It's 1 pm and I've already seen several "if you don't vote for Hillary now it's because you are privileged" arguments today. Shit's just too predictable nowadays.
Results 1 to 20 of 36
So...it looks like it will be Clinton vs. Trump
Aggressively imperialist (neo) liberalism vs. the Vulgar Neo-fascist Right. Truly a Sophie's Choice if there ever was one!
(not that the "choice" is a real one...)
It's 1 pm and I've already seen several "if you don't vote for Hillary now it's because you are privileged" arguments today. Shit's just too predictable nowadays.
Formerly Illuminate and Apoi_Viitor
Yeah ... I'm not sure whether its worth wasting my time arguing against it all. Unfortunately, left-liberals find the line of reasoning convincing
Socialist Party of Outer Space
"You can only afford to not vote because you are white, privelged, etc."
The funny thing is that the people that left-liberals claim to be helping out are precisely the ones that don't care in the first place. Voter turnout amongst the poor and people of color is shit because they recognize that politicians don't act in their interest and don't care about them.
Formerly Illuminate and Apoi_Viitor
Yeah really ... you'd think if not voting was a sign of privilege, then turnout among poor and people of color would be 100% when in fact it is disproportionately lower for those classes.
If working outside of the system doesn't look more attractive now than ever...we're screwed.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
The present task ahead of all of us is picking up Bernie Sanders' momentum.
No mercy for those who advocate for Clinton should Bernie fail. We must seize the opportunity that has presented itself before us: We don't have to align ourselves with Clinton because Bernie's momentum will outlive his failure to win the democratic nomination. We should commend Bernie's attitude of saying fuck you to the democratic party - we Communists can watch from a distance the Bernie momentum, pleased by it, and we can commend the attitude of 'packing up our bags and leaving Hillary to her own devices'. Even if it leads to a Trump victory: The point is not that Trump is not worse than Hillary, he is, the point is that to support Hillary at the present moment against Trump fails to locate what about Trump gains mass appeal.
If Trump wins the presidency, then we officially must abandon all 'establishment' politics all together: If Trump wins this nomination, that should be the death of bourgeois democracy (that has existed since WWII) in our eyes and it should signify that we should start investigating the political tactics of our forefathers in non-democratic states like Tsarist Russia, if you catch my drift. That would be the outset of an intensified struggle for re-invigorated democratic politics, against the growing technocracy, and so on. The need for a political struggle would be all the more apparent, where it is not already. If Trump wins, then no longer should we even think about participating in discourses of power unless they are directly opposed to that of the government. No compromise and no discourse with the reaction.
As for Hillary, should she be elected this will only strengthen the reaction. Tactically speaking it is better to sit back and watch her lose - if she is in danger of that - then to support her. That is because if Hillary wins, then in political discourse we can have it: "Had only Trump won". Meanwhile if Trump wins, that is also a great defeat on our part. But with Bernie we have been playing nice. They - the Bernie constituents - have been playing fair, by the rules, and in a way that compromises with the state apparatus. If Trump wins no longer will this be the case. If Trump wins - everyone - you can't pretend like you don't have anything to do. You will, and that will be to fight Trump in every possible way. And others know it too.
Today it is an unavoidable and even conventional truth that the 'system is rigged'. Before, even if you were aware of this you could pretend otherwise, but this is not the case anymore: The electoral system is in itself openly and not even controversially rigged in the favor of establishment politicians like Hillary. What I am saying is totally stupid because it's such a banal, conventional fact at this point which everyone has been saying, even major news outlets.
