bugganeofsttrinians

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Aww yes the blame game.

In actually, the votes for third parties were much more smaller than the gains Trump had. In other words, the idea that Third Party or protest votes caused Harris to lose ignores the fact that she essentially ran a rubbish campaign or the deep seated reactionary elements that spread out through American society.

And for the record Gaza was facing genocidal destruction under Biden's watch. The idea its survival would have came is a cruel falsehood in light of the strong 9/11 era racist elements in the DNC. The USA, reguardless of who is in charge, has been responsible for helping a apartied state conduct a campaign of genocide.

Blame who you want liberal bu while you enable fascism the actual anti-fascists will need to get organising and onto the streets. There is work to do.

So, all y’all propals who were all “don’t vote for Harris because Gaza,” how you feeling knowing that unless a fucking MIRACLE happens in the next few days, our next president has promised an actual genocide against both Gaza and the West Bank? Hm? Proud of yourselves? Gonna blame the Jews for this too even though we’re a massively reliable Democratic vote?

I pray the vote flips as the mail-ins are counted. I also hope every single one of you is absolutely shitting yourselves right now as the reality of what you’ve done sinks in. I hope you are fucking TERRIFIED. I hope you’re getting a good deep taste of what you’ve put Jews through for the last thirteen months. I hope even if we do get a miracle, the fear NEVER LEAVES YOU. I hope you realize how close to the brink we were. I hope you realize what disgusting, selfish, puerile children you were, and are absolutely revolted by yourselves.

If Gaza doesn’t exist by this time next year, I hope you remember: IT’S BECAUSE OF YOU.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Aww yes, the trolly problem, that classic thing used by folk to get people to back piss poor choices, as if harm reduction comes when the Democrats are now setting about building walls at border. They have essentially become Bush Republicans now.The fact is that Palestians are expandable to Democrats at best; at worst they actively seek the killing. One cannot tell stop by arguing restraint whilst supplying the arms needed to commit genocide. Now it is escalating into Lebanon and potentially beyond.

It does not helps that voting for Democrats would reward their shift to the right, whilst their lost would risk them convincing themselves they need to go right more so, because they lack pragmaticism, instead instead having a false kind.Overall, the false pragmaticism of electoralism is a highlight why folk need to get organising, rather than cheering for their favourite murderous football team. Get into trade unionism, be of protests and prepare to face the back lash of both parties.

"voting makes you complicit in US war crimes"

that's not how anything works. if you live in the US, if you pay taxes, if you are using a cell phone, if you drive or ride in a car, if you own anything with a rechargeable battery, you're technically complicit in war crimes.

not voting for Harris is, in effect, a vote for Trump. (mathematically you could argue it's half a vote for Trump but that's still voting for Trump)

I heard a National Parks employee a couple weeks ago say he wasn't sure the National Park Service could survive another Trump presidency. Federal agencies across the government are racing to get money out the door before January - EPA climate justice grants. USDA grants to Black and Indigenous farmers. immigration courts are racing to process as many citizenship applications as possible before January.

They're doing this because they know what will happen if Trump is elected again. We all know. Because we've done this before. There's no "he's just saying stuff he won't actually DO anything" this time around.

Not voting does not keep your hands clean. Not voting is not a principled stand for anything. If you have the ability to vote and choose not to, you have if anything increased the amount of blood on your hands.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

A developing element on the executive order. Of course, it would be important where where CBS got info to the claim from. However, there still be faced hardships from executive orders set by Biden:

Asylum seekers will denied opportunity of sanctum. I speak as one whose country has gone the anti-asylum seeker route, taken up by both main partiies; it is a ill path.

Overall, resources must be set towards survival preparations and resistances such as direct action, not folly of campaigning for those that will enable the fascism in the USA. This must include efforts to ensure security for those seeking asylum in the USA.

I am not unaware of the negatives of Biden's presidency, and I am not trying to elide or forgive them. I'm reblogging posts about the Biden administration because I think it's really important that potential voters in the US realize that there is, in fact, a very big difference between the two parties, and voting for Biden is not just damage control--it actually does good. It's okay, you can actually feel a little excited about making meaningful progress, and not just hold your nose.

