty much predicting teh rhizzone
resentful, wretched, political opportunists who found that the most convenient banner under which to exercise their (dreams of) will to power was “For others”
noavbazzer posted:discipline posted:babyfinland posted:I don't think anyone is interested in Olivia reading about how the Man is keeping us down,.they want decent lives for their families
people can want decent lives for their families and also seek an end to oppression and big bank parasitism.
-- Adolf Hitler, 1938
a reading of nietzsche that doesnt erase his many acerbic rants about socialists will show that he was pretty much predicting teh rhizzone
resentful, wretched, political opportunists who found that the most convenient banner under which to exercise their (dreams of) will to power was “For others”
haha it's really awesome how full of self-hate and resentment you still are, even after 6 months or whatever rotting away
i guess. i don't really get the diagnosis tho. it'd make more sense to call me craven and selfish and weak or something.
noavbazzer posted:heheh, not posting in the rhizzone = rotting away
i guess. i don't really get the diagnosis tho. it'd make more sense to call me craven and selfish and weak or something.
what else am i gonna call some weirdo that paranoically fixates on the intentions of others, and has admitted his affinity with leftist politics was some narcissistic desire for murder and total control? you're obviously still obsessed with controlling others, compounded with a sickly compulsion to constantly project your neuroses on a small online forum where no one likes you. hahah what person in their right mind does that? Goood lord *fans self*
maybe my affinity with marxist-leninst politics was a misanthropic and childish ego-trip sure and perhaps all of you who take interest in such stuff are actually genuinely interested in helping people who are structurally oppressed under current conditions and maybe while not posting you're all outside organizing and engaging in marxist study groups with local comrades or at least trying to find local comrades to lay the groundwork for revolutionary struggle so that you can one day violently seize state power and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat and kill the kulaks and then freedom
as for me, i came to scoff, i stayed to read t-paine posts
noavbazzer posted:lol you couldnt help but take a potshot at me getting depressed about helping black kids with drug addiction could you, i knew it
yeah i get depressed helping people too lol *makes large sweeping hand motion* And thats why i earnestly project my personal problems onto strangers
How dare u use these *picks up Family Member* PEOPLE as PROPS *grabs mom's hand & motions over your entire life story*
i mean be a marxist, fine whatever, i just dont see why you cant be a marxist and still do that at the same time, why heading out into your community and being useful and treating your fellows like human beings instead of people who you need to rile up with polemics is somehow off the table
wasted posted:another question: how would this hands-on, feel-good volunteerism be any different than what most local churches and shelters already provide?
That's just it, you don't need to invent anything new. In the first few centuries of christiniaty the church provided exactly a 'shadow state' that provided community and welfare services to its members.
Transient_Grace posted:wasted posted:another question: how would this hands-on, feel-good volunteerism be any different than what most local churches and shelters already provide?
That's just it, you don't need to invent anything new. In the first few centuries of christiniaty the church provided exactly a 'shadow state' that provided community and welfare services to its members.
i agree, but paul actually provided a universal alternative idea to the existing rule of the roman empire.
discipline posted:unemployment in the state of florida is $224 per week, and that amount is taxed. schools, clinics, conflict resolution, public transportation, cafeterias, shelters, etc are all well needed in most communities. your view of humanity is so cynical and dismissive that I wonder why you bothered to have children at all.
224 a week is better than zero, which is the amount that you could conceivably pay them. schooling is a full time job that requires training to be performed competently. how many qualified teachers are you going to get to work in the ghetto for no pay for an extended period of time? same with doctors. conflict resolution is toothless without the threat of violence, and illegal with it. public transportation especially with civilian vehicles is extremely expensive and time-consuming. who is going to pay for these cafeterias and shelters? rent still needs to be paid, food still costs money.
Edited by Goethestein ()