The significance is not therefore convincing people the failure of conventional politics, but now is truly the time that which we can begin to begin experimenting with unique means of political organization and political mobilization, we can begin with a culture - learning from the very best of our tradition - of debating and testing political tactics and the ironing out of a much larger strategy. We can do this because people have lost all hope and faith in conventional means of politics. Now is our time.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
This was rather inspiring! A nice change in the direction of optimism and revolutionary fervor rather than the typical revolutionary despair that seems to hangs around here
I definitely agree that a Trump win would create the political polarity we need to really inspire direct action from the left, but I don't share in that we should commend Bernie for "saying fuck you to the democratic party", because it is all but certain he will just say how Hillary won the primary 'fair and square' and that his supporters should still vote democrat and all that bullshit. So some will switch over to Hillary, a few might go left, but most won't do anything. I still think a Trump presidency is unlikely, which kind of disappoints me seeing as I doubt any other candidate would be able to cause the status quo to collapse on itself.
The heaven of modern humanity is indeed shattered in the Cyclopean struggle for wealth and power. The world is groping in the shadow of egotism and vulgarity. Knowledge is bought through a bad conscience, benevolence practised for the sake of utility. The East and West, like two dragons tossed in a sea of ferment, in vain strive to regain the jewel of life. We need a Nuwa again to repair the grand devastation; we await the great avatar. Meanwhile, let us have a sip of tea. The afternoon glow is brightening the bamboos, the fountains are bubbling with delight, the soughing of the pines is heard in our kettle. Let us dream of evanescence, and linger in the beautiful foolishness of things.
-Kakuzo Okakura, 1906 from, The Book of Tea
Let me clarify: In no way am I saying that a victory for Trump is in any way a victory. It is not a preferable outcome to a Hillary victory. I simply assert we have no obligation to Hillary, i.e. it is better to watch her lose than to compromise by putting out for her. The point is that: We don't need to trail any establishment politician even in the face of Trump: IF Bernie fails to win the nomination, that means that the state-apparatus has failed to demonstrate itself as legitimate in the eyes of this momentum.
Hey may do this, but as of recent his position has really been 'fuck you' to the democratic party. He states that he has no obligation to Hillary and that she herself will have to convince supporters, i.e. that he won't back her if he loses.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Well, a Trump win isn't a "victory", but the conditions will change in a way that will prompt action from both left and right. The problem is that you're right, a Hillary win would strengthen the reaction, yes, the Bernie momentum may force her to make some more concessions on issues she has flopped on, but still virtually nothing would change from her predecessor's presidency. I think she'd also beat Trump, which while 'meh' for us could cause the far-right to make their moves. Honestly, I just don't care which one wins now, but I do feel Cruz would be the absolute worst outcome. As for Bernie supporters, we can definitely win them over either way, but they need to really be informed in what we represent and why revolutionary means are necessary, even they still think of tankies when they hear Communist and chaos when they hear Anarchist, also a lot of them are really pacifistic so that causes difficulty. Regardless, our time is indeed now, time for action.
The heaven of modern humanity is indeed shattered in the Cyclopean struggle for wealth and power. The world is groping in the shadow of egotism and vulgarity. Knowledge is bought through a bad conscience, benevolence practised for the sake of utility. The East and West, like two dragons tossed in a sea of ferment, in vain strive to regain the jewel of life. We need a Nuwa again to repair the grand devastation; we await the great avatar. Meanwhile, let us have a sip of tea. The afternoon glow is brightening the bamboos, the fountains are bubbling with delight, the soughing of the pines is heard in our kettle. Let us dream of evanescence, and linger in the beautiful foolishness of things.
-Kakuzo Okakura, 1906 from, The Book of Tea
Honestly, I don't care who wins (at least a Trump presidency would blow up the GOP), but in the interest of playing devil's advocate I must note that according to RealClearPolitics, a Clinton nomination would cost the Democratic Party 5% in votes, along with a 2-3% swing towards Trump. Now, Clinton still wins, but with only half the breathing-room that Sanders has. Also, I remember a somewhat pro-Clinton article noting the parallels between the anti-Clinton movement within Sanders' base and the KPD's policy of holding the "social fascists" of the SPD and "national fascists" of the NSDAP with equal hostility. Again, not saying I support these positions (and I get annoyed as hell when people start comparing Trump to Hitler or Sanders to the KPD), but that it's important to note that a Clinton victory isn't as clear as it once was.