He's been very unflashy. He's not a great leader, he's not charismatic and he knows it, but he's an adroit politician and administrator, and he's been getting things done. Letting Trump win at this point would be tantamount to throwing the entire country on the bonfire. It's not a choice between bad and bad, it's a choice between meaningful, if imperfect, progress and fucking doom.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Let it be stated that nothing has harmed Marx more than the turning of his works in gospels that ironically make them not set forth, particularly on it was taken up by Marxist-Leninism as part of its own vision of Great Man Theory that it adopted.

That said: electoralism takes away resources from direct action and for what purpose? If I focus on Marxist electoral attempts in this 1st paragraph, just for strategy of pondering, there opens some inquiry. Amusingly, the SWP and such would fit the example of the problems on not just material resources taken away like potential finance that could not gone into developing of a 3rd space but also how it effects persons, especially as their energy is taken away and they become jaded from the scummary of the party.

Of course, this comes more problem if we focus the concept of voting towards the big 2, especially in the UK with how Labour has embraced as a different shade of Thatcher's legacy, especially now it is undertaking practices of transphobia, looking on disabled people and proceeding to burn agains the poor. Or we migrate our eyes to the USA, where Biden or Trump the Heritage Foundation would likely be able to win as the Demoncrats let allow of the attacks on abortion while uniting to attack migration and support the genocide in Palestine?

Yes, this line of argument could be dismissed if we take to, say, France instead of the matters of the UK and USA, which seem in a process of self rot and consumption that enables social democrats to realise a cynicalism (that or endorse their status at a bottom of power attention) but the factor of resources remains.

Bad Mouse puts though in more detail:

Note that I am more aiming electoralism itself; as for vote itself that veries and the one fig leaf can be set on the power of third parties in shaping elections, as discussed in the 1st video but this attempts on attention. The Greens, even LibDems, get less focus by media than what ever project Farage has; why? Remember that are many elements to the structure and the media tend to prefer xenophobia (and a upper class git like Farage) to anything even mild in critique of the economic status quo, which has somehow come to include the LibDems because of the effect on the Razor that shifts Labour towards the Tories. Again, still, comes again to the question of resources that could have done to developing alnterative power structures and conducting direct actions, including the industrial action that has been developing the UK in recent years.

The issue is that the individual vote matters not and that to make the individual vote to matter requires campaigning, which requires resources, which takes away from direct action and into the realms of the system. The states wins and we have less 3rd spaces to breath in.

Been getting a lot of oddly phrased ‘psy-op’ adjacent asks recently that have been aimed at discouraging people to vote.

Don’t know if it’s just ignorant people or whether it’s coordinated, but voting is important. It is your power.

Do not let terminally online doom-mongers trick you into giving up your power.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

"Gender Ideology"

Strreight up using the language of transphobic hate groups, just as were the case with the "Gay Agenda" used by homophobic organisations.

The factor that the supposed opposition to the Conservatives is adopting this does not bold well for the wellbeing of queer communities in the UK, particularly if the anti-LGBT+ organisations use the opportunity to influence on other areas too.

Will LGBT+ Labour make opposition against this move?

At any rate, LGBT+ activists must prepare to ensure resistance.

The Labour Party are going to introduce a new Section 28.

Seriously, ask yourself before you go into that voting booth on July 4th. What is the point of voting Labour if they are just going to enact Tory policy.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Oh the gas lightning by the OP... of negatives like enabling a freaking genocide!

Voting for Democrats, no matter what, is saying "what you did does not actually matter" and thus actually hinders your own agency. Such "hold nose" voting is bad in the UK, it is bad in the USA too.

As a Brit, however, I am particular alarmed by the fact the Democrats have adopted a policy straight out of the Conservative and Unionist Party here in the UK; that is shipping migrants, striving for safe haven, away to another nation:

The plan to ship folk is quite alarming and, along with other bordering policies under Biden, suggest that the Democrats do not actually oppose the Republican bordering policies. The cages still got kids in them and money is being sent to the border cops.

"Oh but Trump" the point is to be different to the Republicans, not try to somehow mirror them when it comes to xenophobic racist activities.

