They vote for the status quo when there is an algorithmic conservative fear beast under their bed.
No, they don’t! If you were right, she’d have won! How can you possibly assert this in direct contradiction to the evidence?
And no it involves building up parallel institutions, counter-economic systems, mutual aid networks on the grassroots level outside the states control.
The PSL is a joke man. When will you give this up? They will never see themselves with a legitimate candidate because they don’t do a single thing to position themselves as a serious contender.
Them, just like all other third party shitshows only ever show up at the 11th hour to play election spoiler by collecting the votes from idiots too ignorant to know any better.
If they really want to make a run at candidacy, they’d make a name for themselves the other three and a half years between elections.
But they don’t.
No one will take them seriously until they start moving ground. Until then, they’re going to remain the joke that they are.
Kamala implementing policies you wanted would’ve lost her enough votes to make winning impossible
she lost enough votes from safe votes who opted out due to people equating Trump and Kamala
In that case her defeat was inevitable and none of this matters. I reject that defeatism because her strategic errors are obvious and many. If establishment democrats don’t see a path to victory, they should get out of the way and let someone with more vision have a try.
The path we’re on is fundamentally unsustainable. Something will have to give. Free markets are not capable of addressing human needs and the collective crises we’re facing, but regardless, you won’t be getting any change in any direction except the steady decline into dysfunction and right-wing extremism that we’ve been getting so long as the two party system remains hegemonic.
You can punch left all you want, but again, the anti-genocide voters did not swing the election. Regardless, you people all have a completely upside-down conception of politics. Politicians must change to conform to the values that voters have, not the other way around, it’s completely backwards to blame masses of people for holding onto valid moral convictions rather than blaming the politicians that failed to account for and accommodate those convictions. It’s just bootlicking, I find it quite spineless and repulsive frankly, and it’s very sad to me that anyone could have such a feckless way of thinking about politics.
Again, not free markets in the ancap sense. A truly freed market requires us to dismantle all non-state forms of coercion and privilege that distort economic interactions.
There is nowhere left of me to punch. I’m punching up at the Auths who think reform is a viable path to liberation.
Election wasn’t lost because of values it was because people are easily manipulated to vote against their interests.
Again, not free markets in the ancap sense. A truly freed market requires us to dismantle all non-state forms of coercion and privilege that distort economic interactions.
There is nowhere left of me to punch. I’m punching up at the Auths
“Distort economic interactions” is idealist nonsense, as is this whole conception of a “truly freed market.” Here in reality, groups pursue their own interests, and in a capitalist system, wealth will concentrate enough that the bourgeoisie will inevitably be able to seize power and change the laws to create a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unless they are prevented from doing so through “Auth” means. “Auth” is not a real political alignment, it’s a bedtime story your rulers tell you to make sure you don’t get any funny ideas about trying to actually wield power or challenge them. There is only one physical reality, and what happens in that reality is a function of who holds power and what they do with it. When starving peasants are storming the gates of the rich to seize their food, what is more or less authoritarian, to stop them, to help them, or to sit back and watch? It is a nonsense concept.
Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
There is a practical process of dismantling state-enforced monopolies and coercion. Authoritarianism, whether bourgeois or revolutionary, perpetuates centralised power. True liberation arises not from seizing power but from rendering coercive systems obsolete through counter-economic action.
In reality, political revolution only changes rulers; the system of coercion remains. Only through economic revolution can true liberation be achieved.
Nothing idealist about it. Seems the be the only praxis that’s made any progress actually rather than circlejerking over theory we know doesn’t work.
It’s always very funny the absolute disdain people have towards Lenin and his body of work, or rather, the disdain you have towards the idea of reading anything he wrote. Even from a purely historical perspective, he’s one of the most important people of the 20th century, if not all history. And yet you always refuse to read anything he wrote while having very strong opinions regarding his ideology. His greatest crime, of course, was that he had the audacity to put theory into practice, and to do things to actually affect material change rather than sitting around theorizing.
True liberation arises not from seizing power but from rendering coercive systems obsolete through counter-economic action.