The worst outcome is Cruz or Trump getting elected and the radical Left spending four to eight years twiddling its thumbs like it did under Bush. Or Clinton getting elected and everybody associating her (a Goldwater Republican-turned-"New Democrat") with socialism and/or communism. Either way, I see things getting really shitty if the Left doesn't do something.
An injury to one is an injury to all -Industrial Workers of the World
The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all -Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free -Eugene V. Debs
Not to bash Lenin or anything, but I doubt that the Leninist tactics of democratic centralism and vanguardist organizational structure will be of any use in a digitized postindustrial society such as ours. Of course it wouldn't hurt to try, but I doubt we'd get away with that without turning off a lot of people with the authoritarian nature of the organization (no matter how necessary it might be).
Also, I'm not quite sure Trump is a fatal threat to bourgeois democracy, at least not any more than Strom Thurmond or George Wallace were. When he starts talking about the "Bolshevik threat" and centers power in his own hands like Huey Long, then let's talk. Now if Trump loses, and loses badly (i.e. a brokered convention), his supporters might just swinging towards the alt-right and bourgeois democracy will hear its death knells.
An injury to one is an injury to all -Industrial Workers of the World
The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all -Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free -Eugene V. Debs
The issue is that they are overwhelmingly predisposed to petty bourgeois tendencies, because they are not faced with the reality of the middle class's death. Bernie represents the last hope for it - this post-WWII middle class - in their eyes. For this reason, they still have much to lose, and thus are predisposed to petty bourgeois tendencies. This is why blacks are largely not for Bernie: They do not harbor such illusions.
This demographic - of youth - may be on the verge of having nothing to lose. But until they do not have anything to lose, to speak about the dissemination of revolutionary ideas among them is pointless. I am not saying we should not engage ordinary people - but that we should acknowledge the fact that they are not ready to shed the old world in its entirety behind. The task is thus to politically organize them for struggle, because even if they have not yet shed their illusions they are ready to struggle. Dissemination of revolutionary ideas, until then, can only be in either intellectual contexts other dissemination of these ideas not among Bernie's constituents but amongst the lowest layer of the American precariat which has nothing to lose and which Trotsky rightfully pointed out in a different context would drag the other layers of the working class along: The black working class (or the very poor 'redneck' white working class, i.e. of Appalachia, latinos, etc.).
A good indicator of what kinds of communities and groups are ripe for political mobilization is the degree of their religiosity and their dependence on religion for their own ability to get by. This is because it shows that these people were susceptible to having been organized, 'educated', etc. by the religious groups, and therefore are poised with the ability to search for alternatives - even if those alternatives, of course, perpetuate their predicament.
I presently believe what we should be doing is: Organize ourselves into small (if need be - we can only hope they can be large) intellectual circles in (what we expect to be - not necessarily) urban contexts ready to go out and engage the most marginalized and broken communities within the vicinity of their major cities. To go out to these communities, perhaps to find a way to listen to people - isolate the SPECIFIC concrete problems they are experiencing and articulate those in political ways. To politically mobilize the poorest of the poor, those who truly do not have anything to lose, to be able to equip them to struggle, will necessary pressure those other layers of the proletariat to pick a side and be dragged along.
It is perhaps contestable that the KPD would have even been able to accrue the support it did without this policy. This is something overlooked by those who attack the third period policy of the Comintern: What if in fact, precisely the refusal to capitulate to the 'establishment' is what garnered the KPD what little support it could garner? Remember that one of its main constituent demographics were the unemployed.
Admittedly it is hard to tell which would have been the best course of action. Ultimately it can be argued that the failure was owed to a lack of an understanding of the nature of Fascism specifically, an underestimation of capitalism's perseverance (which they conceived falsely to be on the brink of spontaneous collapse). It was mistaken to qualify the social democrats as the same as the Fascists, but merely trailing the social democrats would have been a mistake. This is what is wrong with this comparison, the situation is simply incomparable: What the Hillary-toadies ask of us is not to collaborate with the establishment (which is impossible) but to capitulate to the establishment. More specifically however, let us ask: What happened to the KPD AFTER the ascension to power by the Nazis? This is the real question.