As for the 'Left' what we speak of? The SocDems who spoke of combating the caging only to take part in the regime of it? The despots wannabes who believe things might be better if we put the word "peoples''" thus to make "the peoples' cages"? Because the notion of organising as "localism" implies that resistances, such as being conduct against Cop City, demonstrate a string of isolationism instead of alliance buildings. It also enables a form of doomism, which fits considering the promotion of a certain Maoist text.

In the end, what is demanded of the OP is cynical service to the Great Leader, ignore the genocide happening, while the Lefty Dem adopting to such, in the name of avoiding 'spoiling vote' ends up coming to defeatism and a reminder why like mass protest development, such as that of the Civils Rights and then of BLM, are key.

I am not unaware of the negatives of Biden's presidency, and I am not trying to elide or forgive them. I'm reblogging posts about the Biden administration because I think it's really important that potential voters in the US realize that there is, in fact, a very big difference between the two parties, and voting for Biden is not just damage control--it actually does good. It's okay, you can actually feel a little excited about making meaningful progress, and not just hold your nose.

He's been very unflashy. He's not a great leader, he's not charismatic and he knows it, but he's an adroit politician and administrator, and he's been getting things done. Letting Trump win at this point would be tantamount to throwing the entire country on the bonfire. It's not a choice between bad and bad, it's a choice between meaningful, if imperfect, progress and fucking doom.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

The cynical notion is actually closer to the truth, for the Labour Party had always been a instrument against the Prolerteriat. Let my past support for them be a marker of my past errors, for this goes not just against the current regime of Starmer but also of all past, including Corbyn, including Attlee. They were cancer before neoliberalism, from their part in colonial racism through border policies and foreign affair activities to their introduction to UK on having the horrors of nuclear weoposn to their general embrace of keep workers quiet.

LibCom have excellent articles on the matter, including the 2009 piece "Labouring in vain: a critical history of the Labour Party." I also this 2019 December reflection piece on Labour's defeat in the election that year by the Angry Workers of the World.

Of course, Labour now are of particular dreadfulness, particular for disabled people who will face their rights, but we must not pretend the more SocDem aspect would be counter, has demonstrated by the abelist xenophobia of a Aaron Bastani when it came to myth he contribute to; who needs Neoliberals when you got proclaimed Socialists like this? No hope from those who embrace nation state, whether they embraced neoliberalism or proclaim to another aspect of Capitalism or its opposition like the autocratic evils of Leninism.

We, the working class and other oppressed elements, must organise through like of unions, dual power and upheval against the British state. Only we can save ourselves, not some party.

I often despair at the state of politics in my country but one thing I Just Don't Get - why are Labour like this? Maybe this is just my ignorance showing but wasn't the whole point of them being different from the Tories? What's the point if they're just gonna do the same shit? What the hell is going on? How did this happen?

An aggressively cynical view would be that the Labour Party previously existed to manage the working class as a voting bloc. I don’t think it’s 100% the case, but I can see why folk would think it.

People will point Tony Blair being elected as the paradigm shift. It was the point when Labour went full on neoliberal where instead of opposing the conservative economic worldview, they accepted that thats how the world works.

So their whole argument shifted to ‘We can just manage the economy better than the conservatives (but in accordance to how they think things should work)’

I don’t think it was purely Tony Blair that started the shift though, I think it started when Labour started to appoint members to the House of Lords.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Sadly, even if he does not he has achieved his wish in demonising migration and ensuring that the two most largest parties in the UK will compete over harsh policies. Xenophobia, racism; these are the norms in UK politics, from targeting of migrant workers to how asylum seekers, who flee from great upeval, now face most sadistic and callous measures. Even if Nigel wins no seat he may have won the power of influence over British politics.

Have you heard that Farage is running again for some fucking reason? Can only hope he somehow splits the vote, but idk if it'll make a difference beyond just exhausting everyone.

Yeah, looks like Farage has taken over the leadership of Reform UK. Although reckon he'll dilute the conservative vote more than anything else.

He's never been an MP and I hope it stays that way.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Which, relating to my post on my main blog, is why it is important to set focus on organising movements.

