Except for opposing cuts to social services, backing progressive taxation and capital gains tax increases, regulation of financial markets, workers rights, unions, minimum wage increases, etc.
Those are all transitory policies between capitalism and Leftism. One party supports them, the other opposes them. It’s not enough, but it’s a better starting point.
How on Earth are mild social reforms under a dictatorship of Capital going to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital? What on Earth are you talking about? Here’s an intro to Marxism reading list I made, it would be a good place for you to start.
Do you know what a union is? It’s a worker coalition designed to give those workers a voice in their workplace.
Do you know what workers rights are? They’re regulatory protections that mitigate a portion of the exploitation inherent to capitalism.
Do you know what capital gains taxes are? They are taxes that siphon a portion of capital from the bourgeoise.
These are all in conflict with the interest of capital. They don’t go far enough, but they go farther than the other party. The other party opposes them. Capitalism + pro-worker social policies > capitalism - human rights. This isn’t a difficult concept.
You can link all the Marxist literature you want, it won’t get us closer to communism, or even socialism. This country will not vote for socialism anytime soon. If they’re not going to fill in a bubble once every couple years, they sure as hell aren’t going to take to the streets in armed rebellion.
These policies are the first baby steps in a larger transition. First it’s unions and higher federal minimum wage, then it’s more robust worker protections and socialized healthcare so workers have mobility, then it’s enabling worker co-ops, then it’s encouraging co-ops, then it’s mandating exclusive employee ownership. One step at a time, gradually demonstrating to the proletariat that these policies improve their lives and empower them, until they’re ready to support more dramatic change.
What’s your plan to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital?
Unions are good. Wholly insufficient by themselves for achieving Socialism, of course, but good nonetheless and an example of Worker Organization, the establishment of which can achieve Socialism. Your beginning few points on mild Social Programs in general, however, really doesn’t mean anything in this context. Everything approved under a Capitalist system is with the consent of the bourgeoisie.
You can link all the Marxist literature you want, it won’t get us closer to communism, or even socialism. This country will not vote for socialism anytime soon
Since when has Marxism been about voting for Socialism? Marx and Marxists have always been revolutionary. You’re right, even if everyone read theory we wouldn’t be closer to Socialism, it takes theory and organization to do so. That doesn’t mean revolutionary theory isn’t a requirement.
These policies are the first baby steps in a larger transition.
Can’t wait to see you finally elaborate on your plans.
First it’s unions and higher federal minimum wage, then it’s more robust worker protections and socialized healthcare so workers have mobility, then it’s enabling worker co-ops, then it’s encouraging co-ops, then it’s mandating exclusive employee ownership.
Quite a huge leap there, isn’t it? There’s hundreds of years of history proving why that hasn’t worked yet, just look at the Nordic Countries and their decaying conditions. You can’t establish Socialism by asking for it through purely legal avenues, the question of reform or revolution has been answered already and the answer is revolution. You’re asking the bourgeoisie to let their ground gradually whither without pushing the fascism button like which happened in Italy and Germany to much bloodshed to prevent what you’re speaking of from happening.
One step at a time, gradually demonstrating to the proletariat that these policies improve their lives and empower them, until they’re ready to support more dramatic change.
The Proletariat has historically proven to be far more radical than you give them credit for, if you refuse to analyze prior successful revolutions then you refuse to work with knowledge. You’re blindly guessing here when you don’t need to, we already know your method has no practical basis.
What’s your plan to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital?
I already told you, I’m a Marxist. You could read my list, even. Building up a revolutionary party operating on a Mass Line to overthrow the bourgeoisie. This is a protracted process, and requires combining legal and illegal work, working with trade unions and others to build up a mass movement. The Dems are not a part of this and have never been. We must look to what has worked and analyze what’s similar and what’s different about our own conditions.
Since when has Marxism been about voting for Socialism? Marx and Marxists have always been revolutionary
Good job cropping out the very next sentence.
If they’re not going to fill in a bubble once every couple years, they sure as hell aren’t going to take to the streets in armed rebellion.
