Yes, but wisely by evolving beyond it, not by trying to fight a Goliath directly in their strongest areas. We’re smart, we should be able to come up with real solutions.
Here’s weird thought experiment
Think of our current government as scaffolding that we’re all standing on 100 floors high, that is right on top of a slave/homeless/refugee camp/zoo (i.e. vulnerable populations). This scaffolding must be replaced because it’s made out of rotting wood without sending us all crashing down on the camp and zoo killing billions of people and animals.
How do we do it?
The right wing position is to tear down the scaffolding by getting positions in site management and ordering replacing the rotting wood with broken plastic while kicking everyone they don’t like, sometimes pushing them off the scaffolding. Of course, they don’t care about any what the scaffolding is holding up or what’s below, they just realized they can use this scaffold system to gain power and money.
The tankie position is to get your rotten wood hating friends together with their hammers and torches and start bashing. I guess they are either 1) seemingly unaware this will cause us all to fall, or 2) remember when it worked 100 years ago with the scaffolding was only 1 floor high and only a few people underneath and think it will be the same this time, or 3) are effectively right wingers on a different team in that they don’t care about collateral damage as long as their team can rise from the ashes into power.
The liberal position is to put some polish on the wood and some rainbow and recycling stickers on some poles and send a few TV dinners below while we dump our trash down there and not admit that there are slaves down there making our stuff. The long-term problem of scaffold failure is talked about at various conferences and people donate millions to the “Replace the Rot” foundation.
I say the best way to go about it is to replace it part by part as it stands. Depend less and less on the bits of rotting wood and more on the strong sustainable replacements we build. Don’t replace the very high bits that were built for ego by weak men, instead lift those underneath up onto the strong bits of the scaffold. Eventually we might realize that all that’s left of the old rotting scaffold is that weak bit holding on at the end, might as well lop that off now that it’s not critical to our survival anymore.
Now imagine we have an election between two site managers. Neither of them has any real plans to replace this scaffolding, in fact both have plans to expand it. Both candidates support the genocide in the neighboring scaffold.
Primary differences between candidates
Candidate #1 is going to criminalize talking about the scaffolding, ban encryption to ensure you don’t talk about it, and start a new program to push more people off the scaffold.
Candidate #2 is going to do too little too late when it comes to truly solving the rotting scaffold problem or stopping people from falling off the scaffold.
Now ask yourself, under which candidate can I do more to solve the rotting scaffold problem directly? Under which candidate can I do my little part to solve the problem without falling or being pushed off the scaffold or being arrested? Under which candidate are fewer people going to be pushed off while me and my team go about fixing the scaffold ourselves because the leaders are unwilling or unable?
Voting is not about putting your support behind a candidate or identifying with them, it’s a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.
Oh my sweet uninformed reformest, my undying love 😘
Sorry i shouldn’t be too sarcastic, but really you’re so close. I’ve been where you are. If you’re interest in learning why I changed my views I’d recommend reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxembourg. In short, while unions, reformists, and the expansion of social democracy are important to the development of clsss consciousess, they alone cannot create a socialist society. Revolution is required.
Who said I want a socialist society? I’m an anarcho-communist, I have never seen positions of authority, left or right, not abuse the position. A society that can function without some subset claiming authority and using violence to coerce others to gain and maintain power is what we should be striving for.
I suppose, these words are so nebulous. I understand socialism as needing a state and (real, not authoritarian) communism as being incompatible with a state.
Then you understand it wrong. Communism is socialism by definition. Maybe try actually looking up the definition of socialism that marxists and anarchists actually use. It’s a broad term but not a nebulous one as it has a concrete definition: a society where the working class own/control the means of production.
Ancom fits yeah, and i dont entirely disagree with you. I just dont see how that can be accomplished without revolution. Those in power don’t typically give up that power without violence. I don’t see how infiltrating a system run by and for the ruling class, designed specifically to benefit them, and attempting to make it better is supposed to work. The ruling class could just get rid of you no?
I think I wasn’t clear in my language as multiple people didn’t get what I was intending to say. When I talked of replacing rotting wood part by part but not the high parts, depending less on the rotting parts and lifting people onto the strong parts of the scaffold I wasn’t talking about getting better people into office (though that can be part of making your job as a leftist easier and safer). I was talking about dual power and degrowth.
