#601
Post rating: +
the problem is that he wouldn't be able to provide social democracy. he'd provide left-liberalism with an culturally attractive but almost entirely superficial veneer... and that's not some new innovation which, while flawed and doomed is nonetheless a potential foundation on which interesting things can be built. instead, it's exactly the same thing as what we have right now
#602
Occupied Aztlan
Post rating: +

Red_Canadian posted:

no, i have been reading your posts. it's the repeated point that social democracy is a dupe of capital, that redirects the workers' anger and renders it less harmful to their interests. however, this doesn't change my main point. what are the examples of countries going from a regular capitalist society to communism without an interval of social democracy in between? china and russia both shared this.



re: china are you referring to Sun Yat-sen? anyway the US isnt a regular capitalist country, its an imperialist one. imperial russia was as well but i believe thats the only time an imperialist country has flipped. however, they also had a number of material conditions that were awfully different from what we face or are proposing we will face anytime soon, such as 5 million people in the russian empire dying due to world war one. perhaps if we had a similar systemic shock things would be different, but otherwise a comparison on these grounds alone is baseless imo.

Red_Canadian posted:

you seem to be staying that ideological correctness is completely necessary for communism, but canada already has in two communist parties, and the american have their equivalents. this just in, they have absolutely failed to increase their support over decades.



i am also not saying you organize along ideological lines, thats stupid. in fact i dont think anyone in this entire thread has said this, so if you could point out exactly what i said that led you to this conclusion it'd be helpful. when youre talking about canadian parties, are you talking about the communist party of canada? cuz it seems to me like theyre growing and youre overrelying on election results.

Red_Canadian posted:

it seems like plenty of young people are supporting bernie. i'm saying that is a potential growth area for communism, because he's talking about some of the right things and he's popular. i'm not denying your point. i just can't understand how it means that we should maintain ideological rigidity and correctness when that has been shown to utterly fail in increasing support.



again, i dunno what you mean by 'maintain ideological rigidity' since i never argued this, but iirc someone was trashing my party for our position on sanders in this very thread, so its funny to hear the exact opposite argument come from our right flank at the same time. whos right? i dunno, maybe stalin was right and both left and right errors are equally dangerous.

Red_Canadian posted:

I guess my point could be summed up like this; since there hasn't never been a workers revolution that was successful without an interval of social democracy failing to support the workers interests,



you keep repeating this and im not really sure where it comes from. did korea have a period of social democracy? any country in the eastern bloc? cuba? yugoslavia? vietnam or laos? it sounds like youre claiming things without even a modicum of investigation for your claims tbh. youre making mao cry.

Red_Canadian posted:

therefore we should support a social democratic candidate that we know will fail those interests, because then we can share the betrayal with the other disillusioned folks and further radicalise them.



actually, accelerationism is bad, as is literally lying to the masses

Red_Canadian posted:

you seem to be saying the appropriate thing to do is stay aloof, promote the correct line, and support only those movements who have no connection to the masses.



a hilarious accusation to make since again, someone itt was trashing the party for socialism and liberation for telling registered dems to vote bernie in the NY primary. idk where this shit about staying aloof comes from but from everything you posted here, its quite clear that you never really did bother to understand the arguments people were giving to you. it may have been incorrect for me to tell you to read the posts, since you responded so you must (hopefully) have, but i think it would be more correct to say you should study them for greater comprehension.