This is nonsense because without power it is impossible to affect change. In order to conduct counter-economic action, you must have some ability to influence the economic sphere, which is to say, power. You can dress it up in flowery language all you like, but ultimately, you have a vision of the world that you’re seeking to enforce through economic power. The only difference is that you’re choosing to tie a hand behind your back before fighting a pack of lions. Building and exerting economic power is all well and good, but it would be incredibly foolish not to use any means of power available (including political) in a life-or-death struggle against a far stronger foe. And what do you get in exchange, the satisfaction of feeling like you’re being ideologically consistent, while the state guns down everyone you care about?
Diffuse coercion is optimally handled by local, immediate self-defense. Though the market may develop larger-scale businesses for protection and restoration, random threats of violence can only be dealt with on the spot ad hoc.
This is fully suicidal. States have the ability to leverage overwhelming force against “local, immediate self-defense,” which they pretty much always have been since the days of knights and lords, but it is especially absurd in the context of modern militaries.
The crushing of the Paris Commune, the lack of coordination in Republic Spain… the only reason anybody thinks this is at all viable or desireable is because they haven’t seen it in action, and they haven’t seen it in action because people learned from it’s historical failures, or they were defeated.
Even if the forces were evenly matched (which they wouldn’t be), it’s very easy to divide and conquer. Without a unified front, forces cannot be dispatched to defend strategically vital locations, people will insist on defending their own homes and towns, which a centrally managed force can easily take advantage of.
Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc.) and is forbidden; nothing else is.
This is extraordinarily idealist. “Initiatory violence” is a concept inherently tied to property rights. It is also completely wrong. Is is wrong (immoral, evil, suprememely impractical) for a starving man to steal bread for his family? Or does theft not count as “initiatory violence” if you really, really need it?
But let’s use a more real world example. There are many countries around the world where the people live in abject poverty, even though the natural resources are quite plentiful. In many cases, their resources were seized by force during colonialism, and now continue to be owned by foreign multinational corporations. Is it wrong (immoral, evil, supremely impractical) for those nations to reclaim control of those resources, given the opportunity? And for that matter, was it “supremely impractical” for colonial powers to seize those resources in the first place? Because it seems like the people who did it made a lot of money off of it and died quite rich and happy.
Of course, this moral proclamation is handed down from on high by the author, without establishing any kind of philosophical basis for it, let alone any consideration of how thing function in the actual, material world. Why should I not simply reject this assertion?
No, they don’t! If you were right, she’d have won! How can you possibly assert this in direct contradiction to the evidence?
Right, so exactly like what PSL does.
The PSL is a joke man. When will you give this up? They will never see themselves with a legitimate candidate because they don’t do a single thing to position themselves as a serious contender.
Them, just like all other third party shitshows only ever show up at the 11th hour to play election spoiler by collecting the votes from idiots too ignorant to know any better.
If they really want to make a run at candidacy, they’d make a name for themselves the other three and a half years between elections.
But they don’t.
No one will take them seriously until they start moving ground. Until then, they’re going to remain the joke that they are.
What evidence? Both statements can be true
PSL? Pakistani Super League?
In that case her defeat was inevitable and none of this matters. I reject that defeatism because her strategic errors are obvious and many. If establishment democrats don’t see a path to victory, they should get out of the way and let someone with more vision have a try.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation.
It was with the sentiment generated by never-genocide voters, sure.
Socialism? In America? After decades of red scare hysteria and hypertardation? Gerrymandering and vote suppression? Doubt it.
What’ll work is a truly freed market. Not in the AnCap sense but in the anti-capitalist (and anti-collectivist) sense.
The path we’re on is fundamentally unsustainable. Something will have to give. Free markets are not capable of addressing human needs and the collective crises we’re facing, but regardless, you won’t be getting any change in any direction except the steady decline into dysfunction and right-wing extremism that we’ve been getting so long as the two party system remains hegemonic.
You can punch left all you want, but again, the anti-genocide voters did not swing the election. Regardless, you people all have a completely upside-down conception of politics. Politicians must change to conform to the values that voters have, not the other way around, it’s completely backwards to blame masses of people for holding onto valid moral convictions rather than blaming the politicians that failed to account for and accommodate those convictions. It’s just bootlicking, I find it quite spineless and repulsive frankly, and it’s very sad to me that anyone could have such a feckless way of thinking about politics.