The organization isn’t there. I don’t see a fraction of the organization necessary for that. And we’ve been organizing for what, a century? How long until we’re sufficiently organized, another five centuries? 10? 100? I don’t even see a fraction of the theory literacy to so much as start the process.
Quite a huge leap there, isn’t it?
No, not really. Each of those steps follows naturally from the previous one.
There’s hundreds of years of history proving why that hasn’t worked yet
And what of the hundreds of years of history proving revolution doesn’t work. The USSR? Nice idea, turned into authoritarian state capitalism, then straight up oligarchy inside of a century. The CCP? Authoritarian state capitalism, let’s see how long until oligarchy.
I’m sure you’re about to say “That’s just because the intelligence agencies leashed by American Capital interests interfered!”, as if they’re not way more likely to interfere with an American socialist revolution.
The Proletariat has historically proven to be far more radical than you give them credit for
Starving 19-20th century peasants? Sure. 21st century Americans? Yeah they’re struggling, but they’ve got Amazon and fast food, not to mention propaganda telling them socialism will make their lives even worse. We’re not hitting revolutionary levels of desperation anytime soon. A quarter of the voters in this country voted for the poster child of the bourgeoise because they thought he was an everyman. Even more than that couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch. These are your radical revolutionaries. I’m not holding my breath.
My concern is improving the material conditions of the working class, and elevating their voice and stake in the workplace. Maybe in another century they’ll have the class consciousness to act on revolutionary theory.
It doesn’t change anything, even if I did include it. Electoralism in liberal democracy is not a measure of outright support for Socialism, given the abundance of liberals who would otherwise support Socialists voting Dem.
The organization isn’t there. I don’t see a fraction of the organization necessary for that. And we’ve been organizing for what, a century? How long until we’re sufficiently organized, another five centuries? 10? 100? I don’t even see a fraction of the theory literacy to so much as start the process.
FRSO, Red Star Caucus, PSL, and other groups are doing great org work. Imperialism has inflated living conditions for a long time, but even still conditions are deteriorating and Socialism is gaining in popularity among the advanced of the masses.
No, not really. Each of those steps follows naturally from the previous one.
They don’t. You added steps like “force worker ownership” where they are logical leaps.
And what of the hundreds of years of history proving revolution doesn’t work. The USSR? Nice idea, turned into authoritarian state capitalism, then straight up oligarchy inside of a century. The CCP? Authoritarian state capitalism, let’s see how long until oligarchy.
See, this “authoritarian state Capitalism” bit is exactly why you need to read theory. The USSR and PRC are both examples of Socialism, with huge public sectors and central planning. Can you explain how they are examples of “state capitalism?”
I’m sure you’re about to say “That’s just because the intelligence agencies leashed by American Capital interests interfered!”, as if they’re not way more likely to interfere with an American socialist revolution.
No, actually, though the USSR was invaded by 14 Capitalist nations at its founding. My point is that your previous paragraph is nonsense and devoid of knowledge of Marxism to begin with.
Starving 19-20th century peasants? Sure. 21st century Americans? Yeah they’re struggling, but they’ve got Amazon and fast food, not to mention propaganda telling them socialism will make their lives even worse. We’re not hitting revolutionary levels of desperation anytime soon. A quarter of the voters in this country voted for the poster child of the bourgeoise because they thought he was an everyman. Even more than that couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch. These are your radical revolutionaries. I’m not holding my breath.
Another quarter of voters voted for a different poster child of the bourgeoisie because they thought she was an everywoman. Electoralism isn’t a measure of revolutionary fervor, people abstained because Electoralism doesn’t work.
My concern is improving the material conditions of the working class, and elevating their voice and stake in the workplace. Maybe in another century they’ll have the class consciousness to act on revolutionary theory.
So tepid Capitalism until it crumbles as it inevitably will? You have no plans of substance.
The thing that really pisses me off about you revolutionary absolutists, the core reason I don’t respect you, despise you even, isn’t because you’re smugly wrong. And you are, smugly wrong, overlooking every time revolution hasn’t worked, or worked briefly before collapsing.