Edited by Urbandale ()

#603
Post rating: +
i'll tell you why i don't support sanders. it's not political or ideological, because i'm a liberal. it's because we just fucking did that, 8 years ago. all this stuff about hope and change and transformation, about a democratic revolution and organizing the community so it can be like FDR aGaiN we'll really hold their feet their feet to the fire guys and they gave it a goddamn reboot before the first one even left the theaters. "hey what if we cast larry david instead of denzel, wouldn't that just be the perfect twee meme for 2016?" i don't support sanders because i have a modicum of self-respect
#604
Post rating: ~
voting for a candidate in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie electoral clownshow on the promise of a mediocre increase in social imperialist bribes paid for from super-profits nicked from the global south and "redistributed" to the US proletariat to keep them docile and non-rowdy in the worlds most imperialist country seems to me very different from the mass political strikes and revolt of hundred of thousands of workers and soldiers in the cities of tsarist russia in the february revolution which brought about the downfall of the tsar and the institution of bourgeois democracy
#605
Post rating: +

Urbandale posted:

youre making mao cry.



catchphrase

#606
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~

Red_Canadian posted:

I guess my point could be summed up like this; since there hasn't never been a workers revolution that was successful without an interval of social democracy failing to support the workers interests, therefore we should support a social democratic candidate that we know will fail those interests, because then we can share the betrayal with the other disillusioned folks and further radicalise them.

This is "accelerationism"

you seem to be saying the appropriate thing to do is stay aloof, promote the correct line, and support only those movements who have no connection to the masses.

Nobody is saying "stay aloof." Everyone has been posting over and over for years about how deadly it is to stay aloof! Why is it "aloof" to oppose Bernie Sanders for correct reasons instead of disingenuously "supporting" him because you think it's what the people want? Why can't you remember that the people supporting Sanders are not "the masses" but another sect of the bourgeoisie?

#607
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~

thirdplace posted:

i'll tell you why i don't support sanders. it's not political or ideological, because i'm a liberal. it's because we just fucking did that, 8 years ago. all this stuff about hope and change and transformation, about a democratic revolution and organizing the community so it can be like FDR aGaiN we'll really hold their feet their feet to the fire guys and they gave it a goddamn reboot before the first one even left the theaters. "hey what if we cast larry david instead of denzel, wouldn't that just be the perfect twee meme for 2016?" i don't support sanders because i have a modicum of self-respect

Possible solution for the overseers reading this: reduce human lifespan to 26 years so people only ever vote for one president

#608
Post rating: ~
all of those examples had the support of the soviet union, both diplomatically and often covertly. this isn't an attempt to deny their accomplishments, it's just a fact that it had an effect on the success of the revolution.
since that situation no longer exists, we should learn from the example of movements that didn't have foreign backing. i'm talking about both sun yat-sen and the provisional government, although with the russian example I'd also say the whole 1904-1917 was the kind of betrayal of the working class i'm talking about.
i thought the pizzle line was about the same as mine, which i thought was pretty funny, since it came out after I posted mine.
if you could point how they differ, or the Rhizzone approved method to currently advance socialism, it would be helpful, since my country is often very similar to the u.s. so far it seems all i've heard is what we shouldn't do.
#609
Post rating: +
hey man eat this corned beef sandwich. there's probably--no, definitely not any caca in it. you should eat it. oh now you ate it and there actually is caca in it? i actually knew that ahead of time haha that's actually exactly why i told you to eat it. i knew it had the caca inside it the whole time. anyway you should eat this blt I've got here dude.
#610
[account deactivated]
#611
Post rating: +
#612
Post rating: ~
Well, i'm more saying "this guy says this sandwich is really good. he says it's full of high quality ingredients, that people want. i think these ingredients would make a good sandwich."
"oh he lied? the good ingredients you were expecting ended up being replaced by shitty replacements?"
"well then he's a shitty guy, and the whole sandwich industry is bullshit, but the ingredients would still make a good sandwich. fuck it, let's make our own sandwich!"
#613
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +
You seem to be saying that Sanders has proposed "good ingredients" in terms of policy when in fact they have proposed NATO expansion and the continuation of capitalism
#614
[account deactivated]
#615
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
but enough about what rhizzone posters do on vacation
#616
Post rating: +

Red_Canadian posted:

no, i have been reading your posts. it's the repeated point that social democracy is a dupe of capital, that redirects the workers' anger and renders it less harmful to their interests. however, this doesn't change my main point. what are the examples of countries going from a regular capitalist society to communism without an interval of social democracy in between? china and russia both shared this.



