Nothing you said refutes anything that I said. What you are bringing up is a worthwhile criticism (and notably, a specific criticism). However, it is also not the entirety of the Yankee “left’s” history and present, and it still needs somewhere to go with it if it’s going to be more than venting: For example, why do people keep getting caught up in soc dem politics instead of going further? Is it a strategic failure of commies? Are the material conditions driving people very strongly toward reform instead of revolution? What are the causes? Pointing fingers is easy. Figuring out why things are happening often takes more effort.
In the podcaster clip, there isn’t even an attempt to do specific criticism. You took two short paragraphs to already elucidate more than this podcaster did in two minutes of rambling.
I’m not here to refute anything personally. I am not disputing the idea that Americans aren’t living in conditions that would make them as revolutionary as people in Algeria during the French occupation.
As for what Americans should do? Uh, gee maybe rally behind a principally anti-imperialist third party that doesn’t focus exclusively on entryism. Despite my criticism of the PSL, it at least contests elections as an actual party instead of being a glorified caucus for the democrats in the way the DSA is. Either that, or Americans would have to loose a sufficient level of economic advantage before even considering alternatives.
that’s what I was referring to when I said it doesn’t refute what I said. You seemed to be saying that what I said was not a worthwhile view.
As for what Americans should do? Uh, gee maybe rally behind a principally anti-imperialist third party that doesn’t focus exclusively on entryism. Despite my criticism of the PSL, it at least contests elections as an actual party instead of being a glorified caucus for the democrats in the way the DSA is. Either that, or Americans would have to loose a sufficient level of economic advantage before even considering alternatives.
I would think most on here are already in agreement on that. That the soc dem imperialist stuff does not move the needle anywhere (or, not anywhere good). The how is more what I’m asking about. I don’t expect you to have the answers, but it is a real problem to solve, not a magic fix.
I respectfully disagree. The issue is correctly identified, it’s up to my fellow USians to identify and try remedies other than signs with funny slogans. And maybe not everyone who wants to participate in a more meaningful way can participate in larger ways; but that in no way negates recalcitrant children indignantly slapping away the hands offering the medicine that would save their own lives.
By who? I hope you don’t mean the podcast clip. Because I listened to it again, thinking maybe I had missed something. No. It is virtually identical to someone doing a bootstraps scolding “tough love” speech about a person’s progress in life. It doesn’t get into strategy or anything like that, at most vaguely alludes to doing an economic blockade in passing. He literally says that the bombs are the fault of the “american left” for not being effective! As if they are the ones pulling the trigger. How is this helpful?
My compatriots aren’t even willing to investigate beyond what Bernie and AOC say, and rage at people who suggest they do. So yeah, while we’re not personally pulling triggers and pushing buttons, we’re all pretty complicit. And until that happens, we continue to be complicit.
No, I’m not going to victim blame myself and say I’m complicit for something I have no control over because I haven’t bootstraps rallied the US to be otherwise. If you want to say people who know better and bury their heads in the sand are complicit, that’s one thing. To imply people who do know better and haven’t yet lifted the world on their shoulders are complicit is nonsense and I’m not going to put up with it on here or anywhere else. The west is never going to be moved by scolding. It just absorbs it as hair shirt penitential state of mind and keeps on doing what it’s doing.
I am being defensive and am not ashamed to say that, and it’s very much meant like that as a whole from my end rather than offensive. If there is anyone I’m going on the offensive about, it’s the podcaster class, in order to defend from shitty takes levied by them. This thread is premised on a podcaster scolding an entire region’s liberation movements, under the same broad brush, as if it’s some message they need to hear that no one has ever said to them (surely this time telling them they suck will move the needle, no one has ever done that before). And it is a great example of the problems with taking these type of commentators seriously as “thought leaders”. He can just mouth off and we are left with the fallout of whatever friction it brings up, while he doesn’t even have to be here to defend what he said.
So what do we do? I’m content right now with waiting and trying to spread info as the US’s military and economic might decays so that when it does weaken enough for change to be feasible we may know what to do.
