131
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
131 points (100.0% liked)
politics
8 readers
1 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.
!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree that the most revolutionary potential lies in the global south. Hopefully, more gains can be made through partnerships with China, particularly as the US position geopolitically seems likely to weaken. Even now the US seems only able to accomplish relatively short term gains while setting themselves up for longterm defeats (the proxy war in Ukraine dwmonstrates this).
Its not surprising that revolutionary potential, and the possibility of real gains is higher on the periphery than within the imperial core. I think a lot of western leftists deal with brainworms (for understandable reasons) the the West is the main character of history, so the revolution must happen here and lead the world. There's over a centuries worth of evidence to the contrary.
I say its understandable because its a less extreme version of the classic "left" liberal brainworm of "the US may be bad, but [target country] is worse." Its also seen throughout left anti-communism's stance and critiscims against AES. The unexamined assumption that the nations of the imperial core will be the leaders of the socialist revolution as opposed ro the last and most dangerous holdouts of a dying imperial order, is, i think, the last vestige of this way of thinking.
This isn't, and I'm not endorsing, a doomerist position for communists in the imperial core. A better world is possible, and we should do what we can to defend our comrades at home from rising fascism and support our comrades abroad on the periphery. Not being the "main character" does mean there is no role to play. Revolution is like an Eisenstein film, the people, the class, are the main character and we are united across boarders
With regards to this, I literally was talking to a woman the other day who readily admitted things like: how behind every successful man there are countless women who do unpaid emotional labor, how companies are taking in too much in profit for no reason, how companies will cynically shield themselves from criticism by appointing a POC ceo, etc. etc. She even said that workers should get a share in the profits of the company. I jokingly responded that her idea sounded kind of like socialism, and she immediately replied, "no it's not socialism, I believe in capitalism, just not with so many excesses." And this is a black woman who fully understands intersectionality, the problem of corporations, etc. So I'm a little doomer not just online, but IRL as well...
I definitely understand, and have personally felt what you're talking about. And if you're just looking at the US/imperial core its pretty depressing. The most propagandized people who have ever lived. Everyone alive in the US right now has been exposed to the most advanced and coordinated and pervasive propaganda campaign since birth. The person you're describing who gets so much, but is still "oh no not socialism" is maddening for us but also a sign of how greatly the contridictions of capitalism have intensified that her position and people like her exist.
The real hope for the future is in the periphery obviously, but remember our worldview is based on dialectics. The contradictions inheirent in capitalism intensify as things get worse, and that's what ultimately breaks through propganda and brainworms. Ideas do not shape reality, material conditions do, and as people in the imperial cores material conditions change, their ideas will change. Part of why it looks so doomer is because for many people their material conditions are still too good to want to change their belief system, and because propaganda evolves to at least keep them from blaming capitalism itself or the US (crony capitalism, we need more of team blue in change, or the current "Bidenomics is working" bullshit).
Theres more hope in the periphery because material conditions typically are worse there, not because things are better. That's an important thing for comrades struggling with doomerism to remember. Trust me i get the emotion, i think most of us do here, i think we'd be crazy not to. But having a marxist veiwpoint is understanding that a better world is possible. Not because of any idealistic notion of human goodness, but from an understanding that history, historical change, is a process governed by class conflict defined by the contridictions in the mode of production. The workers of the world will prevail, not because we are morally superior, not because we a better, or smarter, and not because the class as a whole will even necessarily understand the process they are involved in while it is happening. Material conditions and our relationship to them is what defines this conflict and causes historical change.
If anything, her acute awareness of contradictions despite her idealistic view of capitalism can be seen as hopeful? Material conditions are significantly worse than twenty years ago and that comfort in the status quo historically changes through class antagonisms. It takes so much to break through that barrier of capitalism being the only option because of that passive propaganda system you live through.
I'm really curious as to what she thinks capitalism and socialism are.
That's a great question. Most people don't even know what supporting capitalism means. Propaganda being what it is, capitslism just equals good in most people's eyes in the west
Capitalism and socialism to most westerners might as well refer to moral character traits rather than distinct political structures. Capitalism just means something like ingenuity but also greed. Socialism means altruism but also bland uniformity.
The more politically minded westerner might think capitalism means wealth disparity and socialism means everyone gets paid the same.
Yeah the political illiteracy in the West is horrendous, and of course its by design
Honestly I am completely doomer about the future and I've not seen a single thing to convince me otherwise. I know it's not fashionable to say because everyone likes to have a bit of hope but honestly I fundamentally do not believe we can make the changes necessary before climate change fucks up everything. Just look at what the average Brit or American is like politically. Just look at what happened when even a democratic socialist running on a social democratic platform (Sanders and, even more so, Jeremy Corbyn) becomes politically prominent.
I am desperate for some hope in this world but I find very little.
To be completely fair, even Marx concluded similarly, and it took about 130 years of new theory and new evidence on top of it to get to where we are now.
Absolutely. Thats why i understand that assumption persisting particularly in the West.
IIRC towards the end of his life Marx was beginning to think about these sorts of questions and the revolutionary potential of what we now call the global south (he focused on Asia and Russia) but then he very rudely died before getting the chance to really write about it.
I've read some about that, and also how Marx gave some serious thought to ecological issues and their interaction with capital/socialism. Still, Marx, thinking as hard as he did on stuff like this did think that, so we can give some grace to Metropolitan leftists for reaching a similar conclusion.
Yeah I definitely agree with you there. It's understandable for a great number of reasons-not just intellectually, but the fact we, as socialists and humans, want meaning in our lives and to make meaningful change. The idea that we're stuck in a society structured so hard against revolution-and that we are therefore impotent and cannot contribute to the meaning we have given ourselves in life-is difficult to tolerate. I mean what do you do if your whole life purpose is for nothing? Even beyond the intellectual side of things, it's easy to get into denial with it and try to rationalise some way in which you have a meaningful role to play in the events to come.
I don't really know what the answer to this is. I want meaning in my life but how do you get it in a place like, say, the UK? You either suck up that copium and pretend you can convince the masses or you just wallow in pity at your impotence-I haven't thought of any other options yet so I just swing between these two.
To be fair to Marx though, he lived through a time of revolutions where it looked like France and Germany were about to pop any day. Places in the imperial core during Marx's time did have things like frequent uprisings, like the revolutionaries in Paris were what inspired the writing of the manifesto.
Marx had high hopes for the USA too, but that was a standard opinion at the time. Lots of German socialists came to the US to start little utopian experiments in places like Ohio.
the revolutionary potential of the global south has been repeatedly suppressed by western imperial forces. if anything, people living in the imperial core are on damage control duty. we can see the NATO fashonistas getting ready to throw a tantrum and they have a massive military complex to back it up with. i just hope young americans can stay fat, mentally ill, and on drugs enough to completely frustrate the military agenda tbh.