Trade unions, migrant rights groups, queer rights groups, enviromental groups, ant-genocide actions, disability rights groups etch... all these need to be set in networking of solidarity and alliances, plus the need to ensure a dual power dynamic in establishing needed mutual aid groups and other counter state methodologies.

While a hunged parliament would be benefitial check, the importance is establishing of pressure against whatever regime is in i place and to enshrine a counter hegemony against the heirs of Thatcher.

Solidarity forever!

As an American I applaud the fact that Sunak set the date for the GE for July 4th. May it be a day of Independence for the UK as well.

Although I do fear that Labour will win the majority and there will be no real change.

But hopefully plenty of the other (none Tories) parties will have heavy gains.

Labour will win, there will be no change.

Progressive parties will lose out because people are so desperate for change from the Tories they’ll hand the election to Labour.

Labour will then disappoint everyone when they continue the policies the Tories introduced, including leaning into ‘culture war’ nonsense.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

May I add that in addition to Levine's response to the 1970s version of On Authority (although to Freeman's credit, Engel's was essentially a tangent), I like to link to a article by William Gillis on his response to Conflict is not Abuse, a book that similiar elements of The Tyranny of Structureless but, as Gillis notes, demonstrates the enabling of abuse. Indeed, Gillis remarks that text like ToS " lives primarily as a slogan to legitimize any given instance of tyranny and bureaucracy or to dismiss out of hand any resistance and alternatives to such, as well as to shut down all investigation or talk of non-formalized bottom-up strategies for dealing with informal power."

I recommend the read along with Levine's piece.

I feel like this should be a must-read for basically everyone on Tumblr, because it explains so much about the problems with Tumblr activism, and really a lot of online activism in general, despite being written in the early 70s.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Inquiry: was it Mark Fisher who first made the notion of easier to imagine the end of the world rather than the end of Capitalism?

Pondering for reference sake.

I remember Zizek said something once about there being a slew of apocalyptic movies and how people have an easier time conceptualizing the end of the Earth than they do the end of capitalism

I feel like there’s something somewhat similar with religion except it’s where people have an easier time imagining a world where “Jesus was a pro-gay marriage socialist” could become hegemonic Christian doctrine rather than imagine a world that is secularized except secularization is a process that is literally continuing to happen around the world all the time oftentimes right in front of the noses of the people that deny it

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Adding to this post with some points of my own:

C) They will justify it using European colonial clichés. 

There is a “saviour” logic which was used by European empire to justify their colonialism, best symbolised through the terminology “White Man’s Burden.”  Lhadon Tethong from Students for a Free Tibet had himself compared the ‘justification’ for the occupation of Tibet to European colonial rhetoric, highlighting its role in robbing a occupied peoples of agency while dehumanising them in the name of ‘civilizing’ them. 

D) They will portray all Tibetan dissidents as theocrat feudalist agents of the CIA.

Tibetan dissidents are placed as ‘backward in time’ in order to imply that a independent Tibet would be the theocracy of old. There are some... hopefully obvious considerations of why this is rhetoric but it does mirror how European colonial powers would try to justify their imperial past by insisting there was no other way for ‘development’ or the spread of ‘democracy’ as it were. The evil that can be done in the name of ‘civilizing’ can also be seen with the current suppression of the Uyghurs, as it was with the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal Australians by the settler colonial regime in Australia. 

E)  Essentially taking everything the PRC says as truth on the surface, in a way they would not do to the USA’s rhetoric. 

The geopolitical campism is a cancer which destroys solidarity and eliminations opportunities of revolution. It also terminates critical thinking, taking the surface word of the camp one favours as it were while resulting to copjacking on any critiques, in turn returns us to how peoples end up being dehumanised and robbed of agency. In this the campists do both the work for the PRC and the USA at the same time, by accepting their power. 

I'm willing to bet good money that half the people on that smug "China liberated Tibet" post both

A) think that the ongoing suppression of Uyghurs is "western propaganda" despite the story literally coming from local reports on the Kazakhstan border, and B) Will instantly change their tune about conquering a nation to liberate its people from an oppressive ruling class, as soon as the topic changes to the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire

[bugganeofsttrinians]

While there are elements in the right place on the notion of communications, there are some problems with this series of posts.

