Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Power is a drug and only Ksen is immune, but that is because he delights in being a vehicle for popular sentiment. Febble is nuts and doesnt realize her power hunger. Ty is a moron and thus simply blends into the status quo which guarantees his privilege, however petty. Supernaut is clueless and just delights in his tiara.

Topic: Reds in America: a discussion (Read 926 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Talkfreethought about...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #25
poly and aromantic?

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #26
it just means a dude who likes to hook up with a lot of chicks without getting emotionally involved

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #27
I said aro not ace

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #28
oh lol

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #29
lol thanks.

Also and otherwise, keep talking guys, this is the most interesting conversation currently happening otb.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #30
alright well I think a good solution is for groups to form around single issues. IWW around revolutionary unionism, BLM around anti-racism, the Trotskys around selling newspapers, and so on. If we form groups that focus on one or two things, you know, it's like you take care of the little things and the big things take care of themselves. Granted there's a lot of overlap in groups like the IWW, DSA, BLM, and that's great, we should work together, but specializing is invaluable.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #31
yeah in that sense i am not sure what DSA specializes in. part of it is that it's so big and diverse that you couldn't get the whole thing moving in exactly one direction. (we have an internal caucus/candidate slate called "momentum" that tried to act along these lines but they kinda suck.) so i guess what DSA might be good at doing is figuring out what's needed in local conditions and that no one else is working on and then making sure the cause/issue is owned by radicals rather than liberals.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #32
Issue 1.  Gerrymandering.  

No one is getting anywhere till that is fixed.


Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #33
opps accidently posted here.  sorry.  no coffee yet and MR is down !

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #34
We don't need to fix gerrymandering.

End representative democracy, allow people to vote on issues directly, death to politicians who only serve the interest of the capitalist dogs.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #35
sortition NOW

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #36
We don't need to fix gerrymandering.

End representative democracy, allow people to vote on issues directly, death to politicians who only serve the interest of the capitalist dogs.

I worked out a whole system to do this with Local, Regional, Statewide, and Federal ways to propose bills and laws for direct online voting but it depends heavily on everyone having access to the internet and not being a total dipshit.

Since we elected both Bush Jr, and Trump, I think we fail the last part.  Also Christian Conservatives have now been in control of a lot of school boards since the 1980's so dipshittedness is on the rise.

Anyway, you cant get there from here.  Nothing will change till you affect the current power system, and the only way right now to even start that is stop political Gerrymandering.   After you do that, then you can start electing people who can change campaign finance laws, which is step 2.     You also need to make sure that voting machines are required to create a paper trail for auditing, for now.    These are three little things that both left and right can agree on, and will have a major effect on the power structure over time.




  • Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 03:17:35 PM by Zeluvia

  • ksen
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #37
We don't need to fix gerrymandering.

End representative democracy, allow people to vote on issues directly, death to politicians who only serve the interest of the capitalist dogs.

I worked out a whole system to do this with Local, Regional, Statewide, and Federal ways to propose bills and laws for direct online voting but it depends heavily on everyone having access to the internet and not being a total dipshit.

Since we elected both Bush Jr, and Trump, I think we fail the last part.  Also Christian Conservatives have now been in control of a lot of school boards since the 1980's so dipshittedness is on the rise.

Anyway, you cant get there from here.  Nothing will change till you affect the current power system, and the only way right now to even start that is stop political Gerrymandering.   After you do that, then you can start electing people who can change campaign finance laws, which is step 2.     You also need to make sure that voting machines are required to create a paper trail for auditing, for now.    These are three little things that both left and right can agree on, and will have a major effect on the power structure over time.

Uhhh :unsure:

  • ravenscape
  • Administrator
  • Triggered
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #38
opps accidently posted here.  sorry.  no coffee yet and MR is down !


It was?  How long?

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #39
not long thank gods.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #40
shut up ksen.  