Finally only the most stupid could equate Trump with Hillary. Trump is a reactionary and Hillary is not. Trump represents a revived Fascism and Hillary does not. Of course Hillary is 'better'. But that does not mean she is worthy of support: If it was possible that a Hillary could indefinitely rule, fine, who cares? That's not the point: The reaction and discontent with the establishment is growing, the point is: THE EXISTING STATUS QUO CANNOT indefinitely rule. It will be devoured by reaction at the present state.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I find it hysterical that the Democratic Party even dares to demand the vote from progressive individuals (even Social democrats for that matter) at this point. The Democratic Party is simply the Republican party of 1990 today. Lets be honest now and I'll make the case for why it is better if Trump wins:
1) Trump can't really do ALL that much by himself. One thing about the U.S political system is that it was designed specifically to neuter outside machinations be they democratic in nature or 'dictatorial'.
2) There will almost certainly be a recession/depression within the next 4-5 years. I am hardly an astrologist but even that the neoliberal Capitalist system experiences one almost like clockwork each decade, we are "due" for one. If Hillary wins it will only mean a further weakening of the liberal system, more so than already.
3) Hilary is a snake but she is still an able politician who can potentially diffuse political and economic crisis with "fireman" tactics (think the bailout); Trump is an imbecile.
Really? Because from where I sit, the revolutionary Left as an organized movement in the U.S. has basically been dead for at least the past few decades (if not longer), and so a Trump win would be unlikely to inspire direct action from the Left. If anything, a President Trump would inspire the far Right (which definitely exists and is a lot bigger than some are aware) in a way that would be truly horrifying (and it would be almost certain that a significant segment of an increasingly reactionary capitalist class would support Trump and his movement - sure they loathe him now, but they are always willing to do business with any President...and American Presidents are necessarily bourgeois creatures, if not necessarily of bourgeois backgrounds themselves).
There are definitely growing feelings of frustration and impatience among the politically marginalized groups in society - the poor, racial minorities, young people, and working class people in general - which the Sanders campaign has capitalized on to some extent, but without an effective, radical, uncompromising political organization, all of that anger and deep desire for social change will be easily co-opted/assimilated back into the liberal structures of bourgeois politics.
Nothing is certain here.
I'll respond to this; but what I really want to address is this whole Trump thing, because it is getting ridiculous.
So, first, to get it out of the way, please qualify your statements with regard to the context of the situation. Trump in no way can be a fascist, if the word is to have any meaning beyond - a person to whom I am antithetically opposed as a leftist, yet can't properly define them.
You use the term reactionary, but reactionary has a completely different context within both developed bourgeois society, as well as between different political situations. When you are talking about reactionaries in the US, for example, which was a country founded on liberal, democratic-republican principles, you are talking about a return within the framework of bourgeois liberalism. This is evinced, really made blatantly obvious, by the fact that the people with whom we are dealing, themselves are dealing specifically with the purity and fantasy of the so-called "free-market", and/or they are anti-corporatism, anti-establishment, anti-cronyism, or whatever other nonsensical terms that expose that they have zero understanding of capital (or are lying/have been lied to).
Fascism, can exist within these types of societies, but only really with regard to support for it or in sympathy, in the fringe, it can't exist as an actual movement -- just pseudo or quasi. You can have nationalism, racism, xenophobia, populism, religious fundamentalism, etc. (and even these really as only elements) but not true fascism or any thing close. That fascism was a European phenomena, because they had both newly emerging, capitalist, industrial economies, coupled with the close ties to true aristocratic, feudal, authoritarian, non-secular forms of government. You only get fascism with that true conservatism (mixed with the racism, etc.) that has the deep authoritarian tendencies (or close) that represent a true reactionary movement against, not capital, but the effects of capital.