For starters the whole notion on identity is a reminder that people should read Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity Politics by Michael Richmond and  Alex Charnley as, particularly with discourses recently involving a figure to get MRA talking points into spheres, we need address the complexities of oppression without drawing on nativist ideals by SocDems in under to justify their support for borders, for instance. If you want to make argument it is important that the elements are understand, less we take a pipeline.

Second: who is this aimed at? There is lot of so and so say here.

Third: one should serious avoid the error of debate bros like Vaush, particularly as their methodologies do not counter fascism but rather platform it. While there are notions of take, one should check on the messenger as it were. Forgive me but this kind of like taking advice from the Daily Mail, as it were, which recently a figure who reblogged this OP message had critique people for using as a source on what someone said, so that is that.

Fourth: might I ask about 12 year old children who are not white or male or ‘able’? Because it is also necessary to consider on the protection of children from abusers, including bullying by their own age. Bullies tend to come from more privilege areas and I am speaking in class terms here. It is necessary that any talk is countered for the victims. Backgrounding will be important to help counter in case but we have to prepared for situation in which do not come into boxes. 

Now there is nobility in the reblog by golvio, in contrast with the Vaushites,  but we need to careful, consider as the messenger as a tactic of taking into “and we need to platform this fascist to debate them...” which will not do well to ‘deradicalize’ those 12 year olds.

It is also however important to realise power dynamics, such as how adults claim power over children and the ways which sociological elements may investigated. This will be important to research the full extent in order to set out, rather than risk the temptation I sense Vaush is aiming for or go into those who want to make rants about ‘diversity boxes’ which will translate into practices not to the benefit the 12 year olds but will help undermine who seek to counter the recruitments efforts, for the SocDems have shown to be worse than liberals in certain areas when it comes to countering the far right. 

All in all: y’all need to read Fractured and then seek what you are talking to, cause it ain’t Tumblr or Twitter folk that going to stop radicalisation by shaming those who may faced the ill end of those radicalisation efforts. Nuance is also something y’all need too. I have seen folk try to blame feminism, despite the factor it is not feminism that setting the 12 year olds to the far right. Considering this take place both at the time of a David anti-feminist rant and at Tate being taken down for his trafficking I need to ponder whether we also need to take consideration, while also avoiding the error of overestimating one’s opposition. It is good to take tactics but keep in mind we need to also understand why folk not in good situation. 

Oh and forgive me if I do not take onto full respect Vaush  is not the, to put mildly, best material one can have to counter the far right. You are not going to deradicalise with racism and ableism. Also... there are important reasons we should avoid Vaush at our spaces, for protection of folk. [Tweet on a warning about Vaush]

No they're right actually and they should say it.

The lefts descent into obsession with identity politics means all these boys get from these spaces is essentially being told they're inherently monstrous or will grow up to be so.

12 year old boys are not evil. They're children. And they're susceptible to manipulation from these fucks on the right who have sadly correctly identified that large swathes of the left will ignore and shun them. People turn to extremist factions when they feel ignored and dehumanised.

A 12 year old boy online isn't going to be able to read the nuances in your uber ironic but not really actually ironic "all white men are inherently trash" hot takes. They're going to take that at face value because they're 12 and that's what 12 year olds do. And they're going to feel angry, rejected and judged by your words. And then fucks like Andrew Tate get to swoop in and tell them that you're wrong and start the ball rolling on that indoctrination.

If you're an adult leftist and you honestly think teenage boys possess the wherewithal to purposefully follow dangerous Misogynists like Andrew Tate in order to "preserve their own privilege long term" then I'm sorry to say you're too far gone and I'd suggest logging off and actually trying to have a conversation with a kid who is vulnerable to the grooming of these uber misogynists and treat them as a human being instead of a reflection of an identity you've boxed them into.

You may tick more diversity boxes but you are still the adult. Start acting like it.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

While I understand your reasoning for replying this I should highlight your message was not on the mentions and archieving is considerable.

Anyhow: for record post above is reply to this so that would be viwers may observe my argument and the document, Combat Illiberalism by  Jason Lee Byas, we are on about.

I will focus my reply on the three areas of your focus.