The real despicable thing about you is that you know, deep down even when you don’t admit it, that revolution won’t happen without widespread, incredible suffering. Every “successful” revolution has been the result of starvation, abysmal poverty, and authoritarianism. They all lead to widespread death on both sides during the revolution itself. People don’t just overthrow the government on a lark, no matter how much they read. Misery is necessary to inspire people to revolt.
But you don’t care. You want things to get worse. You want people to suffer so much that they’re willing to do anything, that they’ll have nothing left to lose, and you’re hoping they choose your path to salvation.
Based on how much time you have to post online, you’re definitely comfortable. Intellectually you crave revolution, but materially you’ll be fine either way. You don’t care about what the proletariat, the ones who aren’t comfortable, will have to go through on your accelerationist path. As long as you get your revolution, damn the consequences for everyone else. The survivors will live in paradise, however long that lasts.
Didn’t pretend it’ll be bloodless. America quashed revolutions in other countries, they won’t hesitate to do the same at home. People will die. Many, many people. The only way the rest won’t lose their resolve is if the threat of death isn’t really worse than their living conditions. Sure, people are struggling now, but not risk-death-for-a-chance-at-change suffering. We have a long, long way to go before a critical mass of revolutionaries are desperate enough to try.
I want to show people glimpses of a better future, and bit by bit claw their way to better material conditions, alive and intact. You want their lives to get so horrific they literally have no other choice. It’s selfish and cruel. It spits in the face of the compassion for the proletariat which should be sacrosanct to the left.
Yet you sit in your leftist online spaces, elevating century old theory to religious dogma, intellectualizing the fineries of glorious revolution with no empathy for those who will suffer it. Every person who suffers on the descent into misery is righteous fuel for the revolutionary flame. Not you though, you’re comfortable, it’s all theory to you. The blood will be someone else’s blood, if you think about it at all.
This is not a plan of substance. It’s selfish and callous. And that sets aside the consequences of failure, or success followed by collapse.
I don’t respect it. It isn’t respectable. It’s cosplay blind to consequence. I want communism too, but I’m not going to push the people into misery to achieve communism for communism’s sake. The whole point is to elevate the working class, it doesn’t count if you decimate and subjugate them first.
I’m done with this. Keep cosplaying, you’re going to anyway. The grown ups will keep working on solutions that aren’t predicted on misery.
That is a totally unfounded claim. I’d like for it to be true. I just know too much about the average American to believe it.
Capitalists will always keep us just comfortable enough to make revolution unsavory. Bread and circuses. Capitalist entrenchment at the time of Lenin was a pup compared to the global beast it has become in the interceding century.
The USSR devolved into state capitalism, the CCP devolved into state capitalism. Capitalism is insidious. Reform is the only way. I’m not going to pretend the musings of theory-crafters 100 years ago are sacrosanct physical laws, and if you actually want to get closer to the goal in your lifetime I suggest you consider the same.
Except for opposing cuts to social services, backing progressive taxation and capital gains tax increases, regulation of financial markets, workers rights, unions, minimum wage increases, etc.
So again, conflating tepid social reforms with Leftist movement. You need to go back to the drawing board.
Those are all transitory policies between capitalism and Leftism. One party supports them, the other opposes them. It’s not enough, but it’s a better starting point.
How on Earth are mild social reforms under a dictatorship of Capital going to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital? What on Earth are you talking about? Here’s an intro to Marxism reading list I made, it would be a good place for you to start.
Do you know what a union is? It’s a worker coalition designed to give those workers a voice in their workplace.
Do you know what workers rights are? They’re regulatory protections that mitigate a portion of the exploitation inherent to capitalism.
Do you know what capital gains taxes are? They are taxes that siphon a portion of capital from the bourgeoise.
These are all in conflict with the interest of capital. They don’t go far enough, but they go farther than the other party. The other party opposes them. Capitalism + pro-worker social policies > capitalism - human rights. This isn’t a difficult concept.