I know this is vague, but it’s the best I’ve got atm because I’m no Lenin: my advice is, look to what AES states are doing and have done, not only after creating a state, but before they ever had one. Look at how they struggled and the tactics they used to pull it off. Don’t expect critical mass of support to lead to a revolutionary wave, but instead look to ways in which an advance can simultaneously become a retreat of the enemy as part of a larger struggle that involves lots of moving parts (resources, people, etc.) - this as opposed to the electoral mindset of viewing an advance as a sprint campaign effort win/loss of a candidate and then going to sleep for 2-4 years. In other words, look for ways that building up also means less to work with for the enemy. I might be off on the strict dictionary meaning of stuff on the following, but bear with me: revolutions are, in a sense, a civil war; the importance of framing it this way being that it is the transfer of internal resources from one power group to another. So it is as much about transfer and transformation as it is about victory and defeat in the more literal meaning in battle. So-called “dem socs” go wrong with this by thinking they can transfer power gradually without any confrontation. Communists must understand there will be confrontation, has been the whole time, and that navigating the confrontation without having to break a weak force upon a strong one is important.
Tbh, I’m more weary than heated (including when that was posted), but there is some real anger in me about the idea of people listening to the words of people who aren’t doing much of anything who are saying others aren’t doing much of anything (as if they are in a position to speak well on it) and some of these types of people are making careers off of this sort of vague meta commentary which follows a drama-based snake-eating-its-own-tail cycle. It would be almost funny if it wasn’t so sad. It’s really a thing that goes far beyond political commentary in my observation of, like, the youtube sphere, for example. There are entire long videos that get dedicated to doing a takedown of somebody else who makes videos and other videos that get dedicated to doing a takedown of a person who did a takedown of somebody else. And little to none of this type of thing has noticeable material consequences beyond drawing people into the drama spiral to take sides on it and expend energy arguing for or against their favorite persona. Much of it becomes another facet of profit-making, where the longer the drama goes on, the more money can be made off of it.
So there is an actual profit motive to stir the pot for “content”. This is the kernel of it that probably gets the anger going in me the most.
Nothing you said refutes anything that I said. What you are bringing up is a worthwhile criticism (and notably, a specific criticism). However, it is also not the entirety of the Yankee “left’s” history and present, and it still needs somewhere to go with it if it’s going to be more than venting: For example, why do people keep getting caught up in soc dem politics instead of going further? Is it a strategic failure of commies? Are the material conditions driving people very strongly toward reform instead of revolution? What are the causes? Pointing fingers is easy. Figuring out why things are happening often takes more effort.
In the podcaster clip, there isn’t even an attempt to do specific criticism. You took two short paragraphs to already elucidate more than this podcaster did in two minutes of rambling.
I’m not here to refute anything personally. I am not disputing the idea that Americans aren’t living in conditions that would make them as revolutionary as people in Algeria during the French occupation.
As for what Americans should do? Uh, gee maybe rally behind a principally anti-imperialist third party that doesn’t focus exclusively on entryism. Despite my criticism of the PSL, it at least contests elections as an actual party instead of being a glorified caucus for the democrats in the way the DSA is. Either that, or Americans would have to loose a sufficient level of economic advantage before even considering alternatives.
You said
that’s what I was referring to when I said it doesn’t refute what I said. You seemed to be saying that what I said was not a worthwhile view.
I would think most on here are already in agreement on that. That the soc dem imperialist stuff does not move the needle anywhere (or, not anywhere good). The how is more what I’m asking about. I don’t expect you to have the answers, but it is a real problem to solve, not a magic fix.
I respectfully disagree. The issue is correctly identified, it’s up to my fellow USians to identify and try remedies other than signs with funny slogans. And maybe not everyone who wants to participate in a more meaningful way can participate in larger ways; but that in no way negates recalcitrant children indignantly slapping away the hands offering the medicine that would save their own lives.
By who? I hope you don’t mean the podcast clip. Because I listened to it again, thinking maybe I had missed something. No. It is virtually identical to someone doing a bootstraps scolding “tough love” speech about a person’s progress in life. It doesn’t get into strategy or anything like that, at most vaguely alludes to doing an economic blockade in passing. He literally says that the bombs are the fault of the “american left” for not being effective! As if they are the ones pulling the trigger. How is this helpful?