  • rednoise
  • Sludgey Southern Kitcheneer
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #41
ftr, i wasn't expecting you to have a magic correct answer solution, i just wanted to know what you think is worthwhile. i get the impression that you don't think working in the DSA is (or maybe that's just the way it is right now), so i was curious. nothing i was saying was intended to be some kind of "well what are you doing about it, tough guy??" challenge. i probably got a little defensive and so some of that seeped through, but i don't pretend to have the answer either. i'm just doing what i can with what looks like the most vital socialist org right now.

with that in mind, it's a fair criticism that we don't have a well developed line on how to achieve socialism, or even one set view on what that would look like. it will depend largely on who you talk to because the organization is multi-tendency, but that itself represents a long term lack of a long-term plan everyone can work on. it's something i have been concerned about for a while, but have been too busy organizing/mobilizing (our chapter is v. new) to make time for. (and again, any statements about "too busy doing stuff irl to theory" aren't really meant to be a slight.) up to now all i have been trying to establish is that "social democrats who don't get the need to be rid of capitalism" isn't a correct characterization in my view. also we only in the last year shed that so maybe i'll ask for a bit of a grace period before we can develop something more refined than "actually anti-capitalism is good, and settling for patchwork reforms is not."

so some things i think we're doing that is worthwhile even without a well developed coherent line, by which i mean laying the groundwork:

1) normalizing socialism-as-anticapitalism. we're in a weird spot because bernie's made it easier to introduce yourself as a "democratic socialist" so that gets a foot in the door, but to avoid being some kind of entryist cult, it's necessary to very quickly emphasize that no, we're not berniecrats and do actually want to get rid of capitalism. normalizing that is important imv basically for the sake of recruitment.

2) emphasizing non-electoral politics. the point to us isn't just to run candidates, it's to develop the political power necessary to pressure whatever system exists to behave the way we want it to behave. i recognize a danger here of working for specific reforms and then losing momentum if we get them, but making the exercise of political power a part of a lifestyle is what i am hoping will get around that. i don't want the recent swell of political action by vaguely left-progressive-liberal people to subside just because republicans lose elections and so making politics about something other than elections matters to me.

(this is where i am going to finally come around to questioning the use of the word "party" to describe us because we are emphatically not a political party. i haven't said anything about it until now because you seemed to be using it generically to mean any kind of political organization, but when it comes to an orientation towards electoral politics, the distinction matters. the local SPUSA people are very interested in running candidates for office, and they are explicitly a political party by contrast. some DSA chapters are in some places, others just want to endorse if it seems like there is a promising candidate. our chapter is really far to the non-electoral end of the scale.)

3) related to the above, creating an alternative political culture. a lot of our effort goes into making the org the heart of a community that is worth being a part of in and of itself. i think that if we can get a lot of people to just want to keep doing politics with other like-minded people because it's personally and emotionally rewarding and you come to think of them as more than just protest pals, or iow to build camaraderie, then you've got a good basis for an organization that grows and withstands just winning a few electoral gains.

none of this is anything i think is sufficient to overthrow capitalism or whatever, but i don't know how i'd do it without stuff like this as preliminary steps. there are a whole lot of challenges to doing any of this effectively. for one thing, we all freely recognize that the org skews white and middle class. we don't want this to be a permanent state of affairs and partly as a corrective to getting into any of the kind of bullshit that groups of politically active white people tend to fall into, my chapter is emphasizing both support for organized labor and immigrant rights as critical projects. i recognize that this makes us currently ill-suited to be the beginning of "the working class as a class for itself" but i at least hope to be useful to that process. (semi-related side note, have you read "anatomy of the micro-sect"?)

also fwiw i'm not trying to recruit you to anything, but i do know there are a number of DSA people who've been trying to get a communist caucus going so i mean maybe they'd be fun to hang out with i dunno.

I guess the overarching point I'm trying to make is that the proletariat class is not going to pay attention to the DSA, or, for that matter, any other socialist org. And it's not really having anything to do with normalization. You can't normalize anticapitalism in a capitalist society, in other words. The shift has to have been made first. But, again, that isn't going to come on the heels of a group of socialists trying to normalize, recruit or what have you, for their projects.

I'll give an example of what I'm getting at: in my activist days, I ran around with the ARA. Not completely involved in the organization, but I had some friends there and would show up for some actions.

We all went to a May Day rally one year, maybe about 12 or 13 years ago. It was during Bush, anyway, and there was some increased rhetoric about immigration. So, the rally went from a small cadre of Austin socialist and anarchist organizations to being about immigrant rights and respect. At first, everyone was, of course, cool with this because it turned out to be one of the biggest May Day rallies the city has ever had.