I think it’s not radical communist to take a position that would likely lead to billions of people of dying from famine and lack of medicine etc only to put your favorite authoritarian into power to become corrupted itself over the following decades. All positions of power become corrupted, no exceptions. We need to move towards degrowth and decentralization of everything, especially power.
The only reason 8 billion + people can live on this planet is because of the Green Revolution, i.e. nitrogen that comes from our oil industry. If we actually had the kind of revolution that could lead to a socialist system the delicate supply chains of oil and food globally would almost certainly be interrupted. This could lead to crop failures and famine, massive inflation and probably end up in more places going fascist than moving left. Unless you can teach enough people about socialism before the revolution, they’re going to look for safety and find a false sense of it in fascist authoritarians.
Remember, the revolutions of the early 20th were before the Green Revolution, there were 2 billion people on the planet and a much larger percentage than today knew how to support themselves by growing food and hunting, protect themselves etc. Today a revolution like that would look more like Gaza is looking right now with an entire population on the brink of starving to death.
If we actually want a better future, we need to build it, and not wait to start building until after some revolution that might never come. What does that look like? It looks like communities growing food together, protecting themselves without police, dropping out of popular culture, changing culture to not value what capitalists are selling us. We need cultural evolution, not war.
A reformist Anarchist? I have legitimately never heard of that kind of combination, lmao. You cannot achieve an ancom society via reform, that’s utter utopianism. Anarcho-communism can only be achieved via revolution, and not even the whole pitchforks and torches kind.
Check Anarcho-Syndicalism if you want an actual, practical plan for achieving an Anarchist society, or read modern AnCom theory.
If these ideas are the only workable ideas, why have they failed for the last century?
We need new ideas that are built on the understanding of our current world. Even places where “leftists” got to power they just turned into capitalist dictatorships or cruel experiments in how far propaganda can be pushed and how much populations can endure suffering and helplessness.
You’re believing in silliness if you think violent revolution in 2024 will end up in anything but massive death and fascism. We don’t have the numbers to win, all we’d end up doing is scaring voters into putting people into power that will put you in prison and become dictators.
I guess we have a different definition of failure, at least when it comes to “socialist” states like China, Russia, and N. Korea.
Anarcho-syndicalism has some good things going for it, it could be part of a solution. I don’t know why everyone assumes I am naive to all these ideas, I just don’t fit in the little leftist boxes people made for us last century that the right already has formulas to defeat.
I have read some, but I don’t need to read deep republican theory to see why their ideas are fundamentally wrong any more than I need to “read theory” to see fundamental issues with “Marxist” positions.
I’ve read “On Authority” and see it’s obvious flaws.
I mean, you obviously have not read enough if you think MLs are “burn it all down, don’t worry about the consequences” you understand Republicans because you’ve been exposed to them throughout your life, how many times have you had a long conversation with a communist?
I am not surprised someone linked you to “on authority” but reading a brief retort to anarchists is not the same as understanding dialectical materialism, scientific socialism, the business cycle, the tendency or rate of profit to fall, uneven development theory, marxist feminism, marxist anticolonialism, proletarian democracy, prefigurative politics, etc
Why do you assume I don’t know these ideas just because I don’t agree with you? I am familiar with all of that, maybe not at your level, but enough to know I disagree fundamentally with the methods even if our compassion may be in common. I’ve talked with enough tankies that “burning it all down” is an apt enough description. War tends to do that.
There is nothing I could read that would convince me that massive authoritarian power structures put in place by war are the way to a stable sustainable peaceful future, the same way nothing I could read would make me believe in santa claus.
Why do you assume I don’t know these ideas just because I don’t agree with you?
Because you straight up said you’ve avoided looking into it in detail, your previous words:
I have read some, but I don’t need to read deep republican theory to see why their ideas are fundamentally wrong any more than I need to “read theory” to see fundamental issues with “Marxist” positions.
Also because from what I’ve read, you take a fundamentally reformist position which Marx painstakingly disproved the viability of over 150 years ago. If you’ve read capital to completion, or hell, just understood some of their short texts very well and extrapolated things yourself, you’d know a reformist position is unviable, and even if it were viable, would be magnitudes more violent than the worst mistakes and excesses of any ML movement.
I disagree fundamentally with the methods even if our compassion may be in common.
What methods do you disagree were inappropriate for the situations they occurred in? Because marxist leninists will probably agree that there was a mistake there to learn from, or will point out factors that might you might be uniformed or misinformed about.
