|
lol if you think you'd be allowed to vote if it actually changed anything meaningful
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
Wheeee posted:lol if you think you'd be allowed to vote if it actually changed anything meaningful i'm not quite that jaded yet. it's p drat obvious that those in power do their damndest to toss democracy aside when it threatens them though, like how labour is disqualifying as many members as they can from voting so they can get the neolib leader they want in power
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:lol if you think you'd be allowed to vote if it actually changed anything meaningful Voting has the potential to change things, so long as people don't make use of the potential. When they do, politicians change the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:After all the Corbyn stuff and the dem primary it's become obvious to me that I was holding a false hope for a long time. The democrats will never become more leftist, and capitalists are unrepentant shitbags that will happily spit on the less fortunate, left or right. If we tried to actually pull the dems leftward they would sabotage our attempts just like labour is currently and the dems did back during McGovern. To be perfectly honest with you mate, even if you did get a leftist government you'd find out pretty quickly that it acts just like any other government. In Britain we've had Labour governments that expanded welfare programs and nationalised state infrastructure, but they still broke up strikes with police and soldiers and still fought wars of aggression. Hell we had several Labour governments fight to maintain the Empire, then there was the sorry episode of World War One when socialist parties throughout Europe for the most part championed the war effort as rival Empires battled it out for the right to gobble up more territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:To be perfectly honest with you mate, even if you did get a leftist government you'd find out pretty quickly that it acts just like any other government. In Britain we've had Labour governments that expanded welfare programs and nationalised state infrastructure, but they still broke up strikes with police and soldiers and still fought wars of aggression. Hell we had several Labour governments fight to maintain the Empire, then there was the sorry episode of World War One when socialist parties throughout Europe for the most part championed the war effort as rival Empires battled it out for the right to gobble up more territory.  Jean Jaures
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:To be perfectly honest with you mate, even if you did get a leftist government you'd find out pretty quickly that it acts just like any other government. In Britain we've had Labour governments that expanded welfare programs and nationalised state infrastructure, but they still broke up strikes with police and soldiers and still fought wars of aggression. Hell we had several Labour governments fight to maintain the Empire, then there was the sorry episode of World War One when socialist parties throughout Europe for the most part championed the war effort as rival Empires battled it out for the right to gobble up more territory. capitalist state behaves like capitalist state in scoop of the century
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:capitalist state behaves like capitalist state in scoop of the century Actually that was a criticism of the failed strategy of using the state to build an alternative social order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:lol if you think you'd be allowed to vote if it actually changed anything meaningful Lives lost and standard of living reduced as a result of the Iraq War - meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Lives lost and standard of living reduced as a result of the Iraq War - meaningless. lets be fair, bill clinton also killed a shitload of iraqis
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Actually that was a criticism of the failed strategy of using the state to build an alternative social order. Burnt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:you might say every re-elected president ever was a huge criminal... a war criminal!! a definite  i would say
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:lets be fair, bill clinton also killed a shitload of iraqis And a few hundred votes in Florida would have lol changed nothing? Sorry Iraqi mothers, I'm sure you can accept substantially greater hardship, right? I mean are we gonna split hairs here? Look, McCain's proposed budget freeze in response to the financial crisis, same thing as Obama's "stimulus," such as it was. Sorry person with pre-existing condition, your life doesn't rate above static and noise! The sad reality is that elections do matter and have consequences. Sometimes things can change marginally for the better, sometimes it's about limiting the onslaught of neoliberalism. In this sense, I think I'm actually more of a pessimist than those supposedly jaded anti-nuancers who say it's all the same w/e thinking is hard, god. The scary part is precisely that elections matter, and we have some but disproportionately minor influence on the system, but to just say whatever poor, suffering people of the world, your "marginal" reduction in suffering doesn't merit my pure brain taking it into consideration...if you agree instead that, say, not cutting Medicare - or postponing it being cut - is better than cutting it, then welp, elections matter. Now, is the system itself bound by certain restraints as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which occasionally takes polls amongst the laboring segments of the population...has the financial and banking sector of the global economy steered government policy headlong towards anti-democratic austerity and entrenched, heredity oligarchy? Yes. What to do about that is an entirely different discussion. To me, it seems like there is no reason to think that simply shrugging whilst forces, working against the interests of the vast majority of the world's population, exert influence on the levers of state power, is a great strategy. There is no reason to think that one cannot take elections into consideration in the context of the working people and simultaneously in the context of the systemic crisis. The Real Paddy fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jul 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Actually that was a criticism of the failed strategy of using the state to build an alternative social order. The purpose of Social Democracy isn't to build an alternative social order, but to make the conditions of capitalism livable for labor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The purpose of Social Democracy isn't to build an alternative social order, but to make the conditions of capitalism livable for labor. ah no. social democracy joined the workers movement with socialism at its purest its democratic socialism/dual power whose path was to have a parliamentary vehicle for the working class and with the ultimate goal of socialism at its meekest its just welfare capitalism or tripartism/social market economy