Focus 1: Countering Fascism

I understand the notion in Combat Illiberalism on tactics as it were.

As for the addional question of countering fascism: I will begin with a link to a article from  2017 on why Noam Chomsky was incorrect about Antifa just to illuminate on the nature of tactics and power. As for ensuring the Left is prepared in case: that is what the likes of why it is consideration to have the SRA in the USA and why it might be considerable to prepare, less one forgo to mention the fascists in the police and army.

As for a Second Civil War in the USA... a particular leap on consideration as it were. Of course as a Brit I am more familiar with their bombing of other lands... and of the part of the UK took in that, the arms dealers and brokers of conflict that decaying colonial relic be.

Focus 2: Equation in the Text

My take was from the following from point 5 from the text:

Marxists take ideas to be largely impotent, with history moved instead by “material” economic relations. Fascists also laugh at claims that ideas rule the world, convinced that everything boils down to brute impositions of will through violence. It is liberals who afford ideas a central place in explaining history’s path.

Perhaps it is a matter of communications but the tone is of comparison, set with a contrast.

As for Marxist materlaism and on ideas: how familiar are you with Antonio Gramsci and his notions on cultural hegemony? In the 1930s, in his Prison Notebooks, he spoke of war of movement (physical war) and war of position (ideas; education being one of the example areas of focus) and argued that the USSR failed in the latter. Just a example...

Focus 3: Marxism and Anti-Authoriterianism

Impossible for anti-authoriterian Marxism? Admittingly this may be seen due to a matter of the mess that was the First International clash. Karl Marx himself was no static figure and did move from state power position to more direct democratic at points. The question on the market, without resulting to the weakness of understating the role of the state to oppression (the error of Stalinism) or the systemic structures of corporate marketing in upholding oppression is a matter of breaking down the cultural hegemony of Capitalism.  The question of worker control is the bastion of socialism, a matter not to be fully realised by the SocDems who mistake that for regulations being the end goal. The anti-market ‘dogma’ ought be the Marxist objective (I say ought as we both know how CCP has gone on that route). Of course we will need to step back to deconstruct how we set the question of Capitalism.

That and I dread the “Marxists cannot be anti-authoriterian” can bread into the attempts by the Right to portray socialism and democracy (I speak of that word in the more direct terms) as mutual exclusive. We need to deconstruct the barriers of hegemony, less we risk the error of “There is No Altenrative” that sprang from the mouths of a most infamous prime minister of a most god forsaken country.

(for the record I am not in the mood of speaking of Britain in positive terms)

Conclusion

I am taking the advocate position here. In the end we have to ask on how Capitalism may make us proclaim it and market as itself in a godly force of their Invisible Hand. At the main case however is to think on the hegeomonies of idealogy and to create counter hegemony.

Perhaps this talk on ideas is old conception of the Ancient Greek philosophies of Plato vs Aristole approaches. Anyrate the key to anarchism (and that matter socialism) is reliant on the ascention of the populace, the matter which the SocDems forgot in the name of their borders and which the the AuthComs forsake for the Party. Our purpose, as liberterian socialists, is perhaps the realisation of democracy, people power, at the notion that the world has let to see.

I end this with a quote to highlight that I do see the need for ideas to help enshrine revolution (a matter I want those reading our discussion to remember) but also to go beyond the inescapable and on my desire of achieving a just epoch. To quote the author Ursula K. Le Guin:  

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

@ailedhoo​

I don’t have time to do a fully response to your entire reply, but there are a few key points I want to respond to here. First, I don’t think Jason Lee Byas is necessarily against the use of violence in self-defense against fascism. I think what he’s saying is that, but equivocating violent action with non-violent action through the use of vague language like “confronting fascists,” it makes it a lot harder to judge on a case-by-case basis on whether violence is justified or tactically wise in any given scenario. Even putting aside the ethical considerations, there’s a clear difference in the threat posed by different fash groups. Sure, most of them are cowardly and will easily fold under pressure, but every now and then you’ll come across one that’s a fully-armed militia composed of mostly ex-cops and ex-military men that are scarily competent with armed weaponry. Escalating violence against a group that has you dramatically outgunned isn’t just ethically wrong, it’s outright foolish. There are some on the left (not very many, but some) who seem to want another American Civil War and I cannot tell you how much of a colossally Bad Idea that is. Second, I don’t think he’s necessarily saying fascism is a materialist ideology in the way Marxism is. Fascism isn’t even really a coherent ideology, when you strike at its core it’s almost entirely a post-hoc justification for a single group identity to acquire power. What matters is that fascists, like most Marxists, consider words and ideas to be secondary to other forces. (Although, I believe it is worth noting that Marx himself didn’t consider ideas to be irrelevant in the way that most Marxists do; I personally hold that there is a distinction between Marx’s personal beliefs and Marxism as a political ideology.)