I looked into it in detail enough to know what I need to know. I also didn’t read Mein Kampf, should I read that before deciding I don’t agree with fascism or is it enough to know that fascism fundamentally harms people and it doesn’t matter what Mein Kampf says?
… reformist position Marx painstakingly disproved the viability of over 150 years ago
Disproved to you maybe, these are not facts. The bible proves things to Christians, they are wrong too.
I looked into it in detail enough to know what I need to know. I also didn’t read Mein Kampf, should I read that before deciding I don’t agree with fascism or is it enough to know that fascism fundamentally harms people and it doesn’t matter what Mein Kampf says?
Wait, you don’t want to understand the ideology that saved the world from German fascism, the ideology that supported and enabled liberation movements worldwide, the ideology that took Russia from a feudal backwater to space in 40 years, that advanced woman’s rights in that time frame past women’s rights in modern western countries? Why don’t you want to understand the ideology of the most lgbt friendly government in the world, Cuba? Why don’t you want to understand the ideology of countries that were historically much less violent than bourgeois ‘democracies’?
Disproved to you maybe, these are not facts. The bible proves things to Christians, they are wrong too.
This is a flawed analogy because the Bible expects you to take things on faith, and Marx expects to have to thoroughly defend his position as it is a position contrary to the interests of capital. i love how you’re arguing “well I’m not convinced” while refusing to even engage with basic ideas.
Some real taught to be afraid of shadows shit if you ask me.
I suppose I should’ve said it shouldn’t be, people can and do of course think all kinds of silly and illogical things. It’s a poor strategic choice at the individual and group level to identify with a candidate but to each their own. Propaganda gets us all.
, it’s a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.
this part also assumed universal goals. one of my goals is to smash capital and the state. the democrat party will most definitely be part of that. voting for them doesn’t advance my goals.
Yes, but wisely by evolving beyond it, not by trying to fight a Goliath directly in their strongest areas. We’re smart, we should be able to come up with real solutions.
Here’s weird thought experiment
Think of our current government as scaffolding that we’re all standing on 100 floors high, that is right on top of a slave/homeless/refugee camp/zoo (i.e. vulnerable populations). This scaffolding must be replaced because it’s made out of rotting wood without sending us all crashing down on the camp and zoo killing billions of people and animals.
How do we do it?
The right wing position is to tear down the scaffolding by getting positions in site management and ordering replacing the rotting wood with broken plastic while kicking everyone they don’t like, sometimes pushing them off the scaffolding. Of course, they don’t care about any what the scaffolding is holding up or what’s below, they just realized they can use this scaffold system to gain power and money.
The tankie position is to get your rotten wood hating friends together with their hammers and torches and start bashing. I guess they are either 1) seemingly unaware this will cause us all to fall, or 2) remember when it worked 100 years ago with the scaffolding was only 1 floor high and only a few people underneath and think it will be the same this time, or 3) are effectively right wingers on a different team in that they don’t care about collateral damage as long as their team can rise from the ashes into power.
The liberal position is to put some polish on the wood and some rainbow and recycling stickers on some poles and send a few TV dinners below while we dump our trash down there and not admit that there are slaves down there making our stuff. The long-term problem of scaffold failure is talked about at various conferences and people donate millions to the “Replace the Rot” foundation.
I say the best way to go about it is to replace it part by part as it stands. Depend less and less on the bits of rotting wood and more on the strong sustainable replacements we build. Don’t replace the very high bits that were built for ego by weak men, instead lift those underneath up onto the strong bits of the scaffold. Eventually we might realize that all that’s left of the old rotting scaffold is that weak bit holding on at the end, might as well lop that off now that it’s not critical to our survival anymore.
Now imagine we have an election between two site managers. Neither of them has any real plans to replace this scaffolding, in fact both have plans to expand it. Both candidates support the genocide in the neighboring scaffold.
Primary differences between candidates
Candidate #1 is going to criminalize talking about the scaffolding, ban encryption to ensure you don’t talk about it, and start a new program to push more people off the scaffold.
Candidate #2 is going to do too little too late when it comes to truly solving the rotting scaffold problem or stopping people from falling off the scaffold.
Now ask yourself, under which candidate can I do more to solve the rotting scaffold problem directly? Under which candidate can I do my little part to solve the problem without falling or being pushed off the scaffold or being arrested? Under which candidate are fewer people going to be pushed off while me and my team go about fixing the scaffold ourselves because the leaders are unwilling or unable?