You can link all the Marxist literature you want, it won’t get us closer to communism, or even socialism. This country will not vote for socialism anytime soon. If they’re not going to fill in a bubble once every couple years, they sure as hell aren’t going to take to the streets in armed rebellion.
These policies are the first baby steps in a larger transition. First it’s unions and higher federal minimum wage, then it’s more robust worker protections and socialized healthcare so workers have mobility, then it’s enabling worker co-ops, then it’s encouraging co-ops, then it’s mandating exclusive employee ownership. One step at a time, gradually demonstrating to the proletariat that these policies improve their lives and empower them, until they’re ready to support more dramatic change.
What’s your plan to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital?
Unions are good. Wholly insufficient by themselves for achieving Socialism, of course, but good nonetheless and an example of Worker Organization, the establishment of which can achieve Socialism. Your beginning few points on mild Social Programs in general, however, really doesn’t mean anything in this context. Everything approved under a Capitalist system is with the consent of the bourgeoisie.
Since when has Marxism been about voting for Socialism? Marx and Marxists have always been revolutionary. You’re right, even if everyone read theory we wouldn’t be closer to Socialism, it takes theory and organization to do so. That doesn’t mean revolutionary theory isn’t a requirement.
Can’t wait to see you finally elaborate on your plans.
Quite a huge leap there, isn’t it? There’s hundreds of years of history proving why that hasn’t worked yet, just look at the Nordic Countries and their decaying conditions. You can’t establish Socialism by asking for it through purely legal avenues, the question of reform or revolution has been answered already and the answer is revolution. You’re asking the bourgeoisie to let their ground gradually whither without pushing the fascism button like which happened in Italy and Germany to much bloodshed to prevent what you’re speaking of from happening.
The Proletariat has historically proven to be far more radical than you give them credit for, if you refuse to analyze prior successful revolutions then you refuse to work with knowledge. You’re blindly guessing here when you don’t need to, we already know your method has no practical basis.
I already told you, I’m a Marxist. You could read my list, even. Building up a revolutionary party operating on a Mass Line to overthrow the bourgeoisie. This is a protracted process, and requires combining legal and illegal work, working with trade unions and others to build up a mass movement. The Dems are not a part of this and have never been. We must look to what has worked and analyze what’s similar and what’s different about our own conditions.
Good job cropping out the very next sentence.
The organization isn’t there. I don’t see a fraction of the organization necessary for that. And we’ve been organizing for what, a century? How long until we’re sufficiently organized, another five centuries? 10? 100? I don’t even see a fraction of the theory literacy to so much as start the process.
No, not really. Each of those steps follows naturally from the previous one.
And what of the hundreds of years of history proving revolution doesn’t work. The USSR? Nice idea, turned into authoritarian state capitalism, then straight up oligarchy inside of a century. The CCP? Authoritarian state capitalism, let’s see how long until oligarchy.
I’m sure you’re about to say “That’s just because the intelligence agencies leashed by American Capital interests interfered!”, as if they’re not way more likely to interfere with an American socialist revolution.
Starving 19-20th century peasants? Sure. 21st century Americans? Yeah they’re struggling, but they’ve got Amazon and fast food, not to mention propaganda telling them socialism will make their lives even worse. We’re not hitting revolutionary levels of desperation anytime soon. A quarter of the voters in this country voted for the poster child of the bourgeoise because they thought he was an everyman. Even more than that couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch. These are your radical revolutionaries. I’m not holding my breath.
My concern is improving the material conditions of the working class, and elevating their voice and stake in the workplace. Maybe in another century they’ll have the class consciousness to act on revolutionary theory.
It doesn’t change anything, even if I did include it. Electoralism in liberal democracy is not a measure of outright support for Socialism, given the abundance of liberals who would otherwise support Socialists voting Dem.
FRSO, Red Star Caucus, PSL, and other groups are doing great org work. Imperialism has inflated living conditions for a long time, but even still conditions are deteriorating and Socialism is gaining in popularity among the advanced of the masses.
They don’t. You added steps like “force worker ownership” where they are logical leaps.