My compatriots aren’t even willing to investigate beyond what Bernie and AOC say, and rage at people who suggest they do. So yeah, while we’re not personally pulling triggers and pushing buttons, we’re all pretty complicit. And until that happens, we continue to be complicit.
No, I’m not going to victim blame myself and say I’m complicit for something I have no control over because I haven’t bootstraps rallied the US to be otherwise. If you want to say people who know better and bury their heads in the sand are complicit, that’s one thing. To imply people who do know better and haven’t yet lifted the world on their shoulders are complicit is nonsense and I’m not going to put up with it on here or anywhere else. The west is never going to be moved by scolding. It just absorbs it as hair shirt penitential state of mind and keeps on doing what it’s doing.
I’m glad you read all my comments and took them as a whole, rather than being defensive.
I am being defensive and am not ashamed to say that, and it’s very much meant like that as a whole from my end rather than offensive. If there is anyone I’m going on the offensive about, it’s the podcaster class, in order to defend from shitty takes levied by them. This thread is premised on a podcaster scolding an entire region’s liberation movements, under the same broad brush, as if it’s some message they need to hear that no one has ever said to them (surely this time telling them they suck will move the needle, no one has ever done that before). And it is a great example of the problems with taking these type of commentators seriously as “thought leaders”. He can just mouth off and we are left with the fallout of whatever friction it brings up, while he doesn’t even have to be here to defend what he said.
So what do we do? I’m content right now with waiting and trying to spread info as the US’s military and economic might decays so that when it does weaken enough for change to be feasible we may know what to do.
I know this is vague, but it’s the best I’ve got atm because I’m no Lenin: my advice is, look to what AES states are doing and have done, not only after creating a state, but before they ever had one. Look at how they struggled and the tactics they used to pull it off. Don’t expect critical mass of support to lead to a revolutionary wave, but instead look to ways in which an advance can simultaneously become a retreat of the enemy as part of a larger struggle that involves lots of moving parts (resources, people, etc.) - this as opposed to the electoral mindset of viewing an advance as a sprint campaign effort win/loss of a candidate and then going to sleep for 2-4 years. In other words, look for ways that building up also means less to work with for the enemy. I might be off on the strict dictionary meaning of stuff on the following, but bear with me: revolutions are, in a sense, a civil war; the importance of framing it this way being that it is the transfer of internal resources from one power group to another. So it is as much about transfer and transformation as it is about victory and defeat in the more literal meaning in battle. So-called “dem socs” go wrong with this by thinking they can transfer power gradually without any confrontation. Communists must understand there will be confrontation, has been the whole time, and that navigating the confrontation without having to break a weak force upon a strong one is important.
I’m open to correction/discussion on any of this.
Edit: terminology
Please, take a deep breath in and slowly breath it out, non of us are enemies, it isn’t worth getting so heated over some podcasters, Comrade.
Edit: just noticed this post was 7 hours ago, might have been pointless to post this, whatevs.
Tbh, I’m more weary than heated (including when that was posted), but there is some real anger in me about the idea of people listening to the words of people who aren’t doing much of anything who are saying others aren’t doing much of anything (as if they are in a position to speak well on it) and some of these types of people are making careers off of this sort of vague meta commentary which follows a drama-based snake-eating-its-own-tail cycle. It would be almost funny if it wasn’t so sad. It’s really a thing that goes far beyond political commentary in my observation of, like, the youtube sphere, for example. There are entire long videos that get dedicated to doing a takedown of somebody else who makes videos and other videos that get dedicated to doing a takedown of a person who did a takedown of somebody else. And little to none of this type of thing has noticeable material consequences beyond drawing people into the drama spiral to take sides on it and expend energy arguing for or against their favorite persona. Much of it becomes another facet of profit-making, where the longer the drama goes on, the more money can be made off of it.
So there is an actual profit motive to stir the pot for “content”. This is the kernel of it that probably gets the anger going in me the most.