Again, not free markets in the ancap sense. A truly freed market requires us to dismantle all non-state forms of coercion and privilege that distort economic interactions.
There is nowhere left of me to punch. I’m punching up at the Auths who think reform is a viable path to liberation.
Election wasn’t lost because of values it was because people are easily manipulated to vote against their interests.
“Distort economic interactions” is idealist nonsense, as is this whole conception of a “truly freed market.” Here in reality, groups pursue their own interests, and in a capitalist system, wealth will concentrate enough that the bourgeoisie will inevitably be able to seize power and change the laws to create a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unless they are prevented from doing so through “Auth” means. “Auth” is not a real political alignment, it’s a bedtime story your rulers tell you to make sure you don’t get any funny ideas about trying to actually wield power or challenge them. There is only one physical reality, and what happens in that reality is a function of who holds power and what they do with it. When starving peasants are storming the gates of the rich to seize their food, what is more or less authoritarian, to stop them, to help them, or to sit back and watch? It is a nonsense concept.
What zero theory does to a MFer.
There is a practical process of dismantling state-enforced monopolies and coercion. Authoritarianism, whether bourgeois or revolutionary, perpetuates centralised power. True liberation arises not from seizing power but from rendering coercive systems obsolete through counter-economic action.
In reality, political revolution only changes rulers; the system of coercion remains. Only through economic revolution can true liberation be achieved.
Nothing idealist about it. Seems the be the only praxis that’s made any progress actually rather than circlejerking over theory we know doesn’t work.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/samuel-edward-konkin-iii-new-libertarian-manifesto
It’s always very funny the absolute disdain people have towards Lenin and his body of work, or rather, the disdain you have towards the idea of reading anything he wrote. Even from a purely historical perspective, he’s one of the most important people of the 20th century, if not all history. And yet you always refuse to read anything he wrote while having very strong opinions regarding his ideology. His greatest crime, of course, was that he had the audacity to put theory into practice, and to do things to actually affect material change rather than sitting around theorizing.
This is nonsense because without power it is impossible to affect change. In order to conduct counter-economic action, you must have some ability to influence the economic sphere, which is to say, power. You can dress it up in flowery language all you like, but ultimately, you have a vision of the world that you’re seeking to enforce through economic power. The only difference is that you’re choosing to tie a hand behind your back before fighting a pack of lions. Building and exerting economic power is all well and good, but it would be incredibly foolish not to use any means of power available (including political) in a life-or-death struggle against a far stronger foe. And what do you get in exchange, the satisfaction of feeling like you’re being ideologically consistent, while the state guns down everyone you care about?
This is fully suicidal. States have the ability to leverage overwhelming force against “local, immediate self-defense,” which they pretty much always have been since the days of knights and lords, but it is especially absurd in the context of modern militaries.
The crushing of the Paris Commune, the lack of coordination in Republic Spain… the only reason anybody thinks this is at all viable or desireable is because they haven’t seen it in action, and they haven’t seen it in action because people learned from it’s historical failures, or they were defeated.
Even if the forces were evenly matched (which they wouldn’t be), it’s very easy to divide and conquer. Without a unified front, forces cannot be dispatched to defend strategically vital locations, people will insist on defending their own homes and towns, which a centrally managed force can easily take advantage of.
This is extraordinarily idealist. “Initiatory violence” is a concept inherently tied to property rights. It is also completely wrong. Is is wrong (immoral, evil, suprememely impractical) for a starving man to steal bread for his family? Or does theft not count as “initiatory violence” if you really, really need it?
But let’s use a more real world example. There are many countries around the world where the people live in abject poverty, even though the natural resources are quite plentiful. In many cases, their resources were seized by force during colonialism, and now continue to be owned by foreign multinational corporations. Is it wrong (immoral, evil, supremely impractical) for those nations to reclaim control of those resources, given the opportunity? And for that matter, was it “supremely impractical” for colonial powers to seize those resources in the first place? Because it seems like the people who did it made a lot of money off of it and died quite rich and happy.
Of course, this moral proclamation is handed down from on high by the author, without establishing any kind of philosophical basis for it, let alone any consideration of how thing function in the actual, material world. Why should I not simply reject this assertion?