See, this “authoritarian state Capitalism” bit is exactly why you need to read theory. The USSR and PRC are both examples of Socialism, with huge public sectors and central planning. Can you explain how they are examples of “state capitalism?”
No, actually, though the USSR was invaded by 14 Capitalist nations at its founding. My point is that your previous paragraph is nonsense and devoid of knowledge of Marxism to begin with.
Another quarter of voters voted for a different poster child of the bourgeoisie because they thought she was an everywoman. Electoralism isn’t a measure of revolutionary fervor, people abstained because Electoralism doesn’t work.
So tepid Capitalism until it crumbles as it inevitably will? You have no plans of substance.
The thing that really pisses me off about you revolutionary absolutists, the core reason I don’t respect you, despise you even, isn’t because you’re smugly wrong. And you are, smugly wrong, overlooking every time revolution hasn’t worked, or worked briefly before collapsing.
The real despicable thing about you is that you know, deep down even when you don’t admit it, that revolution won’t happen without widespread, incredible suffering. Every “successful” revolution has been the result of starvation, abysmal poverty, and authoritarianism. They all lead to widespread death on both sides during the revolution itself. People don’t just overthrow the government on a lark, no matter how much they read. Misery is necessary to inspire people to revolt.
But you don’t care. You want things to get worse. You want people to suffer so much that they’re willing to do anything, that they’ll have nothing left to lose, and you’re hoping they choose your path to salvation.
Based on how much time you have to post online, you’re definitely comfortable. Intellectually you crave revolution, but materially you’ll be fine either way. You don’t care about what the proletariat, the ones who aren’t comfortable, will have to go through on your accelerationist path. As long as you get your revolution, damn the consequences for everyone else. The survivors will live in paradise, however long that lasts.
Didn’t pretend it’ll be bloodless. America quashed revolutions in other countries, they won’t hesitate to do the same at home. People will die. Many, many people. The only way the rest won’t lose their resolve is if the threat of death isn’t really worse than their living conditions. Sure, people are struggling now, but not risk-death-for-a-chance-at-change suffering. We have a long, long way to go before a critical mass of revolutionaries are desperate enough to try.
I want to show people glimpses of a better future, and bit by bit claw their way to better material conditions, alive and intact. You want their lives to get so horrific they literally have no other choice. It’s selfish and cruel. It spits in the face of the compassion for the proletariat which should be sacrosanct to the left.
Yet you sit in your leftist online spaces, elevating century old theory to religious dogma, intellectualizing the fineries of glorious revolution with no empathy for those who will suffer it. Every person who suffers on the descent into misery is righteous fuel for the revolutionary flame. Not you though, you’re comfortable, it’s all theory to you. The blood will be someone else’s blood, if you think about it at all.
This is not a plan of substance. It’s selfish and callous. And that sets aside the consequences of failure, or success followed by collapse.
I don’t respect it. It isn’t respectable. It’s cosplay blind to consequence. I want communism too, but I’m not going to push the people into misery to achieve communism for communism’s sake. The whole point is to elevate the working class, it doesn’t count if you decimate and subjugate them first.
I’m done with this. Keep cosplaying, you’re going to anyway. The grown ups will keep working on solutions that aren’t predicted on misery.
No it isnt. NO IT ISNT. read reform or revolution read state and revolution. REFORM WILL NEVER WORK
And revolution will never happen. Seethe.
Lenin thought he would never see a revolution in his lifetime. Will it happen in my lifetime? I don’t know. But it will happen.
That is a totally unfounded claim. I’d like for it to be true. I just know too much about the average American to believe it.
Capitalists will always keep us just comfortable enough to make revolution unsavory. Bread and circuses. Capitalist entrenchment at the time of Lenin was a pup compared to the global beast it has become in the interceding century.
The USSR devolved into state capitalism, the CCP devolved into state capitalism. Capitalism is insidious. Reform is the only way. I’m not going to pretend the musings of theory-crafters 100 years ago are sacrosanct physical laws, and if you actually want to get closer to the goal in your lifetime I suggest you consider the same.