People should have to put a dollar in a collection jar every time they refer to particular aspects of the Soviet and chinese revolutions outside the context of an organised vanguard party and popular mass movement

#617
Post rating: +
im drunk right now so hopefully this is coherent: your primary mistake is in believing there is some essential and necessary "social democratic" middle ground in a revolution. however, in reality, in successful revolutions that included preliminary parliamentarism, like the bolshevik revolution (the social democratic period which lasted, what, a few months anyway), it was done in the midst of a greater class struggle and mass movement. marxist-leninists stress that while proletarian parties engaged in parliamentary action can be useful in the struggle to gain state power, it can NOT be done separate from the even more important struggle to dismantle bourgeois state apparatuses and building a mass movement.

otherwise reform social-democratic parties engaged only in parliamentary politics become only an element of class collaboration and serve merely as "Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition." since the united states currently lacks the kind of mass movement and true proletarian politics pre-revolutionary russia had (and these other vague "examples" you allude to), bernie sanders only represents the kind of vacuous reformism that actually upholds bourgeois power and ideology.
#618
Post rating: ~
i'm not denying that the construction of a mass movement is important, but didn't the membership of the bolshevik party go from a membership of several thousands to a mass party during those few short months?
basically i've outlined how social democracy is a stepping stone for more radical left movements, on a personal analysis of the history of several revolutions.
obviously, this analysis may suffer flaws since multiple people have told me i'm wrong. so there has to be a correct way to promote revolution. what is it?
you're acting like i don't know that social democracy failed the workers in the run up to world war 1, when they abandoned opposition to war and supported their governments. i know they did, and that betrayal is what led to the rise in importance of communist parties, since people who supported the supposed aims of social democracy saw that it was a tool of capitalism.
i do see why that seems similar to accelerationism, but i always thought that accelerationism was the support of right government to sharpen the conditions of capitalism, and make the material conditions so bad that revolution becomes necessary. but people have said that bernie would improve the lot of the labour aristocracy, so it's not the exact same thing.
in no post did i say that the propagation of the correct line is harmful, or the slow careful outreach that far left groups are practising should cease. i'm merely saying those efforts would be more successful during a bernie presidency.
The one post said they don't support bernie since it's the same wishy washy bullshit that obama got elected on. but look at the rise of socialist rhetoric and, others have posted, increasing membership in far left parties.
#619
Post rating: +

Red_Canadian posted:

so there has to be a correct way to promote revolution. what is it?



Maybe it's to form an organised vanguard party of the most advanced sectors of the proletariat. that's just a thought i had because apparently no revolutionary leader has ever written about this subject and we have to make up bizarre adhoc ideas from scratch instead.

Red_Canadian posted:

you're acting like i don't know that social democracy failed the workers in the run up to world war 1, when they abandoned opposition to war and supported their governments. i know they did, and that betrayal is what led to the rise in importance of communist parties, since people who supported the supposed aims of social democracy saw that it was a tool of capitalism.



haha thats what happened in the wake of the failure of social democracy in the Weimar republic. Everyone realised its failings and moved to the communist camp leading to decades of prosperity under the German worker's state.

#620
Post rating: +
If there's one thing that strengthened the forces of Communism in Germany, it was surely the betrayal of the Social democrats.
#621
Post rating: ~
an organized vanguard is what i'm promoting as well. i'm just saying that it has a better chance of getting wider support under a bernie government than a trump one. the communist party in germany was founded after the betrayal of social democracy, so you can hardly say it was weaker after. As for the rise of fascism, that has more to do with the strength of the reactionary forces in germany.
#622
Post rating: +
Oh, you mean the strength of the reactionary forces that were supported and directed overtly by the social democrats? the reactionary forces that the social democratic leadership instructed and colluded with to murder revolutionary communist leadership?
#623
Post rating: ~
you think social democracy was the senior partner in the arrangement? the only reason they could maintain their power once they betrayed the workers was by the backing of those reactionary forces. but there was years of armed action against the state, with wider backing amongst the general population than most western countries have had at any point in the 20th century.
#624
Post rating: +++++
Ebert was chancellor of the republic and his party a majority in parliament. the military were under their direct leadership when they crushed the left opposition. SPD leader Gustav Noske was in direct command of the Freikorps. it is difficult to imagine how the SPD could have been more of a senior party than they were