Finally, while I do acknowledge that there are supposedly anti-authoritarian Marxists, I think that it is fundamentally impossible for Marxism to be anti-authority. The standard Marxist critique of political economy and the value form, for example, puts forth an anti-market dogma that presents a totalizing vision of what a post-capitalist society would look like, which would be impossible to create or uphold without some form of widespread structural violence to prevent markets from forming. Marxism is deeply in tension with the dynamic and chaotic social landscape that a world without authority would actually look like, so an “anti-authoritarian Marxist” is either not anti-authoritarian or not a Marxist.

[bugganeofsttrinians]

I came to mediate on this.

Y'all should be familiar that I am of great cynicism towards the idea that the authoriterianism of the vanguard is that which will spring the delivering of liberation. However I do wish to give critiques of the points to help me on my meditations as it were.

See below for all points

1: call outs are a question of the tool as it were.

If I may use a case example Brace Belden deserved callout for the spreading of antisemetic conspriacy theories.

I understand the critique and to be fair I feel my post would go into a essay on itself if I were to focus on this specific point, so I will keep it short and state that we will need to think on it or even give the reins to one much more familiar on the topic.

2: associations it might be but I must stress that at this current time of the Bidenist ‘reaching across the isle’ between the oppressed and their oppressors I do give a pin of concern as it were. Essentially it would be vary easy for point 2 to be hyjacked by those of the United States Democratic Party who would see no problem in friendship in those that would (at the ‘least’) support the suppression of black folks, queer fols, disabled folks, non-Christain folks (which would include the ‘wrong’ Christains as it were), non-tradionalist women and others deem ‘lesser.’ We need to reflect, less we open the path to be adopted by the status quo.

3: some point of contexting is needed in the usage of focus, for those who are anti-immigrant tend to guard the frameworks for the pro-war; see Donald Trump’s proclaim to keep the US out of wars to focus on his anti-immigrant policy while proceeding to carry out more drone strikes in the year of his office than Obama did in his full presidency.The border and the M.I.C. are quite connective as paths of state power.

4: to be honest I am unsure what is the focus on point 4 is, due to the way of framing.

5: this point I find concurance with; the media organization the Greyzone can demonstrate the logical outcome with the likes of Ben Norton focusing on defending regimes. There is also the horrific case of the Shining Path of Peru.

6:  there is a particular concern of those who take positions as one would take “enemy of my enemy is my friend” way as it were, when in truth the enemy of my enemy may not be a friend. That said using the FEE might be a bit... questionable and full for the point trying to be made in point 6. 

7: on the note of treating the Revolution as a game can lead to Shining Path zeal over liberation but also towards strategy of folly as the material conditions are forsaken in the name of the party... I am tempted to say theology here, so I will leave that temptation as my comment.

That said I do take alarm however on that section’s equating Marxism with fascism. Please keep in mind of Marxist critiques of Stalinists (Marxist-Leninists), particular the critiques by Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci of the Bolsheviks. Also equating Marxism and fascism over materialism is quite... counter-productive, consideration how anti-material fascist framing is.

There also this particular foundation of liberalism specialism as it were that ignore its usage of ‘things as they are’ as we witness with the rise of neoliberalism.

We also dread the prospect that the point can be used for the rheotric of violence against oppression as bad as the oppression, which would be greatly concerning.

8: indeed it is important not to be complacent.

Although... as with the FEE and Karl Hess here is... point 2 has particular...

9: oh boy equivocal language.