To go back, and to give another example as to why you can't even come close to having this in America, in comparison to China, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.: in the US, what do they even call what I already described as a part of the reactionary flavor? - libertarian. Some of these same people are completely on our side when it comes to foreign policy, civil rights, civil liberties, government, corporations, etc. And even the ones of Tea Party variety are so because they feel oppressed by the authoritarianism of government control, and regulation of their lives, of opposition to free speech, violation of religious liberty (rightly or wrongly), etc.; and that is without even getting into the fact that it is influenced a lot by rural, country, small town, and otherwise opposing lifestyles within America. And to point out the other reactionary element within the American framework, i.e., slavery, the people who founded the original documents of the union were already ideologically opposed to slavery because of their liberal, bourgeoisie, ideology, and they only had to go through the material process of actualizing that reality through the Civil War, and now that that happened, psychologically, even the development of racism, shows how they can't even mentally cope with that as an institution.
So, in short, we don't even have the inherent conservationism necessary to even approach fascism, and to add on to the pile, that is even more evinced by the governmental framework which basically makes it impossible. We would literally have to have an intellectual awakening that completely brainwashed the entire population from traditional Anglo-Saxon framework (which is also important to keep in mind, same thing similar with the French, as examples of the preexisting liberal ideology that is pervasive), and then total destruction and rebuilding.
So, what then does Trump represent? He is a demagogue and a smoke-screen. He is already laying out in his own words and actions, as well as the words and actions of the media and political establishment that has built him up, what he is. Just in one debate Ted Cruz told him, and everyone watching, that he funded Hillary Clinton and Democrats; so Trump, knowing that the masses would not know any better, let it out that he also supported Ted Cruz (which if you follow politics you would know that the bourgeoisie in a response to Obama set up a campaign to elect obstructionist (Tea Party which it came to be) Republicans, people like Cruz, to literally shut down the government (which happened) as both a way to perpetuate a divide, create scapegoats, disillusionment, etc. (really goes on), and as an insurance policy against Obama passing any sort of progressive agenda or becoming popular with people. And Trump, as well as individuals working for his campaign, made it perfectly clear that he is just playing up certain things for support but can quote: be "capable of changing to anything [he] want[s] to change to". This again, in the face of all of the people who the bourgeoisie know are so lost as to see the trapdoor and still think magic has caused the trick.
I am really sick of people getting totally fooled by Donald Trump to the point where I know the big players, who have a win, win, win or win, situation, are watching this laughing at those whom they are playing with like puppets. From the people on the right who have been led into confusion, by years of intense conditioning and indoctrination, voting for a guy who fundamentally, as a person, contradicts what he is saying and what they think they stand for and verbally contradicts what he is saying, constantly, day to day, within the same speech, etc.; and to those on the left who ought to know what is going on, but are showing themselves as people who read one article on Wikipedia, picked up the Communist Manifesto and watched a YouTube video, and now think they are revolutionary socialists. He is not even trying to hide his disregard, lying, corruption, manipulation, egoism and cynicism. He is basically just laying the cards on the table, showing everyone his hand, and watching you fold why he and his team take the pot.
For coincidence theory 101, let me show you how this works. Let's do JFK, he is popular. JFK was according to certain reports and record: against he CIA, military industrial complex, etc., and was going to open diplomacy to Cuba, try to end the Cold War, get out of Vietnam. Then one day in Dallas, he was shot in the face (or the back of the head), by a random guy, who decided on his own that he no longer wanted a life because JFK really sucks; and the next day, we went to war with Vietnam, didn't open back relations with Cuba (to any extent) until Obama, and continued with the Cold War, anti-communism, war crimes, racism, eventually COINTELPRO, etc.
Now this can be done with Martin Luther King, Jr., the Vietnam war, 9/11, etc.