you seem to imply that the SPD were forced under the thumb of the reactionary forces to secure their existence, as if they were kicking and screaming as they colluded with their running dogs. they instead overtly and enthusiastically empowered the militarists and the far right because their interests were identical and mutually reinforcing, not out of reluctance or an absence of political capital (what party in germany had more than they did?)
#625
Online
Post rating: ~

aerdil posted:

im drunk right now so


*cehcks watch* aerdil, we need to talk

#626
Post rating: +
#627
[account deactivated]
#628
Online
Post rating: +
Theyre going to found the Sandionise Liberation Army and do radical violence in the name of free state college.
#629
Post rating: ~
better than nothing
#630
[account deactivated]
#631
Post rating: ~
Sure, dismantling the military industrial complex isn't something that can be achieved with a vote.
But as a woke prole, I'm kinda confused by the disdain for free education from this crowd. Is showing off overeducation on the internet just for the vangard?
#632
[account deactivated]
#633
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: ~
dp

Edited by le_nelson_mandela_face ()

#634
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: +
remember when a bunch of liberals were like "free college is bad because it does not directly target racial inequality and is regressive" and then hillarys college plan was student loan forgiveness for tech entrepreneurs lmao

Edited by le_nelson_mandela_face ()

#635
[account deactivated]
#636
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

hillarys college plan was student loan forgiveness for tech entrepreneurs lmao



peter thiel proposed just paying wannabe tech entrepreneurs if they agree not to go to college and to start a business instead. also, he actually does it.

#637
Post rating: +
Hmm lets see

Pete Thrill: talks the talk, helps get kids out of college

Hillary Clintion: too scared to do it for real

Pete Thrill: teamed up with hulk hogan to bankrupt gawker

Hillary Clinton: Teamed up with the CIA to murder Sean "VilERAT" Smith

Pete Thrill: Supports Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton: does NOT support Donald Trump


I think the situation is clear.
#638
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

sanders pitches it purely as an abstract right and as an appeal to american desire for equal access to imperial spoils, without meaningful analysis of the material global conditions



Seriously, I don't get it

He does talk about surplus value and class power dynamics, which is absofuckinglutely heterodox economics here, and coincidentally literally chapter 1 of capital. What's the better framework of socialism in america? David Graeber? Revolutionary black people being put down by military hardware? Sad brain critical analysis reddit?

Yes, he is not handing out guns at blm rallies, he's not declared war against the military, and he appears to not be pro dictatorship. Will he withdraw from military bases in middle east? Not without a coup. He could do more and have bigger broader ambitions. But he could also do a lot with federal resources.

The guy calls out and denounces kissinger's policies by name, snubs the aipac fundraiser, says iraq was a lie, and that neoliberal trade leads to dickensian nighmares overseas re: tpp.
And literally put his body on the line for colonized black people.
All this is expressed as his policy and has been consistent with him, its not palliative hand waving.



#639
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
You didn't prove roseweird wrong, you just said Sanders is the lesser evil, which is a different argument.
#640
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +

Spatial_Reasoning posted:

The guy calls out and denounces kissinger's policies by name, snubs the aipac fundraiser, says iraq was a lie, and that neoliberal trade leads to dickensian nighmares overseas re: tpp.



then he lost to hillary clinton, an unrepentant war criminal, but that's not so bad i guess because bernie sanders is also an unrepentant war criminal.