Voting is not about putting your support behind a candidate or identifying with them, it’s a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.
Oh my sweet uninformed reformest, my undying love 😘Sorry i shouldn’t be too sarcastic, but really you’re so close. I’ve been where you are. If you’re interest in learning why I changed my views I’d recommend reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxembourg. In short, while unions, reformists, and the expansion of social democracy are important to the development of clsss consciousess, they alone cannot create a socialist society. Revolution is required.
I’m almost as enlightened as you are huh? lol
Who said I want a socialist society? I’m an anarcho-communist, I have never seen positions of authority, left or right, not abuse the position. A society that can function without some subset claiming authority and using violence to coerce others to gain and maintain power is what we should be striving for.
Anarcho-communism is by definition socialist. It’s also far left wing. Be careful who you are criticising.
I suppose, these words are so nebulous. I understand socialism as needing a state and (real, not authoritarian) communism as being incompatible with a state.
Then you understand it wrong. Communism is socialism by definition. Maybe try actually looking up the definition of socialism that marxists and anarchists actually use. It’s a broad term but not a nebulous one as it has a concrete definition: a society where the working class own/control the means of production.
Ancom fits yeah, and i dont entirely disagree with you. I just dont see how that can be accomplished without revolution. Those in power don’t typically give up that power without violence. I don’t see how infiltrating a system run by and for the ruling class, designed specifically to benefit them, and attempting to make it better is supposed to work. The ruling class could just get rid of you no?
I think I wasn’t clear in my language as multiple people didn’t get what I was intending to say. When I talked of replacing rotting wood part by part but not the high parts, depending less on the rotting parts and lifting people onto the strong parts of the scaffold I wasn’t talking about getting better people into office (though that can be part of making your job as a leftist easier and safer). I was talking about dual power and degrowth.
I think it’s not radical communist to take a position that would likely lead to billions of people of dying from famine and lack of medicine etc only to put your favorite authoritarian into power to become corrupted itself over the following decades. All positions of power become corrupted, no exceptions. We need to move towards degrowth and decentralization of everything, especially power.
The only reason 8 billion + people can live on this planet is because of the Green Revolution, i.e. nitrogen that comes from our oil industry. If we actually had the kind of revolution that could lead to a socialist system the delicate supply chains of oil and food globally would almost certainly be interrupted. This could lead to crop failures and famine, massive inflation and probably end up in more places going fascist than moving left. Unless you can teach enough people about socialism before the revolution, they’re going to look for safety and find a false sense of it in fascist authoritarians.
Remember, the revolutions of the early 20th were before the Green Revolution, there were 2 billion people on the planet and a much larger percentage than today knew how to support themselves by growing food and hunting, protect themselves etc. Today a revolution like that would look more like Gaza is looking right now with an entire population on the brink of starving to death.
If we actually want a better future, we need to build it, and not wait to start building until after some revolution that might never come. What does that look like? It looks like communities growing food together, protecting themselves without police, dropping out of popular culture, changing culture to not value what capitalists are selling us. We need cultural evolution, not war.
A reformist Anarchist? I have legitimately never heard of that kind of combination, lmao. You cannot achieve an ancom society via reform, that’s utter utopianism. Anarcho-communism can only be achieved via revolution, and not even the whole pitchforks and torches kind.
Check Anarcho-Syndicalism if you want an actual, practical plan for achieving an Anarchist society, or read modern AnCom theory.
If these ideas are the only workable ideas, why have they failed for the last century?
We need new ideas that are built on the understanding of our current world. Even places where “leftists” got to power they just turned into capitalist dictatorships or cruel experiments in how far propaganda can be pushed and how much populations can endure suffering and helplessness.
You’re believing in silliness if you think violent revolution in 2024 will end up in anything but massive death and fascism. We don’t have the numbers to win, all we’d end up doing is scaring voters into putting people into power that will put you in prison and become dictators.
They haven’t failed, I even suggested reading modern theory. Reform has never worked, and never gotten off the ground.
I didn’t suggest violent revolution, that’s why I’m suggesting you read modern Anarchist theory, like Anarcho-Syndicalist theory.
It’s like you read only keywords and answered off of vibes.
I guess we have a different definition of failure, at least when it comes to “socialist” states like China, Russia, and N. Korea.