Now let us apply coincidence theory to this situation. We have a situation where a person (Hillary Clinton) is running for a progressive party with a record so reactionary that on paper you would think that you were voting for a far-right, modern (not even a RINO) Republican, who has the highest net unfavorable rating among any candidate in the history of party front-runners, who has had a major (often criminal) scandal at almost every possible turn for the last 20 or 30 years, and who has connections to every major, negative event, and dirty player in the American and foreign arenas, possible. Oh, and she is getting challenged by a candidate who could quite possible be the most honest, good-guy, anti-establishment, independent politician, that represents more popular issues and platform positions of any candidate imaginable with a record of taking interests on for 30+ years to back it up, and who fits perfectly as a puzzle piece in the equation of if (x) comes to play, the game is in some danger; as well as representing one of the greatest stories imaginable for a journalist or media mind. Then, one day, one of the most popular, selfish, celebrity, Clinton, Democrat and Republican, contributing, liberal bigots, who runs a show that involves raising massive amounts of money for charity and involves all types of other celebrities of all racial and minority backgrounds, with whom he is often friends, steps into the election as a Republican; and he is someone who has supported and who represents every candidate and corrupt politician, along with everything that is wrong with not only politics but the entire socioeconomic and political situation in this country as a whole. And, he gets 24/7 media coverage, billions of dollars in free on air exposure, destroys all of the candidates on the one side who had a shot of beating Hillary Clinton, gets painted as everything antithetical to liberal, American values (offensive, vulgar, no substance, a bigot, a racist, anti-women, anti-gay, promotes violence, supports the KKK, anti-immigrant, etc.), runs a perfect PR campaign that mirrors perfectly right-wing memes and talking points that have been fed to the American public for the past 10-15 years, steals ideas and supporters from Bernie Sanders and eventually some voters, prevents/gives excuse for any discussion or coverage of any major problems with the country/world or any discussion or policy or substance, prevents/gives excuse for little to no coverage of both Bernie Sanders and/or negative coverage of Hillary's scandals or record, creates/perpetuates the classic divide between working class and poor white voters and Latino, black, working voters, creates/perpetuates (along with Ted Cruz) the divide between middle class liberals and "social-conservative" on wedge issues...and Jesus Christ, this could go on forever but a few more...gets protested with those protests getting massive coverage (these are also protest that just so happen to paint Bernie Sander's supporters negatively) making more of a false divide, while masking the constant protests and movements going after the Clintons, money in politics, media coverage, election fraud, etc., fools the public and has them reacting to him and losing all focus on what is truly at stake in this election and instead worrying about how to side with the bourgeoisie (which he is a part of) in stopping him (or they support him), represents and dominates coverage (again over Bernie) of a candidate against the establishment and system, against corruption and fraud, etc. (all while representing it), and to wrap it up (even though I could probably go on all day), leading to the eventual situation where people are discussing an election where the two candidates with the highest negatives in history are being argued about in terms of who is worse with the ball having been set up for saying things like, "if you don't vote for Hillary/you most vote for Hillary" (over this lunatic) or (x), with people all over going crazy about how they have to (or possibly have to) in a mandatory way, vote for exactly who the powerful want as president, and so on and so on.
The media got people totally stupid. Even looking at last night Larry and Obama, especially Obama, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, totally roasted the media and Hillary Clinton while really not hitting Trump that hard, and today, CNN had the audacity to push the narrative that they roasted Trump. They treat people as if they are that stupid, because they know the deal. They, i.e., the media and propaganda machines, have that much power and influence and control over what people think, they pull it over on even people who (think that they) know these organizations are lying about everything.