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The purpose of Social Democracy isn't to build an alternative social order, but to make the conditions of capitalism livable for labor. No, that's not actually true, Social Democracy was explicitly supposed to be a vehicle for the emancipation of the working class, Karl Marx proposed it as an alternative to the Anarchists idea of revolution*. The German SPD the largest and dominant social democratic party before the war, was supposed to oppose the bourgeoisie and German reaction whilst at the same time educating the working class about the need for social revolution. The reforms the party campaigned for were supposed to demonstrate how powerful the German workers movement was. If you read the material put out by the social democrats much of it talks about the need for a revolution, mass strikes, mass demonstrations resistance against the army and the police etc. You'll also find revolutionaries like Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, etc https://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/ The idea that social democracy is about fair deal/labour reforms is just an excuse peddled by politicians who don't want to do anything more then tinker a bit. Like how most politicians representing socialist parties (like Tony Blair and Labour which is still officially a socialist party, or President Hollande in France) seem to have no interest in the working class gaining control of their own lives and workplaces. *Though clearly not a very effective one since social democracy actively assisted counter revolution when push came to shove, and those that remained committed to revolution either left to form new groups or were actively targeted by their old comrades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
You're right, but I think Pener was talking about social democracy in modern practice as opposed to its theory or origin movements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Every single SD party was a failure in terms of achieving a socialist reformation of society, and as Baka-nin admitted even betrayed the revolution when the time came for it. Labour is attempting to reject any return to socialism even as we type. The tendency towards careerism in the context of bourgeoise democracy undermines the entire project.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Though clearly not a very effective one since social democracy actively assisted counter revolution when push came to shove, and those that remained committed to revolution either left to form new groups or were actively targeted by their old comrades. so social democracy, when placed under the scrutiny of material analysis, doesn't hold up as a means of building workers' power? glad we agree
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Every single SD party was a failure in terms of achieving a socialist reformation of society, and as Baka-nin admitted even betrayed the revolution when the time came for it. Labour is attempting to reject any return to socialism even as we type. The tendency towards careerism in the context of bourgeoise democracy undermines the entire project. To be honest the Labour party despite the trappings was never actually socialist, when it was founded its ideology came from the Fabian society, the Fabian society's concept of socialism is just state control, that's literally all they and the old Labour party advocated. The original leadership of the Fabians like Bernard Shaw liked Mussolini because the Italian state was becoming strong, and the Soviet leader they admired most was Stalin because of the rapid expansion of the state. And they were over the moon after 1945 when the British government started nationalising industry, even though nothing changed in the way they were run. There were still managers and executives, wage labour continued, they still made profits, or at least were supposed to make a profit and the workforce had to resort to strikes and disruptions to get grievances addressed. The height of state control in the UK (the 1970's) is also the high point of workers militancy. The closest the Labour party came to a socialist policy commitment was Clause IV, but Clause IV was a commitment to the "common ownership" of industry, which is so vague it could mean the Wobblies Industrial Democracy system, the CNT's Barcelona, some kind of Christian collectivism, Tony Blairs favoured part private part government partnership, full national ownership or full blown Fascist mediation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
The belief that state control of the economy was necessary to build socialism was an extremely common belief among 20th Century socialists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The belief that state control of the economy was necessary to build socialism was an extremely common belief among 20th Century socialists. Your missing the point, Labour and the Fabians believed state control was socialism. They never planned to do anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:And a few hundred votes in Florida would have lol changed nothing? Sorry Iraqi mothers, I'm sure you can accept substantially greater hardship, right? I mean are we gonna split hairs here? I generally agree with this... but the problem I'm seeing is people sweat over who to vote for (the bad vs the marginally better) once every 4 years or so, then do nothing else. So we have this rightward shift over time and it becomes increasingly obvious that there is a sharp divide between working people and the politicians that supposedly represent them. The population at large consents to this by voting (or not) and doing nothing. Organizing needs to be the basis on which we vote, not the other way around. And most just vote (or not) and do nothing otherwise. The relationship between the socialist movement in Seattle and Sawant seems to be a good model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
hey guys did you know the PSL is backing hillary? crazy but true!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hey guys Links or it hasn't happened  I ain't stumbling through there terrible website.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Links or it hasn't happened well a hillary supporter told me so last night, and they wouldn't lie to me! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:well a hillary supporter told me so last night, and they wouldn't lie to me! Well, they'd certainly try their best not to