Everyone lefty who was there was cool with it, like I said. The ISO, the local IWW chapter, and smaller assorted groups like the ARA and whatever groups were cohoused with the Indymedia collective at the time. But as the rally was winding down, the lefty contingents were getting frustrated because no one was taking to the literature or any of that. They tried turning it into recruitment opportunities and no one gave a shit. Probably the vast majority were working class, but they were here to show themselves to be for themselves. And the left wanted it to be about whatever ideology they were trying to push.

The working class, by and large, doesn't give a shit about "the left." Communism -- the movement -- wasn't, until the last century, predicated upon soc/com organizations and their activity. It was predicated upon the fact that the working class itself is the only class capable of abolishing capitalism, and that socialists would help the working class in their goals for emancipation from capital, with the idea that furthering class struggle also gets us closer to emancipation.

To say it plainly, there is nothing for a communist -- even a communist worker -- to do without that general class movement. Which doesn't really exist, in this country, at the moment. A political culture can't be created from pressure of outside groups; it has to be organic or it'll run the risk of disintegrating. And it will, and has before (I'd actually recommend "Marx, Jefferson and Jesus," which is about the rise and fall of SPUSA in Oklahoma -- it went over this very topic.)

One of my issues with big tent parties and united-frontism, is that these are elements of the left who have decided on their ideology, and so have given little care to think about whether what they are preaching as socialism is actually socialism or just some modified form of capitalism that they're trying to windowdress as anticapitalism. It's like there's been a wholesale abandonment of socialist theory, and a genuine analysis of capitalism, especially in the last 20 years, but it certainly started a lot earlier (fair to say in the 2nd International.) Frankly, that's the conversation I'd rather have than about parties or what is to be done by leftists.
"Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else"

-Engels

  • rednoise
  • Sludgey Southern Kitcheneer
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #42
Issue 1.  Gerrymandering.  

No one is getting anywhere till that is fixed.



I frankly don't give a shit about "fixing" a system to make it easier for the other political wing of capital to win more elections. So, no.
"Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else"

-Engels

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #43
So you have no idea how a communist revolution could come about, and don't care to push things in a more generally leftist direction. I remember reading a response to the political vision of Ayn Rand, which pointed out that her vision only works if instituted in its entirety, and we have to multiply the chances of that, by the chance that it would actually work in the first place, when considering whether or not to support it.

  • rednoise
  • Sludgey Southern Kitcheneer
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #44
So you have no idea how a communist revolution could come about

A communist revolution comes about when the working class, through class struggle and revolution, negates property and so capitalism.

Quote
and don't care to push things in a more generally leftist direction.

I've already said that I wouldn't oppose socdem reforms. What I added is that doesn't get us to socialism. You're conflating two lines of conversation into one.

Quote
I remem..

No one gives a shit.
"Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else"

-Engels

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #45
Quote from: rednoise
A communist revolution comes about when the working class, through class struggle and revolution, puts and negates property and so capitalism.

You're ignoring my point. What are the chances of that happening?

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #46
Quote from: rednoise
I wouldn't oppose socdem reforms.

But you don't seem to really care. To the point where you dismiss fixing the problem of gerrymandering, which disenfranchises racial minorities, among others.

  • rednoise
  • Sludgey Southern Kitcheneer
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #47
Quote from: rednoise
A communist revolution comes about when the working class, through class struggle and revolution, puts and negates property and so capitalism.

You're ignoring my point. What are the chances of that happening?

I addressed your exact words. If you wanted to ask this question, you should have just asked it instead of being a verbal putz about it.

The answer to this new question is I don't know. And neither does anyone else.
  • Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 10:16:10 PM by rednoise
"Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else"

-Engels

  • rednoise
  • Sludgey Southern Kitcheneer
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #48
Quote from: rednoise
I wouldn't oppose socdem reforms.

But you don't seem to really care. To the point where you dismiss fixing the problem of gerrymandering, which disenfranchises racial minorities, among others.

I care about elevating fairness in society as far as it can extend in capitalism. That was not the context of the conversation. We were talking about different socialist orgs and their strategy; within that context, gerrymandering does not matter. And so "Nothing else can be done until this one issue is fixed" is just a dumb shitpost.

What I didn't care about was your mental diarrhea about Ayn Rand.
  • Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 10:19:21 PM by rednoise
"Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else"

-Engels

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #49
I mean, fair enough. I'm not a communist. But I am disgusted by apathy in the face of people like Trump or Pence.