Now, just to mention, at the end. Hillary (and neoliberalism) is the most extreme, reactionary form of the bourgeoisie within the context of our liberal, democratic-totalitarian society. It represents the reaction against the true gains of civil rights (see: war on drugs, law and order, tough on crime, gun control, etc.), against the movements of labor (see: union busting, control over unions (how the union leadership supported Hillary in massive amounts without even considering their member/how members were even to an extent promoted and coerced into going against their interests/basically how unions are really controlled not representing workers in certain cases), trade deals (de-industrialization), financialization, cutting hours, cutting pay, or increasing hours with less workers, increasing productivity with no benefits to workers, pushing for higher inequality, etc.), control over education and schools, pushing of social and wedge issues to create divide and distraction and put working class in opposition, expanding globalization, increasing imperialism, etc. This is all the framework, in which, the illusion is created with what we consider as the Republican (right-wing) party. Their job is to trick you into thinking that they actually support things that represent the wedge (e.g., religious, racist, etc.) elements, when their goals are exclusively neoliberal. That they are more militaristic, when behind the scenes the CIA and FBI and military advisers, will get exactly what they want from a president (like they did with Obama being responsible for basically more foreign government overthrows than Bush while saying he opposed that type of policy), and if they can't they will take you past the old grassy knoll and put someone in power who fits them. Same on financial policy, taxes, regulation, etc. You can look at what the Supreme Court has done, etc.
You have to think for a minute about those in power having so much control over you that they control you even in your own house, i.e., within your own psyche. Even thinking about how there are probably government trolls even on this site, knowing that Hillary Clinton's campaign, as well as the government generally, infiltrates across the entire web to spread lies and propaganda to have to off your game, upset at the wrong things, opposed to the wrong people, questioning who to trust and who not to trust. It is not even a question, if you were Stalin or any leader, you would have just wanted to kill every single person around you not knowing which ones were real. They had the same control over even left movements in the US, where top officials, bodyguard, etc., were provocateurs.
And when you are not even hip on the easy stuff. When you can't even deal with the 101 elements, not even as individuals, but as a groups in discussions, and not even in play, but in hypothetical and principle, what are you really going to do when it comes to the real movements?
Last edited by Verneinung; 2nd May 2016 at 01:24.
I completely agree, but I want to add that I also think these intellectual circles of communists should not only just try to go and talk to individuals but to also engage actively with the very organizations that the poor have created on their own. With or without revolutionary intellectuals to teach them theory, the poorest people have their own ways of trying to deal with and confront their oppressors: I am thinking of the Black Lives Matter movement or even the way people in Flint have been organizing their own networks to deal with the water crisis and confront the politicians involved with it. I'm not saying communists need to necessarily try to join and take over these groups from within, but that at the very least we need to engage with them in some way. I suppose these intellectuals circles should hash out in their own meetings how exactly they want to go about doing this, even if it means taking notes on conversations at meetings of the masses and going from there.
Sorry, but this part is just an over-the-top rant that only applies to political newbies, at best.
Politics isn't about 'trust', it's about *issues*, and anyone in the world can certainly keep their own 'scorecard' on anyone who claims to represent a stated umbrella of political positions.
I found (revolutionary) politics to be more difficult to do in the past, before the mass popularity (and technical maturity) of the Internet -- sure, face-to-face discussions can have more impact, but they can also be unfocused and unwieldy, while RevLeft's discussion-board format (or anything similar) allows for much more focused and thoughtful attention to any given matter, barring none.
And this part is just anachronistic and counterproductive, which is a disservice -- we don't need to play into the 'leftist dictator' boogeyman stereotype when we're now living in a distinctly different historical era. Mass politics is far more direct and impactful than ever before, due to the circa-2003 international protests against Bush's war on Iraq (and Afghanistan), and it threatens to trump the faux-democratic ritual of electoralism itself.
Populism -- as seen in Sanders' popularity -- is the tone of the day, which unfortunately is being courted by the likes of Trump as well.
This is incredibly *vague* and oblique -- it's something of a juxtaposition of theory and practice, but you may want to try again and focus on some *specifics* so as to mitigate the rant-like quality.
Trump will lose in a landslide. Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections + they certainly aren't about to lose to the most unpopular presidential candidate in recent memory.
Formerly Illuminate and Apoi_Viitor