Anarcho-syndicalism has some good things going for it, it could be part of a solution. I don’t know why everyone assumes I am naive to all these ideas, I just don’t fit in the little leftist boxes people made for us last century that the right already has formulas to defeat.
I love seeing incredibly uniformed opinions around Marxist leninist positions.
Have you ever read like, anything a serious marxist leninist theorist and organizer wrote about conditions in the United States?
I have read some, but I don’t need to read deep republican theory to see why their ideas are fundamentally wrong any more than I need to “read theory” to see fundamental issues with “Marxist” positions.
I’ve read “On Authority” and see it’s obvious flaws.
I mean, you obviously have not read enough if you think MLs are “burn it all down, don’t worry about the consequences” you understand Republicans because you’ve been exposed to them throughout your life, how many times have you had a long conversation with a communist?
I am not surprised someone linked you to “on authority” but reading a brief retort to anarchists is not the same as understanding dialectical materialism, scientific socialism, the business cycle, the tendency or rate of profit to fall, uneven development theory, marxist feminism, marxist anticolonialism, proletarian democracy, prefigurative politics, etc
Why do you assume I don’t know these ideas just because I don’t agree with you? I am familiar with all of that, maybe not at your level, but enough to know I disagree fundamentally with the methods even if our compassion may be in common. I’ve talked with enough tankies that “burning it all down” is an apt enough description. War tends to do that.
There is nothing I could read that would convince me that massive authoritarian power structures put in place by war are the way to a stable sustainable peaceful future, the same way nothing I could read would make me believe in santa claus.
Because you straight up said you’ve avoided looking into it in detail, your previous words:
Also because from what I’ve read, you take a fundamentally reformist position which Marx painstakingly disproved the viability of over 150 years ago. If you’ve read capital to completion, or hell, just understood some of their short texts very well and extrapolated things yourself, you’d know a reformist position is unviable, and even if it were viable, would be magnitudes more violent than the worst mistakes and excesses of any ML movement.
What methods do you disagree were inappropriate for the situations they occurred in? Because marxist leninists will probably agree that there was a mistake there to learn from, or will point out factors that might you might be uniformed or misinformed about.
I looked into it in detail enough to know what I need to know. I also didn’t read Mein Kampf, should I read that before deciding I don’t agree with fascism or is it enough to know that fascism fundamentally harms people and it doesn’t matter what Mein Kampf says?
Disproved to you maybe, these are not facts. The bible proves things to Christians, they are wrong too.
Wait, you don’t want to understand the ideology that saved the world from German fascism, the ideology that supported and enabled liberation movements worldwide, the ideology that took Russia from a feudal backwater to space in 40 years, that advanced woman’s rights in that time frame past women’s rights in modern western countries? Why don’t you want to understand the ideology of the most lgbt friendly government in the world, Cuba? Why don’t you want to understand the ideology of countries that were historically much less violent than bourgeois ‘democracies’?
This is a flawed analogy because the Bible expects you to take things on faith, and Marx expects to have to thoroughly defend his position as it is a position contrary to the interests of capital. i love how you’re arguing “well I’m not convinced” while refusing to even engage with basic ideas.
Some real taught to be afraid of shadows shit if you ask me.
maybe for you, but your values aren’t universal.
I suppose I should’ve said it shouldn’t be, people can and do of course think all kinds of silly and illogical things. It’s a poor strategic choice at the individual and group level to identify with a candidate but to each their own. Propaganda gets us all.
this is the bit that i found most objectionable. almost all the rhetoric around an election talks about support: financial, popular, or political.
voting is definitely supporting a candidate, pretty much any way you slice it.
Yes, it’s to the candidtates benefit for voters to identify with candidates, it’s not generally in the voters interest.
this part also assumed universal goals. one of my goals is to smash capital and the state. the democrat party will most definitely be part of that. voting for them doesn’t advance my goals.
And I suppose Roe v. Wade doesn’t factor into your goals then either?
i don’t want the government involved in anything. why would i want them deciding the degree to which they should be involved in someone’s healthcare?
Well, they’re already doing it.
Unless you’re planning the coup tomorrow, I don’t know how this is supposed to help me.
unless the Democrats want to give up one of their main vote-driving issues, voting for them isn’t going to solve it either.
that’s been overturned. you cant get it reinstated without an act of congress.