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
The PSL would grant the right of self-determination to what it considers oppressed nations of the US, including "African Americans, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawaiian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples who have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism". Wow, what a bunch of loving retards. You don't build communism by dividing people across racial and national lines for fucks sake. How the hell can they claim to be Communists and then spout this poo poo? The Saurus fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:The PSL would grant the right of self-determination to what it considers oppressed nations of the US, including "African Americans, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawaiian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples who have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism". lol at the reverse racism line being trot out by a guy who then immediately spouts a slur gj guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:The PSL would grant the right of self-determination to what it considers oppressed nations of the US, including "African Americans, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawaiian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples who have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism". Self-determination is right and good. Internationalism means working together in a diverse network of peoples not subjugating them, which is what they're talking about. If people don't agree with living within the borders they've been assigned to they have a legitimate right to seek their own path.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:Self-determination is right and good. OK, but what does it mean exactly to give self-determination to African Americans?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:OK, but what does it mean exactly to give self-determination to African Americans? Yeah, the problem is that it is really general language that is open to a lot of interpretation. Maybe consider a situation where a community of predominantly African American people choose to form a separate polity from the nation. Most likely because they feel like they suffer systematic oppression from the established order. Not saying it would be an ideal situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
UberJew posted:lol at the reverse racism line being trot out by a guy who then immediately spouts a slur Do you think retard is a slur because you're some kind of bitch-rear end pussy tumblrite? Save me the pearl clutching, I don't give a gently caress what words you want to censor because they hurt your feelings. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
watch out captain badass is posting
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:Yeah, the problem is that it is really general language that is open to a lot of interpretation. So would that involve the relocation of multiple peoples to new territories, separating them from their homes, their communities and all the shared cultures that cities and regions have, including between different races of those regions? Or would you have different self-governing states of nations who were totally integrated in where they lived? How would that possibly work?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Do you think retard is a slur because you're some kind of bitch-rear end pussy tumblrite? please do not squat down on our poor and malnourished american leftist thread to drop your trots when ukmt is perfectly fertile for it
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:So would that involve the relocation of multiple peoples to new territories, separating them from their homes, their communities and all the shared cultures that cities and regions have, including between different races of those regions? no investigation, no right to speak
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:So would that involve the relocation of multiple peoples to new territories, separating them from their homes, their communities and all the shared cultures that cities and regions have, including between different races of those regions? Well it's not necessarily a question of race, religion just a question of what of the self-rule of the community. Let's say there is a community which is 70% african american and the general sense of most of those 70% of people don't feel like their needs are being represented by the state. That community could hold some kind of referendum to decide whether or not to secede from the state, and since the majority of people agree they do. The resulting polity wouldn't be based on any kind of racial supremacy, fascism or apartheid (well, never say never but imo that's cause for intervention). Rather, it would simply accept the fact that the majority of the community wishes to self govern and minorities will be accommodated just like they normally would be and should be. Nothing really changes that drastically except hopefully that new polity will be removed from the oppression of the old order in at least some sense. Really, borders should be fluid and people should be able to determine their own path. (with obvious exceptions like a holocaust or forced relocation or any other kind of genocide) Who even cares if it's a capitalist society they want? That's their choice imo but others will obviously disagree in the framework of an ideal system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
sounds like it's based on a very outdated marxist-leninist philosophy wher marx thought the oppressed nations' bourgeoisie would be allies. After capitalism developed further and the polish bourgeoisie allied with Russian capitalist interests that was no longer relevant. The only people who are oppressed nations are indigenous americans and overseas territories and states. The people of the continental USA make up one nation, and its working class and capitalist class are in alliance with one another regardless of race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:sounds like it's based on a very outdated marxist-leninist philosophy wher marx thought the oppressed nations' bourgeoisie would be allies. After capitalism developed further and the polish bourgeoisie allied with Russian capitalist interests that was no longer relevant. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
How many ways can you explain a simple concept?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:24
|
|