Credit on the example of borders but... on the second example is the author against self-defence against fascism?

This again ends up on a self-proclaiment of liberalism,

10: although it is of rational consideration to avoid the sub-lime the piece ends up unfortunatly ends up on the rheotric of the “marketplace of ideas” on the presuming that good ideas would outshine bad ones, ignoring the material challanges we must face to overcome. It takes more than reason: it takes strategy and proactive conduction.

For the conclusion there is of course consideration of positive towards equative power but I ponder what objective is set in the author taking of liberalism. The alarming placement of Marxism as property of the Marxist-Leninists and a equating of Marxism and fascism in earlier point is a bit of a concerning towards this, as well as the rejecting of material review. I am of philosophical and do take certain theoretical notions but it is also important to have consideration of material: not the vulgar fetishism that certain figures do as it were but instead the power of understanding the condition. Critical theories are devised to seek to understand the order we face.

That said there are important considerations. The amount of tankish positionings that aligned towards what be described as a nationalism for their favourite power, that goes towards the parodoxical when it comes to the billionaires of the PRC as a example,does illuminate how countering capitalism are lost in the name of the brand. The problems with the likes of Ben Norton can be defined as forsaking the desire of liberation with that of turning geopolitics into a sports contest, much akin to the nationalisms embodied by the Western status quo forces as it were.

That said there is a element I need to address on Liberals.

I think this might be a case of communication and how Liberalism is taken in Europe comapred & contrast to the United States but what is comparative can be found from the current refual of pro-Biden liberals to heed his critics from the Left to the privatisation of water that came in the 1980s to European countries to our continued to peril comes a case of how we also address the elephant that is our condition. Keep in mind the PRC has liberalised its markets as it were and thus the struggle in China is to be of the market dominions as found in the USA, UK, Chile, Syria etch.

It is imperative that socialists, including we anarchists, maintain consideration as we identify the structures that enshrine the hegemony we face.

(As for anarnchism and liberalism: anarchism itself is a subject of evolution, as socialism itself evolved from the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. To cling to liberalism of origin is akin to 1917 role play).

(additioanlly forgive me also if I do not wish for anarchism to be string to ‘diety’ or ‘saints’ like what happened to Marxism. Proudhon is but one author where anarchism is a project that devise many. Mutalism is not the end goal of anarchism and we must continue evolve our ideology)

I think about this piece a lot. Like, I get why both the left and “post-left” radicals are so hostile to liberalism, given the consistent failures of actually-existing-liberalism to accomplish its stated goals, but in doing so they usually just end up embracing petty, cliquish tribalism and insincere positions shaped more by adherence to the in-group than by honest inquiry, and this article highlights a lot of the ways in which this happens. (Also a lot of anarchists forget that anarchism has its roots in liberal ideas, which is crystal-clear if you’ve ever read Proudhon, but that’s another story)

[bugganeofsttrinians]

Only possible reaction:

[bugganeofsttrinians]

A chess move to whose benefit? To the poor folk denied healthcare and who will be dismissed as ‘stupid’ by the rich folks of both the DNC and GOP? To the protesters who will be targeted by both pro-police candidates? All it will do is to convince the DNC one will fall in line.

Objection to Biden is not juts moral but also a realistic practice.

That is before we talk foreign policy, which both candidates are of the imperial doctrines of the U.S.A. regime policy. Both Biden and Trump are Janus-faces of the ideological dominion in the United States. What is the difference the party that sets to bomb 6000 kids and the one that promises to only bomb 5000?

Grass-root efforts are needed. Trade unions must be empowered. Protests must continue in their strong momentum, along with the potential for a general strike. There are many, many ways that one can achieve people power. In the end the path to revolution, to true democracy, must be the objective, not falling for either of the gits that strive for your vote.

So for those who declare not voting a less evil as selfish like : from the deepest of my heart heart fuck you. The people who suffer from healthcare that will denied by Biden are to be labelled selfish because they do not wish to vote for a figure who would not heed them? You demonstrate the folly of such electoral cultism.

And Obama should be a reminder of the problems, particular from his drone strikes and his crack down on the original BLM protests.

If need on Biden a video on the matter by a figure I follow: